Why were the background notes removed?[]
I added some other relevant material like how Goren was the first person killed inside CTU as well as the first person Jack killed on Day 2. Why was that removed? I keep being accused of edit warring but it doesn't much help if every other edit keeps being undone without any follow-up discussion.--Gunman6 (talk) 02:52, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- You said that the kill was Jack's first "morbid crime" to date. That's extremely subjective and contravenes our NPOV policy. The fact he's the first person killed in CTU was not removed. As for the first kill of the season, could go either way but it's not especially notable to add that, I'll defer to user:Station7 who removed it--Acer4666 (talk) 10:40, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- If you ask why I removed it, it's really simple. It's not notable during the fact that we can say on everything article like he's the second person murdered by Jack Bauer on Day 2 and the third person killed by Jack Bauer on Day 2. It doesn't make any sense to "number" it up for what reason.
- Arthur Rabens was the last person killed by Jack Bauer on Day 3. Victor Drazen was the last person killed by Jack Bauer. Yes, and then we can also say from Teri Bauer was the last person killed by Nina Myers on Day 1. Jamey Farrell was the first person killed by Nina Myer on Day 1. It's going increasing for nothing. --Station7 (talk) 11:39, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- What matters is that it's informative. "Morbid" can refer to something disturbing or rather gruesome, which is what occurred after he sawed off Goren's head. The fact that Jon Cassar stated in his photo book diary that the make-up prepped for it was far more gruesome than either what the script called for or what eventually made it to on-air makes one like me state that it is a rather morbid crime. If you wanted to modify it to something like "Morally questionable action taken" or something of the like, I'd be down for that.
As for the first person killed note, how does it not "make sense"? It makes perfect sense as that's what happened. To not include it because one personally feels like it is subjective or not in their personal interest is totally going against the aforementioned NPOV rule. Not everyone is going to take the time to read the on-screen kills or other articles and might just want to know the whole story in that one given article. It's the job of any wiki to provide enough relevant information anywhere possible.--Gunman6 (talk) 08:13, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Still, it's increasing. Scott was Jack's second kill on Day 2. Chris was Jack's third kill on Day 2. Eddie Grant was Jack's fourth kill on Day 2. Are we going to include those too? That doesn't make any sense, because it's going to being more and more. --Station7 (talk) 09:05, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I've explained the relevance of it's informative nature. I still don't see what's wrong with it as background notes are key notes about the person. Being killed by Jack is easily a key note, hence why we have a On-Screen Kills by him in the first place, do we not?--Gunman6 (talk) 19:37, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- The reason we have a dedicated page is to keep all the information in one place, not spread out in notes sections across the wiki. The fact he was killed by Jack is already on the page - and we have a link to the on-screen kills page here, a category on this page "killed by jack bauer", and it says in the infobox that he was killed by Jack. Listing the first, second, third, last, second last, etc kill for each season means there's notes all over the place. That makes the information not notable for this page.
- As for the morbid thing, you are welcome to add the quote from Jon Cassar. However, saying this is Jack's first morbid crime is completely subjective. You think it is, but someone could easily think that him cutting off the guy's finger in season 1 episode 2 counts as "morbid". Or any one of other things Jack did before this. It's an opinion, we don't list opinions on the pages.--Acer4666 (talk) 20:48, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Weighing in... First, I don't agree with the "morbid" comment. It's definitely subjective, plus it adds nothing to the article which already says what Bauer did with Goren's head. Let the reader decide if that's morbid or not. Second, about the "first person killed", I really don't mind the note, as long as its limited. Say, only mentioning first kills by Jack? I certainly find it a more worthy BGIN than saying "such and such has been the only person killed in X hour". Thief12 (talk) 23:23, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, both the "killed in mentioned time frame" and "such-and-such kill on that day"
could easily be helpful or informative.--Gunman6 (talk) 00:14, January 25, 2014 (UTC)