Talk:Curtis Manning (24)/Archive 1

Archive 1

It's official

The official 24 Web site confirms it: Curtis is indeed dead.Mdbowers 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumed Dead

Why can't his status just be placed at presumed dead or unknown, like Behrooz?

Because Curtis's status will be confirmed in a week. ::mikmt 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead

He got shot in the neck and wasn't moving. He's deader than Sadaam.Chris100185 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: Immediately after the show on fox news at ten, during interviews with one of 24's writers, they say that Curtis is in fact dead. (sorry for the run on sentence) Thats pretty much straight from the horses mouth.

Probably Almost Definately Dead

It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to add this to the storyline, unless to show that Jack is losing it. Plus he is listed as a guest star this season, despite being in every episode so-far. Unfortunately dead.

Chief of Staff?

Unless I missed any note or mention of that in the show, I'd motion for Curtis ever holding this position to "Crystal Ball" worthy. --Deege515, 12 July 2006

Curtis was never a Chief Of Staff to begin with. You're confusing him with Wayne Palmer.

Chief of Staff is also the Number Two position in the CTU hierarchy, held previously by Nina Myers and Michelle Dessler. According to the facts listed on his template, he played the role of "Chief of Staff, CTU LA." But such a fact was never mentioned on the show about this concerning Curtis, especially since he's clearly the Field Ops Director, and has never really engaged in any data or information gathering within the show. Please don't accuse me of confusing two roles on the show because they're both black or something. --Deege515, 31 July 2006

Then who was the Chief Of Staff in CTU during season 5? Neeknitsuj 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding him as chief of staff for CTU. Neeknitsuj 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph

The last graph is in sore need of some citations, and is clearly not NPOV. I don't really agree with the accessment of Curtis, but if the person can find support, it can stay, otherwise, I'm going to remove the graph. WhoIsWillo 14:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Survive shot to the neck?

yes I agree, it was never mentioned if he actually did die in eps 4 or not. He might have a slim chance. There are cases where people have survived injuries to the neck but then again he apparently isn't listed as part of the season 6 cast. So it seems his uncontrollable need for retaliation will be his reason for dying for nothing; the same thing happen to Tony. That's a Canadian actor down but the foreign great American hero will be there until the end.

really dead

if he is dead is anybody gonna change his status to deceased —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neeknitsuj (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Serious Spoilers

Although I appreciate that Wikipedia should exist as a definitive guide and be as up-to-date as possible, I think it is very premature to mention the death of Curtis on his page. This is due to the fact that the episode has not yet officially been transmitted and, although slim, there may be chance that he is actually still alive.

Deletion of season 6 section unacceptable

The episode has premiered, and hence any argument is moot. Once the show has aired, the plot information is considered in the public domain (although the actual episode itself is still copyrighted, thats not what we are talking about).

Under the wikipedia manual of style, I would like to point out that deleting spoilers from season 6 on the ground that they are spoilers is an unacceptable alternative under the spoiler warning page. The information is verifible, and while the section could very much use a cleanup, it is not to be deleted just because it hasn't been aired. IUJHJSDHE 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The above poster forgets that wikipedia deletes content that violates a copyright. Since this information came from viewing the pirated episodes, obviously the poster violated copyright when posting. Therefore the "spoiler warning" is not sufficient.

The copyright of the episodes is irrelivent, the episodes aren't being hosted, only plot details. Plot details are either copyrighted or they're not. If they are, wikipedia has a LOT of content to delete. If they're not, the information should stay. IUJHJSDHE 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unsigned comment above. By insisting on the inclusion of plot spoilers obtained from pirated un-released material, you are BEGGING the makers of 24 to sue Wikipedia, and let me tell you this... they will win. I URGE you to voluntarily remove this material until after the first airing of the episode, whatever country tr timezone that may be in. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

{{[[Template:Copyviocore |Copyviocore ]]}}

I'm afraid I don't see where this sort of thing is specified as copyvio, could you perhaps point out something relivent to leaked plot details? What I don't see is how leaked plot details is any more or less copyright infringment then aired plot details. Just because it's aired doesn't mean the copyright vanish's. IUJHJSDHE 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I have been involved in the Internet longer than Al Gore. It seems to me that by continuing to host information that WP knows to be stolen, when it can be corrected/removed, WP becomes party to that theft. It removes whatever possible defense WP might have had for simeply not noticing the infringing material.

Tell ya what, how about I drop an email to the producers of 24 telling them about this page and see how long it takes their lawyers to produce a Cease & Desist, hmmm? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A note to user BillWsmithJr: I dont believe there are grounds for a lawsuit, being that the episode is not on the page, only plot information. I could be wrong, but i'm pretty certain that, pardon the expression, you are "talking out of your ass"

Well the wikipedia admins don't seem too worried about it since they've protected the article in it's current, and in my opinion, most accurate state. Anyway, this will all be over in a couple days. IUJHJSDHE 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you not read the protection box? It says that protection doesn't mean endorsement, all they are doing is stopping an edit war.NightLord 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Season six information REALLY should be removed, there is a precedent of a company suing a site for posting leaked information (Adobe sued MacNN for posting leaked information on an unreleased product) It is possible that fox could do the same to wikipedia.NightLord 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No it's not an "endorsement", but presumibly if the information is infact illegal and cause for legal action against wikipedia, I would think they would protect the version without that information. As for Adobe V MacNN, after A LOT of searching I simply can't find ANYTHING about what happened with the case. MacNN still exists with no blow that I can tell. I have a feeling the suit didn't leed anywhere but please feel completely free to search for yourself.

I see no way any suit against wikipedia could have any sucess, first Amendment and all. 220.239.88.91 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1st, the First Amendment only says the Gov't cannot abridge the people's right to free speech. However, it says NOTHING about civil and criminal action in specific cases, such as slander and libel. By your argument, libel should be protected but it is not. IP law is in a similar position and the contents of an episode that has not aired is covered under IP law.

Oh, and after Adobe filed their lawsuit, MacNN removed the offending material from their website as mentioned in this story. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that leaked plot details could have come from an actor, or staff member on the show and is not necessarily from the leaked internet version?

Then it would be a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even if it's not a copyvio, it's clearly a violation of that policy to post information that can only be verified by breaking copyright. ~~ N (t/c) 06:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks but plot details are NOT copyrighted information. Anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed. If this page contained, say, the *script*, there would be grounds for a suit. As it is, it only contained summarized details. Perfectly fine. It's no more copyrighted than a sports recap in the newspaper. It doesn't matter if the information was learned "illegally" or whatever, it's *not* copyrighted.

So that leaves trade secrets, but you're only vulnerable if you agreed not to release that information. Everyone else is in the free and clear. I seriously doubt the person who updated this page works for the crew of 24 or any associated business. But even if they were, *Wikipedia* itself would be in the clear because only that person would be liable legally.

In the Adobe case, MacNN posted portions of the leaked material itself so it was a copyright violation. Secondly, Adobe suspected MacNN was the actual leaker so that opened up trade secrets. Thirdly, Adobe went after the person least able to defend themselves legally (and not larger companies with resources) so that says a lot about their faith in their suit. And finally, Adobe dropped the case after the person with no legal resources predictably caved so no actual precedent was made.

Please learn a little before pontificating to people who know more than you.

In any case, posting plot details BEFORE the show has aired is pretty fracking lame. That's why it shouldn't have been included, not malarky about plot details being copyrighted. Aexia 07:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Curtis is really dead

Chloe confirms it in ep 5 of day 6

Regardless, the page should remain as it is until the episode has actually aired. -Janipewter 10:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

His Death

You know, it's one thing to prematurely report on the status of Curtis' life without 100% certainty as to whether or not he's dead. However, it is an entirely different thing to do so without a single bit of regard for the English language. Someone, please. For the love of God. Fix that section so it reads like someone wrote it in the proper language. Thanks. President David Palmer 11:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The episodes in question got leaked last week along with a 12 minute preview of episode 5 in which Chloe CONFIRMS that Curtis was killed in the shooting.75.84.239.105 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally, any edits made using info garnered from episodes downloaded illegally is a copyright violation. (For the record, Chloe confirmed that Ahmed Amar died en route to a hospital, not Curtis.) --Kevin Walter 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

that was nadia, not chloe that reported ahmed amar's death

For the record, It's episode 5 that confirms it, not that you need it, He was shot in the neck and not moving. It's like needing confirmation in the next episode that Nina was dead. It was so obvious.

If Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, then why is there an article on Darren McCarthy, a character who isn't introduced until the unaired episode five? Double standards, anyone? 81.86.46.234 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not double standards. According to David Hunt's entry, this webpage: http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-24seasonsixpremiere,0,7076978.story?coll=zap-tv-headlines has confirmed his involvement. Faijer 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, where on that zap2it article does it say ANY of the stuff in McCarthy's Wikipedia article? All it says is that David Hunt will appear in the show. The Wiki article goes into a little detail about how McCarthy is linked to Fayed's plot -- things that aren't revealled until the unaired episode. I stand by my previous comment about double standards.81.86.46.234 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Preceeding Director Of Field Operations

When was Tony Almeida director of field operations, cause I don't think he was the one who preceeded Curtis. It was either Jack Bauer or Ronnie Lobell. Can someone clarify this. Neeknitsuj 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure about Tony ever being Director of Field Ops,but what i do know is that after Ronnie Lobell was killed in Day 4 Erin Driscoll appointed Jack as temporary Director of Field Ops then later in the day Curtis is Promoted. Silver Snake13 15:55, 16 January 2007 (GMT)

Curtis is undeniably dead.

I think most people realize that. However, we still should wait until his death is confirmed when Episode 5 airs before updating his page. ::mikmt 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets look at the facts. 1) The man was shot in the throat approximately 1-2 inches diagonal towards the left below his throat. (2 inches to the left of his sternum) Chances are he did not survive it. 2) Ahmed was confirmed killed en route to the hospital. 3) Curtis was never confirmed killed. However, lets also look at this 1) Even if he is confirmed killed in episode 5, it has not aired yet 2) As stated above, The Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. The usage of episodes obtained by illegal means is a violation of copyright as it is. On that note, I am protecting the page until next when we find out (Without the usage of illegal means or speculation) whether or not he is dead. Evilgohan2 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Curtis is dead, let's just wait

To end all this unneccesary confusion, in one of the articles in TV guide for this week they confirm that, before the end of the fourth hour, Jack is forced to kill a main character in a shoot-out, and as no main characters had been killed before hand, by Jack or anyone for that matter, I think it's safe to assume that this person was Curtis. So I think that should end all the questions around Curtis maybe dying then and there. The only thing I hate about this was that the guide came out a week early and spoiled the "surpise" ending. But if there's a threat of copyright infringement, I'd say just back off until the next episode, or any information that may show up prior that confirms that Curtis is dead, that way we can all relax. Although taking away editing overall may seem extreme, I agree that, until official confirmation this is the right thing to do.

Runner233 05:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Curtis is dead you guys

This is just like the time Tony died and everyone was like "WELL MAYBE HE'S NOT REALLY DEAD." Why would Jack be so upset if he only wounded Curtis?--DethFromAbove 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed Dead

The official fox website has the red "DECEASED" stamp on Curtis' profile. Consider it an official proof that he's dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flautist (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Extra Confirmed

The DVD from which the leaked episodes where leaked from comes out today. It contains the first 12 minutes of episode 5. In it Chloe confirms TWICE that Curtis is dead. I think we can unlock his page and get rid of the unknown crap.

I agree, am requesting unprotection. Trebor 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think that it would be best to wait until the episode airs. However, the fact that his status changed on the official 24 site makes this a moot point. ::mikmt 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the combination of the official 24 site and the fact the DVD comes out today means that there's no need to keep it semi'd - it's fairly clear. Trebor 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's it

The official premier of the episode puts this to rest, Curtis is definitely, undeniably dead. Now we can all finally move past this. Runner233 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fatal vs dead

I do see that someone added an extra bit saying that Curtis dies and it got rv'd as "fatal implies he dies." I don't think that's true. Being wounded fatally simply means that the injuries will lead to death. Mason had a fatal dose of radiation, but that didn't mean he was dead from the moment it happened. Bitnine 15:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it because it sounded a bit odd, but I've no problem with a better-phrased version. Would something simple like "Jack shoots Curtis in the neck, killing him" be alright? Trebor 17:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. Yeah, the deleted wording did sound a little awkward; using kill or even a phrase like "who dies shortly thereafter" should be fine. It's just that as written now, it could well be that Curtis is lying on a hospital bed, which isn't the case. Bitnine 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I've changed it and (I think) it's unambiguous now. Trebor 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He is dead

He is dead so he is a past tense. He wil never feature as an active character again so he is a was not an is.--Lucy-marie 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictional universes are always in the present tense, because Wikipedia is an out of universe source. — Deckiller 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. please see other dead 24 characters for how is and was are used they all appear to be was not is.--Lucy-marie 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And I refer you to the guidelines for Wikipedia as a whole: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and WP:TENSE. The others are wrong, as well. — Deckiller

I have read it they go on about books when referting to is and was.--Lucy-marie 13:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

From check your fiction: "The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects". 24 is a fiction subject. — Deckiller 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware 24 is fiction but also check out characters such as Teri Bauer and Alexis Drazen they use the phrase was compared to Kim Bauer and Aaron Pierce that use the is.--Lucy-marie 14:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; those articles are also at fault, and need to be changed so that they are present tense. — Deckiller 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be said to be a fault if the generality of articles are written in one way which is opposed to a standard way.--Lucy-marie 14:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Most fictional articles on Wikipedia comply to those guidelines, just not 24. 24 needs to comply to the standard. — Deckiller 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I See where your coming from but i seams a lot of effort for just one word.--Lucy-marie 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The 24 universe doesn't take place in the real world, so it doesn't make sense to put someone in the past tense. The other pages need to be changed. It's not a lot of effort, and it prevents spoilers being in the first few words. Trebor 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That is why we have spoiler warnings.--Lucy-marie 14:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the other points stand. — Deckiller 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not much point in a spoiler warning if you can't read any of the article without finding out key details; your eyes go immediately to the first sentence. It's immaterial anyway, standard convention is that they are always present. Trebor 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead but im pretty sure there will be some reversion by users unaware fo this discussion.--Lucy-marie 14:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Day 6 For Curtis, Using Quotes

I dislike the way it says Curtis "can't let this animal live" and other quotes. I think it should be changed. Neeknitsuj 08:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)