Talk:Silent clock

Compromise reached?
Could it be? Have we finally come to an agreement on the FC section? I know that I'm happy with where we are now, but I want to make sure that everyone else is too. Evan Katz acknowledged the existence of the controversy in an interview, we have the source for the interview and the relevant quote from Katz, and we erased all that Paul Raines stuff. Poor Paul... can't get the girl and can't get a shout out on the silent clock page. There are no weasel words in that section anymore, either. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm content with the changes and ready to move on. -Kapoli 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Fan Controversy
Paul Raines? Seriously? I've never heard anyone say that his death warranted a silent clock. Frankly, I really don't like the "Tony Almeida" section of this page either. I think having a note in Tony's trivia section should suffice. Encyclopedia = facts, NOT speculation/opinion/conjecture. Don't we have a neutrality policy around here somewhere? This Paul Raines thing is like that line on the Season Four page - "Some people have said that this was the best season ending of all time." I mean, "Some argue that Raines' death was the most emotional of the entire season and thus, needed the silent clock."?!?! Which fans? Who? There's no source for this information, so I think it should be removed. If there were a newspaper poll or a magazine article about it, then so be it, but there isn't. -Kapoli 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He wanted Jack's girl, he wasn't getting a silent clock--that bullet wouldn't have killed Jack anyway. It would have stopped and saluted him. :o -CWY2190 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Tony Almeida section is warranted in my opinion, there really was a major fan backlash on the internet because of that. The fact that Tony was such a popular character made fans very upset about the lack of a silent clock. I don't think it's trivial, I think it's criticism of the concept of the silent-clock and warrants a mention. It really was a major point of contention. I can get some citations if you want.


 * As for Paul, you're right, it uses "weasel words" to get away with an obvious opinion. While the Tony Almeida section shows how fans were upset and documents that, documenting other's opinions, mentioning Paul is an obvious opinion of the editor. A big difference indeed. - Xtreme680 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know there was a huge backlash! I think that 30% of the people who watch 24 still think that Tony is alive because of the lack of a silent clock.  If anyone were to be mentioned for any type of "fan controversy", it should be Tony.  I just don't think that we should mention the "fan controversy" at all.


 * Tony was my favorite character, hands down. I was really bummed out when he died, but I never thought, "Hey, he might be alive because he didn't get a silent clock!" or "How dare the producers not give him a silent clock!"  The problem with the silent clock is that there has never been any specification from any official source about the use of the clock.  There's no pattern.  The silent clock has come at the end of the episode and in the middle of the episode.  There's been a split screen before the clock and no split screen.  Sometimes there's another sound, like Palmer's breathing or the train whistle when Chappelle was killed.  We've had people get one when murdered by a traitor, when leaving work for the last time, when killed as a sacrifice in the line of duty, and when killed in an attack at CTU.  Tony was killed at work, but it wasn't in the line of duty... it was after failing to take revenge on Henderson.  So who knows what the pattern is?  There's no way to predict when it's going to happen, because there's no real explanation for why/when they are used.


 * So then how do we justify keeping the mention of Tony and not adding a mention of Paul Raines? Or Lynn McGill?  Or Mason when he flew the plane into ground zero?  Or President Palmer?  What about when Chase got his hand chopped off?  Yeah, he didn't die, but neither did Mason when he got his silent clock.  The only way I would really agree with keeping the "fan controversy" is if there was a link to an article or poll or something about the silent clock.  You and I know there was an internet backlash... but can we document the backlash as a source?  If not, I think we should get rid of that section.  --Kapoli 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it opens up a Pandora's Box. I personally don't think something like "fan controversy" has a place in an encyclopedia.  If it's the opinion of one fan or the opinion of ten thousand fans... where do you draw the line that it's important?  There are many, many fan controversies with this show and most popular shows, but do we really need to document that kind of thing here? --Proudhug 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. This is about the show and everything associated with the show. While some fans dislike certain seasons, there is never anything as strong as a backlash as when Tony did not get a silent clock. Wikipedia repeatedly lists criticisms of philosophers, politicians, movies, comic books, television shows, anything which has a strong basis for criticism. It maintains the neutral point of view because it is a documentation that there was strong criticism, but it cuts it out if there if the view isn't shared by many, at the very least a significant minority. Most of the time this includes fan reactions, especially in the cases of long established and fan loved characters. Wikipedia policy allows for it, and I see no reason why we shouldn't either.


 * I think that this needs to go into other aspects of the show as well. There have been a steady string of criticisms of the show for its use of torture and Jack circumventing the law, the decision to have Air Force one bombed, and the decision to have Logan behind the attack. 24 doesn't exist in a vaccum, we don't simply have episodes and people that work on the show and that's it. Just because something wasn't specifically on the show is not enough to warrant it's disclusion if it's relevant to the topic at hand.


 * There truly is a difference between Paul and Tony being listed here. What that difference is? I can't give you a number of fans specifically, so I'll call it a significant minority. What I can tell you is that it's important. However, as has been mentioned before, these criticisms need documentation. There is nothing subjective about documentation, which I do believe is out there for a controversy of this nature. I think this documentation is the main thing that everyone has been looking for, and really is the standard for whether something is fit for inclusion. I will provide that documentation, but I'm going to need a little time, I still have many finals to take and study for. If I can't find it, I will remove it the section myself.


 * Why should we not include Lynn McGill or George Mason? We don't have any significant criticisms of the show in documentation in this regard. I know I have seen articles concerning Tony's death. That's the standard for wikipedia, and that should be the standard here as well. - Xtreme680 04:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interview with Evan Katz on the lack of silent clock for Tony Note it's an mp3 file. I don't know if that's enough, but I can find more. I do believe it's from a series of interviews Howard Gordon does that Evan Katz took over for one week. - Xtreme680 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't think it belongs here. What are the guidelines for using a silent clock?  I mean, if there was a designated list of circumstances that resulted in the use of a silent clock, and Tony fit those circumstances but didn't get the silent clock, THEN I would consider this to be a controversy.  But I still wouldn't necessarily think it should be on this page.


 * You're right - 24 is not a vaccuum. It's not just about the episodes and the cast and crew.  The show has spawned video games, comics, novels... there's a movie in the works.... and we talk write about all of that on this site.  But we have to draw a line somewhere.  This is an encyclopedia - it's for factual information from the 24verse.  On the "Silent Clock" page, I think that we have enough information with the explanation, examples and alternative (Day 2, President Palmer).  I don't think words like "could/should/would" or any superlatives like "best/greatest/biggest/most significant" have a place in an encyclopedia.


 * I think that Proudhug made a good point by saying, if it's the opinion of one fan or the opinion of ten thousand fans... where do you draw the line that it's important? I know plenty of people who don't like that President Palmer, Michelle, or Tony died at all.  I've heard people argue that Chase needs to come back or that they need to kill off Henderson.  And for every person I know who thinks Tony should have had a silent clock, I know another who thinks that he didn't need one.  Whose opinions are important?  Who gets to decide that?  If we allow subjective opinions like this "silent clock fan controvesy" to be posted on one page, then we have to allow opinions on all the pages.  It doesn't work for me.  --Kapoli 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A popular fan reaction is that 24 is an awesome show. Should we document this on the site? --Proudhug 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Israelis think Palestine isn't a state. Palestinians think Israel is squatting on their territory. That these are mutually exclusive and highly subjective opinions doesn't stop any encyclopedia from including a lengthy explanation of the conflict.

Just like everything else, we simply need to make decisions about which opinions are important enough to include and where they should go. There is a controvery among fans about the use of the silent clock, most of which centers around Tony. How is that not factual? Maybe Paul isn't controversial enough to be listed, but I don't see a need to throw the baby out with the bath water and declare the whole topic verboten. IMO, we don't even need a hard and fast rule. It can be handled on a case-by-case basis. That's one of the major strengths of the wiki format. --StBacchus 08:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we can handle this kind of situation on a case-by-case basis. What do we tell the guy who submitted the section on Paul Raines?  "Sorry, but most of us don't think that your opinion on Paul Raines needing a silent clock merits a mention on the page"?  That's not fair.  We can't justify leaving some of this kind of material and removing the rest.  There is a note on Tony's page, in the trivia section, about him not getting a silent clock.  I don't think that we need to include more than that.  The whole reason we have style policies and templates is to keep the look of the pages consistent.  We need to keep the content consistent as well.  If we don't accept Fox summaries as Episode Guides for one season then we shouldn't for another... if we are going to allow fan opinion and speculation to be posted once, we have to allow it always.  And if we allow fans to post their opinions, then what's to keep people who aren't fans from coming onto the site and posting "24 sucks! One Tree Hill rules!" and stupid crap like that?  --Kapoli 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this probably stems from the fact that we view these things differently because these are two different things. The Paul Raines section is an opinion however it uses various weasel words in order to make it SEEM like it documents actual opinion. This is not an attack on the user that wrote it, because I assumed they acted in good faith and were merely pointing out that some fans were disappointed.


 * The Tony Almeida section contains facts about a certain viewpoint. I don't think a silent clock was necessary, but others certainly feel that way, and if we have documented cases where producers of the show are talking about how fans were upset, I believe that qualifies as inclusion. This discussion is about two things. Neutral point of view and the necessity of citations when writing about viewpoints on an issue.


 * As for guidelines on using a silent clock? There are none. It's ultimately how the writers, producers, and director feel about using it. That doesn't change the fact that people were upset.


 * There is a middleground between case by case basis and guidelines. The guidelines being, we need citations and need to be able to attribute information to a source.


 * As Proudhug said, people think 24 is an awesome show. We should document that, but not by saying critical reaction: Some people says 24 rules and is an awesome show! We should instead talk about its ratings, its devoted fanbase, critical reaction to the show, and the like, all in a npov manner.


 * I'll try and make an analogy. On many comic book movie pages, they list fan reaction to the movie. Why? It's important so that we can express viewpoints on certain aspects about the show in a proper manner. There are no set guidelines on how to change a comic book to a movie. Obviously you go by what the story entails. This doesn't change the fact that people are upset. The same goes for movies in general. There isn't a guidebook on how to make a movie. But wikipedia still lists critical reactions in order to provide information on that viewpoint because it is pertinent to the film. However, it doesn't state whether those fans were correct or not in thinking Elektra was a terrible movie.


 * When I say 24 is not a vaccum, I mean that besides 24 canon, the video game, etc. there are actors and fans and critics and political pundits that all talk about this show. There are a ton of controversial issues that are on the show, and we haven't even touched on the different, documented and with citation viewpoints that exist on them, specifically torture. For us to completely ignore a controversial subject because it might be hard to write about would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. But people shouldn't be able to state how they feel in weasel words or write about a conversation they had with their roommate. The line should be drawn at citations. Fans were upset about the deaths, and the producers have been asked about them numerous times. If we can provide links to transcripts, why not reflect these viewpoints and the producers' response to them on the actor pages? Louis Lombardi was very upset when he was killed off, and Dennis Haysbert was also critical of the death of him and Michelle. These viewpoints are necessary to understand the actors and ultimately provide as much knowledge and relevant information about 24. If a kid was to watch the show 10 years after it ends on DVD, he should be able to come to this site and see how the show was viewed in an outside context in a neutral viewpoint. Seacrest out. - Xtreme680 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said. I agree. The guideline should be citing a source like a newspaper, interview, podcast or audio commentary. Kapoli, I'm not saying we should let anyone interject their opinion wherever they want to, I'm just saying there is a place for noting them. There's nothing insulting or wrong about having standards, so, yeah, I would tell the Paul Raines guy he needs to back it up with facts or not write it at all (actually, I did tell someone that a couple days ago). Somebody did a hatchet job on my Lynnwise over on the Bill Buchanan page, so I'm going to rewrite that section, and whoever wrote the first draft will just have to cope. It's no big deal, it's just the nature of the beast. --StBacchus 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with leaving that section on the page. This isn't a fan page, this isn't a discussion board, this isn't a place for people to come and talk and discuss their opinions on 24. This is an encyclopedia that is meant to be a comprehensive reference source for all things 24. We need a page for the silent clock, because it exists in the show. On the page, we should explain what the silent clock is and when it's been used. That's all.

Including the "fan controversy" does not allow Wiki24 to keep a neutral viewpoint. I'll repeat Proudhug's statement again - if it's the opinion of one fan or the opinion of ten thousand fans... where do you draw the line that it's important? We don't have any idea how many people were upset about Tony not getting a clock. How many fans? What percentage of the 24 fanbase? What's the real controversy amongst these fans... Tony dying? Tony not getting a silent clock? Edgar getting one instead of Tony? Are people still upset? There is NO WAY to cite any of this. What if there was a huge uproar in James Frain's hometown when Paul died and we just don't know about it? Maybe there was a giant controversy among those 10,000 people that we aren't aware of - so how can we tell that person who submitted that information that that controversy isn't enough to be on the site?

I listened to the interview with Evan Katz. It's not an interview about the lack of a silent clock - it's an discussion about the episode in general. And it's not even about the episode where Tony dies! It's the episode when Jack and Curtis go to the gas plant! There's ONE mention of the silent clock. ONE. The interviewer, a guy named Chuck, mentions reading about the show on blogs and discussion boards, and Evan Katz acknowledges that he heard that "some people were angry that Edgar got the silent clock and Tony didn't." His statement has "weasel words" in it. Should we use it as a source if it has weasel words? Isn't that the problem with the Paul Raines' portion? Weasel words?

The Tony Almeida portion has weasel words, too. In fact, it's just poorly written in general. It's not objective in any sense of the word...
 * First of all, who decided that Tony's death was the greatest instance of debate? I seem to recall a similar backlash when President Palmer died.  Why is Tony's greater?
 * Calling Tony a more prominent character of the series and labeling his death as perhaps a more emotional scene definitely isn't keeping a neutral POV. I think Edgar was a pretty prominent character in the series, especially this season.  And there's no way to distinguish whose death was more emotional.  That is something that's unique to every viewer.
 * There's a statement about the show missing an opportunity to "defy precedent" by having two silent clocks in a row. What the hell?  There is no pattern for the silent clock - no pattern, no precedent.  How can two clocks in a row defy a precedent that has never been set to begin with?
 * And finally, there's a sentence about the lack of the silent clock leading "many fans to argue that Tony is not actually dead". I've read the list of "weasel words" on Wikipedia, and this is a perfect example.  We shouldn't be using many people feel, some people believe, several people argue, etc.  Those phrases just mask personal opinion in vague statements that don't have any sources or citations.  It's no different from the "some people believe" that's in the Paul Raines' section.

Removing this section will have no effect on "a kid watching the show 10 years after it ends on DVD". Mentioning the fan controversy won't allow the kid to "see how the show was viewed in an outside context in a neutral viewpoint". Torture on the show is a completely different issue. If there was a newspaper article or feature on the nightly news about the violence and torture on 24, then we could include that information on the torture page (do we have a torture page?). My grandma's bridge club thinking that Jack tortures people too much isn't a source. A bunch of my friends and I saying that they shouldn't have killed Chappelle doesn't mean that there's a controversy worth noting. It's opinion only. It's the same with Tony.... a group of people thinking that Tony should have gotten the silent clock doesn't mean that it's should be mentioned on this encyclopedia. Where would the madness end? Who gets to decide the "standard" for including opinions? Do we get to mention the editor controversy about including the fan controversy? -Kapoli 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, very well said, Kapoli. Up until now, I'd kinda been on the fence about this issue, but you've managed to convince me that it isn't really appropriate for the article.  "Some people were angry that Edgar got the silent clock and Tony didn't" is hardly a source.  "Some" could mean two people.  If he'd said, "Some people have Jack Bauer's face tatooed on their butt" would that make it citable and therefore fit for inclusion in the Jack Bauer article?  I don't think so.  Mentioning this so-called backlash about Tony's lack of silent clock is no different than mentioning that a lot of people think Season 2 is the best one.  I read about a few people on the 24um who were upset about him not getting the clock, but despite knowing over 20 friends and co-workers who watch the show, none of them made any such comment.  I'm sure if you were able to actually count the number of people who were upset about this "issue", you'd find it's an extremely small percentage.  "Some people" isn't enough. --Proudhug 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kapoli, Proudhug, I don't know if I appreciate the way this discussion is going. I understand this is a contentious issue, but we've always had good relations in the past and I wouldn't want to ruin this by making you angry, so I'm going to try and compromise in ways as well as be very calm when stating my viewpoint.


 * I know this is not a discussion board. I don't want it to be a discussion board or a place for fans to post their pet theories. It has nothing to do with my argument. "This is an encyclopedia that is meant to be a comprehensive reference source for all things 24." For me, all things 24 also has to do with the community centered around the show and the controversy surrounding the show.


 * The interview? While not the focus of the interview nor mentioned highly, it was a direct question and was answered thoughtfully and to the best of his ability. We don't need an entire outside source dedicated to mentioning one fact. We don't have an entire article about 24's timeslot, yet we still list it as 9/8c. I don't think the first set of criticisms are very effective, you just seem upset. While neither Chuck nor Evan Katz cite other sources, I will address this issue later. As someone who wants to add content rather than delete it, it is my job to justify the content with policies and citations. I plan on purviewing wikipedia for things such as citing sources and verifiability, as we have not had the issue before.


 * Proudhug, StBacchus and I have both experienced some degree of backlash about it. The question isn't whether or not it happened, it's whether we can support it with evidence and whether it's worthy of inclusion. Please don't deride me for my lack of citation and numbers while making assumptions about the size of the viewpoint and using your friends as a source for the lack of controversy. I don't understand your analogies. People having a tattoo of Jack Bauer on their butt isn't notable. My argument is that this is. If we could find numerous polls asking fans what season was their favorite, and they all had season 2 winning by a significant margin, we would put that season 2 was a fan favorite or one of the more popular seasons. We would put a fact about an opinion, not the opinion itself, and not the opinion with a few weasel words.


 * For the last few criticisms, I'll put here. No, we would not put a section on the editor controversy. The article is about the silent clock, not the editing process of the silent clock. Our discussion isn't notable. Your friends opinions aren't notable either as we don't have a cite for it and Evan Katz has never addressed it. Again, I'm DRAWING THE LINE at citations. I understand your analogies. None of them have citations. If they do, show me them.


 * While we may not want to make a section on Tony, I think at the very least we should add the fact that the use has gained controversy, though we have no sources as to why it has, and release various statements on the producers about the use of the silent clock. I will look for more comments from producers on the use of the silent clock. Until then, remove it if you wish. I'll be back. Seacrest out. - Xtreme680 04:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)