Talk:Jack Reacher

Mothers nationality

Is Reacher's mother French or Dutch? --PeterMarkSmith 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

French [unsourced reply]

Your original research? Or, give us a source. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Reacher's mother's history (including childhood) is described in detail in The Enemy. Don't know the chapter or page, don't have them on me.--89.146.187.20 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Chapter 8 is mainly about Reacher and his brother visiting her, Chapter 16 about her work in the French resistance. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Much of Reachers grandfathers' (his mothers father) life history and death are also dealt with in the short story "Second Son"Golfertom (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Interview SOURCES

I read Killing Floors six years ago now and I became a real Jack Reacher addict. I enjoy both Lee Child’s writing and his imaginative stories. I think he’s a remarkable man and I’ve found some really interesting interviews on this new web-site: www.jackreacher.co.uk. Bradleyjohn 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics fascination

I think that the sentence at the end of the biography shouldn't read "in Bad Luck and Trouble he is revealed to have a fascination with mathematics," due to the fact that his fascination is truly showed the first time in Die Trying, the second book in the series. He goes off on a wild tanget for three pages in a paperback book. How should that be phrased? --Suriyawong 5:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suriyawong (talk • contribs)

Reacher in England

In "The Hard Way" Reacher also went to England. [unsigned comment]

Merger proposed (The Hard Way (novel))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: Merge. I will merge the one article for now, but merging the other novel articles may be a good idea too. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge the content of The Hard Way (novel) into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. In fact, the article consists only of plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT), and no secondary sources are given. So it might be best to merge the plot summary to an article about the series.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Having looked at the entries of all the other Jack Reacher novels, I think for right now the best thing to do would be to merge all of the entries for the novels into the Reacher article. Except for Killing Floor, they're all stubs, some of them no longer than a sentence.RedPen

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"One Shot" plot is wrong

The plot outline states "Unhappily for the authorities, the accused is a friend of Jack Reacher, who is convinced that the wrong person has been arrested.". This is completely wrong. The accused is NOT a friend of Reacher's. In fact, Reacher vowed that he would personally take down the accused if he ever did it again. And, for a long time in the novel, Reacher is there to help convict, not help free, the accused. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the article, and this has been fixed sometime in the last 2 years.--Stroller (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Biographical Information

Additionally he uses the technique of not answering when people make statements or ask questions preferring the other party to fill the silence. A recurring line in the books is "Reacher said nothing."

I am not sure about this, but does this not generate a little humour? Maybe adding, that with Jack Reacher's silence it is normally accompanied by peculiar shrugging, would give more details into his action. Also, it will be nice to mention/quote Reacher's learnt tactic: "When in doubt, just keep your mouth shut" (Page 215 of Die Trying) and the theory behind remaining quiet, giving more information behind why he is quiet. (Lord Shivan (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, this does generate a little humour, but, unfortunately, I think Lee takes it a bit too far. After 5 or 6 Reacher novels, it seems to me that half of his Reacher novels are just filled with what he established in the earlier novels. So that means he only has to write HALF a novel. In addition, Child has MANY more of those statements. Like "you've got the look". Like "back in the day". And so on. In addition, Child contradicts himself many times. Such as that Reacher doesn't need a watch. But at the times Reacher actually OWNS a watch, he (Reacher) seems to have NONE of the UNCANNY talent to tell what time it is. Things like "That is for damn sure.", "You've still got the look.". "... in the day." to me, seem worn out. In addition, Child has now made Reacher a "super hero". No one can beat Reacher. Despite the fact that Reacher has been "out of the service" for a "while". For example, the story that hinged on the one phrase "Find [or "Get"] Reacher for me. Reacher was out of practice too. The guy who lived in the same building as Yoko? His guys were out of practice too. So how come Reacher himself (having been out for a long time, not keeping up his shooting, just digging pools in Miami) was exempt? I loved the first few Reacher novels, but they became just more and more of a contradiction as time went on. Lee Child: You are a GREAT writer. But your series making Reacher a god have become incredible. 97.103.80.222 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Drifter

Given Reacher's physical description and his life as a rootless drifter he appears to be a latter day Cheyenne Bodie. I believe that Lee Child is old enough to have watched the TV Western series Cheyenne featuring Clint Walker who,if he were fifty years younger, would be perfect to play Reacher on film. Plot lines are very similar from Cheyenne Bodie to Jack Reacher as well as character development. 94.196.186.196 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.186.196 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wimbledon Cup

FYI, the Wimbledon Cup is NOT a USMC competition. Marines have won it, most notably Carlos Hathcock, but it is a civilian competition held at Camp Perry, Ohio during the National Matches. I'm not going to rewrite the article to reflect this though, as it's just an error in Child's background research and is correct in his fictional universe. - Once again, Anonymous, and rightfully so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.234.233 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Beirut – Grenada contradiction

If he was born in 1960 and he graduated at West Point at 24, how could he have been in Beirut in 1983? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.43.28 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Great point. The Marine Corps bombing was 23 October 1983. Ignoring the fact that it would be totally unrealistic for a brand new Army MP 2LT to be in the middle of a Marine Corps peace keeping operation in the first place, the math just doesn't work. He would have been 22 years old at the time of the bombing, six days shy of his 23rd birthday. Adding to it, Reacher was very seriously wounded in the bombing. How then, does he manage to recover and take part in the Grenada invasion on 25 October 1983, 48 hours later? [unsigned comment, date unknown]

To annotate this discrepancies via a section tags, referencing this Talk section, need to know the specific section in which the Grenada issue lies, and with regard to the WP-Beirut, need to have a source pointing this out. As it stands, there is no basis on which to agree or disagree. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

2012 Bond novel source?

What is the source that Lee Child will write the next Bond novel in 2012? This has NOT been announced by Ian Fleming Publications. No author or next book has been announced. --Zencato (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hard Way spoiler

I just finished "The Hard Way" and I'm very fortunate I didn't read this article before hand. "The Hard Way"'s description spoils the surprise that the mother and child intentionally ran away and weren't kidnapped, which is what the reader believes 80% of the novel (unless they somehow figured it out). This needs to be rewritten to exclude the spoiler and leave in the comment that they were kidnapped, especially since that drives the story. Goatcheese4me (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

'Appearance' Information in table?'

Would anyone object if I converted the current list of appearances (in the novels, anyway) into a table, and included as one column the 'plot' descriptions from further down? Along the way, I think the 'plots' should be renamed 'cover blurb' or similar. [unsigned question]

New to the series, question about chronology

Since I'm new to the world of Reacher (just bought and enjoyed the movie), I feel strongly compelled to now get and read as many of the novels as I can find. Since The Affair sounds, from the plot summaries, to be essentially a prequel to the series, would you folks recommend that as my starting point rather than Killing Floor? Many thanks. MikeB-Cda (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for general discussion (WP:NOTAFORUM), you might find a better response at a book related sight like librarything. However, you can read them in pretty much any order really. (Hohum ^@) 16:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right page for author's comments on the character?

I've just heard a BBC 'Book Club' interview and Q&A with Lee Child, in which he gives some interesting answers to questions on how Reacher's character came to be how it is. Is this material better on this page, or on a section on Lee Child's? (Fulleraaron ^@) 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fulleraaron:, this -- as a rare source -- would be a brilliant addition. Can you find it, at add it to the Further reading section? Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot summaries sound like advertising blurbs

See headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.165.153 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Have begun to call attention to the original research by editors that can, absent sources, lead to such personal feelings about the subject, rather than the objective restatement of sourced opinions of others. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

True. In fact some of the plot summaries are actually copy-pasted from the back cover of the respective novels/short stories such as " High Heat " , "Small Wars" , "Personal" etc. These back cover "summaries" were originally intended to pique the reader's interest into buying the book and were designed to hard sell the respective book. Thus in my opinion such summaries need to be thoroughly rewritten from a neutral point of view. Koustav Halder (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the bias (as you pointed out) in the table present in the Novel Series section, I have taken the liberty to rewrite the plot summaries of some of the novels, namely Echo Burning , Persuader , The Enemy , The Hard Way , Nothing To Lose , Gone Tomorrow , 61 Hours , A Wanted Man , Never Go Back , Make Me & Personal from a neutral point of view. Given that bias is relative from person to person, I would be extremely glad if you could take a look at the rewritten plotlines. If you deem any phrase or sentence biased, please feel free to edit it out and rewrite the particular sentence/phrase from a neutral point of view if necessary.

Koustav Halder (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A very nice editorial essay

This is a very nice editorial essay, drawn in largest part from editor opinion and research, rather than sources.

It is my understanding that this is to an extent allowed in such descriptions of artistic productions.

However, the editors here have taken the liberty given in cases of articles on artistic/fictional works to an extreme, drawing nearly all descriptive information on this character from their own experiences rather than from reliable published descriptions (reviews, other articles, etc.).

It is for this reason that the OR and refimprove tags appear at the opening of the article, and they should remain until the article takes significant steps toward being encyclopedic, rather than editor OR.

It is, even so, a well done original essay. The editors involved are talented enough that they should perhaps consider publishing descriptive pieces on this in online venues (which can then form the published basis for this encyclopedia article).

71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jsusky (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC) The wikipedian injuction against "original research", at least for fiction, has often struck me as odd. I've thought that one could do a lazy, non-factual, un-referenced blog, then cite that.

Now it seems that 71.201.62.200 has proposed just that (without the laziness).

The statement about Jack Reacher being trained in the Keysi Fighting Method rang false to me.

On 2015NOV26: This entry states:

"His (Reacher's) martial arts training is Keysi, or the Keysi Fighting Method, used in one of the street fights in the movie."

This statement and its references should be moved to the entry about the film - or should be supported by a quote from the relevant novel

(with a chapter citation - not a "page" which carries its own imprecision for obvious reasons).

I checked the references:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/05/06/jack-reacher-tom-cruise-keysi-fighting-method/2138149/

http://screencrush.com/jack-reacher-fight-training/

http://nerdist.com/the-unique-fighting-and-driving-of-jack-reacher/

All of these say nothing whatever about the novels but about the Jack Reacher film and Cruise' training for a single fight scene.

Further, the statement itself is incoherent, because that the Keysi Fighting Method was used in a movie fight says nothing about

Reacher's martial arts training in the novels. The Reacher character in Child's fiction is the subject of this entry.

This shows how the injuction against "original research" encourages wiki-editors to get it wrong.

Too Much

I think this article is far too big and goes into too much detail for a made-up person in a series of thrillers. The more books there are the more (made-up) "facts" there are, but the detail is too much for an encyclopedia. I know you folks are enthusiasts, but this should not be a fan page. I do not think we need long summaries of all the novels, I am doubtful that they all deserve their own web pages. The series may be notable, but is each and every single book? Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In contrast to your opinions, I feel that the summaries of the novels are highly inadequate and seem biased towards the marketing aspect . Please see the talk section on " Plot summaries sound like advertising blurbs " to understand my thoughts. These summaries are brief and some do not even provide a basic idea of the storyline. Besides if you think that this article is getting too big, you should probably be in favour of splitting this article into two ( Book series) and ( Fictional Character) as enumerated in yet another talk section. Koustav Halder (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The consensus was split.

---

Should this article be renamed or split off to cover the book series? The first half of the article reads like a character article, however, the second half is more suitable for the series as it has a list of supporting characters, a table for the book series and a bunch of summaries of the short stories. Some of the individual novels are being redirected to this page. It's very confusing. Is the character independently notable? What about the series? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack Reacher. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130928132638/http://www.leechild.com/stories/deep-down/ to http://www.leechild.com/stories/deep-down/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming "Other Author's Works" section to "Legacy" Proposed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The section under consideration was renamed during WP:SPLIT

---

The Reacher book series have out for mass consumption for quite some time now; in fact it's been out since 1997.

Which means that in the last 19 years, Jack Reacher has been referenced to in other media (especially other books) and has served as inspiration for other people's works ( case in point Diane Capri's Hunt For Reacher series).

Thus I feel that this article would be better served by renaming the "Other Author's Works" section to "Legacy" and adding further subsections based on the type of media in which the Reacher series has been referred to/ has inspired work. In other words I an implying that the proposed "Legacy" section have further subsections such as : i) " In books " ii) " In music " etc.

Furthermore I feel that the relevant information in each subsection be given in point format. Kindly note that this will not change the preexisting information on Diane Capri or Stephen King's Under The Dome but would just reorganise them into points for easier reading.

Koustav Halder (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Koustav Halder Koustav Halder (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup in progress.

Seeing the entire article has issues with original research and unsourced quotations/facts, I am trying to clean it up section by section, starting with the "'Demeanour and Personality"' section. I have generally refrained from deleting text unless absolutely, positively sure it has no factual basis and have mostly stuck with adding relevant citations to uncited quotes as and when possible and adding information relevant to the topic (with the relevant citations).

As of this moment, I am of the opinion that the '"Demeanour and Personality"' section has been sufficiently cleaned up with all quotations and facts accurately cited and have no reason to believe any original research is present in this section.

As a result of this I have removed the 'citations required' and the 'original research possibly present' tags from this section. In case any of you disagree with this, then please feel free to revert this decision followed by a civil discussion.

Besides this, as I proceed to clean up the other sections, I will update the talk forum of any similar actions taken by me in the foreseeable future. Thanks for your consideration,

Koustav Halder (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Koustav Halder Koustav Halder (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: Seeing the bias in the table present in the Novel Series section, I have taken the liberty to rewrite the plot summaries of some of the novels, namely Echo Burning, Persuader, The Enemy , The Hard Way, Nothing To Lose , Gone Tomorrow , 61 Hours , A Wanted Man , Never Go Back , Make Me & Personal from a neutral point of view.

Now given that bias is relative from person to person, I would highly appreciate it if some of you take a look at the relevant rewritten portions and check whether you find them biased or not. Please feel free to edit out any phrase or sentence you deem unsavory or biased.

Also it would be an additional bonus if some of you could rewrite the other plotlines according to a neutral point of view. I am not sufficiently well versed in most of those texts to carry out any edits.

Thanks for your consideration, Koustav Halder (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's still pretty dire and needs a lot of work - far too many primary sources and far too in-universe. --31.52.196.113 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please Note: The user Cameron Scott, has split the article into Jack Reacher (character) and Jack Reacher (Book Series), which is fine but has at the same time "trimmed" the Demeanour and Personality section, citing wikipedia articles are indeed to real world perspective summaries not verbose summaries of the whole series. I diasgree wholeheartedly as the text he trimmed out pertains closely to the matter at hand and is by no means verbose summaries of the entire series. If one looks through the deleted (and consequently restored) text, one will see that it describes only Reacher's psychology and temperament and do not stray from the topic at hand. Moreover it is adequately cited and I expressly feel that the deletion was unjustified. However, I am only too willing to listen to his reasoning and have no will to start an edit war. So Cameron Scott, please feel free to discuss your specific issue with my revert,if any.

Thanks for your consideration, Koustav Halder —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is a mess - it's virtually all in universe and all descriptions. It's relies far far too much on primary sources - where is the critical analysis (provided by secondary sources) - why is there a lengthily list of characters - many of whom appearance once. The demeanour and personality sections repeats stuff in other sections, is too long and too in-universe. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your user-page, I see you have only been editing since December - so let me see if I can make this more simple. We never write about fictional characters as if they are real - tied to this, we know if someone is appropriate for coverage in a wikipedia article because reliable independent third party sources have covered them - this is true for Jack Reacher, is this true for every minor character in his books? No. Is it true for every aspect of his backstory? No. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

OK Cameron, it is true that I have been editing since December last year and you probably know more than me about Wikipedia policies as a whole. However there are some aspects of your reply that I feel merit a little more insight. For example I could do with a little more explanation to your quote: The Demeanour and Personality sections repeats stuff in other sections, as far as I see it there is no such repetition of the text or what it implies elsewhere through the article. Also I noticed your comment about "every minor character". You can see that there are few, if any references to secondary characters in the section. As for a dearth of secondary sources, I agree. But you will surely agree that not only the Demeanour and Personality section but the whole article is in need of them. And the section in my opinion does not cover every aspect of "his back story", it only contains what is relevant to the topic and has all been verified from (mostly) primary sources.

But let me get this right, are you trying to imply that the section should be trimmed because of lack of seconadary sources? In that case, it should apply to the entire article.

Thanks for your consideration, Koustav Halder

But let me get this right, are you trying to imply that the section should be trimmed because of lack of seconadary sources? In that case, it should apply to the entire article.

Yes, the whole article needs editing and cutting back and rewriting - it's just that you have to start somewhere, it's impossible to do the whole job in one day. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you (Cameron) have deleted the entire Wandering Era sub-section citing WP:RS and that the characters appear once. Firstly, let's get clear on the second point ,each of these characters appear during the course of the atleast one novel and are a major part of the novel they appear in. Secondly, I am suprised that you have only deleted the wandering era, as far as I see the entire section on acquaintances lack citations, whether it be primary,secondary or tertiary. Thirdly, going through WP:RS, I noticed the following (and I quote):

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. So, it still allows for primary citations as long as there is no original research. So while your edit to some extent may be justified, as long as the primary sources completely rule out the possibility of original research, then all is fair sailing. I had been working to bring citations to the Accquaintances era, and have done so with a few, including Casey Nice, which you deleted. I feel it would have been better to leave the section as it for now, and bring in the citations at a time, simply because I have read most of the Reacher novels and have found the secondary characters I have encountered in those novels are similar to their depictions (but can't say about those I haven't read about).Now, I know you will reply that my endorsement is worth less than $h!t but what I mean to say is that currently I am engaged in hunting out the citations for the text you deleted and would rather be given some time to do so, fitting the citations to the information, rather than starting fresh. Thanks for your consideration, Koustav Halder (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Koustav Halder (talk)

P.S: At the very least, you could bring back the list of the secondary characters in the wandering era and the name of the books, they appear in. We could work on filling in the extra details with the necessary citations later on. Basically, I want the skeleton of the sub-section to be restored as of now and filled with other information later on. I will revert it in exactly that manner so that only the basic framework will exist and if you dissent over it, then feel free to make any changes, citing your reasons for doing so, first of course. Thanks for your consideration, Koustav Halder (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The secondary characters could go in the book series article. If they are notable in themselves or there's an extensive list, you could create List of Jack Reacher characters, but care should be taken not to introduce too much in-universe material. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you do make a good point here, the Acquaintances section belongs more to the book series article than the present one which is concerned with the character Jack Reacher only. I recommend your course of action of removing this section to the book series article. Just know that this section will require a ton of citations to be made verifiable and many portions must be rewritten from an encyclopaediac perspective.

Koustav Halder (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of points:

And are a major part of the novel they appear in.

They are major in wikipedia terms if they are covered in reliable independent sources - otherwise a reading of whom is major is original research. Anatole Kuragin is major for our purposes because he's discussed in multiple reliable sources. A character could be the king of the universe in a book but unless they are covered in such sources, they are not major to us.

I feel it would have been better to leave the section as it for now, and bring in the citations at a time

Let's be really clear what policy is on this - WP:V makes it clear that removing unverified material is absolutely fine and the burden is on the editor who wants uncited material to remain. --

Secondly, I am suprised that you have only deleted the wandering era,

This is know as 'what about...' - it's not possible to fix everything in one go, this doesn't mean we fix nothing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A character list would be appropriate if the characters recur over multiple books as ones that are major but only for a particular book can be relegated just to that book. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, Cameron I get your point. But this means that this article is as of now missing crucial sections relating to "Critical Reception", " Development Of Character ", "Author's Analysis" etc where the scope for secondary sources is much more. So we have to work on that as well while trimming out irrelevant or originally researched parts in the sections already existing while rewriting the verified material from a encyclopedic and neutral POV.

As for notable secondary characters who are major to the plot of different stories are but one: Frances Neagley. Other than that, there are a few other characters who do recur but are only central to one book. However haven't read all the books so just can't say that my list of notable secondary characters playing recurring major roles over different books may not be complete Koustav Halder (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: As of this moment, I am of the opinion that the Physical Appearance and Family sections have been sufficiently cleaned up with all quotations and facts accurately cited and have no reason to believe any original research is present in these sections.

As a result of this I have removed the 'citations required' and the 'original research possibly present' tags from this section. In case any of you disagree with this, then please feel free to revert this decision.

Additionally I have created two new sections: Development & Author's Commentary section as well as a Critical Reception section in order to address the problems brought to attention by the

tag.

Furthermore, I have a single question, should a section titled Commercial Reception be present in this article or in the book series article? Koustav Halder (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Character's photograph

Is the image of Tom Cruise really necessary or rather authentic, since the author's description of Reacher heavily differs from Cruise's look?

I'm in agreement with the anonymous contributor (above).

In his books about Jack Reacher, Lee Child frequently describes Reacher as 6'4 to 6'5", and 240 to 250 lbs. Jack Reacher is a BIG man. Tom Cruise may have played a character called Jack Reacher in one movie, but Cruise is NOT Jack Reacher and IMO Cruise's only mention on a Wiki page about Jack Reacher should be with respect to that one movie. And let's not get into the fact that the movie has almost nothing to do with the book it's based on, either.

IMO if there is to be a picture on the page about Jack Reacher it should be either a picture of Lee Child, the creator of Jack Reacher, or the cover picture on the wiki page for The Killing Floor, being the first Jack Reacher novel.

Does anyone else have any other suggestions or recommendations? Would anyone like to weigh in on this conversation and tell me why I should not replace the picture of Tom Cruise with one that is more appropriate, in my opinion, to a page on Jack Reacher?

Kwazimoto69 (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Steve Rapaport (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do remove them. The article would be better with no picture, than the ones of Cruise.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. this picture is ridiculous for this article. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:8D92:BA3A:7779:C450 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would relegate it to portrayal in film section. Unless there's an illustration from the book series, this isn't needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the photo to the Adaptation section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Reacher. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232851/http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/offthepage/blog/2007/09/characters_welcomed_and_you_can_be_one_too.html to http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/offthepage/blog/2007/09/characters_welcomed_and_you_can_be_one_too.html

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) 23:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)