Talk:Spooks (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spooks?[edit]

what's the source for spooks being MI:5 because spooks is offensive? According to the 'spooks expert' on the official website, it was called that because Americans would associate spooks with the CIA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/spooksexpert_questions_1.shtml#2 see the answer to the question 'Why is the show also called "MI5 not 9 to 5"?'

The programme guide to the series by Jim Sangster, who ironically is I believe also the man who does the Q&A section on the website. Angmering 13:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On a parallel, doesn't The Human Stain use the idea of 'spooks' being an offensive term? NickBarlow 01:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe it's something to do with spook being a racist slang word in America.

"Spook" as a racist slang word is very rare in America. The term is used much more often for members of the intelligence community. The name change is almost certainly a smart marketing move to make it clear to an American audience that the show is about British intelligence officers and not American ones. Mtiffany 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spook was once quite common as a derogatory term for black Americans, which older generations may remember. It may also connotate ghosts or the horror genre (as in spooky). It is not "much more common" as a label for spies or other intelligence personnel. -24.149.185.189 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago (very long) "spook" was used as a derogatory slang term for an African-American. But I question whether the title change had anything to do with it. I've never read any documentation to that effect, just what's above regarding the use of "spook" for any shadowy spy, thus the association with the CIA here in the US, and even that is discussing the "catch phrase" used to advertise MI-5 on A&E when they ran it rather than the change of title per se. I've removed the phrase about the racial connotation in the US because I believe it's become more an internet-based urban myth that being anything based in truth, particularly given the absence of any reliable source to support it, as noted in my edit summary. If someone can find a reliable (i.e. not fan-based) source to support it, put it back. --Drmargi (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be anonymous, but having grown up in the southeastern U.S., I can assure you “spook” is indeed a racist epithet. I’ve never heard it used BY anyone born after 1970, but I have heard it used AT people born after 1970. It is rarely used at all, and “spook” in the U.S. today refers typically to the CIA, NSA or NRO. 70.148.239.100 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Richards[edit]

In the episode list at the bottom of the article the following is present: "The Seventh Division" ("A Very Corporate Coup") — Written by Ben Richards, directed by Sam Miller. Ben Richards redirects to The Running Man, which is not helpful - is there a standard way to resolve this sort of problem - perhaps by making a new link to Ben Richards (Writer) or something similar. Tompagenet 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Angmering 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Series 3[edit]

What do people think of Series 3 so far? --Frankie Roberto 01:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not happy with Tom leaving! It's still pretty good, but I can't help but feel that it's losing something. Lan3y - Talk 05:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear, looks like Zoe just left too! :( Lan3y - Talk 23:40, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Indeedy - the main characters are dropping out like flies... I still have the feeling that Tom will make a re-appearance. --Frankie Roberto 12:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've enjoyed it - interesting that there's a much more political edge to the stories now - though I appreciate that's not everyone's cup of tea. In terms of the article, shouldn't some of the information on Series 3 (and perhaps before) be after a spoiler warning? NickBarlow 01:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added a spoiler warning after the first paragraph. It's not ideal, as there isn't that much in the second paragraph about the plot, apart from the mention of what happened in episode 2. Silverfish 02:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added the American episode titles for episodes 1-9 of the Series 3 from the A&E site - anyone know where the British working titles can be found? BBC website only calls them by episode number. I'll add the title in for episode 10 when it becomes available next week. NickBarlow 13:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Episodes[edit]

Perhaps split off into separate episodes, using the Beeb page's episode guides, a la Rome (tv series)?, if we can get sufficient manpower!:-) Just a suggestion. Neddyseagoon 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least create a single episode table (not the 2 we have now) for cast, writers, guests, date., plot etc a la Rome (tv series)#Season 1 (2005)

Yes... I was wondering why the "episodes" and "series" sections linked to from this article are so strangely fomatted - it's not normal to go to the "category" namespace for a list of episodes. Rather, check out List of South Park episodes for a WP:Featured List Example. Cheers, Witty lama 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JUST REDONE THE EPISODE LIST< PLEASE HELP CLEAN IT UP MORE!!! - Adam —Preceding comment was added at 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup (Sept 2006)[edit]

I just added the tag. The listings of the individual episodes are in two places. In one, we have some rough plot info, a touch of trivia, etc. In the second listing, info such as who wrote it, etc. These need to be combined, and I just don't have time. I didn't want to just wipe out either one, since valuable info is in each. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a shot at it. I've just finished cleaning Ideal (TV series), so I'm a bit worn out but I'm sure I can do something with this, either now or sometime over the next few days. --B33R 04:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nearly finished the update. The page is looking a bit long, maybe the episode list needs a page of its own... Episodes from series 4 still need a description and a bit of beefing up, and series 5 has yet to be added to the episode list. Series 2 background info needs beefing up too.
If anyone has any comments about moving the episode list to its own page or any other ideas they'll be appreciated. --B33R 06:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, but long? It's tiny, compared to some other shows. I don't think it needs subarticles just yet. Iorek85 07:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your comment. :) --B33R 08:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Series 5 Episode 9 "Directed by Julian Holmes"? The credits say Julian Simpson.ComaDivine 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC website credits seem to say it's Julian Holmes. Which credits were you looking at? Jaws87 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The credits that roll at the end of the actual episode. I emailed the BBC and they said:

All information available to us suggest that is was directed by Julian Holmes. However, we are unable to check this with the programme makers or against the programme credits. As you can appreciate, the expenditure to do this can only come from the licence fee, resulting in resources being diverted from the primary function of the BBC, which is to provide programmes. I regret we are unable to supply a comprehensive response on this occasion. I hope you are not too disappointed.

It definitely says Julian Simpson on the credits, so it must have been an error there. ComaDivine 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it's Julian Simpson, IMDB have it as Julian Simpson too. It must be an error on the BBC Spooks website. Does this suggest that the director for episode 5.10 needs changing to Julian Simpson too? Jaws87 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say for certain. Episode 10 was (I think) broadcast only on BBC1, so the episode finished rather abruptly with no credits, unlike if it ran on BBC3, where credits are shown at the end of each episode. ComaDivine 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks[edit]

Just an idea - with the new series just starting in the UK and some interest to exploit, why don't we start to create individual pages for each episode for this series (and working back into the backlog of the previous 4 series) a la the Doctor Who taskforce, who have been a model of practice in this area? I can take a lead if there's a consensus. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows#Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks[[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats a good idea, The current page lacks detail and seems quite disjointed! --The Loon
Go for it - not sure what your episope template adds over what is already available though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to join it?  :-) User|Neddyseagoon 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrible English...[edit]

"Carter was abducted and in a bid for captivity from her abductors, cut her wrists to make it appear to deranged ex-husband that she had taken her life. By creating this diversion she hoped to be able to escape. However her attempt was short lived when she was shot dead by the ex-husband she had thought had been hanged several years previously"

Series 5[edit]

Can anyone provide the episode names for the just ended series? Where did someone get the names from for the earlier series? I couldnt find anything on BBCs site or in the credits of the episodes. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.147.111 (talk • contribs)

Does anybody know when A&E will air series 5 in the US? Frankly I think A&E has been terrible at marketing and supporting the show ever since series 2... Wl219 11:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote/Reference system conversion[edit]

Are people happy for me to convert from the old Wikipedia:Footnote3 referencing system to the new Wikipedia:Footnote referencing system using the <ref> and <references/> tags? I think it'd improve the article as reference numbers don't match the numbers in the references section. Jaws87 14:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be all for that. Trebor 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. You could convert the links randomly dotted around the article while you do it...RHB 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the referencing system as above. 3 of the references on the old system weren't actually mentioned in the main article. One of these (HN and PF talking about series 5), I've moved to the external links section. The other two are reports of an episode getting axed which isn't specifically mentioned in the main article. I've left these two in the references section for now, but maybe somebody could do a write up on this and then reference them properly? Could stick it in the series 5 info section?
While I was there I also corrected some of the wiki links and cleared up some of the external links in the main article and put them in the references section. There are still external links in the main article for the BBC episode guides for each series. I feel they don't really fit how they are at the moment nor do they fit as references - maybe something to think about for another day? Jaws87 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section B or D?[edit]

I notice a recent edit was made that changed all references to the Spooks' department to "Section D" from "Section B". I've looked into this and it seems there is an inconsistency between the scripts. In episode 2.5 when the team are undergoing the EERIE exercise, Tom says: "What about the other floors? Immigration? Sections A and D?...", suggesting that they are not Section D and it must be Section B. Also various places on the BBC website suggest it's section B: here (3rd question) and here (1st question) and on a press release (last paragraph).

However, in episode 4.10 when Harry orders the lockdown, he says: "This is Harry Pearce, Section D".

Therefore, which do we adopt for the article? Also, does this inconsistency warrant mention in the article also or would that be original research? Jaws87 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Significant recent edits and the episode list[edit]

I notice that there have been some significant edits to the Spooks article this week. The DVD section has definitely been improved.

The episode list has also been moved to a different article. I do, however, feel that it would have been better if it had been discussed on this talk page before the new article was created. Personally, I feel the episode list would be better in the main article, or at least some of it, as having it in another article seems to fragment the main article. I realise the page was getting quite large and was over the 25 KB guide but had all the information in one place. What do other people think? Jaws87 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edits to which you referr. I felt the DVD section needed improving hence my edits. And as for the episode list i felt it was getting to big to be included on the main page. So while im still working on the episode list page i think it should remain as is for now. However i welcome differing opinions Pat 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks, the DVD section is much improved. Sure, we'll leave as is for the moment. Please could you leave in the short episode descriptions though as mentioned on the other talk page? Thanks, Jaws87 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Mace[edit]

Why is Oliver Mace listed as being part of the current cast, when in s5e5 it is said that he has resigned. Surely that makes him past cast.84.13.112.35 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Spooks[edit]

There are references to the spinoff rogue spooks, however, there's no mention of this whatsoever at the bbc press office.84.13.112.35 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos/credits[edit]

Does that long graf in the intro on ending logos and lack of credits really belong in the intro? Amyloo 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid[edit]

It's odd that this article uses the term "The Grid" but does not explain it. Regular watchers may well know precisely what it means but it is hardly encyclopaedic to assume that the rest of us know. Could someone in the know please include an explanation? 138.37.199.206 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment, ignored since 19/12/07, is still true. You might as well put a sign up over the article saying "for fans only" as in this respect it makes no attempt to cater for the general reader. Come on, surely someone must (a) know what it is and (b) be capable of expressing it in writing?? Please?? :) 92.234.32.127 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive watched every episode of spooks and im not at all sure what the grid is. i believe the inference is that the grid refers to the MI5 office in thames house, But im not sure Pat (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Grid was mentioned a lot in the first few series, but I don't believe it has been directly mentioned for a while (perhaps just as a passing comment). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 08:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above responses, I conclude that no interested editor wants to define what it is, and that is therefore wrong to use it undefined in the article - it's just insider jargon if it's not explained. If there's no other solution suggested then, inspired by WP:Bold I think I'll remove the references and patch up round the damage. Cheers.DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit draconian. Why not be WP:Bold and do the write-up yourself? Drmargi (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't know what it is and how to define it! It goes back to the original complaint - the article refers to the Grid but doesn't explain it. I don't know what it is so I can't write about it. Anyone who does should indeed be WP:Bold and do it, but look at the progress of this conversation above... it is just not happening. As I think it's ludicrous to make the article depend on something that people can't or won't define I think it should go. With a bit of luck this bit of WP:Boldness will have a beneficial effect - someone will be outraged that I removed it and will be motivated to put it back in and define it BUT WITH A REFERENCE so it is properly encyclopaedic. At the moment it feels to me like insider jargon, and that is wrong. So it might seem draconian to you (though to be honest I do not agree) but maybe it will improve the article, which is supposed to be the point. Or do YOU want to write about it?? :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's a reasonable question that begs another - if you don't know enough about Spooks to know what The Grid is, why are you editing its article? It's a pretty basic practice around here that you don't edit where you're not knowledgeable. Drmargi (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I follow your reasoning. I don't think that I have (yet) edited the article in a way that needs any more knowledge than I have. I would LOVE someone else to edit it to legitimize the use of the expression "The Grid", which currently appears to me as unexplained fan or regular-viewer jargon. To be worried about the latter point I absolutely do not need to be a Spooks expert - rather the reverse, in fact. To correct the problem I need knowledge that I do not have, true. This is why I am hoping that someone will put this right. If you read the article from the point of view of a general encyclopaedia reader, then it is most unhelpful - you come back to the question What is this Grid thing to which the article refers? The article seems to think that The Grid is important (uses it for structure, and it's in the template too) but absolutely fails to say what it is. Is that a position that you find defensible? I think it is extraordinary - it is as if we are saying "well never mind what the general reader makes of this because fans already know what The Grid is and this article is for them". In terms of its treatment of the Grid this article is as much use as a chocolate teapot. It's as if you had an article about St Mark's Square which somehow managed to mention or use Venice while avoiding either linking to Venice or saying what it is ... are you just meant to guess? :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "if you don't know enough about Spooks to know what The Grid is" sounds like it's a pretty basic, easy, beginner piece of knowledge. Yes? You, presumably, have it and so I guess do others. Why then is it so hard to fix the problem by defining it? DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Grid is (/was ??) the set of offices of MI5 - the main area with all the desks and most staff, Harry's office, the conference room, Malcolm's room, etc. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 10:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Is it not, perhaps, more that it is Pearce's section rather than the whole of MI5? I can't remember his name but for example the Smooth Interfering Git With Posh Voice is, I think, MI5 staff, maybe the DG or something, but surely he is not a, er, Griddist? Oh dear, look, I seem to have (perhaps) three alternatives at this stage: (1) remove the Grid references (haha geddit) as I proposed above, and hope that someone with more clue will fix it; (2) put in what I think might be a working definition of the Grid even though as Drmargi kindly points out I may be the least-well-qualified internet user on the planet to make this change - and then hope that someone with more clue will fix it; (it sure as h*ll won't cite anything!); or (3) continue to debate it here and wait for someone who does feel they know what they are doing to fix it, provide verifiability, bake a nice cake and sing the National Anthem? (But this wait is getting frustrating.) What do you think? Something like one of these might be a way forward ... I do feel that the nth option, of leaving in place the highly unsatisfactory status quo, will not wash: at the moment, with all due respect, I feel that this particular "feature" alone pretty much qualifies it as a Bad Article candidate, and really really needs fixing ... DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think those changes reflect the real definition of "the Grid"; it is a location not a unit for people. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me - thank you! Oh doctor, the relief. It will be interesting to see what other contributors make of this (is it rooms, a computer system, an acronym, an actual collection of metal items for the exclusion of wandering cattle etc) but in any case I applaud it as the first time this issue has been tackled by the article. Hats off to Kevinalewis! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then - I think Disillusion is correct - it is offices and areas used by Pearce's section; basically everything behind the pods (the scanners separating the Grid from the rest of the MI5 building). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaf's Death[edit]

Zaf shouldn't be listed as dead, as that is as yet (S6e10) unconfirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HasanDiwan (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that it was confirmed in the final episode. ~~ [Jam][talk] 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was - but who knows in TV. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll just have to assume the body was his, and was correctly identified by the dental records, unless/til we're informed otherwise... DBD 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the death confirmed by the American agent who turned out to be a traitor? Maybe he was lying. I'd err on the side of caution here, especially given shows of this type like plot twists and Spooks in particular has a penchant for faking deaths. Lurker (said · done) 12:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/personnel_zy.shtml - he has been killed. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the BBC would hardly list him as a current character if they were going to bring him back as a surprise, would they? ;) I still have hope - the way they handled his 'death' didn't seem at all real to me.
Where has he been listed as a current character? ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. If you were the BBC and you were planning to bring back a supposedly dead character as a surprise, would you keep them on your website as an active character? Wouldn't that give the game away a little bit ?
Oh, I get your point now. Still, until such a time arises, we have to assume he is dead and isn't being brought back. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current/Former characters[edit]

This section violates WP:FICTION. Articles must be written in present continuous tense. None of the "former" characters were dead in the first episode for example. 59.167.45.168 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote which specific bit of WP:FICTION it violates? A brief flick through that page doesn't seem to suggest this is the case. ~~ [Jam][talk] 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Series 7?[edit]

The article currently quotes an actor from the show stating that Series 7 would start airing this month (September 2008). Well, it is the end of September and the series has not begun airing yet, with no indication on the BBC web site of when it might. Is there any more recent information that could be included in the article about this? --Nothlit (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The BBC Press Office has been exceedingly quiet about the air date for this new series... which is very odd IMHO. The programme information pages don't currently reveal when Spooks is due to air, and there have been no recent press releases regarding series 7. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Spoilers[edit]

This article contains spoilers about upcoming episodes, namely episode 7 of series 7, which has aired on BBC3 but not BBC1. Normal convention is to wait until a show has aired on the primary channel. The same problem also exists on the character pages for Connie and Ben. Could this information be removed until the episode has been shown on BBC1, or at least a spoiler warning inserted? Spookityboo (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, spoiler warnings aren't used any longer. However, I believe you are correct that the information shouldn't be there until it has aired on BBC One. As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to remove it, but I'm afraid that it is likely to return (the same thing occurs with Strictly Come Dancing - anon users put up results before the results show airs...) ~~ [ジャム][talk] 09:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought so too. Look at the revision history though — anon/amateur users assume "ooh, something happened, so it should be on wikipedia!". I u-turned because if it's going to be edited to include the departures, it's better off being done properly... But yeah, I still consider BBC3 pace spoilers, even though I watch at BBC3 pace! DBD 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are spoilers to those that choose to follow the BBC One stories or don't have access to BBC Three. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, it's time for a policy regarding when to remove characters from the Grid: when BBC3 runs an episode, when BBC1 runs an episode or at the season's end. Given what I've read in the guidelines, it really should be at each series' end as broadcast on BBC1, not before. Time for some discussion toward consensus, perhaps? Drmargi (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I think it is likely that such discussion will fall on the deaf ears of those that are actually adding the information. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst not familiar with this particular convention, I have to say I don't really understand the logic behind it. If we are in no way worried about spoilers surely it should change as soon as the episode is premièred on the network regardless of the channel. --Lemming64 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is the cast. The even though characters leave during a series, they're part of the cast for some part of the series, and really should remain listed until the next series starts. That's my understanding of the guidelines for longer-running series (such as ER or Law and Order in the US), and which I think would apply here. Drmargi (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connie shouldn't be written off as a former character - she reappears later in the series! TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Racial connotation revisited"[edit]

I received this email from the KUDOS production company in response to my enquiry:

[..]

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Spooks. There were several reasons why the show’s name changed for the U.S. market but I can confirm that one consideration was the fact that the term Spook can have racially derogatory connotations in the U.S. Hope that answers your query.


[..]

I'm re-editing to reflect confirmation of this fact, but I need to know how to cite this. Thanks. Radiopathy (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really possible to cite an email sent to you; even though you have included it here, it is impossible for anyone else to verify. However, I think it should be OK to re-edit the text back into the article based on this email. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no go. No source, no edit. How do we even know the e-mail is genuine, or that the person replying is reliable? I can make just as compelling a case that the name change was based on the term "spook" being little-used in the U.S. This is clearly an attempt to put original research in to the article. Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One could contact Caroline Jee at Kudos, which is why I left the information intact, and if one knows how this could be cited, they could do so and clue me in as well.
I did respond to her email, asking if she could point to a potentially verifiable media source; if so, problem solved. I am not attempting to further an urban myth.
BTW: WP:OWN Radiopathy (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an editors job to contact your reference to verify the information. And consider the implications for her - you could potentially swamp an e-mail account. Sorry, no format to reference and not reliable, not by a mile. Find a published, reliable source or as I suggested before, move on. No one is suggesting you're attempting to further an urban myth, but the evidence suggests that's really all it is. Drmargi (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's an urban myth. If "Spooks" was aired in the US as is (with the name unchanged) there would most definitely be an uproar.108.66.52.254 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in (sp?) but I have two points. (a) I honestly think it is a bad idea to list that individual's personal contact data here. I have a feeling that there may be some policy on this somewhere and certainly I'd guess it's likely to be undesirable. Maybe if she explicitly gave consent to be listed here it might make it a bit better, but I still don't think it's great. If things go the wrong way she might find herself operating the Spooks Fan Query Line and be less than delighted. So I have removed it again. I don't want to annoy you Radiopathy but I really feel it's unwise. And if someone does, as you suggested, want to contact them then at least they know you have the contact data - does that help? (b) I have no strong position on the word "spook" though I do remember - to my surprise - being told it was or had been a racial slur. I do think, though, that if Wikipedia has no mechanism for citing personal email then perhaps there are good reasons for this and we're stuck with it. I know that is is very (very) annoying when you know that you know something and you are sure your source is good and you should just say it, and the encyclopaedia should just accept it and be grateful, but actually it does create a horrendous problem of verifiability as Drmargi says. If this cannot be seen somewhere I can check it - without emailing the production assistant! - then I really don't think it belongs, because it just adds to the large body of unverifiable information we already have. If it can be verified properly then great, it's a fact, let's have it. Till then it's hard to see how it can be put in the article as anything much stronger than speculation. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Spooks" is a bona fide racial slur in the US that many still, unfortunately, use. It's used by characters in The Sopranos, in fact...and in The Shield, where a black street gang has named itself "Spookstreet".108.66.52.254 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FSB Personel in the Final Episode[edit]

Just in case we get into a series of name changes, the head of the FSB station in London is Vicktor Sarkisian (Harry only uses his name twice) and played by Peter Sullivan. Andre Borodin (Michael Klesic), previously listed, is the head of the kill squad pursuing Lucas, Ros and Connie. Drmargi (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Royal Naval College[edit]

Moved the Old Royal Naval college to regular filming locations as parts of it appeared in many of the last two seasons episodes. Also changed the name from Trinity Music College as this is only part of the site called "The Old Royal Naval College". The scenes shot in the colonnades are actually part of the University of Greenwich - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.232.69 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source to back up this claim? I don't doubt that it is possible, but we should really have reliable sources to back this up. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only my own eyes, it was used in many place. The most used place at the college is the colonnade with the rows of huge columns. What would you suggest as evidence? - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.232.69 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A publication or news article mentioning it being used for filming. A quick Google search has just brought up this source - http://www.oldroyalnavalcollege.org/news/whats-new-for-groups-in-2007-themed-guided-tours-plus-an-easter-concert-supper,38,OS.html - which at least shows it has been used. It doesn't prove it has been used regularly though... perhaps you could find something more substantial?
I hope I don't appear to be being pedantic, but anyone could come along and add anything, and we've no way to back up their claim (especially for me since I don't live in London!) so sources really are pretty important. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 22:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I understand. I just noticed it as i was reading and thought i would change it. The first edit, however, is correct. The site is called the Old Royal Naval College and has many different uses, Trinity Music College is just one of the buildings. In fact the buildings featured in the show are part of the University of Greenwich. However I think the link should be referred to as The Old Royal Naval College (this is in fact what the link links to) rather than trinity music college. I'm working on more evidence of it being a regular site. - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.232.69 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found an old page of an actor referring to having filmed there in 2006: http://www.uk.castingcallpro.com/view.php?uid=110709. This is in addition to its use in the last series. Theres not much more evidence of repeated use, other than trying to find screen caps. I will also add another one off filming location; Finsbury Sq in London. Which is where adam dies in a car explosion, i will try and add my reference to the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.232.69 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we try to avoid relying on YouTube videos as sources, I can't see any other way to cite that particular reference (I did a bit of Googling but I couldn't find anything). If you could help find references for any of those other locations (obvious ones don't necessarily need referencing - the Freemasons' Hall for example!) then that would be great. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up an interesting point. Many filming sites can't reasonably be sourced since there are limits to what is feasible where sources are concerned, but are so instantly recognizable, I'd almost thing evidence of eyes is sufficient. No one would question for a moment that The Victoria and Albert Embankments, the London Eye, the London Underground, etc. are regular filming locations in this program. I think the argument can be made that the Old Royal Naval College, particularly the Colonnade are so commonly used and immediately recognizable that the usual issue of sources can be set aside as long as we can reach a measure of consensus that the site has been used. And just to put this in perspective, I'm an American, albeit one who is fairly well traveled in London, not a Londoner. Drmargi (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here because I have been searching around and theres not really much evidence of the repeated use of the ORNC. Even though i know i have seen it many times, the only way i think i could prove it would be to take screen caps from the DVDs. Which would be a huge pain.81.153.232.69 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A standard of evidence is important where certain types of information are concerned, but that standard was never designed to cover the scope or nature of material we might feasibly include in an article of this nature. This potentially creates an information vacuum: we leave things out we can all agree are accurate because of an unwieldy need for "sources" that are unlikely to exist: unless the ORNC notes somewhere on its website or in PR materials that it was used for this particular show, or someone reliable by dint of sheer good luck mentions its use, we're sunk. It situation demand we find a different standard for reliability, and I'd submit that's consensus. Drmargi (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character ordering[edit]

I reverted this change and hope the author does not mind too much. Let me explain: I am not violently opposed to this change and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with changing the ordering system, but I do think it's a big enough change that editors might want to discuss it. One thing that was obvious was that the introductory line for the "Cast" section also needed rewriting, or splitting between the "current" and "former" sections, if this change was made. The reason for this is that it says "The main recurring characters, listed in order of fictional seniority (and alphabetically therein), include:" and of course that was rendered untrue by this change. I'd be happy to discuss this further but I thought that without a bit of discussion and without that detail attended to, it might be better to stay with the current version for now. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me that order in which they came/left would make more sense, and be more useful to readers. It's very hard to really assess seniority of certain officers anyway (say Zoe vs Fiona) anyway. London prophet (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Harry[edit]

The first listed character is "Sir Harry Pearce, KBE" - surely this is a tautology - he's either "Sir Harry Pearce" or "Harry Pearce KBE", no? Grutness...wha? 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe you can be both - hence how the Man United manager's full name is "Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson CBE". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Section[edit]

Could someone possibly edit this section to include the series 8 release dates and details, which can be found here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spooks-Series-8-DVD/dp/B00365KI2Q for Region 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.171.26 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas North/John Bateman[edit]

Some editors seem to be convinced that Lucas North/John Bateman is dead, after mysteriously vanishing from the top of the building where he was engaged in a showdown with Harry.

Whilst the reaction of Ruth especially may imply that Lucas is dead, we cannot be certain of this, and as such, are scarcely in a position to confirm that Lucas is dead until more information is available to confirm or reject this. Moreover, it is equally plausible that Ruth's tears are directed at Harry.

All we can certainly say is that Lucas' whereabouts are unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.121.53 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think it is quite certain he is dead. After all, you could hear some screams and a sort of 'splat' after he said he was "Nothing." Plus, Harry running to the edge of the building and looking at the ground (and then putting his head in his hands) shows that the chances are he jumped off the edge and killed himself. None the less, there has been no OFFICIAL conformation as to his status, so 'status unknown' will have to suffice for now! 134.219.146.241 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you're interpreting what you heard. All we know for certain is he disappeared, Harry looked over the edge, and we heard sounds that suggested something hit a car thus triggering its alarm. Then we saw tears. But why? The obvious, but not only, conclusion is Lucas is dead. But would they really cry for him? I'm not so sure. So bottom line is, just as with Roz' far less ambiguous situation last year, all we can report is what we know. And we don't know he jumped, much less whether he's dead. Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with the above IP, I think that Lucas is dead, because of what we are shown. I also agree with Drmargi, that this is a cliffhanger case, and whether Lucas is actually dead is unknown. I think it it would be best to point out that generally the audience would assume that Lucas is dead, yet it is ambiguous. SilvestertheCat (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped by to offer an edit to the details on Series 9, but it's clear someone is babysitting it - perhaps the person who started this thread. Wishful thinking, or obsessive literalism? Either way, I am in agreement with the first reply above. When I saw the "warning" added to the status entry for Lucas North, I realized it's not worth the battle – perhaps the editor responsible for it will continue to lobby to keep him listed as "alive" or "status unknown" for years to come, even though the outcome was obvious. Did they really need to show his splattered body at the base of the building? I suppose for some people, the answer is yes. Maybe we'll get lucky, and the opening to Series 10 will be a fifteen minute exposition by Harry explaining everything that happened on the roof in gory detail. Oh, but that might actually get in the way of the actual cliffhanger, which was the very real possibility that Harry will be out as head of MI5. 67.168.161.97 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about remembering this is an encyclopedia, and adding what we know rather than what we assume? Flinging tawdry insults in order to make yourself feel superior won't get your edits accepted. Read up on reliable sources Drmargi (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I were out to fling tawdry insults, I'd point out that your rabid, self-righteous policing of a Wikipedia entry about the status of a television character doesn't really leave you in the best position to be lecturing anyone about the biased nature of a suggested edit. You are either in denial, the world's most devoted literalist, or completely incapable of comprehending subtlety in storytelling. There you go, that's what I know, not what I assume. Enjoy.67.168.161.97 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""But it's quiet an elegant death. A non-violent death. Which is, sort of, what I asked for." - Richard Armitage, "The Downfall of 'Lucas North'", Spooks Series 9 DVD extras. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? Existing consensus is we do not know definitively that North is dead. Actor comments on a DVD are not particularly reliable sources. Please discuss to gain new consensus rather than reverting against current consensus. Drmargi (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be we did not have a reliable source for his death. Richard Armitage is a reliable source. And BBC website unupdated from the beginning of the season isn't. An interview where RA refuses to spoil the season ending isn't. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your interpretation of consensus, with which I differ, WP:BRD was invoked, and that means you STOP reverting and pushing your edit once another editor has reverted it. I would be perfectly justified in reverting again, but It's also quite apparent you're prepared to edit war. First of all, consensus is a group process. One editor does not simply brush it aside with his/her own interpretation, then add controversial content (repeatedly in your case.) Second of all, the reliability of your source has been challenged, moreover, your interpretation of it and of the existing reliable sources are entirely self-serving. You've literally given us one sentence, entirely out of context, including a very telling spelling error (or is it?). We have only your word that the quote is accurate, and that the death Armitage refers to is North's (given there were two other characters in his storyline who also died.) Sorry, but that comes nowhere close to the level of a reliable source, regardless of who spoke the words.
I would suggest you review WP:RS and WP:BRD for guidance on providing reliable sources, and on how to handle edit disputes such as this one. The tenth's season opening episode will no doubt clear up the issue of North's status as reliably as we could ever ask. I'm going to suggest you self-revert, and we wait for confirmation from the episode. Drmargi (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A typo is a typo is a typo. It's not telling evidence of anything. We can't rely on Series 10 to give us the answer, as per WP: PRIMARY. Guessing that Lucas is or isn't alive based on something on the screen is OR. We have to go by secondary sources. There were 2, one out of date and meaningless, one in which the actor said in an interview before the event scene was filmed that he didn't know how the scene was going to turn out. He didn't say the scene was ambigious at all. An interview is an interview is an interview. The answer to the question is by the same person. Can the death be reversed on screen later? Possibly. But a lot of facts can be changed. Just as we use the fact that we are given as facts - that a character cannot walk or a character is named Lucas North - until we are told otherwise, we can be shown to be wrong in the future. But at the moment the best source states outright that Lucas/John is dead and that's what we have to go with. Duggy 1138 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a crackerjack job of dodging the previous editor's main point: a DVD is neither a reliable nor a verifiable source. You've ignored BRD and are pushing an edit that should have been discussed before it was made given its controversial nature and previous discussion. We have only your word that the quote is accurate, or complete. That's a long way from meeting the burden of verifiability. You keep insisting that Richard Armitage is a reliable source, but he's not your source. Rather, it's yet another interview, this time on a DVD. DVD features have long been treated as both unreliable and lacking in verifiability. If North really is dead, you'll be able to find another, more suitable source to that effect. 76.174.138.102 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A DVD documentary is both reliable and verifiable (if Richard had said to me personally that his character had died, that wouldn't be, but I'm not the only person to own a copy of the DVD). I haven't ignored BRD since it is a guide not a policy. If North isn't dead we'd be able to find a suitable source for that and we can't - the existing ones aren't. At the moment it's all OR based on WP:PRIMARY. Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to buff up on your understanding of what a primary v. secondary source is. Moreover, we can't prove a negative; unless we have a source, that's reliable and verifiable, that an event happened, we can't include it. The article describes events as they occurred on screen, without stating one way or another what North's fate is. That's not OR. And I have to disagree; you've very carefully and deliberately avoided addressing BRD. Drmargi (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed interview on DVD is a reliable, verifiable source with Television Wikiproject. Does Spooks related articles have different rules? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Note - Duggy 1138) 203.35.135.133 (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the DVD says, because I don't own it because I don't watch this show. But, if there is an interview, or even episode commentary, where the actor/director/etc. stated that the character was dead then that commentary can be used as a reliable source. It would be considered a "primary" source according to the reliability guideline. I don't know how it is being used in this article, but as I stated at WP:TV, it should be made clear in the article who stated this. For example, the article should literally read something like "Actor X stated in a commentary for Episode Y that his character was officially dead following those events." -- or something like that. The fact that the information is coming from a DVD does not make it unreliable (if anything it's more reliable when it's coming from the people directly involved). This would be no different then if it came from a book. Someone who has access should verify it (which, it appears that that has happened) and as such it can be used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the video is that the user is taking one comment out of context from a 15 minute video that discusses the character's story arc, notably emphasizing, at length. the season's theme that nothing is as it seems, and the corresponding questioning of what is real and what is not. Six other principles as well as the producer are interviewed about the storyline, and all not only do they not comment on whether John Bateman (the man who took Lucas North's identity) is dead, but conspicuously avoid doing so. At one point about mid-way through the video, Armitage refers quite unambiguously to the real Lucas North being dead, but his final comment about the death, which is being cited as evidence John Bateman is dead, is open to interpretation, as makes sense given we still have a cliffhanger ending to be resolved. In the end, I do think it will turn out that Bateman is dead, but only because there's no way back for his character, and notably because I know Richard Armitage is in New Zealand filming the Hobbit movies. But even that's not definitive, given Martin Freeman (who plays Bilbo) has been able to step away from the production long enough to return to Wales, and is currently filming two episodes of Sherlock for the BBC. So even that knowledge isn't a sufficient filter through which to evaluate the video. Given its vagueness and the prevailing thematic material discussed, it simply does not establish, to an encyclopedic standard, that John Bateman is dead. Drmargi (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus: Dead/Alive/Unknown[edit]

  • Dead: A reliable, verifiable source (An interview with the actor on the series 9 DVD) states that the character is dead Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the interview with Armitage can verify that he (Armitage) knows that the character Lucas/John is definitively dead, then I would say let us go with that, and say that Lucas/John is then dead. I just want verifiability of this from the interview before I will confirm my call. I might also ask someone to check the interview for me. SilvestertheCat (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly fair enough. If these help [1] [2] that's great, but if you'd rather confirmation through your own sources, that's great too. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead: I have chosen that the source(s) are reliable and verified them. See above discussion and comments. SilvestertheCat (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there has been no one to try to keep claiming that the status is "unknown" here, however when forced on thier own talk page, one party claims that the quote refers to real-Lucas's death (non-violent???) not John/Lucas's death. Do you have an opinion on that interpretation of the quote? Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The established procedure, when attempting to gather comments, is to use the request for comment procedure. This is an attempt to use a vote, plus an attempt to both circumvent the consensus discussion above and to misuse and manipulate comments on my talk page, to force an edit, and as such, not recognizable as a consensus-gaining process. I feel compelled to add that I am disturbed that this editor has attempted to circumvent WP:BRD and RfC, as well ignoring WP:NOTVOTE to push this edit, rather than using the established consensus procedure. It seems like an awful lot of effort for a question that will be answered in the fall, when the new season starts. Drmargi (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New consensus has been reached. There is no reason in the new season to assume that Lucas's death be mnetioned. It might, but there's not reason to assume such. The ref is no unambiguous, it is verifiable - and has been verified - and is a from a reliable source. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have one editor's opinion, with the caveat that Armitage must say John Bateman/Lucas North is dead. He does not; he only alludes to a death. You do not have consensus. No one editor has any greater power to determine the reliability or verifiability of a source or establish consensus, nor is Project Television the final arbiter of anything -- Bignole would be the first to tell you that. Therefore, the extant edit stands until you gain consensus.
You really must get up to speed on a growing list of policies and practices on Wikipedia. I would be particularly cautious about accusations of vandalism when your edit against consensus is reverted. That will get you an ANI report, or worse. Drmargi (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least 2 editors opinion. You continue to display a lack of knowledge of the actual quote. Armitage is clearly refering to his character's death, not the original Lucas. Get hold of the DVD, have a look. The context is clear. I went to WP:TV to establish the reliability and verifiability of interviews on DVD which someone pretended weren't well known to be neither. Apparently not well known enough for anyone on WP:TV to contradict Bignole's that they are OK to use.
When there was no ref there was a consensus that without one we have to go with "unknown" - fair enough. But now there is a reference a new consensus muct be reached. The old consensus is no more. Two or three editors agree that the reference is good. One is sticking to a position and twisting and turning to try to stop the inevitable result. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading my comments with care. For the third time, I'm referring to an earlier statement, about midway through the video, Armitage makes regarding John Bateman having killed the real Lucas North, which is the only time Armitage says either Lucas North is dead. The final comment is about a death he requested, not a statement that John Bateman is dead. The rest is your interpretation, one with which I do not agree. WP:TV does not establish the reliability or verifiability of anything. It's just one more opportunity for editors to comment, and carries no greater weight than the comments here, as I pointed out before. Bignole has not established anything is reliable or verifiable, but rather commented on his opinion regarding the criteria needed to establish reliability or verifiability of DVD's. It's one editor's opinion of the situation as he sees it, carefully couched to avoid taking a position on the content of a video he has not seen. Reading anything into the lack of other comments is inappropriate and wildly speculative on your part. Meanwhile, you persist in treating consensus as a vote, not agreement among editors. You might want to grab a dictionary and check the definition of consensus. Drmargi (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why bring up a quote that is not being discussed? The quote being discussed is by Armitage is about his character's death and is shown over the scene during which Lucas is on the roof. There is no speculation. While others are trying to create compromise wordings, you keep reverting. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is germane, given your reliance on Bignole's suggested criteria for determining verifiability. It's the only time Richard Armitage says Lucas North is dead, and he's referring to the wrong Lucas North. As for reverting, et tu? Drmargi (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several changes to try to meet half way, to be as accurate as possible. You have been reverting mindlessly. You want John to be alive so even Richard saying otherwise isn't good enough for you.Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can now add WP:CIVIL to the list of policies you need to study. I don't see any compromises and changes; I see endless edit pushing, canvassing, and attempts to do an end-around BRD, verifiability and consensus. Now you're just name-calling. Drmargi (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing "status unknown" to "which Armitage says is "quite an elegant death. A non-violent death. Which is, sort of, what I asked for"" instead of "indicating Lucas jumped" is a change. If you'd read what you reverted, you'd know that.Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - he's dead. The massive weight of evidence supports it. In story it could only be more explicit if they showed the corpse or openly stated it. From the camera stopping showing Lucas to Harry turning round there is just 10 seconds, insufficient time for Lucas to get off the roof by the stairs. We hear a woman scream and a car alarm go off at the bottom of the skyscraper - since these noises prompt Harry to glance off the roof and put his face in his hands, those sounds are not background noise accidentally caught during filming (which would be unlikely anyway, as the show is careful about picking up extraneous background noise the rest of the time), but sounds deliberately added, which means they are relevant to the plot. If Lucas was still on the loose, you would expect dialogue to reference the ongoing hunt rather than Harry's impending disciplinary situation. Out of story we have Richard Armitage's statement on the DVD's - trying to claim it refers to the real Lucas North and not Armitage's character is willfully obtuse, as the real Lucas' death could not be described as "an elegant death" or "a non-violent death", nor is there a likely circumstance by which Armitage would have "asked for" it; that the dialogue is also intercut with scenes of Lucas on the roof, and not the real Lucas being murdered, further underlies this. 86.144.88.22 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Definition[edit]

Which High Definition versions of which episodes exist?-96.237.11.173 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, I would advise that you think about your question further next time. It is a yes or no answer. Either the whole Spooks series is currently on Blu-ray (maybe excluding the latest season available on DVD), or not.
SilvestertheCat (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the questions should be "when was the show first filmed in HD", a show doesn't have to be HD to be released on Blu-ray. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip factoids:

  • 2008 "The last series wasn't broadcast on BBC HD - and the previous 6 series that have already been broadcast were shot on Super 16 film, a format that the BBC will not accept for HD commissions. I wonder if there is a mistake on the BBC HD page, and series 7 is also Super 16 (and thus only being broadcast on SD outlets) or whether they've switched to HD Video (as used on all BBC domestic HD drama - as 35mm film is too expensive) for this series. (Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes were shot on the same format by the same independent production company as Spooks - Kudos. Life on Mars IS being released on HD Blu-ray as it was post-produced in HD AIUI - though the BBC didn't fund the HD costs...)"
  • 2009 "Not in HD because it is apparently filmed on Super 16"
  • 2009 "It was mentioned by the head of BBC HD that Spooks was filmed in the "Super 16" format. The BBC refuse to telecine that format into HD, for reasons that are... controversial. /// Suffice to say, that ITV HD appears to do a decent job of showing 16mm film. Arguably a case of a dogmatic rule that should be revisited."
  • 2010 "They tend to spend the HD budget starting new series in HD and rarely switch ongoing series from SD to HD well into their run. Though it has been done (eg Ashes to Ashes was a particular surprise) it probably has an eye on longevity when making the decision where to allocate the budget and there have been suggestions that either this or the next series of Spooks will be the last."
  • 2010 "All - I've just been watching episode 1 of the Spooks series 8 DVD which has director/producer commentary. They said that due to the nature of the show, the current SD (film) setup gives them the flexibility that they require (e.g., for dashing into central London for some shots). This will continue until the situation with HD catches up to enable them to undertake cable-free filming."
  • 2010 "Spooks is listed for BBC HD so it must be in HD surely ?" /// "The edit masters have not been delivered on an HD format. (message passed on from those in the know. It's still on digi, not SR.) If it's showing, it's going to be upscaled."
  • 2011 "I doubt very much Spooks will be released in Bluray form."

This aspect should be mentioned in the article.-96.237.15.189 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Zoey Reynolds[edit]

'Hidden "off-the-books" in Chile after she was caught making a mistake on an undercover mission.'

I'm not sure that really makes clear what happened. "Caught making a mistake" sounds like she went to the wrong address or something. There was a court case and she was sentenced to a gaol term, but was disappeared to Chile with someone else doing the time. Not sure how to word is, but there's got to be some better way that what we have now. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIA inside the UK ?[edit]

I've just watched the last episodes of this exciting series. Series 10 which included 6 episodes. From these (and some previous episodes of Spooks) I've got the impression that the CIA dosn't spy in the UK, but sooner controls both MI5 and MI6. Also Mossad and FSB has previosly been acting "in the open". I thought that if MI5 catched any foregin spy ,this person would become arrested for spionage against the Kingdom and sent to prison at the Old Bailey. Is there any UK-citizen that can explain this issues ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows the full operational systems of the Secret Services in the UK, but it has been known in the past that some foreign operatives are allowed to continue. This is mostly if they're considered harmless, generally because they've been turned. Alternatively, they may be kept under strict surveillance because exposing or extracting them would damage an existing mission, or cause political issues. As far as the CIA, I don't think they exist officially as spies in this country, but off the record, it's more than likely we've got lots of friendlies situated here, as we will have in our allies' countries. It's all a bit of a shady business. It's a bit out of date, but to get an idea of the background stuff without digging into files, you could read Spycatcher, a book by an ex Military Intelligence officer. drewmunn talk 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A statement and a question[edit]

First, I've collapsed all of the conversation here that's not been touched for a year or more (I may have accidentally collapsed some I shouldn't have, so feel free to drag any out). This was quite a long talk page, and as it's not archived, I felt that was the best plan for now. Next, I note that the lede has a massive list of guest stars from across the entire series, all jammed into one sentence. Would anyone object to some serious shortening? I know it's worth a mention, but it's almost listing every famous actor to appear in Spooks. Ever. Cheers! drewmunn talk 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013 Taskforce[edit]

Morning all! What started off as a quick edit (see above section) developed into something a little more lengthy. However, I've finished my remodelling of the article (for now, I think), and there's a couple of things that I think still need some work:

  • It's still lacking quite a lot of citations. I haven't added any new citations, nor changed any of the old ones, but I think that some more are required to ensure this article is brought up to spec.
  • Information is outdated. I've made a few changes on this front, but nowhere near enough. It'd be good if people more knowledgable than me in international broadcasts could fill in some of the spaces in, or update existing part of, the "series" column in the International broadcast section. DVD releases and some minor other areas also deserve some more attention on this front.
  • Series synopses need attention. These are one of the areas I haven't touched, but seriously need looking at. They make up a massive proportion of the page, and I might look at breaking them down some time. They've amalgamated over the years, and some patching up has left areas of questionable grammar, and mixed tenses. I might try to port some of the production information from them into the production section, and knock them down to literally blurb summaries, but I'd really appreciate it if someone else could have a crack at it!
  • General Cleanup. I've no doubt missed or broken things during my remodel, so please feel free to correct anything I've done wrong. This edit has taken me a good few days to prepare, and my brain has got a bit fried over that period. I apologise for any issues I may have caused, and I hope they're not too common. On top of that, general housekeeping will also most probably need doing to content.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, and I welcome comments or feedback about my remodelling. For now though, I need some rest; my head feels like it's been deep fat fried. drewmunn talk 10:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in cast section[edit]

The cast section really ought not to have information on each character's ultimate fate, as they can be pretty massive spoilers. I would suggest either removing this information, or completely removing the section but keeping the link to List of Spooks characters, as it contains all needed information anyway. I'm very new to editing wikis so don't know the proper protocol for this, some guidance would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.20.134 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Spooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.(non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spooks → Spooks (TV series) This should redirect to the Spook disambiguation page. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:1081:A5E6:C19D:871D (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spooks (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Spooks (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spooks (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spooks (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spooks_(TV_series)&oldid=1210511761"