Status
I've changed Graem's status to "Unknown" for now. It's not impossible that he'll be revived next episode (Jack's done it twice!), plus, acting or not, Phillip said "If you've killed my son," implying that he might not be dead yet. I'm sure we'll have confirmation tomorrow, or next week at the lastest, that he's dead, but until then we don't know for sure. --Proudhug 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll accept that for now. I'm just amused by the irony that I seem to remember a similar debate over Tony's status last season. :-) Although, just to be sure, I think it would be more logical to assume here that Graem really is dead. Philip wanted to kill him so he wouldn't talk, whereas with Tony, Henderson just stuck him with the syringe so that he could escape. Did Henderson intend to kill Tony? Sure, but I think there was less emphasis on ensuring that Tony was dead as there was on Henderson just getting the hell out, whereas Philip had to ensure Graem's silence. Hypnometal 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
With Tony, his status was listed as DECEASED on Fox.com the next day, so there was no question about it. Graem doesn't have a profile, but his death might be listed in the episode summary. Like I said, Jack was dead at the end of an episode before, yet he's still on the show today. For the record, I'm convinced Graem is dead and my friend is convinced he isn't. We'll know soon enough, but until we do know... well, I guess that's the definition of "Unknown", isn't it? --Proudhug 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Graem’s body goes limp, and Phillip kisses him on the head."
This is all we've got from Fox.com. Looks like we're gonna have to wait until next week! --Proudhug 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- In a poll on the 24 Official Site it says "Did you feel bad for Graem when his father KILLED him?" That pretty much proves he's dead.
Well, it doesn't prove anything. I'm not sure that the poll-writers have any inside information, as two weeks ago, their poll asked if we remembered "Graham/Graem" from last year. Clearly they didn't know how his name was spelled any more than we did. This week, they may just be assuming he's dead, but not know for sure. Last week's poll was about whether or not Phillip was a good guy or pretending. If they had inside information, they probably wouldn't have "spoiled" that for us. Bottom line, I vote we leave him "Unknown" until Monday. --Proudhug 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Graem
The new issue of TV Guide spells his name "Graem" not "Graham". --24.163.47.16 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Fox episode guide for last night, the TV guide listings, and the Closed Captioning all list him as Graem Bauer. -152.2.184.46 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The title of the page really needs to be changed to Graem Bauer.
Oh well isn't this a fine mess! The recaps for Season 5 spell it "Graham," the recaps for Season 6 spell it "Graem". I was under the impression that "Graem" came from a misspelled TV Guide article last year, as no one could find any other source of that spelling that wasn't taken from TV Guide. Now it seems that Fox.com has adopted that spelling! Fox.com already has tons of spelling errors ("Feruz," anyone??), so I'm afraid we can't take either one as the gospel word. I think it makes more sense that they spelled it wrong in S5 and it's been fixed for this year, but until there's evidence that that's true, it's only speculation. I vote we leave it as is for now until we can find more sources. DAMNIT! --Proudhug 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and if that wasn't bad enough, Fox isn't helping at all! Their poll question reads, "Do you remember Graem/Graham?" So as far as Fox is concerned, they're not going to tell us the "right" spelling! Hypnometal 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud! That's friggin' hilarious that they don't even know how it's spelled! It's like they're deliberately screwing around with us! --Proudhug 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I know this wouldn't count as "official" confirmation, but let's look at this logically. How many people do you know named "Graham?" Now, how many people do you know named "Graem?" Has anyone ever seen that spelling before this episode? ;-) Hypnometal 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anyone named "Graem," but I DO know people who spell common names in original ways, such as "Shanon," "Nic" and "Cathie," so this doesn't mean anything. --Proudhug 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why we couldn't at least set up a redirect from Graem and Graem Bauer to this page. -65.190.191.201 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought we already did. I guess not. --Proudhug 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Graem Bauer" redirects, but simply "Graem" does not. Hypnometal 06:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
yeah, just for the hell of it I just looked through the Character guides for days 5 and 6 on fox.com/24. they spell it Graham on day 5 and Graem on day 6. wtf! Logically, I would say that the correct spelling is Graham, as it was the first. Maybe it's an oversight. Hopefully it gets fixed. until I hear different. I'm spelling it Graham. EVILjbf 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC
- I just created the "Graem" page. I wrote nothing and redirected it to the Graham Bauer page. EVILjbf 08:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to the recap during the actual episode, the spelling is Graem. I guess that settles it. Hypnometal 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Really? The recap actually said "Graem"? I don't remember seeing it at all. I must've missed it. --Proudhug 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was there. When they showed him on the phone after Jack called looking for his dad, they put him in a box, and next to his picture, it said "Graem Bauer." 64.69.101.138 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Graham's motivation
Can't wait to see what this guy is about. -CWY2190 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Will Jack Bauer take down Graham once and for all? --70.250.28.140 14:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
ok the headset he has on is a Jabra JX10
- About the actual article, why would Graham be behind Day 4's attacks? Although it was obvious he was up to no good, he and Logan said that what they were doing was supposedly in the best interest of the country. Even if it wasn't, they thought it was, and everything that happened in Day 4 was clearly not made to help the US. - Rohrk21
- There is a possibility that he was behind Day 4 or some of the events in Day 4, since he says that the events began 18 months before Day 5, which was the exact time that Day 4 transpired. Again, it's not stated as fact in the article. Squall Deckiller 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that Graham wasn't behind Habib Marwan,but he was behind Walt Cummings ordering the death of Jack Bauer. My assumption is that Graham had planned the events of Day 5 during Day 4, and considered Jack Bauer a problem, and told Cummings to order his death under the ruse of the Chinese crisis. At least, that's my assumption.
- Let's wait until it all plays out, and possibly we can write about fan theories if we can find a source for it. - Xtreme680 21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- We don't know enough about Graham to know whether he actually gives a damn about the country's best interest. The key event in One Shot was Moira O'Neal realizing her IRA bankroller was funding any and all terrorist groups that would help him make more money. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case with Graham. Also, Scummings had a perfectly good reason to want Jack dead without Graham. But I agree, we can wait and see how it shakes out. Probably we'll get some answers next week. If not...well, they wouldn't be theories if they were sourced. Nonetheless, it's not exactly blue-skying to point out the timeline. --StBacchus 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Could Graham have had something to do with McLennan-Forster?
Transwiki from Wikipedia log
(cur) (last) 15:11, 16 May 2006 Dudeman74
(cur) (last) 13:20, 16 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 10:17, 16 May 2006 168.216.178.213
(cur) (last) 10:16, 16 May 2006 168.216.178.213
(cur) (last) 23:15, 15 May 2006 69.117.154.60
(cur) (last) 11:36, 15 May 2006 Bluebot (fixing bad links using AWB)
(cur) (last) 14:31, 13 May 2006 71.117.17.126
(cur) (last) 08:31, 13 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 11:07, 11 May 2006 74.12.140.247 (→Day Five)
(cur) (last) 13:09, 9 May 2006 Simon Beavis m (→Day Five)
(cur) (last) 20:28, 8 May 2006 69.117.154.60
(cur) (last) 04:17, 8 May 2006 Order 66 (→Day Five)
(cur) (last) 21:16, 4 May 2006 S1N3d dW17 (spoiler tag)
(cur) (last) 19:18, 4 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 19:12, 4 May 2006 Jasonflare (Fixed up article)
(cur) (last) 15:33, 4 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 09:37, 4 May 2006 168.216.136.125
(cur) (last) 09:34, 4 May 2006 168.216.136.125
(cur) (last) 09:27, 4 May 2006 168.216.136.125
(cur) (last) 18:41, 3 May 2006 Dudeman74
(cur) (last) 17:11, 1 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 14:06, 1 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 13:06, 1 May 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 12:51, 1 May 2006 82.34.32.44
(cur) (last) 18:44, 30 April 2006 Simon Beavis m
(cur) (last) 05:23, 30 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 05:23, 30 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 14:22, 29 April 2006 Someguy0830 (removed template, not a tv show)
(cur) (last) 04:06, 28 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 19:55, 27 April 2006 200.167.219.102
(cur) (last) 17:24, 27 April 2006 206.255.37.126
(cur) (last) 09:02, 27 April 2006 Ark Kagi Chilles
(cur) (last) 08:57, 27 April 2006 Ark Kagi Chilles
(cur) (last) 08:18, 27 April 2006 Simon Beavis
(cur) (last) 20:15, 26 April 2006 151.197.9.84
(cur) (last) 18:38, 26 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 18:24, 26 April 2006 Deckiller m (fixes)
(cur) (last) 18:24, 26 April 2006 Deckiller (comparison)
(cur) (last) 18:02, 26 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 17:55, 26 April 2006 Dudeman74
(cur) (last) 17:32, 26 April 2006 Simon Beavis m
(cur) (last) 17:30, 26 April 2006 Simon Beavis m
(cur) (last) 17:30, 26 April 2006 Simon Beavis m
(cur) (last) 17:29, 26 April 2006 Simon Beavis m
(cur) (last) 15:31, 26 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 15:28, 26 April 2006 Order 66
(cur) (last) 15:27, 26 April 2006 Order 66
- Uhm, I don't know where they got a lot of this information. Some of it doesn't really seem correct, or Wikia 24 style.
- Huh? It all checks out with the episodes, to my knowledge. Squall Deckiller 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What did you post this list for? --Proudhug 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- When a Wikia transwikis stuff from Wikipedia, the history of the page that is being transwikified must be carried over to give credit (unless it was part of a list). Squall Deckiller 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, I guess a better question would be, why are you transwikiing stuff from Wikipedia? --Proudhug 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because although we are under the free documentation liscense, authors need to be given credit. This is usually done by using the page history, but we only contain the history for our own page, not the wikipedia page. This page and lots of our other pages use information obtained primarily from wikipedia, hence the need for citation. We haven't covered many copyright issues for this wikia.
- But, better question. Why not just provide a link on the talk page to the wikipedia page? Wikicities may have a template, but if not, I know that the Lost Wiki, Star Wars Wiki, and The OC wikia all use a template that explains the fact that they are citing wikipedia and place it on our talk page. If you're concerned about copyright, you can check out the template here - Xtreme680 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- That might work.
- The reason we transwiki stuff is that Wikia is licensed under the GNU anyway, and if Wiki contains detailed information on a character (which it shouldn't, but it does) that this Wikia doesn't have yet....transwiki is the preferred option to provide that foundation. Squall Deckiller 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that copying our articles from Wikipedia is no different than copying them from Fox.com. We shouldn't be doing this. --Proudhug
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if we cite the wikipedia page and the writers of it on the talk page. We already have some crossover and copying/pasting, this would make it right, is perfectly acceptable, and is generally just functional rather than writing new pages for ones that are already written. We can still make our own changes as necessary, we just cite that help was provided from this wikia. - Xtreme680 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it perfectly acceptable? I don't agree. It's perfectly legal, but the reason we don't copy Fox.com summaries isn't because it's illegal. We're our own site and copying text from other sites, no matter how convenient, isn't right. Copying information is okay, but not specific text. Otherwise, why create Wiki 24 at all? Why not just post it all at Wikipedia? --Proudhug 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, meaning that this sort of information doesn't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. I'm going to be pushing for it all to be deleted off of Wiki (except for 3-4 main characters and the seasons and the main page), with links provided to this wikia. The purpose of Wikia in general is to provide detaled encyclopedic information that wouldn't (or shouldn't) stand up on Wikipedia. Transwiki serves as a foundation, and all Wikias use this foundation to build off of. Wikia was put under the GNU for this very reason. Look at Wookieepedia, it started as a means to move all the excess Star Wars information from Wikipedia to Wikia, which served as a foundation. From there, articles were expanded, minor characters were given their own sections, and so on. Wookiepedia is seperate from Wikipedia, and it has become the largest Wikia.
I attempted to enhance the prose somewhat, and I worked with Willo to remove any speculation. It looks nothing like the Wikipedia version, which is good for us. After all, within a matter of weeks the fictional rules of Wikipedia will change, thus underscoring the significance of Wikibooks and Wikia even more. Squall Deckiller 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not acceptable to just copy information, that requires a citation as well. Of course it's right. It's NOT illegal, that's the point, not citing it is. Copying fox.com summaries is completely different. They're poorly written, and it's illegal. It's OK to copy wikipedia as long as it's cited in the talk page because of the free documentation license. I don't believe that it's wrong if it gets a citation, that's what Jimbo intended, it's fairly clear in wikipedia policy what makes it acceptable. I'm not saying it's better because it's more convenient, just a useful tool that we can use, and may be necessary, especially considering this new wave of fictional deletions Squak Deckiller is talking about, for not just ours, but all wikias - Xtreme680 21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- What's going on with Wikipedia? Sorry to be thick, but I don't even know where to look on Wikipedia itself.... --StBacchus 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Whether or not it's legal, whether or not it's acceptable, whether or not it's common practice, whether or not it's convenient, whether or not it's from another Wikia... when faced with the choice of either starting an article from scratch or cut'n'pasting one from another source, the latter option shouldn't even enter the mind. Apparently, we disagree on this. --Proudhug 03:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone go back to the episode where Jack goes into Omicron and check if Graham appeared there? I just saw a split-second clip on Fox's local news in NY where I think he was walking somewhere and carrying a bag. I figure that would be the episode to check. 68.36.184.226 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The actor playing Graham was not cast nor was the character even created when the episode was filmed, and perhaps even when it aired.