Talk: Sam Krugman

Status

Where was it ever mentioned that he was alive? He was shot when they took Kim and Dana told Tony Almeida that "two cops are down, and she was taken. Cantanarazzo 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the notes on the last edit, he was noted as being "seriously injured" on Findings at CTU. --Deege515 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First name

Now that Mariah Pasos has been confirmed as his partner, does anyone have any objections to moving this article to "Sam Krugman", as per the canon policy allowing credits as a source of character names?--Acer4666 08:59, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

No objection at all. --Station7 17:27, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ah I just saw this, after posting on Mariah Pasos Talk. The issue is: we don't know for sure if "Sam" was the undercover name or the guy's actual name. We'll need a script for this one. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:17, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that we should assume it's maybe an undercover name. The name was given by the credits - we have to take it at face value, as it has no context to place it in. It doesn't contradict IU facts, so we should accept it surely?

I think realistically there's not much chance of us ever getting a script, and even if we do I don't see how it could indicate Sam as an undercover name. Unless it labels all of his pre-reveal dialogue as Sam and post-reveal dialogue as Krugman, which it wouldn't do. I don't see the problem here--Acer4666 08:42, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

You're just wanting it to be Krugman's actual first name... that's the assumption, don't you see? We don't know if, in the script, there is text that reveals Sam was supposed to be the dealer's name (perhaps revealed in the stage directions, or perhaps revealed in a lost line uttered by Frank).

And as unfortunate as it is, the low likelihood that we will get the script some time in the convenient future shouldn't force us to lower our standards of verifiability. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:46, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing the assuming - a name is given, I'm saying use that name. Talking about the whats and wherefores of Krugman inventing a fake name for himself during the deal is the assumtion and imagination running wild.--Acer4666 15:38, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

And remember, "lost lines" and deleted scenes are not part of canon--Acer4666 15:39, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Proudhug himself maintained my position on this specific topic, and what you're saying isn't convincing me otherwise. "A name is given", certainly, but we don't know the context. It's very bizarre to hear such a position from you! For the record, every drug sting has at least one cop using a false name. I'm not making assumptions: I am saying we do not know which of those two very real possibilities is going on for the name "Sam". Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:29, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

You say there's no context, but the context is clear - "Sam's partner...Mariah Pasos" states quite unambiguously that "the partner of the character played by Mariah Pasos is called Sam." No more, and no less.

And besides, we cannot take any sort of context into account when culling names from OOU sources. The canon policy is quite clear on this point. In fact, even if a script turned up stating in the stage directions that Sam is an undercover name, we should still move the article. The canon policy about this is:

Anything not translated from script to screen (deleted scenes, stage directions, "lost lines") is non-canonical, with the ONE exception of new character names. Therefore new storyline elements that cast doubt on the veracity of existing character names, cannot be taken into account.

I know proudhug said that he thought Sam was perhaps an undercover name, but whether he would translate that speculation into refusing to name an article properly is a different matter.

And you should expect this sort of argument from me - it's the same thing as Jamal Nasawa, where one of his names was arbitrarily decided to be more probably real than the other based on editor speculation.

And if you say that you "do not know" about how real this is, then what if somewhere there's a script saying Hannah Zoltan really has the first name Beatrice. For the record, people working at clandestine government agencies often use false names (and I can actually back this up with some IU evidence, whereas your drug thing is based on real-world), so should we leave out a name or two here and there just to be sure we're not "assuming" too much?--Acer4666 21:37, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

The revelation that Mariah Pasos is the blonde character doesn't change anything about the finer point of whether "Sam" is the real or undercover name of Krugman. And the stuff you've been saying doesn't make any of it clearer.

Your statement: "the partner of the character played by Mariah Pasos is called Sam" is true for both possibilities: real Krugman or undercover dealer. She was the partner of both entities. Therein lies the unverified part. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:17, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

They're the same character. the fact he might have two names is an invention of yours--Acer4666 23:30, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, both of you knock it off. Your incessant arguing is getting nowhere and you're devolving into insults. It's equally plausible that the name Sam is an undercover name or a real first name. I won't list real life or other movie/show examples of course, because that is not the point. However, unless you can get in touch with a writer or producer from 2002 who remembers this sort of thing, then you're going to have to find a script. I've read a share of scripts where certain characters' names are not revealed until they're revealed in the movie/show proper. You can probably find a script or package of scripts for sell on eBay or Amazon or perhaps a 24 related site. I agree with Blue Rook here. There's no definitive way of knowing for sure unless you get your hands on a production script. --ASHPD24 02:23, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I have explained very clearly above that whatever the script says, the canon policy will not allow us to take that into account. Even if it says that "Sam" is a name he was once called by some mad lady that passed him in the street, we cannot use that information as it's non-canonical. That is the canon policy, if you don't agree with that then perhaps you should ask for it to be changed, but until that happens we follow the existing policy. Whereas him being called Sam in the credits is canonical. There's nothing to argue here, it's very simple.--Acer4666 08:08, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this as being such a big deal that couldn't be resolved by leaving the article as it is, and adding a BGIN with the possible name. Thief12 12:23, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Because it would be inconsistent with every other article where we've got names from credits or other OOU sources, and haven't thought up possible stories about them being aliases, Jonathan Matijevich, Zamil Kouri, etc etc etc. The nature of 24 means that almost all of the characters could be not who they seem, an alias or something, but we accept that everyone is telling the truth unless something gives us cause to suspect otherwise. There is nothing in this case--Acer4666 12:27, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused at this point. First is your idea of Proudhug's intent. He did specifically refuse to move this very article to include "Sam", and I agreed with him (and still do). Second, if there is a stage direction or character/cast list in the script with identifies the drug dealer as Sam, then it is not intended to be Krugman's first name. I have a few questions:

1. Krugman is unique among characters, which is why Proudhug, I, or anyone else have refused to make the move over the years. Your comparisons of Jonathan Matijevich, Zamil, etc. to him and all other characters does not fit because of a confluence of 2 factors: he has a distinct persona that we have every reason to believe had a different name, as well as the extremely unique and extremely ambiguous context by which we get the name "Sam". Are you able to describe another character who has the same 2 factors as Krugman does?
2. Are you saying that stage directions/labels are not a valid source for names? They are valid, which is why we have Ted Graham's first name.
3. Can you prove that the script doesn't have stage directions/labels which identify the drug-dealer persona as "Sam"? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:53, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Please point me in the direction of the discussion had by proudhug and yourself, I can't seem to find it. I guess it goes without saying this is not that discussion.

1. The first "factor" you mention is not a factor at all. The fact he put forward two personas has nothing to do with him having different names. I can name a laundry list of character who put forward two different personas and only ever have one name (Graem Bauer, Christopher Henderson, etc etc), I can name a similar list of people who only ever put forward one persona and yet have multiple names (Tomas Sherek, Atef El-Khabir, etc etc), so there is no correlation between two personas and multiple names. That is not a factor.

The other factor seems to be that one name is given IU, and the other name is given in the credits. As far as I can tell, I am v busy atm and don't have time to check it, but isn't this the case with Stan Shavers? Stan given in the episode, Shavers given in the credits, yet we have no problem matching the two names up? I may be wrong about that, but I'll try n find a different example if so.

2. Please stop attacking a straw man. That is not what I said at all. Perhaps you need me to copy paste:

Anything not translated from script to screen (deleted scenes, stage directions, "lost lines") is non-canonical, with the ONE exception of new character names. Therefore new storyline elements that cast doubt on the veracity of existing character names, cannot be taken into account.

Stage directions giving new character names are fine. However stage directions supporting your made up story of Krugman having an undercover alias is not fine.

3. I don't need to prove it, because as covered above, even if it did we could not use it as canon.--Acer4666 09:48, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

I know you want to make this move very badly, but there is a defensiveness to your replies that's making this very uncomfortable for me. I've reread my replies and I'm not sure if I set you on a bad way, but if I did, I apologize. We should probably take this slower from now on.

The page you linked is at least one of the places where Proudhug makes it clear that "Sam" is not certainly either Krugman's name or his alias. It supports both my and Proudhug's position.

Stan Shavers wasn't undercover; there is zero likelihood that either of those names is an alias.

I'm confident that the stuff you're quoting about the canon policy does not do what you claim it does. Starting with the fact that there is no proof that "Sam" is either his real name or the alias by which he was known to Frank, there is no "veracity" about the name, only "ambiguity". Since "Sam" is ambiguous, the script will definitively prove what the name is... it will not cast any doubt, quite the opposite, as I see it.

To me, there is no canon policy issue as described in the prior sentence, therefore the only question that matters is: can it be proven that "Sam" was or was not the alias by which Frank Allard knew Krugman before the drug sting?

If you disagree with my explanation of the canon policy as it applies here, start there... let's not get mixed up with the second issue, which is whether it can be proved that "Sam" was or was not an alias, until we get past the first. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:28, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Firstly on the topic of proudhug - you said that he specifically refused to move the page, but that page we linked to has him saying "unless someone can place the actress". Anyway, I'm tempted to leave this discussion alone until he weighs in instead of guessing his intent.

But I can explain what I mean by the canon policy. Say there's a deleted scene where Jack's first name is revealed to be an alias. We'd disregard it. Say there's one that suggests Christopher Henderson's first name is an alias. Say there's a stage direction in a script that suggests that. Say there's a stage direction which suggests Stan Shavers' second name is just a nickname he was once called. All of these things are from OOU sources, but are not "new character names". Therefore they're not allowed. The canon policy says, "scripts are NOT considered canon. However, they may be used to cull character names". If this episode's script did indeed say what you suspect it might say, you'd be using a script to cast doubt on an already-established name, which goes against the canon policy. The ONLY thing they can be used for, is to cull new character names. The fact Sam is an alias didn't make it to the aired episode; the fact his name is Sam did. We'd be second-guessing the show creators' intent to use a discarded idea from their script. Do you agree?

If you agree with the above, then the question is whether Sam is an "already established" name. That seems to be what we're having trouble with. I see the situation as no different to the Stan Shavers situation, because there is no IU evidence pointing towards Krugman ever having given himself an alias. What I think you are doing is reading too much into the context of how we saw these characters, and using your imagination and speculation to treat them differently. Whereas I am just taking the information as it is given by the credits, not second guessing the show creators' intent, and treating them the same.--Acer4666 12:25, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

We've figured out the specific point where there is disagreement, which is a good thing. I should note that instinctively I would have assumed "Sam" was Krugman's first name, but before I ever saw that credit, I read Proudhug's opinion and after thinking about it, I agreed with him. It wasn't actually my imagination as you'd say, then, it was Proudhug's :)

I will focus on "The fact Sam is an alias didn't make it to the aired episode; the fact his name is Sam did" since I think it is the crux of your part. I do understand what you mean. Still however I cannot get over the fact that we do not know the intent of what was meant when "Sam" was put there, in that co-star credit. The intent may very well have been to use his undercover name when it was typed out. I don't agree at this point that, since "Sam" was not spoken IU, it therefore must be the character's real name by default. I do not believe we have the authority to so actively construct canon. We're still missing the script to confirm/deny either assumption. Certainly you agree it is possible that, on the hypothetical day we get the script, it turns out that "Sam" was his undercover name? The only difference would be our different reactions. I would say "okay, now we know "Sam" was his undercover name and a move is unwarranted". But I'm thinking you would say "No, Sam must still be Krugman's actual name because the details which revealed this name to be his undercover name were not included IU". To me, it's all about creators' intent, and if it turned out that Sam was meant to be his undercover name, we are not authorized to take any kind jump and artificially assign this name to Krugman himself just because our canon policy is worded a certain way. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:00, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Working out creator's intent is a tough one. As far as I am aware, it is the reason we exclude all deleted scenes without exception? However, we can listen to commentaries, and hear that the director and writer really hate that the scene isn't in, they only cut it for time reasons, and as far as they are aware it did happen in the continuity of the episode (Day 5 premiere, scene of Chloe in the cab). But we still can't make an exception and include it as canon - because at the end of th day, the whole creative team decided it shouldn't make the episode. So even if the writers intended Sam as an undercover name, at the end of the day, the entire creative team deemed that not fit for inclusion in the episode. I don't think it's artificially constructing canon to ignore these omissions made by the showmakers.

I agree it's entirely possible that Sam could be shown as an undercover name in the script, but I don't think it's very likely. I think it's also possible that other scripts could cast doubt on other names, but until we see them we're not gonna make pre-emptive moves for other characters. What would happen if we got the script and there was no mention of a "Sam" at all? Would you still not want it moved because of the non-context of the name in the credits? Would we then have to hold off on the move until we had questioned whoever wrote the credits and found out their exact intent? You said that we shouldn't let the unlikeliness of getting a script put off our standards of verifiability, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Scripts should be a bonus source of extra information, not a necessity to work out the intent already-given information.

Also, I'm not saying that Sam must be the character's real name by default - I'm just saying we have no reason to suspect it's not.--Acer4666 09:27, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

In short, to answer your question: What would happen if we got the script and there was no mention of a "Sam" at all? Would you still not want it moved because of the non-context of the name in the credits? Would we then have to hold off on the move until we had questioned whoever wrote the credits and found out their exact intent? I would actually say "yes". My stance is that it would then be an unresolved issue, only solvable if we somehow did get to ask the guy who wrote the credits... which is admittedly impossible. I'm fine with it being unresolved.

But you don't have an entirely indefensible case yourself and I won't stand in your way by contesting it any longer, or, in the future if it comes up again with someone else. The only thing I ask is that you poke Proudhug with an email or something, and give him a bit of time to reply, since he knew about this before either of us :) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:38, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll not do the move before proudhug has a chance to reply to it - thanks for being reasonable, as we have reached a bit of an impasse so if anyone else has opinions I'm open to hearing other points of view. --Acer4666 13:12, August 23, 2011 (UTC)