FANDOM

9,116 Pages

CTUfeatured
This is the talk page for a featured article that has previously been voted for by the Wiki 24 community. We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Wiki 24 community's work. Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved even further, we invite you to contribute.

Silent clock and "death" Edit

It happens not infrequently that users come along and unilaterally state that silent clocks mean "death". This is patently false, as only 4 of 8 can be construed to be directly connected to a major character's death (as of the date of this posting). I'm getting rather tired of this nonsense. Does anyone agree with me that this may be treated in the future as disruptive/bad faith editing, warranting a warning? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This belief has been one of my biggest pet peeves since long before Wiki 24 even existed. However, I don't see how we can legitimately justify assuming bad faith from these edits. For some reason, it's still a huge honest misconception among the casual fanbase. --Proudhug 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Day 2-George Mason Departure Clock? Edit

I was watching the Season 2 DVD, and the silent clock following Mason's departure is notably absent. I thought I had missed it, so I went back and watched it again. There is beeping immediately following the scene between Mason and Tony. In addition, the clock's time is 9:36, not 9:35. This leads me to believe that the clock was omitted from the DVD for whatever reason. I think this would be considered notable. Anyone else with the DVD who can confirm this? Dylnuge 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, this is absolutely hilarious! I was confused about what on Earth you were talking about, but then I figured it out. How extraordinarily bizarre that exactly twelve hours before George walks out with a silent clock, he and Tony had another scene at CTU where he walks out of the building at a commercial break! Yes, Tony and George's argument before George heads to "Bakersfield" immediately preceeds the 9:36:23AM commercial break. Twelve hours later, almost to the second, George would promote Tony in the exact same location and walk out of CTU forever at 9:35:58PM. I wonder if anyone has caught this before. Thanks, Dylnuge, for inadvertently catching this fascinating bit of trivia. Perhaps we should add a "Did you know?" section to the main page under the FA, like Memory Alpha, to point out interesting facts like this. Thoughts, everyone? --Proudhug 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, Proudhug, that is funny! I think we should definitely put it somewhere. OneWeirdDude 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I'd totally forgotten about this anomaly! Any ideas where we could put it? Perhaps in the BG info sections of those two episodes? I think the main page is way too cluttered right now for a Did You Know section anymore. --Proudhug 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo? Edit

Does the photo fit the article? I know that you can't actually hear anything in a photo no matter what, but the photo is not of a silent clock (As far as I know, there has never been a silent clock at 1:00). Should this be changed? I know it is kind of nitpicky, which is why I want to know others opinions. Dylnuge 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Welp, you have a point. Feel free to get a screen grab of which ever episode ended as such... --Deege515 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the photo should be reinstated, merely for the points listed above and for the fact that I don't like it when articles don't have a picture on the right at the top :) --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But the points prior to your post Simon were for the photo to be taken down (or at least changed). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 22:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha oops, I'm looking a bit slack at the moment aren't I? It must be the sleep lost after staying up so late for Redemption last night. So can a case be made for uploading a picture from a real silent clock? --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course! I couldn't find a pre-existing one in the uncategorized files list, so feel free to grab one and put it up there. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

End of Day 6 Edit

This article's particulars about the silent clock at the end of Day 6 seem presumptuous to me since Day 7 hasn't aired yet. Who says that this event is "Jack's silent clock"? He was on screen right beforehand, but as far as we know it could be "Audrey's silent clock." Perhaps she died while Jack was on the balcony. Granted, I don't think that this is likely. To me, the most reasonable explanation is that the silent clock is related to suicidal thoughts Jack is having at the time (hinted at by the rare first-person camera angle that looks at the horizon, then lingers on the rocks below before cutting to a third-person shot of Jack's face staring at the horizon again). To me, the clock says that Jack doesn't know if he can go on with a career that alienates everyone for whom he has feelings. I'm not saying that I'm right, just that there are several interpretations. I think that for objectivity's sake, judgement should be held until Day 7. --07:27, 9 July 2007 71.199.123.221

I'll have to agree with you using the same reasoning concerning the Day 5 silent clock. People say it was "Edgar's" clock simply because he's a main character that died. Who says that it can't be the 30+ other CTU agents that died in the nerve gas attack, or Chloe's, who fell into a depression because of her friend's death? Same with the first silent clock: maybe Jack needed the moment of silence after discovering Teri's dead body; so it would therefore be Jack's silent clock at the end? So yeah, much agreed. A character's "possession" of a silent clock is up to much interpretation and shouldn't be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. --Deege515 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all references to people "owning" a silent clock need to be removed. --Proudhug 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

End of Day 2 Edit

It's been awhile since I've seen the finale of Day 2, but as I recall, there was a silent clock at the end of the episode. Right? According to the first line in the article, a silent clock is a rare event on 24 that features a clock with no 'beeping' before a commercial break or before the end credits of an episode. I know we can hear Palmer gasping for breath, but the clock itself does not beep. If we're not counting that one, then we shouldn't count Chappelle's either. There's a distinct train whistle in during the clock. So what's it going to be? Why was Palmer's removed? -Kapoli 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it was changed, as the anonymous user who changed it never gave a reason. I've changed it back. It's true a "silent clock" is not always a silent clock, but that's still the term fans use for it. --Proudhug 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one that changed it(Sorry I wasn't logged in at the time). I say that the end of Season 2 is different for two main reasons. 1)The silent clocks for Teri, George, Ryan, and Edgar all have a sense of finality to them. They all indicate that a beloved character is gone and won't be coming back. With Palmer at the end of Season 2, this is clearly not the case. Here, the writers are baiting us with a cliffhanger, as if they're saying, "Is Palmer really dead? Do we know? Tune in for Season 3 to find out!" 2)Yes, the "true" silent clocks have some faint background noise, but it's just that-background noise. With Palmer, what you have is most certainly not background noise, but rather foreground noise. In fact, you could have just had it be the standard clock pounding they always use(although, personally, having Palmer's breathing makes it more chilling.  ;-) ) So while it clearly isn't a standard clock, it clearly isn't a silent clock either. It really stands on its own. Hypnometal 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it stands on its own and isn't "standard" isn't the issue. Check out the first line of the article:
A silent clock is a rare event on 24 that features a clock with no 'beeping' before a commercial break or before the end credits of an episode. It is used to acknowledge the death or serious injury of a significant character.
There's no arguing that the incident doesn't fall into that definition. There's no beeping, therefore it's a "silent clock". There's something unique about almost every one of the silent clocks, so your argument about standing on its own could apply to nearly all of them. And also, the "fake-out" argument could apply to Mason as well, since we didn't know if he was really dead or not. --Proudhug 13:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There's still something very distinctly different about this one, though. While it's true that all of these don't use the standard "beeping" of all the other clocks, all of the other ones feature no foreground noise. This is the only one that features any sound in the foreground. Secondly, the fakeout argument wouldn't apply to Mason, since it was very clear he was going to die-he had been dying for the past 10 hours. Sure, we didn't know he was going to sneak onto the plane and fly it into the desert instead of Jack, but we knew that when he was leaving CTU, he was doing it for the last time. Palmer's assassination attempt, on the other hand, came completely out of left field-you had no idea that Palmer individually was in any danger until Mandy showed up.
If we're going to include anything that fits the definition, then I suggest what is needed is a new definition, because while this incident is not a "standard" clock, it certainly doesn't fit in with the other incidents either. It truly is one of a kind in the 24 canon and should be seperated out as such. Hypnometal 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
We knew that Mason wasn't returning to CTU? I didn't "know" this. I "knew" that he was dead and we'd never see him again. I was faked out when he later reappeared. With Palmer I was pretty sure he'd be back, but not positive.
None of the silent clocks have to "fit in" with the others. Regardless of your points, the fact remains that there was no beeping, therefore it's considered a "silent clock." Since all of the silent clocks are very different, the argument for one-of-a-kind-ness could be applied to any of them, simply by stating the differences.
Mason's silent clock is the only one that doesn't immediately follow the collapse of a person to the ground. It's also the only one that doesn't occur at the end of an episode. Does that disqualify it from being a silent clock? Of course not. Chappelle's silent clock is the only one that features noise in the background, therefore it stands out from all of the other ones. Does this disqualify it from being a silent clock? Of course not. Palmer's silent clock is the only one with noise in the foreground. Does this disqualify it from being a silent clock? Of course not.
How can you argue that we need a new definition? Even out of the context of 24, the term "silent clock" clearly means "a clock that doesn't make noise," a definition which all of these incidents fit under, no matter the circumstances or what other noises are heard. --Proudhug 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this analogy will make it clearer for you. Palmer's breathing clock is like being in the trauma ward of the ER, the other four are like attending a funeral. The other events were designed to give a feeling of finality. Palmer's clock was designed to create a cliffhanger. In all honesty, with the exception of the fact that Palmer's clock didn't beep, that event actually has more in common with the standard clocks than any of the silent ones. That's why you can't group Palmer's clock in with the others, even if they do share some common elements. Hypnometal 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if I agreed with what you're saying, it wouldn't change anything. I don't know how else to more simply break it down for you. Did the clock beep? No. Therefore it was silent. A silent clock makes no noise. This clock made no noise, so it's a silent clock. Nothing else is needed to qualify! --Proudhug 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to break it down more simply for you either. The silent clock means the character is dead and gone. Palmer stuck around for two more seasons. The other incidents were meant to create a mournful atmosphere-the end of Season 2 was not.
I guess what it comes down to is the fact that we fundamentally disagree. In your mind, any clock that doesn't have the standard beep is a silent clock, and that's it. To me, it's more than that. So, when I compare Palmer collapsing to the ground, gasping for breath as the clock ticks to 8AM, and then he comes back at the beginning of Season 3, fully recovered, my mind automatically says "One of these things is not like the others..." and I don't group it with the others. And to be quite honest, I don't think the fans do either. Hypnometal 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The definition of a silent clock is a clock that does not make noise. Palmer is the only one to receive the silent clock and not die has absolutly nothing to do with the definition.--CWY2190 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnometal, just because your personal definition contradicts the one in the english dictionary, doesn't qualify the page to be changed. "Silent clock" does not mean a character is dead and gone; "Silent clock" means a clock is silent! These are two very simple words in the english language. Ask any kid on a schoolyard what a silent clock is and I doubt they'll mention anything about death.

The creators of 24 have never come out and said what the rules for a silent clock are, nor when they will or won't use one. If they wanted to, they could use a silent clock for anything, in any way they want, under any circumstances, even if it doesn't involve a character death. This does not mean the clock is not silent. The next episode of 24 could end with Behrooz delivering a tearful valedictorian speech at his college graduation. He could continue talking as the final clock counts off the last few seconds of the episode. The clock is silent and we hear foreground noise (Behrooz's voice). This would still qualify as a silent clock, despite the use of foreground noise, and no character death.

You claim you think "the fans" agree with you, but I'm sure you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees with the facts here. I personally feel that George Mason's clock is by far the most non-fitting, unconventional use of a silent clock yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here. --Proudhug 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change it just to fit my personal definition. I simply figured that it would be best to edit the article so that the events listed as silent clocks are the undisputed ones. Clearly, the event at the end of day 2 is in dispute, so it's better to leave it out for the time being, no? That's also why I edited the other section to reflect the fact that an unresolved dispute exists. Hypnometal 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, though, you're the only one's who's disputing it. So far on this talk page, it's been 3-1 against you, so I wouldn't really consider the issue much of an "unresolved dispute." If it surfaces that there are lots of fans who agree with you, then a note can be added to the page, mentioning that, but as it stands, it seems most people agree with the way it is now, so it makes no sense to remove the information. --Proudhug 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise reached? Edit

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 Edit

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)
I can understand not giving Paul a silent clock because he was a minor character. But in my mind, what would have justified it wasn't so much the fact that Paul died, but the fact that Jack had to barge in, tell the doctor to let Paul die to save Lee, then he has to deal with the anguish of being responsible for Paul's death, angering Audrey, and killing any relationship that he would have had with her. Is that enough to justify a silent clock? Maybe, maybe not, but it's my two cents.  :-) Hypnometal 08:47, 30 December 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)

Really? Wikia an encyclopedia? Not even! Wikia is a wiki for fan pages, or whatever else out there. If any of you want to seriously go with encyclopedic information, then every page in 24 needs a complete and total rewrite. For example, trivia pages do NOT belong in encyclopedic articles, ever. Encyclopedias are not trivia books. That's just one exmaple, so let's just get past the imaginary encyclopedic entry stuff and get to what this wiki is really about. This article is about the silent clock. Anything related to the silent clock is relevant. In fact, I believe we should not only keep the discussion on Tony, but also state another fact. That is that Katz is lying. Palmer's hand silent clock is the first proof of this. They were absolutely certain that Palmer would be returning, but they still gave him a clock. The other proof is Renee's buried alive clock. They absolutely were certain that Renee was not dead, yet she got a silent clock. Katz, deliberately lied. This needs addressing. Any real trustworthy article provides all fact, to include dissenting facts as well. Magnoliasouth 13:53, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to comments that are actually attributed to Howard Gordon (that the reason they gave Tony a ticking clock was because they were leaving his death ambiguous). You seem to have interpreted that as "every time we have an ambiguous death we have a ticking clock", which is a false piece of logic (A implies B does not mean B implies A). So he's not lying, so it doesn't need addressing.
As for whether this is an encyclopedia or not, well that is your personal opinion, but we deliberately avoid the term "trivia" in articles, we instead use "Background information and notes". Whether or not this is "Trivia" is a subjective opinion, so you can't definitively say that renders the site useless as an encyclopedia.--Acer4666 15:21, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Acer. Magnoliasouth, I'm uncertain what you're talking about: we don't have trivia sections, those sections you refer to are the OOU content areas. And yes, this project isstructured like an encyclopedia... an in-universe encyclopedia for much of the content. That's the difference. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:10, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Small mistake Edit

The article says that Palmer would return for 2 more years; however that is in no way correct. At the time the article was written it was probably 2 days; now it's 3 days. There are many theories on how many years that is; we all agree that there is more than 2 years in that case. Since no timeline has been proven true; how should we correct this? Options could be...

  • Removing the mention; only saying that David would return
  • Saying he would return for 3 more days (which imo could lead to misunderstanding since he was only featured a few minutes in S5)
  • Converting everything in years (3 between S2 and S3, 18 months between each of S3-S4 and S4-S5 = 6 years) --Tonio 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your right. It needs updating. I will probably unprotect the article after tonights episodes incase something freaky happens. ---CWY2190talkcontribs 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed a bit the first paragraph since it wasn't edited well. I changed the two years for "a few more years" until we chose something here --Tonio 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the changes, I think you could lock this again.

SIlent Clock Edit

$ Insert formula here $

Is my mind playing tricks on me, or wasn't there a silent clock after Air Force One was shot Down in season 4?

There were no silent clocks at all in Season 4. --MistahWhippy 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question? Edit

Hey, I was just browsing the wiki, and I could have sworn there was a silent clock when Jack shot Curtis Manning, I was going to check it myself, but my friend has our dvds.

Hey, I Don't think so - check out the episode guide here. You'll see that after Jack shoots Curtis, there isn't a clock for a while, until after the bomb goes off. And I think the final clock beeps after the bomb goes off--Acer4666 20:38, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if examples from 24:Legacy would go here?... Edit

but as may have been noted elsewhere there is one when Rebecca Ingram dies (last episode). Eschiss1 (talk) 03:57, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Only the appearance changes. OneWeirdDude (talk) 04:11, April 18, 2017 (UTC)