Talk:Phillip Bauer

Current Status

Look at the wikipedia edit history for James Heller. Around April 25, 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Heller&oldid=50074544) you'll see the same edit war between people who thought he was dead and dedicated followers of 24 who know that you are not dead until you are buried. Heller's death was even more convincing than Phillip Bauer's. A character had witnessed and confirmed Heller's death! It goes to show that with 24 you need to see a corpse or a funeral to be dead. Even with Audrey Raines, seeing a corpse was not good enough (as she turned out to be alive)! I say for argument sake we start an article titled "24 characters that Cheated Death" to show that this is a common occurence. The definition of cheating death would be an episode which would lead viewers to beleive that a character was dead, only for him/her to come back in a later episode. Watch all of the 24 episodes on DVD (not just reading wikipedia) and then you too will come to the conclustion that you aren't dead until buried.

Given that he was lying beside the rescue boat when Jack left him, it is completely impossible to confirm this character's death. Current status should be unknown, due to past characters that have been apparently dead, but then revived.

http://fox.com/24/episodes/5am.htm -- The OFFICIAL timeline does NOT list him as a casualty. I'm saying he's presumed deceased, and anyone who wants to argue needs to come up with proof like this...

I agree. He was not shown dead, and he was right near escape when Jack left him. It seems odd for 24 to leave a death open like that if he were 100% dead. Leave it Unknown(and add possibly or presumed dead next to it), but he is not 100% dead.

I agree. The submarine would also have arrived 2 minutes before the explosion, right when jack left. This would be a great segway into a plot/subplot for next season. 24 is famous for leaving deaths like this open only for characters to come back. His status should be Unknown or Presumed Dead. Characters coming back from death in 24 has happened so often it has become cliche. I'm glad new fans are watching 24, but watch the previous seasons to see numerous examples of this.

No one confirmed that he died. They said he did, but of course that was under the assumption that no one would survive the attack. They had no body and only believed he was dead and the circuit board destroyed due to the fact the oil rig blew up. The writers chose this "death" for a reason. They want people to wonder if he is really dead or not.

Do we need to see his corpse cooking? There wasn't a corpse with Anderson or Mason, either.

However, the Fox.com website, in their episode summaries, clearly explain these guys' deaths: there is no such explanation in that link up there (the closest they come is saying that Jack 'leaves' Philip to die about 5 min before the strike. There's too many unknown variables in play here, especially given Philip's elaborate escape plan. The website also verifies that he was only shot in the shoulder: the liklihood that it was a fatal or near-fatal wound is rather low (or at least debatable). 'Presume' the guy's death, but there's no verification to be found.

There's also the matter hat, after the missiles are actually fired, we are briefly shown Philip in the same spot, just seconds before the rig explodes. Really, he's done for.

Wow. You people are fucking stupid. They showed him right before the explosion, no chance he survived that shit. There's no need for his status to be Unknown.

Dude - check the james heller history. His car was seen exploding in the water and he lived. In "real life" james heller would have died. But 24 is not real life. james heller lived and we can't make the same assumption about phillip bauer.

Where is this explosion you speak of? Heller's car doesn't explode it just splashes into the water. Check the episode for yourself. Therefore there is no characters thus far that have survived a massive explosion. I changed the status to most likely deceased. Hopefully that'll be ok with people and 3 years later theres not going to be alot of people debating wether or not he's dead. I'd say if he doesn't return next season, more than likely he is dead. Budman08 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Most likely deceased is good, but really, I think he's just all deceased. Really, just after the planes fire their missiles, we see Philip briefly, in the same spot...then the rig is hit seconds later. Even for 24, this is more than definite

In season 3 people were very sure Saunders was dead so they put him as presumed dead. Someone Saunders was able to survive kosovo and everyone including Bauer was surprised. 69.138.209.159 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well for right now, lets just say he's dead.Green Kirby 17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Morris O'Brien tells Chloe when she asks about Philip, he tells her he is dead. Not only that, Philip wasn't able to release the rescue boat completely, so there was no chance that he could have gotten out. Never mind that the airstrike was confirmed to have killed everyone on that platform, there was no way that he could have survived that.Lan Di (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link

Hm. Should the infobox be linking to an error, as there apparently is no Phillip Bauer entry on 24wiki? Bitnine 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call - I made it a link to a search for his name - a good compromise I think, as the template being used forces a link to be there, and this should end up going directly to the article anyway, assuming one is made once he appears in the show. --Beard0 08:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sodium Pentathol

He injects Graem with an overdose of sodium pentathol, leading to cardiac arrest and his death.

-- I am unsure what Jack said, the drug did sound like this, I heard the Pentathol part but the first part did not sound like sodium. This particular drug is a barbiturate and would not cause neuropathic pain. Anyone with closed captions caught what the drug was actually used? I reckon it isn't a real drug, though I wish I had closed captions on...

--Jweinraub 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears to been Hyoscine-pentothal based on FOX's official episode guide. No wonder why I couldn't find it, it is a fictional drug! --Jweinraub 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

So what he is jacks father that alone does not warrant a separate page. he is only likely to feature sporadically if not dead and if he is dead he is not going to be mentioned again.--Lucy-marie 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that much onscreen time to warrant his own page but there sould be the possibility of revival if he makes enough appearances in the future. For the moment, merge. asyndeton 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. He's a major character. Not some random henchman.--Gonzalo84 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC) What reasoning has been used to come to this conclusion?--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. Same reasons as stated above. Rhino131 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Please note that this is not just a vote--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as stated above. -- MistahWhippy Please note that this is not just a vote--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment' this is not a vote and he was only around for one season not enough airtime to be notable enough.--Lucy-marie 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, he did have an impact on the events of Season 5, although he himself was not physically present. 24.24.90.148 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What impact? he had no impact at all , the impact you speak of is Original research. merge to cemmence.--Lucy-marie 09:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That is as blatant as OR gets. asyndeton 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Where I could be mistaken, didn't Gredenko blackmail Phillip with information regarding Phillip having an involvement in Palmer's assassination? Where it would certainly be speculative to attempt to determine how direct this involement was, it did seem to effect his connection with Gredenko. Again, I may be mistaken, and he may have only been attempting to cover up his connection with the suitcase nukes. 24.24.90.148 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I do apologize for the vagueness of my post on November 6. I was by no means trying to posit a fan theory of some sort that placed Phillip as the mastermind of the events of Day 5, all I was saying was that he did have some level of connection to Day 5. 24.24.90.148 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The above is fancruft and Original research.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

3:00 P.M.-4:00 P.M.

Jack rescues Marilyn, but is shocked to learn that she was covering for Phillip. Marilyn only wants to get her son back. Jack promises to do so when she helps lead him to Phillip. Phillip trades Josh for Jack, and he admits to Jack that Gredenko had been blackmailing him to expose his involvement in David Palmer’s assassination. Phillip only wanted to stop Gredenko, who gave the nukes to Fayed. Phillip is ready to kill Jack but disappears. He leaves a cell phone for Jack to dial a number. The person on the other end is former President Charles Logan, who says that he may be able to help Jack find Gredenko.

http://www.fox.com/24/character/

It is stated quite clearly on the 24 website that Phillip did in fact have some level of involvement in regards to Palmer's assassination. Again, how direct this involvement was is unclear given what is stated, and could likely be quite minimal, but regardless, it would seem imprudent to deny that he was in some way connected to Day 5. This may in fact be too minor to really add much to his significance to the plot, but it would seem to be relevant enough to be taken into account. 24.24.90.148 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

KeepHe is a major player in season 6 and is Jack's father. From brokering nukes to terrorists, to working with agents of the Chinese government to the confirmed connection to the assassination of David Palmer, there is no question that he is extremely important.Lan Di (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous two entries are fan cruft and I like therefor,,,,,, entries and possibly some original research thrown in.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't, how can you say they are OR when they are confirmed facts by the official 24 website from the company that made the show? You can't argue against facts, so why keep deflecting the argument away from the truth?Lan Di (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an omission on the grounds of notability as to why this character warrants a separate article. Notability must be external as well in in-universe.

The comment "Again, how direct this involvement was is unclear given what is stated, and could likely be quite minimal" implies that OR is at work here, as it remains undefined.

I say unless concrete arguments based on policy and guidelines can be properly asserted, there are only two choices merge or nominate for deletion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that is what you say, consensus is against you, but you keep nuking pages like you did to Fayed and Marwan. You see, there are rules, and if you keep going against consensus, you will be banned again as you already have been once for using a sockpuppet. Not only that, you have nuked talk pages which are against the rules, I have already restored one of them.Lan Di (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are not listening to the arguments presented policy and guidelines are against you also this is not voting please actually read the arguments the policy and the guidelines and you will realsie that policy and guidelines for merging are more tan fulfilled. If policy and guidelines are ignored what is the point of having them.

Your claimed consensus is you an anon and votes. I think reading WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may sum up your position. The lines "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end and refusing to acknowledge others' input... it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy" sums up exactly what you are doing.

I don't like getting personal on discussion pages but I have to in this instance.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read all that, and you keep disputing facts is the problem. Yes, I know this isn't a vote, but many times to get consensus you have to count and to count there has to be a vote. I haven't been discredited at all, it is the other way around when you deflect facts. I've already shown you arguments, yet you keep trying to get around them. As I have said, you have broken rules many times, been banned, so there is a problem with credibility.--Lan Di (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, last time you played this game, you were rebuked and got your tag pulled.--Lan Di (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your entire last post is you have failed to produce any policy or any guidelines which support your arguments. The arguments bought against you are sourced with policy and guidelines. I think that you are blind to the fact you are incorrect in this matter.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Fine you want policy, here's policy. I can turn around that you are using wikipedia to make a POINT. If you want to get in the mud with me, be my guest, but your past actions have only gotten you into trouble. After all, didn't you claim you were forced into putting these tags up in the first place. That sounds like coercion, so show evidence. Weren't you also slapped down the last time you did this? Past behavior is always a way to show how someone will be in the future.--Lan Di (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the past or to get personal and beak the civility code. The sheer weight of policy and guidelines presented on some of the pages is enormous. None of the arguments in favour of maintaining a separate article have adequately sourced and fulfilled any Policy or Guideline. Until Policy and Guidelines are presented in favour of maintaining a separate page then the arguments currently presented will not stand up. The article is a prime candidate for deletion if merging does not proceed due to the sheer weight of policy it does not fulfill.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you feel that strongly about this article, delete it. But don't try merging it. I wonder how quickly the deletion will last until it is recreated.--Lan Di (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted your tag, Lucy. If you try to delete or merge without further discussion on the matter or consensus, I will request third-party intervention, and the article will be restored or recreated. Angelriver (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot simply delete the article that would go through proper channels where policy is a must top ensure outcome for either side delete keep merge etc.

The article still has ongoing discussion regarding the merger. The tag should remain in place for the time being. Also it appears the the removal of the tag has been taken upon you and your are acting as if you own the article. The discussion is ongoing. Contribute to the discussion and don't get stupid over a harmless informative tag.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You've deleted articles before Lucy, and don't pretend you haven't. And if you can take it upon yourself to place the tag there, I can take it upon myself to remove it. You have no power here above anyone else. And I'd be careful who I call stupid if I were you. Aren't you violating one of your precious Wiki rules by doing so? Like say the the civility code for example that you cited in a message above when you made accusations against another user? Angelriver (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting articles, and pages in general, is something that can only be done by an administrator, which Lucy is not. She has merely wiped the pages and added in a bit of code that redirects you to wherever she moved the character info. The info is still there and could easily be reverted by anyone. asyndeton talk 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did she bring up deletion in the first place if there is never going to be any possibility of going through with it? Don't bring up something that isn't going to happen.--Lan Di (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and lucy, don't beat on me because I brought up your past. I am just trying to say that with credibility, you have some issues. I am not throwing around insults like you have, I am just pointing out facts like you. If my reading of this discussion is accurate, you're the one who made the matter worse, not me. I merely pointed out facts which you then called OR, when it was not. Facts cannot be original research when they are stated through official channels.--Lan Di (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have placed interpretation upon it which is original research. I also doubt that you can predict the future.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting anything. According to this, he had a role in the murder of David Palmer. I don't know what that role is, nor have I said such. But from common sense, since it was BXJ who arranged for it, and Philip was the owner of the company. From common sense, it would mean that the buck stops at Philip regardless of whether he actually made the arrangements or not. I'm just using logic, which is figuring out things without knowing all the facts. It is also known that Graem was covering for his father, which means that what Graem covered, his father was responsible for.--Lan Di (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3:00 P.M.-4:00 P.M.

Jack rescues Marilyn, but is shocked to learn that she was covering for Phillip. Marilyn only wants to get her son back. Jack promises to do so when she helps lead him to Phillip. Phillip trades Josh for Jack, and he admits to Jack that Gredenko had been blackmailing him to expose his involvement in David Palmer’s assassination. Phillip only wanted to stop Gredenko, who gave the nukes to Fayed. Phillip is ready to kill Jack but disappears. He leaves a cell phone for Jack to dial a number. The person on the other end is former President Charles Logan, who says that he may be able to help Jack find Gredenko.

http://www.fox.com/24/character/

That still doesn't necessarily make him notable enough for his own page. What about the assassin who actually shot Palmer? He is directly responsible for the death, while Phillip is only indirectly responsible, but he definitely doesn't deserve his own page. asyndeton talk 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know about Conrad Haas, he doesn't deserve his own page because he was nothing more than a common assassin. How about the fact that Phillip brokered suitcase nukes to Gredenko? Or the fact that Phillip nearly started WWIII by repairing the component. I agree the latter isn't necessarily notable, but he's Jack's father, he murdered his own son, he tried to kill his other son. A maniac like him definitely deserves his own page.--Lan Di (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Julia Mlliken watched as her husband died, had an afair with Wayne Palmer and shot Sherry Palmer, but that doesn't give her her own page. The same is true for Phillip Bauer just because he did those things dosen't give him divine right to his own page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Being a 'maniac' is most certainly not a way to establish notability, 24 is packed full of them. The WWIII thing is complete speculation and you could do with reading WP:CRYSTAL; characters are not given their own articles based on something that may happen or have happened, only on solid facts. Being related to Jack doesn't make him deserving either; would you say that Josh and Marilyn should have their own pages? I'm not saying that he has done nothing that has impacted the show, just not enough. asyndeton talk 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With regards to my statements under address 24.24.90.148 regarding Phillip Bauer's involvement in Palmer's murder, I myself wasn't attempting to use this as a definitive statement of the character's notability, I was just trying to note that he did in fact have some level of involvement within Day 5 and leave this up to the editors as to whether or not this constitutes notability. Seeing as the consensus seems to be to merge this article, I would say that this character ought to be merged. I do apologize if my comments ended up being unintentionally disruptive. 74.74.86.54 (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about Graem's Death?

The article mentions an injection with an "empty syringe", it's some time ago that I watched the corresponding episode, so I really can't tell for sure, however I seem to recall that some time later there's a talk about Graem's autopsy indicating that the medication (substance used during the torture) is said to be responsible for the death. So, in order for this to be consistent with the previous events, the syringe is unlikely to have been empty. Otherwise, the injection of air would result in a completely different cause of death, totally inconsistent with the events during the torture. Furthermore, Jack talks later about having had the impression that he stopped in time (...in order not to kill him). So, to summarize: I don't think the syringe is meant to have been empty. What are your opinions? Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.74.165 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above assumption about the lethal injection being an overdosis (of the substance used during interrogation/torture), and thus the syringe not being empty as indicated is in fact backed up by the wikipedia entry about "Graem Bauer" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Bauer where you can read: "Philip doesn't believe that any more information will be revealed , but cannot be certain so he murders Graem by overdosing him." Thus, I am going to edit wikipedia entry accordingly.

The syringe wasn't empty, it was filled with 4cc's of hyoscine-pentothal. When Jack went nuts and pushed over Graem in the chair, he told Burke to fill the syringe with 4 more cc's. Apparently he did a sloppy job of cleaning up, and left the syringe. Also, the reaction from the injection is indicative to using that drug.--Lan Di (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)