"Jonathan" O'neill

[The Signal]

Yes but the fact remains that it is still there, no matter how closely you have to look it is still there, which in my view makes it canon.

Nobody is disputing whether it is canon or not. What I am trying to say is that not everyone will see that ID, so how would they know to change it? Furthermore, very few people would think to change it even if they knew what the ID card said, as, I would imagine, 90% of people would think John is another version of Jonathon. Nobody's perfect.

[Jedi_Master_Bra'tac]

Nobody is disputing whether it is canon or not. What I am trying to say is that not everyone will see that ID, so how would they know to change it? Furthermore, very few people would think to change it even if they knew what the ID card said, as, I would imagine, 90% of people would think John is another version of Jonathon.

I wasn't saying they should change it I was just saying that it was wrong.

Come on people, the entire Harry Potter timeline is based on one line in the second book. We're sci-fi fans, we're supposed to be intelligent!

ETA: ok so I did say it needed to changed on the Omnipedia in the "Ask the Mods" thread, but not for all the other sites.........yet

[Mala50]

Spoiler:

Got the cap but according to this his name is John not Jonathan, which means every stargate fansite, wiki and the simpsons is wrong!

Re what is canon, I think that there's TV series canon and there's movie canon. The TV show uses John J. O'Neill (two 'L's) as seen in the screencap from ENTITY (above). And it's also used in FRAGILE BALANCE. Here's a cap of Jack's ID that his clone is caught carrying:

Spoiler:

As for movie canon, the character's name is Jonathan "Jack" O'Neil (one 'L') as stated in the credits.

(As for John and Jonathan - they're not the same name. However, Jon is often used as a nickname/shortened version of Jonathan).

[Darren]

Thanks for posting a link to this thread.

I think we've established that "John" may or may not be short for "Jonathan." For the Omnipedia, we have a scale of sources that are regarded as canonical, from most to least authoritative:

1) On-screen reference
2) On-screen credits
3) Script pages
4) Closed captions

Only on-screen (discluding credits) is strictly considered canon (following the Star Trek rule). The rest are more or less "secondary canon" that are used to settle disputes and fill in the gaps. If we had an on-screen reference that contradicted a previous script or credit spelling, for example, it would supercede and we'd change the spelling.

Captioning in television is usually done by a third-party company, based on the episode script. So usually those two match, but where they don't we trust the writer to be correct over the $8.50/hour transcriber.

There is one very notable exception to this: naquadah seems to be the accepted spelling in fandom and episode scripts, both by fans and the writers. It has several years worth of history behind it, and keeping the U after the Q conforms to common, written English. So we're sticking with it, even though "The Serpent's Lair" includes an on-screen appearance of the word spelled "naqadah."

So anyway, back to Jack:

The movie credits are a secondary source that clarify his name is, in fact, short for "Jonathan." (The spelling of his last name is an inconsistency, since clearly the two are meant to be the same character. In that case, the TV series has superceded the movie by establishing a "new canon.") Without a contradictory, on-screen reference to his first name on television, we must assume Jonathan "Jack" O'Neill to minimize the inconsistencies.

[LORD MONK]

Jon = Jonathan

John = John

My brothers name is John and every one I know named John is John. So John is John and someone needs to ask what the hell or it will never be straightend out. So ask the mods and see what they say. Is it a goof or is there a different name intirely. Like the 'L'.

[Nolamom]

So anyway, back to Jack:

The movie credits are a secondary source that clarify his name is, in fact, short for "Jonathan." (The spelling of his last name is an inconsistency, since clearly the two are meant to be the same character. In that case, the TV series has superceded the movie by establishing a "new canon.") Without a contradictory, on-screen reference to his first name on television, we must assume Jonathan "Jack" O'Neill to minimize the inconsistencies.

Darren, did you miss the on-screen reference above? It's under wako's spoiler tag (post #4) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3.../screencap.jpg
The screencap clearly shows the name as John, not Jonathan.
Nmom

[Melora]

This has always made me wonder and there is so much confusion about it in fandom that I have never gotten a clear idea of which name is correct.

My question is this: Does anyone know a person named Jonathan in real life that uses 'Jack' as a nickname?

I always thought that men named Jonathan usually used 'Jon' as a nickname and men named John used 'Jack' (i.e. - John F. 'Jack' Kennedy).

I know a Jonathan in rl that goes by 'Jon' but I have never met one that uses 'Jack.'

Just curious.

[LORD MONK]

It is a big F up it was it is. John is not short for Jonathan and if it was it still wouldn't beprinted like that in a military profile. It would say his real name.

Now for the Jck part. It could be his call sign meaning that is what he goes by seems how he is in the AF.

[lunarleviathan]

Jon is short for Jonathan. (Looking on the net it seems that Jonathan is a longer version of Nathan)

John is a full, totally different, name. Jack is a nickname to John originally - I infact know two people who have gone by Jack since childhood, but who are officially named John so it's still common.

If anyone uses Jack as a nickname for Jonathan it's either because A. it's a pesonal nickname not derrived from their first name, or B. they don't even know their own name, which is dumb.

The Stargate credits I would say should be considered an error. As the name is in quotes it is obviously a nickname rather than a middle name. As Jack is a nickname for John and jonathan is a seperate totally unrelated name, it is safe to assume that there was an error made in thinking John is short for Jonathan, common mistake. There could be a personal reason for being called Jack as a nickname, however to use a personal nickname in conjunction with the surname when speaking about or addressing a person by their full name is strange, but with common nicknames (e.g. Jack which originated as a nickname for John) or abbreviations it is far more normal and common. It's daft to assume it's a personal nickname because he goes by Jack to everyone, so discount that theory.

And the surname O'Neil is just an alternate spelling of O'Neill which is the correct name of Irish origin. It's the same name of the same descent, you can spell it however you want though. Just like you can call yourself Jack if you're John or abbreviate a name.

Seems to me that Jonathan "Jack" O'Neil makes no sense, so the first name was obviously corrected to the correct name, and the surname was obviously re-spelt in correct form, John "Jack" O'Neill.

Edit:
Do also note that O'Neill is an Irish surname. The name John/Jack is deeply rooted in Ireland. The Gaelic version of Jack/John/ is Seán. There are tons of variants of Seán including Sean, Shaun, Shawn, Shane, Jack, John, all of which are in the most common Irish boys names. Other than Sean, Jack is the most common of these. Just thought that would further enforce the point about the correct O'Neil spelling being double L, O'Neill as it is clearly of Irish descent.

[Darren]

"John" as a shortening of "Jonathan" would be atypical, but not outside the realm of possibility, I think. If my name was Jonathan and I wanted to go by Jon/John/Jean/Gonn/J'honn, I'd spell it however I wanted to spell it.

Really, the ultimate goal of any such "canonicity" debates should be to minimize contradictions in the show's universe. In this case, "John" could be short for "Jonathan." It usually isn't, but it's possible.

The other option is "Contradiction," which when trying to keep a fictional universe as consistent as possible ought to be our last resort.

[That said, end credits are a secondary source of authority in my book. There is still a case to be made for "John," but I don't think it's overwhelming enough (yet) to merit a change when both "Jonathan" (lesser source) and "John" (greater source) could co-exist.]

[the fifth man]

He'll always just be Jack to me.

[Jedi_Master_Bra'tac]

I'm still debating whether to edit wiki. Darren's right, John and Jonathan can co-exist to avoid confusion, even though it is a mistake. Although as the fifth man said he'll always be Jack to me!

Geez why are we all am I getting all worked up over a name?

[SilverRider]

He'll always just be Jack to me.

Ahem Well said

[Lizlove]

And it's not the only ep where we see his full name. Look at Fragile Balance
His name is John J. O'Neill. Try to figure out for what name that second J. is. Maybe that's the real Jonathan!!!
Pic: http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7...x03%5F035.html
But you know what? It doesn't really matter. Like some said he's Jack and always will be!

[Jedi_Master_Bra'tac]

And it's not the only ep where we see his full name. Look at Fragile Balance
His name is John J. O'Neill. Try to figure out for what name that second J. is. Maybe that's the real Jonathan!!!
Pic: http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7...x03%5F035.html
But you know what? It doesn't really matter. Like some said he's Jack and always will be!

Yeah someone already posted that cap!