Talk:Audrey Raines

I deleted all the speculation about the events at the end of the Monday 21st episodes

because we don't know a thing about what's going on. Information like this should be left out of the character bio pages until more is known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viper h (talk • contribs) 08:57, March 23, 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you about the second sentence ("It has not been said..."), the impliction, at least is not speculative; it was stated directly at the end of last Monday's episode. I have restored the first sentence of the deleted paragraph. — EagleOne\^Talk 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack has given her both sides of the doubt. Jack was burned by the whole Hina Myers affair, but not blinded by other appearances of treason, only to have ended up as poeple who acted for noble reasons, but for the wrong person (Spenser Wolff). Jack probably never believed Audrey was a traitor, but his past told him to take precautions, and his heart told him Audrey was innocent.

Erm...

Probalbly not worth stating, but I'm new here so I dont know any better - I fixed a little typo... yea...

In her page, Audrey should be looked at everything from her perspective.

She was married, wanted a divorce, got involved with Jack, and her ex wanted reconscile. Her father was the Sectretary of Defense, and she was kidnapped with him. Jack freed them both.

See, Audrey has seen Jack in all lights. Jack was a very effective counter-terrorism agent who did what it took to secure mission objectives. He was her hero when he rescued her and her father in Day 4. Jack is also a cold-blooded son of a bitch who sacrificed her husband so a Chinese national with information about the terror plot could live. After his "death" she felt geniune grief, and when she found out it was faked, she had to figure out her emotions again. What she knows is Jack paid, and paid heavily for his actions to save innocent lives. After China captured him, she may realize even more what Jack's heroism has cost him.

Misleading? Needs a source

Victim of a kidnapping by Cheng Zhi prior to the events of Day 6, Audrey is set to return on the April 9th episode of the show, on FOX (10pm - 11pm).

What is the source on this? The way this sentence is written, it sounds as if Audrey has been captured by the Chinese, too? There has been no evidence of this. Is this just a case of poor syntax? RPM 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Raines is dead because it was stated in episode #6.14 Day 6: 7:00PM - 8:00PM. She was in an accident and was killed.

• No: Jack was told that Raines is dead, and the "official government story" was that she died in an automobile accident (stated by Graem's widow, confirmed by Chloe at CTU). In the episode stated above, Jack concluded that she did not die as a result of an automobile accident, but if she died at all, she was murdered. On the other hand, multiple sources have indicated that Kim Raver will be returning to 24 on/by Episode 19 (if I had a link to the TV Guide page that first mentioned it, I'd update the article myself); so the best that should be mentioned about it is that Audrey Raines was reported (or presumed) to be dead. 147.70.242.40 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Source

I doubt its reliability! Is it used elsewhere. And besides it is just speculation, not official. Please post otherwise. Superbowlbound 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BuddyTV is a reliable source. This is not speculation at all - scripts were leaked, and the people working for BuddyTV (a website that specializes in spoilers for many programs) know about what happens later on in the series. The burden is on you to demonstrate that BuddyTV is unreliable if you don't agree. --DLand^TALK 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense just to wait for the actual episode to air. You source may be reliable, but will it really hurt anyone just to stay on the safe side and wait to confirm it? Yaksar 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I had just posted almost the same thing. I used the Halo 3 page as an example. The only reliable sources are ones run by bungie and microsoft. It will look pretty bad if we are wrong, and look bad if we are right but using random sources. Superbowlbound 03:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to delete the pre-release spoilers for now. Yaksar 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe the website. I just don't think we should post it. It seems it will be right so far too. Superbowlbound 13:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:Yaksar and User:Superbowlbound: Your rationale for deleting the pre-release spoiler paragraph violates Wikipedia policy, namely that which is located at WP:SPOIL under the list of UNACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES to using spoiler warnings:

"Deleting relevant, neutral and attributable information about a narrative work from Wikipedia "because it's a spoiler" instead of properly applying spoiler templates."

I'm going to give either one of you a short window to respond before I change anything, but you should really understand policy before making imperial decisions about the content of an article.--DLand^TALK 07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make that readable? I really didn't understand. Superbowlbound 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. According to Wikipedia policy (here), it is unacceptable to delete information that is "relevant, neutral, and attributable" just because it is a spoiler. The paragraph in question fulfills all three of these criteria, so it should not be deleted, according to Wikipedia policy. --DLand^TALK 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your silence as affirmation. --DLand^TALK 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it you don't live in America? You posted at 1:50 in the morning. That is why I didn't respond. But by saying what you said, I think I'll make my own website with fake spoilers.Superbowlbound 12:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the very same site two weeks ago, before the revelation that Audrey died in a car crash. Considering that the first part of the spoiler was true, the very least that could be done is have a small note at the bottom of the page saying that a website has released possible spoilers on Audrey's possibly true fate, and provide the link (either on this talk page, or on the article page). Either way, we'll find out in a few weeks who was right and who was wrong. --Dante 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the "leaked scripts" were early in the process of production as it is quite common that details often get changed to reflect continuity (such as a "successor" to a scene that was deleted in a previous episode at last minute) or availability of the actor(s) involved (Kim Raver's availability was a question mark once The Nine became a regularly scheduled series... and was put in hiatus a few weeks later. There have been similar scheduling and cast changes in the last several weeks, including the addition of a character that was not originally in the season outline... and the availability of the actor to play him in a four-episode arc). So confirmation would still be needed to take this out of the "speculation" category. 147.70.242.40 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While that may be true, as long as it is attributed to a source, there is no reason not to mention it. --DLand^TALK 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia policy/guidelines - there has been a battle over this for quite some time now), perhaps, if the same source makes it very clear that it was a preliminary (not necessarily a shooting) script and that fact is indicated in the Wikipedia article as well. What happens/happened after the release of the script would still fall in the "speculation" department without further documentation. And the last time I checked, fan blogs and fansites still are not considered "reliable sources" for much of the speculation that has been posted for "future" episodes. 147.70.242.40 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Her DNA was tested...it's Audrey. Besides, making speculation about a character has no place in an encyclopedia. I am going to change Presumed Deceased to Deceased. - BlackWidower 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Although there is no actual proof they tested the DNA, you can't speculate. Agree Superbowlbound 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but they did send the samples over to China, and the result must have been good enough for the U.S. Government, since they have declared her as officially "Deceased". Even if she is still alive (which I think she is) until further notice, IMO she's deceased. Mista Tee001 18:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No body...Superbowlbound 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually a body is shown in the file, that's the reason they had to send the DNA samples over to "confirm" it was Audrey. They also had several official documents of identity, one of which, seems to be her passport. Mista Tee001 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. There shouldn't be speculation. I was saying that taking picture of a dead body proves nothing. They don't have the body. She may still alive. But we shouldn't put that. Superbowlbound 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mista Tee001 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a spoiler (do not know if it is confirmed) that in episode 19 audrey is found by jack and is brain damaged. I do not know the details.

• "Beliefs" cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. There must be a link to a reliable source for it to be properly included... and most fan-based "spoiler sites" are actually speculation sites and not, by definition, reliable sources. "Speculation" - sourced or unsourced - is simply that, and the bar is higher here on Wikipedia than any fansite. Regardless, unsourced speculation, "belief," rumor, or "information" must be removed from the main article until or unless it can be properly documented as true and verifiable. B.Wind 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaked info

DLand, most have already agreed that the information you keep adding has no place in wikipedia. Please stop adding it. Yaksar 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

place of birth?

Could someone who was paying closer attention than I was to tonight's episode (4/30) confirm what I heard? I thought I heard Jack say that Audrey was born in Albany, NY. Maybe he meant raised there, but in any case the article says she was born in Rhode Island. Just wondering if that needs to be corrected. --Roehl Sybing 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Earlier this season, when Jack was first told Audrey died in China, he reviewed the report on her death. Although I don't have the video proof or a screen shot, I know that the report said her birthplace was Providence, Rhode Island. Of that, I am willing to stake my reputation. --Meadowbrook 04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• According to the 4/30 episode of 24, Raines was born in Albany, NY. However, it was previously established that she was born in Providence, RI. The producers may have made a mistake. I suggest the article mention that her file states Providence, RI... but Jack Bauer in this episode said Albany, NY.

Audrey's Mother

Looks like the writers slipped up. In Day 4, Heller makes references to his late wife, "Susan". Yet when Jack had Audrey in the basement of CTU in last night's episode (4/30/2007) he said her mother's name was Elise or Eloise or something like that. Does somebody have it DVR-ed so they can put Audrey's mother's correct name in? I've already deleted the episode off of my DVR. Zkissane 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct name (according to Season 6) is Alicia. Jack said that she died when Audrey was nine. It is possible that Susan was a second wife, or that she goes by her middle name 'Susan.'

Merging

Keep this article as it is. Audrey was a major character in Seasons 4 and 5, a driving plot for the second half of Seasons 6, and is expected to be in the upcoming 24 movie. This merging madness has run amok. --MiB-24 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Very important character; multiple seasons, Jack Bauer's love interest, major contributions to the plots of seasons 4 and 5. asyndeton 17:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Incredibly important character. She was the leading lady for Season's 4 and 5, Jack Bauer's longest lasting (and most potential to start back up) love intrest, and had an incredible amount of impact on the plot.--Phoenixfan 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

KEEP As above. Her actions, although important in their own right, also provide reasons why Jack takes the action he does.The Young Ones 08:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)