This is the talk page for Steven Hackett.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Hacketts NameEdit

It is possible, that Admiral Hackett is named after "Steve Hackett", the former guitarist from Genesis?

That a pretty huge stretch. "Hackett" is not an uncommon surname and could have come from anywhere. Nibblonians 08:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Stormwaltz 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is without a doubt in my mind that this is the case. Admiral Steven Hackett of the fifth fleet. Steve Hackett's most well known guitar solo is Firth of Fifth. It's not mere coincidence, one of the creators is a fan. 00:07, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Is it Steven or Stephen? Because it really sounds like Steven. 14:45, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's "Steven" Hackett, as I just saw in ME1 credits screen.

So how is his name spelled? i amconfused now ralok 23:30, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, without going and actually looking at the credits, I can say that IMDB spells it Steven. SpartHawg948 23:34, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think it is a nod to Steve Hackett of Genesis. Somebody on the Mass Effect team is probably a fan of 1970's era Genesis. At first I thought it was coincidence, then I noticed (like the other guy who posted above) that he's fifth fleet... ADMIRAL of fifth fleet... making him "Firth of Fifth." :) (Great song, by the way. It's on the album "Selling England by the Pound" from 1973.) -- I think they use "Steven" and not "Steve" just because the latter sounds too informal when referring to an admiral. 09:01, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

First NameEdit

I'm Sure his name isn't admiral. That's his rank, not name. So this article should be called Hacket. Strange name, but Commander isn't on John's name. 05:51, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why would an article on Admiral Steven Hackett be called 'Hacket'? The use of titles in article names may not be standard practice on other wikis, but it is on this one in instances where: A) The character is usually or always referred to by their title, and B) The title does not change. Both those apply here. There is a clear standard of this policy at the wiki. Take for example (and this is only a brief and partial list, there are many such examples) Admiral Ahern, Admiral Kahoku, Administrator Anoleis, Captain Bailey, Captain Ventralis, General Williams, Engineer Adams, and of course, Commander Shepard. SpartHawg948 06:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Shep's dog tags Edit

Just want to point out that Liara doesn't always say that she got the tags. Near as I can tell (by choosing the same convo options on different playthroughs, though I haven't tested it extensively enough to be sure), she only says Hackett gave them to her if you didn't romance her in the first game. If you did romance her, instead of telling you that Hackett gave them to her, and that he also asked her to send Shep his regards, Liara will say "You can't get back everything you lose, but sometimes you get lucky." No mention whatsoever of Hackett. SpartHawg948 04:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Just to back up Spart here, Liara doesn't state that Hackett gave her the tags if you romanced her in ME. If you didn't romance her, then she mentions Hackett gave her the tags. Lancer1289 04:50, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Should we add Hackett is the one who gives Liara Shep's dog tags? Edit

I was wondering if we should add that to this page? Especially since selecting the "Thank You" neutral option to Liara after getting the tags will result in Liara saying an alternate line (along the lines of "you sometimes get what you've lost" or something) if she was romanced. If she wasn't romanced, then she mentions Hackett gave them to her after the tags changed many hands. --Commander Shepard 04:17, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

See the section directly above this one, explaining why I removed a bit that was added about getting the tags from Hackett. SpartHawg948 04:19, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your reasoning when you explained it to that other user, but I trust your judgment. So I'll drop it. --Commander Shepard 04:47, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning was quite simple. I said " Not necesarily[sic]. I've had her tell me a couple of different things when giving me the tags". What was meant by this is that (as elaborated upon above), she doesn't necessarily tell you that Hackett gave you the tags. It depends on your actions in the first game. As such, we have no confirmation that Hackett played any part in Shepard getting the tags back if Shepard romanced Liara in the first game. SpartHawg948 04:53, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I get that. Sorry I didn't understand at first. --Commander Shepard 05:02, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


So from what i have seen he seems to hold great loyalty to Shepard on par with Admiral Anderson seeing how he listens to Shepard's judgement in the battle of the citadel and when he orders no alliance contact with Shepard and even flat out denying alliance intelligence from interrogating Shepard should a mention of this be added to the trivia. also this last part is speculation but i think he is going to turn out as a powerful ally for shepard in me3 as i seem him as becoming supreme commander of alliance forces by me3.Admiralmorris 05:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's not trivia though. Not at all. Nor is, for example, the fact that he listens to Shepard's judgment at the Battle of the Citadel an indicator of anything. At all. It's extremely common practice for senior commanders to listen to the judgments and appraisals of junior and on-site commanders. After all, many more battles have been lost when generals and admirals didn't listen to on-site personnel than have been lost because they did listen. It's common sense that you listen to a commander known for their sound judgment in the past who is also on-scene and has a more complete grasp of the situation. It should also be noted that he didn't prevent Alliance intelligence from interrogating Shepard. He simply forbade intelligence personnel under his command from doing it. If the Alliance military wanted to interrogate Shepard, there would likely be very little Hackett could do to stop it. SpartHawg948 06:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

O.k forget about the judgement part and sure it's not trivia in it's definition but he wouldn't let the people under his command do anything to a man who in the general sense has gone rogue isn't normal,also did anybody ever find out his specific rank?Admiralmorris 06:47, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that he is consistently referred to as Admiral, and that he has at least one Rear Admiral under his command, his specific rank is likely Admiral. After all, there are only three ranks of Admiral in the Alliance military: Rear Admiral, Admiral, and Fleet Admiral. So, for the aforementioned reasons, and based on the name and rank used on his correspondence, he seems to be an Admiral.
As for the order not to bring Shepard in, again, don't see how it is necessarily a case of loyalty, or how, given how we see other people react to Shepard in ME2, it isn't normal. After all, we see Captain Bailey perfectly willing to alter Citadel records to mask Shepard's presence on the station, and Udina is all sorts of eager to disavow all knowledge of Shepard's visit to the Presidium. Anderson is likewise willing to not ask questions and let Shepard come and go. In this light, I really don't see Hackett's actions as unusual. SpartHawg948 07:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is really a matter of opinion Admiralmorris 09:36, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

You say so... to me it seems more a matter of fact, and the facts just don't line up as you originally stated. Hackett doesn't seem to behave any differently towards Shepard than do several other people in ME2, and his actions regarding Shepard towards the end of ME are perfectly in keeping with common sense tactics. SpartHawg948 19:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hackett's orders Edit

Aren't the orders that Hackett gave just as relevant, if not more relevant, to his character than the other things on the page? In fact, it does a bit to explain just why Shepard never encounters Alliance officials hunting him down in ME2. If having a link to official content suddenly meant that everything in that link could not be on that page, then every single page that links to the Codex should have content from the Codex removed. Tophvision 07:16, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is one of consistency. Hackett has one of the briefest dossiers. Many others are not so brief. Hackett's is also remarkably relevant to the plot. Most others are not. However, if we allow info from one, we must allow info from all. If it's relevant that Hackett placed orders to his people not to bring in Shepard (note - we have no reason to believe that his order means that "no Alliance personnel" can bring in Shep, as was posted in the article. After all, Hackett only commands part of the Alliance fleet), then it is also relevant to post Legion's gamer info, and Miranda's online dating activities. In matters such as this and other comparable items (i.e. dialogue and the SB's video archives), we post a link to the page containing the info, as opposed to putting all the info here. These dossiers, after all, are merely supplemental information, not primary sources of info in and of themselves. Codex entries, on the other hand, are often times one of the primary sources for articles (if not the primary source). Comparing them to supplemental material such as SB dossiers is, at best, a red herring. SpartHawg948 07:25, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
It stinks that we don't get to see more of Rear Admiral Mikhailovich, another alliance rep :( Shadowhawk27 11:19, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
Relevance to this thread? Or to anything? (Leaving aside the fact that, as one of Hackett's subordinates, I wouldn't really view Mikhailovich as "another alliance[sic] rep".) SpartHawg948 17:33, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Move Edit

As it says in the proposal, we know Hackett's first name too, so why not put it into the article's title? -- Commdor (Talk) 04:57, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Spart and myself just had a discussion about this with someone else. The thing is, that without changning a lot of articles, Administrator Anoleis, Ledra, Admiral Ahern, etc., I don't see a reason to move this one. Every time Hackett is referred to in-game, it is always Admiral Hackett, not Admiral Steven Hackett. As such if we move this article we'll have to move Anoleis article to "Administrator Rannadril Ghan Swa Fulsoom Karaten Narr Eadi Bel Anoleis". After all we know his full name as well. We do have conventions, and this would modify one of them. Lancer1289 05:03, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, that's a no to the move. Lancer1289 05:08, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
It works for the quarians, though. If we can use their full names, why not humans and others? And even the salarians aren't that much a problem: "Salarian names are quite complex. A full name includes – in order – the name of a salarian's homeworld, nation, city, district, clan name and given name. For example, the salarian on Feros is named Gorot II Heranon Mal Dinest Got Inoste Ledra, but he would be called either by his clan name, Inoste, or his given name, Ledra." (from Salarian). Under those conventions, Administrator Anoleis and Ledra appear to be fine where they are. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:15, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
That's not the same thing. You are proposing using the full name of Hackett for this article, thereby modifying a convention of the wiki, which by extension we would have to move those two to their full names since we do know them. The example you provide is when they are interacting with other races, but otherwise they use their full names, as Ledra explains when you talk to him on Feros. The usually use their given and surnames when interacting with other races. So we do know the full names of these people, and as such we would have to move a number of articles staring with Shepard's, moving to just Shepard. See the linked discussion for more as you are proposing modifying a convention, not just moving one article. Lancer1289 05:27, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Except I'm not arguing to remove ranks from the titles in this case. I think characters' full names should be in article titles regardless if their rank/title is also there. Even if that means we move Administrator Anoleis to "Administrator Rannadril Ghan Swa Fulsoom Karaten Narr Eadi Bel Anoleis", that shouldn't be an issue. Length should not be a barrier. If, hypothetically, we encounter a character with a very long name who doesn't have a nickname, abbreviation, or other shorter moniker to use as a title, would that mean we can't create an article for that character? But again, I don't see any reason why we can have quarian full names for article titles, and not human full names at the very least. Why can't naming conventions be decided on a case-by-case basis for each race? I don't believe a one-size-fits-all solution is the way to go. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:52, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Again see the linked discussion and I still completely disgree with this. If we do move this article, then we would wind up moving a lot of others. Starting the list Commander Shepard (Shepard), Admiral Ahern (Admiral Admiral Tadius Ahern), Administrator Anoleis (Administrator Rannadril Ghan Swa Fulsoom Karaten Narr Eadi Bel Anoleis), Ledra (Gorot II Heranon Mal Dinest Got Inoste Ledra), just to name a few. Unfortunatly this really isn't, and can't be a case by case basis as we do need something to start from. Long title names are impractical, and since we can't, and won't use Anoleis' full name, I don't see the need to move this one. I still oppose this move. Lancer1289 06:03, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing for the time being since there is a larger issue involved. -- Commdor (Talk) 06:31, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in a couple of pennies: I too would have opposed the move had the discussion not been concluded before I became aware of it. The reason for having quarian names as they currently are is a result of the intricacy of quarian names. Were we to apply the standard currently in use to quarian names, the articles would be called "Admiral Raan", "Admiral Koris", "Admiral Xen", etc. I don't really have a problem with that other than concerns over ease of navigation, as they are rarely referred to as such in-game. The way I see it, and I really hate to say this, being a "no exceptions to the rules" kind of guy, is that the current naming policy (which I like, as I do believe having articles with names like "Administrator Rannadril Ghan Swa Fulsoom Karaten Narr Eadi Bel Anoleis" would indeed be an issue... I can't see how it wouldn't be) has an asterisk next to it, and the asterisk is quarian names. Consider quarians our own little Barry Bonds. I for one do believe in one-size-fits-all solutions... it's just that we have that pesky little asterisk on this one. So... should this come up again, prepare to see me actively working against a move, and consider me "Mr. One-Size-Fits-All". There's nothing I hate more that "case-by-case" solutions... too much subjectivity and wiggle room. SpartHawg948 17:54, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, especially to that last point. Lancer1289 17:57, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

We have a photo now:

--Darth Something 16:18, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

See section below. Lancer1289 16:22, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

His appearence Edit

So with the new images that BioWare released today, One, and my first cropped image for the site Two, I'm wondering people's opinion as to whether this is Hackett or not. Personally I say that it is, but before I add it, I wanted to get some opinions first. I do have uphold standards. So thoughs? Opinions?

I am pretty sure that it is. I mean, Admiral Hackett was confirmed to be a major part of the pack, and then they release a pic of an Alliance officer? That's like confirmation right there. --Effect 16:28, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
I'll cast my vote in for adding it.--Darth Something 16:31, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Wow! It seems to have been already done. --Effect 16:33, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While I'm not the one normally to jump over things, I have to say the evidence here is quite enough in this case. I'll post it in, without the inappropriate character template however, and in the Mass Effect 2 section for obvious reasons. Lancer1289 16:35, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that, however it was inappropriate at the top for now and we will probably get a better image with the DLC pack anyway. However the character template was completely inappropriate, and it doens't help when people ignore edit summaries. Lancer1289 16:38, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, he was probably just excited to put it up, and didn't think it over. Also, I was going to ask you about the fact that it's not at the top. Am I correct to assume that you are planning to add a better picture at the top once the pack is released and we get a better picture, and also get 100% confirmation? Effect 18:00, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yes and the other reason is that I sort of followed the example with the Shadow Broker. Only an image in the ME2 section. Granted there are different circumstances with that, but for now I think it was appropriate. And yes there will probably be a better image form the pack, as I will be really surprised if that is the best image we can come up with. Lancer1289 18:07, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia Section Edit

Can I add a trivia section saying that hackett never appeared in the first game--ItsAlwaysSunnyInIllium 18:46, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

And that is trivia how exactly? He does appear in the first game, just not physcially unless there is someone else giving briefings. Lancer1289 18:48, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I meant physically appear in the game sorry if I threw you off--ItsAlwaysSunnyInIllium 21:46, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still going to have to say no. Lancer1289 21:49, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Hackett on Normandy? Edit

I'll just leave this right here. Originally posted by someone from the BioWare forums:

Awesomeness, isn't it? --Fiery Phoenix 04:51, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Picture Position Edit

Any reason his Arrival picture is down in the Mass Effect 2 section? Other characters who are first seen in a later work still have their ME2 pic at the top, like Illusive Man. Obvious exception would be Shadow Broker, but that's a spoiler, this isn't. JakePT 08:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

My thoughs on this are mentioned above, which are quite clear. Lancer1289 13:46, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with JakePT here. The picture doesn't need to be in the ME2 section. You state that you did so following the example of the Shadow Broker page, but those are two totally different situations. The Shadow Broker's picture is a spoiler in and of itself because, prior to seeing the Broker, we don't know what race he is, if he's male, female, some sort of machine, or even a group of people. On the other hand, we know that Hackett is a human male. Admiral Hackett's appearance is not a spoiler! It doesn't need to be in the ME2 section. Citing the Shadow Broker page as precedent is like me saying that 'Well since Garrus Vakarian has a character box on his page, Sekat needs one too.' No, because the situations are totally different. SpartHawg948 14:29, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
Fine I'll move it. Lancer1289 16:52, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

one could argue that the sheer knowledge that admiral hackett survived ME is a spoiler. (Note I do not believe that just playing Devil's advocate.)--Paladin cross 15:07, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Uh what was the point of this comment? This was resolved days, actually over a week ago, so reason for commenting on a closed discussion where action had already been taken anbd it resolved? Lancer1289 15:12, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing out an opinion someone I know has of spoilers. Note: I do not share the same opinion and as I said was playing the role of Devil's advocate.--Paladin cross 15:41, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Resemblance to Zaeed MassaniEdit

Is it just me, or did Bioware re-use Zaeed's facial characteristics when creating Hackett's facial profile? I think the similarities are intriguing to say the least. I notice that the eyes and mouth are similar to Zaeed's, the only notable difference being that Hackett's eyes are blue, while Zaeed has different coloured eyes, likely the result of being shot in the head 20 years before the events of ME2. Any thoughts? H-Man Havoc 00:54, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd say the differing scars are a pretty notable difference. Honestly, I don't see more than a passing resemblance. Sure, they have faces with the same general shape. That's about it. Their eyes, and the areas around their eyes, look quite different to me. SpartHawg948 00:59, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, there is some general resemblances, as there are between a lot of faces. Not to mention they start to blur together after a while. But there are also a lot of differences between the two, and the scars are one of them. Lancer1289 02:04, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Hackett profile on ME2 site Edit

BioWare recently added an official profile page for Admiral Hackett on the ME2 site. Nothing new or exciting, but it's there... Alert the media and whatnot. :) -- Commdor (Talk) 01:56, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Lancer1289 02:22, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


Is it just me, or when Hackett is on the Normandy, does he appear to be shorter than the "standard" male? As far as I can tell (and, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong) there seems to be a "standard" physique for most characters- a male and a female humanoid one, as well as salarian, turian, krogan, and vorcha. So basically all seen humans are alike in physique (as well as being the same as batarians (men) and asari (women).) Thus meaning everyone is the same height and build. (With the exception of some of the party in ME2.)

However, it really does appear that Hackett is shorter than male Shepard, and about the same height as female Shepard. I'm inclined to think this is just clever positioning, as opposed to a new, shorter body being made just for Hackett's two-minute appearance, but it seems to me that he is shorter than average, and it appears to be done on purpose.

Anyway. I wanted to know if anyone else has noticed this or if it's just me- or if I'm seeing things. Thoughts? 03:34, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

This is more of the kind of thing that belongs in the forums or a blog not here as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 03:49, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just thought, if it was agreed that he was shorter than average, it was something which could be included on his page. 22:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Again not a topic for this page and it wouldn't be permitted because it is based on visual observation and speculation. Lancer1289 22:05, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Name changeEdit

I am proposing that the article's name be changed from Admiral Hackett to Steven Hackett. And here are the reasons why.

  • His first name is known.
  • He plays a major role in the Mass Effect series.
  • Other major characters in the series: David Anderson, Donnel Udina, Kaidan Alenko, ect. are named with their names in their articles despite being called, 'Captain Anderson', 'Ambassador Udina', and 'Lieutenant Alenko', 90 percent of the time. Why should Steven Hackett be left out of this trend?

--WhellerNG 02:28, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, since Dr. Chakwas received similar move not too long ago I suppose I can support this. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 02:32, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I support the move. TheUnknown285 02:40, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support.JakePT 08:16, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons I gave above when this issue came up before. Lancer1289 14:45, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
I addressed that. Your reasoning for keeping the page as Admiral Hackett is because that's what he is referred to most often in game. HOWEVER by that logic, that means we should be changing David Anderson to 'Captain Anderson' and Donnel Udina to 'Ambassador Udina'. By your own logic. --WhellerNG 01:31, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I support the move, however, we need a clear guideline to resolve other articles with similar naming style. — Teugene (Talk) 15:37, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, however as SpartHawg mentioned the last time this proposal cropped up regarding Administrator Anoleis and the quarian Admirals. Will we hold different naming conventions for characters of different species or will we stick to the blanket rule regarding rank and name? The examples WhellerNG give are curious exceptions to this rule. The Illusive Man 18:58, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it's been discussed, and since only one person opposes... I'm going to go ahead and inact our built consensus. --WhellerNG 06:55, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, that is so incorrect that it isn't even funny. Site policy states that a discussion must take place for a week, and since it wasn't, the move has been undone. Lancer1289 14:22, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
I also support the move to Steven Hackett. Bastian964 14:24, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

I sort of support the name change. I personally think it should be changed to Admiral Steven Hackett, since unlike other characters that have been brought up (Anderson, Udina, etc.) his rank/title hasn't changed through the games. The only thing that's changed is that we know his first name. Hell, he's only addressed as either 'Admiral', 'Admiral Hackett', or 'Hackett'. --Soren7550 18:10, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Usual reasons; more encyclopaedic, better description, full name etc. - Goldenboy666 01:36, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

The move proposal passes 8-1. Moving now. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:34, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Background Info? Edit

Ok, I know the codex entry on him in ME3 has background info on him, and the strategy guide has more or less the same info on him (fat skinny is, was raised by his mother until her death when he was 12-ish, and was sent to either a private school or orphanage, I can't quite recall at this hour). How should we implement adding this info to his page, if at all? (don't really see why we wouldn't though)

--Soren7550 08:30, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
The information on the top of the page needs to be moved to the Mass Effect section, and the personal information can be put there instead. I'll take care of it in a minute. Mr. Mittens 20:02, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Tame a shark Edit

When does he say that line? I haven't heard him say it.--Mike Gilbert 19:59, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

This is really, really late, but he says "Tame a Shark" if you ask him about the Illusive Man's idea of controlling the Reapers in ME3. In his own words: "Controlling the Reapers is like trying to tame a shark, someone's going to end up dead, and it could be all of humanity if we fail. Kill him. That's an order." -- 19:38, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

When does that pop up?--Observer Supreme 14:20, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

The dialogue option should come up somepoint in the late game, somewhere around Rannoch or after Thessia. Look for a dialogue option that pertains to the Illusive Man. Then you can get the dialogue. -- 19:45, October 16, 2014 (UTC)