Talk:Aaron Pierce

From Wiki 24

This is the talk page for a featured article that has previously been voted Article of the Month 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.

Contents 1 Main Title 2 Retired from Secret Service? 3 Reagan 4 Main pic 5 Work History 6 Pierce's Status 7 Past/Present tense 8 Five administrations 9 Aaron Meeting Jack 10 Martha's relationship

[edit] Main Title

Aaron Pierce was the head agent for the Secret Service who worked under at least five Presidents, saving many lives.

That sounds childish and uneducated. " head agent " is not a title for a type of agent, he was the lead agent on many details- we had proof of that in Day 5 only, " saving many lives " should not be there, because it just isn't something you begin an article with.

I think something like-

"Aaron Pierce was a high ranking Secret Service agent who was tasked with protecting many Presidents throughout his tenure" is more professional sounding... but whenever I change it to that, someone changes it back.

WaffleStomp 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you tried a different edit once before, and it was reverted. I support the text you have above now though. If you want, add a brief phrase about who he was protecting each season, and maybe something extraordinary he did like the motorcade in Day 5 (if you'd rather not, I get to that part, using parts of this old intro as a general guide). But Aaron's introduction is really childish at the moment, I agree. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't record the source, but Jack specifically referred to him as "head agent", as per my edit summary from January 21, 2009. If you want to to change it until I can find the source, that's understandable. Or perhaps Jack was just being childish, and we shouldn't use the term even if I find it, I don't know. --Proudhug 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I agreed that the phrasing was childish, I was referring to the spot "saving many lives". That spot just reads like a kiddy sort of line. "Head agent" however I'm fine with, and even if I didn't, it's on the show like you say. But can we verify that Aaron was always head agent? I wouldn't want it there unless we knew that he was the chief bodyguard for all those seasons before he retired. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the term 'lead agent'. Rather than suggesting he was the head of the secret service, which he could or could not be, he was, however, in a position of relative power.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the opening section looks a bit too long now. As much as I love Pierce, he isn't that much of a major character. Why should his intro be as long as Jack's? (and longer than some other much more central characters)? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 10:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The major characters who have smaller intros just need theirs expanded. A few lines for major characters / fan favorites is too small in my opinion. Also there will never be a rule that states the size of a character's intro has to be commensurate with how important the character was to the plot. Writers have the discretion to trim/add as they see fit within reason, so if there are details there that you think are truly extraneous, you can remove them. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Retired from Secret Service?

Was it explicitly stated that he retired from Secret Service? Could he have just been on a day off on Day 6 when Charles came to visit him and Martha? Hypnometal 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Nothing was stated that he retired from the Secret Service. --Deege515 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

People have days off in the 24verse?? I didn't even think they had shifts that ended! --Proudhug 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, who would have thought?  ;-) Anyway, I changed the article and took out the part about him retiring from Secret Service. Hypnometal 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan

It only says Reagan for the presidents he has worked under. I think it is safe to assume it is Ronald Reagan. While there is nothing specifically stated, they probably would not have used a real-life president's last name if they intended for it to be a different person.

There's no doubt in my mind that the creators were referring to Ronald Reagan, however we're documenting on what was said and shown on the show. When the Reagan page is finally created, it should merely state that he was a former president and a background note will point out that it's assumed to be Ronald. Check out the page for Princess Di for a similar example. This way we're helpful to those who might not know who Reagan is, and we're also helpful to those who want to know merely what's been mentioned on the show, similar to our pages for real-life cities and countries. --Proudhug 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main pic

Aaron's main pic needs to be upgraded to a higher resolution. --Proudhug 15:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one exists. I'll do some digging at 24_hires (LJ community) but I have yet to find one so it could be a waste of time. --Vikitty 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then it needs to be replaced with a different picture. --Proudhug 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How big are we considering hi-res, anyway? The main profile photos for Jack Bauer and Tony Almeida, for example, are around the same size as the one here. --Vikitty 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user has fixed it. --Proudhug 08:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work History

There's a note in the "Background Information and Notes" section re: Pierce's work with Reagan. I think that the top of the page should read, "Aaron Pierce was a Secret Service agent." and that underneath that, we should have "Agent Pierce has worked under 4 Presidents on 24:" and then list the 4 Presidents. I don't think we should include Reagan at the top, since he didn't work for Reagan on 24. -Kapoli 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We could put that Pierce has worked for Reagan, just not mention it being on the show. Also, I don't think he actually said Reagan's first name. We also shouldn't assume other things about Reagan, the character named Reagan should have his own page. - Xtreme680 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for the record, I'm pretty sure that it was Ronald Reagan, but if we don't want to make that assumption officially, then that's fine with me. I still don't like the way the top of the page is laid out. I'd rather change it up a little. The first sentence says, "Aaron Pierce is a Secret Service agent who has worked under four Presidents on 24." Then we turn around and list 5 Presidents. If we're going to have the note about Reagan in the article, then we should leave it at the bottom, in the "Background Information and Notes" section. That's what that section is for, right? That tidbit of information is background information. -Kapoli 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The fact that he said it on the show makes it canon. The fact that the character is inspired by real life president Ronald Reagan is background information. - Xtreme680 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, if I remember the conversation went something like "how long have you worked in secret service aaron?" "I started during Reagan's second term" but I could be wrong. Does anyone know the episode? I know it's in Season 2, and probably in the latter half with the 25th amendment storyline. - Xtreme680 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If he worked under four presidents on 24, that's all that needs to be said. I don't see a need to try and figure out how many more he must've worked under based on the time reference. He first started with the Secret Service during "Reagan's second term" - or whatever the exact quote is - and that's all that needs to be said about that. It's information on Aaron's background, but it's not the same as trivia just because Reagan was a real guy and not a character on the show. However, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to note that he's talking about Ronald Reagan, whose second term was 1984-1989, blah blah, in the Notes or Trivia section. ---StBacchus 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierce's Status

I understand that listing him as alive if it were implied that he had been killed would constitute a spoiler... but when was it ever suggested that Aaron Pierce was killed? The explanation was that he was transferred. There was no blood near his cell phone, there was no whispering about "the Pierce situation being taken care of..." or anything like that. Who thought he was dead? Why would his status be unknown? We're only supposed to be including information from the show, right? There was never anything on the show that indicated anything other than him being transferred, but still alive. -Kapoli 03:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Precisely the reason I don't like the "Status" heading. --Proudhug 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I like the status heading as well. Wouldn't a character's status be listed in his or her article? Should we can it all together? Gulp! I hate to think of deleting that line from all the characters, but it might be for the best... --Kapoli 04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No one can agree on how the heading should be handled or how specific it should be. If someone wants to know the last known status of any character, they merely need to scroll down to the bottom of the page, since biographies are written chronologically. The last sentence or two should explain if the character was left alive or dead the last time we saw them, or if it was unclear. I think the status heading was a nice idea, but it leaves it open to so much subjectivity and ambiguity. It's just way to problematic. The concept may be best left to the categories of Alive, Dead and Unknown Characters. --Proudhug 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well my vote is for getting rid of the 'status' heading in the sidebar, but making sure to indicate their fate in their article and filing them all in either "Deceased characters" or "Characters of Unknown Status". Do we have/need a "Living characters" category? That doesn't strike me as necessary, but maybe for the sake of completeness, we should have one? Ugh, I don't know. We need some more input. --Kapoli 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The status bar reflects the most important information about a character. We have them there so that people can look quickly to see what happened to characters. What can be more important, especially in the case of 24, than to document which characters are alive or dead? When the show has ended, there will be even more reason to see which characters lived and died, considering the amount of death on the show.

I also think that completely disregarding the status headline because it's subjective is a copout. It's an important part of the site. We have had few of these discussions and only recently. I highly doubt we have heard the last of Aaron Pierce, but since he had seemingly been abducted, it seemed that he could have been alive or dead, hence, the unknown status. We were told he had been transferred by a deceitful person who had reason to lie, and it seemed unlikely that he would have left his cell phone right in the meeting spot if it had been a simple transfer. Martha also disputed his transfer as incredibly odd. If there is controversy or if we deem it subjective, we can flesh it out on the talk page. I think Pierce is a clear cut case of an unknown character, but it's far less work to keep the pages as they are and have discussions on the disputed ones. Plus, it keeps what I deem as important situation. Keeping the status bars is a win-win in my book. It means we can focus on more important articles rather than going through another rigorous process, and we can have important information right at the top of the page. - Xtreme680 07:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the status in the sidebar if that's what everyone wants to do, but I think that Aaron Pierce is actually one of the worst examples of an "unknown" character. There was no blood near his cell phone, no sign of a struggle, no scene showing Logan or anyone else discussing Pierce in a menacing way... his status should have remained alive. I was really surprised on the discussion boards to find that people thought he was dead. Why? Some people thought he was, some thought he wasn't... it was all speculation and opinion. That's not what an encyclopedia is about. This is supposed to be based on what's featured/discussed/portrayed in the show - not what the majority of viewers "think" what "might have possibly" happened off-screen. Pierce's status should never have changed from alive. That's the problem with the status. And like I said, I'm fine keeping that info in the sidebar, but if someone comes to this site to find out of someone is alive or dead, and they're too lazy to scroll to the bottom of the article, then we've got other problems! -Kapoli 07:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why status shouldn't be updated until the end of an episode, not after a preview.

It seems to me that being too lazy to change a couple hundred character pages is a copout reason for keeping the Status heading, not its subjectivity. Subjectivity is a major obstacle for an encyclopedia and should be avoided at all costs. Plus, like Kapoli says, if someone's too lazy to scroll down to the bottom of the page, they've got other problems. I personally can't imagine a situation where you'd need to go to a character page to quickly look up if someone's alive or not. The death of a character is usually one of the most memorable things to happen to him or her, so if you've forgotten that, you probably don't follow the show very closely, in which case you're going to have to read a lot more than the last couple sentences anyway. I realize there are a lot of deaths on the show, so it may seem like this is handy, but in reality, the number of dead characters are far outweighed by characters whom we simply never saw again. This renders Status useless in most situations. --Proudhug 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aaron disappeared under suspicious circumstances and nobody knew whether he was dead or alive. That's pretty much the definition of "Unknown," isn't it? What's the problem with having Alive, Dead, and Unknown? I don't see anybody agitating for any scheme more complicated or "subjective" than that.

People shouldn't have to have a work ethic to find information here. On the contrary, we're the ones who should be putting in the work to make the information as accessible as possible. There were over 130 named characters killed over five years, and you really think people should be able to remember all that? Some character articles are long and complicated, and the character's final fate isn't the last thing on the page. For characters with lots of appearances and quotes, it's not even on the same screen. If all you want to know is whether a character is alive or dead, why should you have to hunt? It's a simple and vital piece of information - it should be at the top of the page. --StBacchus 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to keep the status line, then we should have only a couple designated stati (statuses?) to choose from - "Alive", "Deceased", or "Unknown". I still think that Aaron Pierce is a poor example of "unknown". Weren't we having a conversation about Erin Driscoll in The Situation Room... she was last seen alive on the show, but she could have died in the 18 months since Season 4, right? I thought a couple of us were arguing that Driscoll could count as "Unknown", but a couple of us were arguing that she left the show alive, so she should be listed as "Alive". Well, wouldn't that hold true for Aaron Pierce? He left the show alive. Labelling his exit as 'suspicious circumstances' is where this thing gets subjective. I did think him not showing up was kind of strange, but I never thought that he was dead. There was nothing pointing to that, either. I don't understand that argument for listing him as unknown. I would say if a character went missing during a potentially life threatening situation - like Mitch Anderson, who was shot out of the sky - then "Unknown" would be appropriate. As for Pierce, and many others listed as unknown, I don't think it applies. --Kapoli 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely that we should list as "Unknown" characters who were written off without being killed. That's absurd. However, I have no problem with Aaron being listed as either Alive or Unknown, since both of those are accurate. Dead would be assuming too much; however, the writers went to some lengths to suggest that he's in trouble - he was getting close to the truth, Martha was about to tell him more, and he skipped out on his meeting with her leaving his cell phone lying in the grass. Martha thought that was strange, and was clearly concerned for his safety. Hence the status of "Unknown." In Aaron's case, it hardly matters anyway, since his status will almost certainly be resolved by the end of the season.

So how about my suggestion in the Situation Room, to change the template to read Last Known Status or somesuch? --StBacchus 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think listing Driscoll (or anyone who has left the show alive but hasn't been seen in awhile) as "Unknown" is a good idea. I just needed an example to illustrate the cyclical and problematic argument that the "Unknown" status has created. It's obvious that we are going to have to compromise and set some ground rules for what constitutes "Unknown". Remember when Curtis took that really long bathroom break a few episodes ago... I had people at work betting on him being alive or dead. Was he "Unknown"? Not in my opinion, but I understand and respect that we aren't all going to end up feeling the same way about this tricky label. Here is my proposal - please make any suggestions or comments you feel are necessary:

• We keep the "Status" line in the sidebar, but only use "Alive", "Deceased", and "Unknown".
• When using "Unknown", we include an asterisk - as in Status: Unknown* - and the asterisk corresponds to a note in the article that explains what has resulted in the "Unknown" status.
• We don't change the status until the end of an episode, but we don't include information from the previews (no spoilers, right Proudhug?).
• We list the "guidelines" on the "Characters of unknown status" page so that when people check out that page, they know why President Keeler, Mitch Anderson, and Behrooz are on there and why Aaron Pierce is not.

That's what I'm thinking. Like I said, we've got to compromise. So get cracking on some criticisms of my ideas and let's come up with something we can all be happy with. -Kapoli 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only two characters in the Unknown section that I would remove, Harris and Dave (Day 2) (Andrei is also questionable, I guess, but he can stay in limbo for now). The others are all there because their lives were in jeopardy the last time they appeared. And their storylines are done, so it's unlikely there's going to be any resolution - thus, they are "filed away" under Unknown until further notice. It's too early to file Aaron away. (Or Curtis - I wish I worked where you work, Kapoli, I would've taken those odds any day!)

Sorry if I've been too strident. This is why I listed my occupation as "pedant." ;-) Anyway, I like your proposal. I don't think Unknowns need to be starred, though. Just saying Unknown lets the reader know that the character is neither definitively alive or dead. If they want to know more than that, they can scroll down, just like they would have to scroll down to find out why a character is dead. --StBacchus 10:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can totally see both sides of the argument here, which is why I don't think Status really works. "Unknown" and "Alive" are just too subjective in many cases. There's just way too much ambiguity. For example, how would this work for characters who are mentioned but not seen? For the sake of consistency, I think most people would want to use the same template, but it's possible for it to be unclear. Let's say in one episode Jack mentions that his great uncle Patrick gave him a gun for his tenth birthday. What do we put for Patrick Bauer's status, Unknown, Alive, or Deceased?

No one's yet to provide an example of why anyone would need to know the status of a character without reading the relevant part of the article. It's hardly working to find the information, since it'll be at the end of the bio. It's actually less work than you'd have to do if you wanted to find out something more specific about a character.

My compromise is this: Take out the Status heading from the character template and, instead, create a seperate page which lists the last known status of all major characters on the show. This can be organized by season, by last appearance, alphabetical, whatever... it can even be split into three separate pages, similar to the Dead & Unknown Categories, but with explanations of the circumstance they died, disappeared, etc. What do you think, sirs? --Proudhug 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I have too many finals to talk anymore about it right now. I'm just not seeing the point in removing them from what people have said, so I'm going to take my final, veg for several hours, and see if I can't be more convincing in what I'm saying or understand other's arguments a little better. - Xtreme680 14:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is that unknown can mean two different things. Unknown could mean that their storyline was never wrapped up, like Behrooz, and we never found out what happened to them. Or it can mean that the character is in some sort of life or death limbo, like Keeler.

Anyway, I agree with Kapoli. I can compromise so there is less ambiguity, but I want the status bars to stay. Setting up a few ground rules is a good idea. For example.

Differing between main/recurring characters and guest characters is a good start. Guest characters are one or maybe two episodes long of appearances. They are almost always left either alive or dead, so this shouldn't be too hard.

Main/recurring characters appear in multiple episodes, and range from Chloe to Chase to Behrooz to Milo. Their status somewhat complicates things. However, I propose we don't change their status until the death of the character or the end of the season. If their plotline seems wrapped up at the end of the season, if they are alive and well, and were last shown alive and well, then we don't change anything. If they died in the last episode, we add that.

As for unknowns, it gets trickier. At the end of Season 4, however, Behrooz's plotline was not tied up, and we literally did not know what happened to him. Same with Keeler. I think that is an appropriate place to put unknown. We would still list Pierce and Curtis as alive, but if we had not seen them since, we would put them as unknown.

Kapoli's other ideas are also very good. I think this is a viable solution to the problem, if StBacchus also agrees with Kapoli.

As for Patrick Bauer, well, we've never had a situation like that to deal with, and I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it. But in that case, we should assume he's alive, since Jack didn't mention him as being dead. Another possible solution would be to remove the status bar for mentioned characters, since most of their articles are short anyway. I also believe that unknown covers it in this case. Patrick Bauer could have been a very old man and died, or been younger and is still living. Since Jack doesn't mention it, we can't assume either way. His status is literally unknown. I don't think this one example of an old character should mean the status portion is worthless.

I do believe that several of us have stated why the status of a character is an important part. The sidebars display the most relevant information of a character. It's very purpose is to be useful. However, by the very fact that we're trying to say what happened to the character, we are going to run into these very same issues. Even if we made a page like you described (which I believe would be too large, too unorganized, and unnecessary since that information should be in the article for the character), we ultimately make a judgement on whether we consider a character to be either alive, dead or unknown based off the information we provide on that page, in the article, or what category we put them in. We're doomed into this so-called subjectivity no matter what we do, so why not put the important information in the sidebar, where it is now and where it is most useful?

I understand the arguments about subjectivity, but it is an impossible issue to avoid. Making some rules will really help it out, and I think we can compromise in this way. - Xtreme680 05:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point about speculation coming into play regardless of whether we leave the bars or make a new page. I think that if we're going to even mention status at all, it should be in the sidebar. And as for your statement about the ambiguity of the status...

"Perhaps part of the problem here is that unknown can mean two different things. Unknown could mean that their storyline was never wrapped up, like Behrooz, and we never found out what happened to them. Or it can mean that the character is in some sort of life or death limbo, like Keeler."

...I think that both of these are good examples and good guidelines for what gives a character "Unknown" status. For the most part, it seems like people want to keep the heading. That is totally fine with me. I just want a little consistency and some kind of policy that we use across the board. -Kapoli 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would someone want to know a character's status without the rest of the info? Well, if they're me, because they're writing a fanfic about the dead characters and they want to know who's available. The only thing we know for sure about the readers is that they're here for information. Our job is to make it easy for them to find what they're looking for, and that's all the status bar is for. There's no reason someone couldn't just read the article to find any of that information. In fact, wouldn't the last line of the article say exactly the same thing, that the character is alive, dead, or unknown? How come that's okay at the bottom of the page and not the top?

About subjectivity and ambiguity, the entire viewing experience is subjective and ambiguous. We don't know for sure that Jack Bauer isn't a mental patient and the whole show isn't his hallucination. All we as viewers can do is make logical assumptions based on the available evidence. In the case of characters who were mentioned, they should be treated the same way as everyone else: however we last saw them, that's how they are until further notice. --StBacchus 08:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Even if we made a page like you described (which I believe would be too large, too unorganized, and unnecessary since that information should be in the article for the character), we ultimately make a judgement on whether we consider a character to be either alive, dead or unknown based off the information we provide on that page, in the article, or what category we put them in. We're doomed into this so-called subjectivity no matter what we do, so why not put the important information in the sidebar, where it is now and where it is most useful?"

The reason it'd be useful is because it would provide more information than just one word. The problem we're running into is that selecting one word is often too vague. A seperate page would detail only the relevant facts of character fates. There'd be no need to pigeonhole every single character into a one-word status.

I still haven't actually heard any real practical use of the Status bar, just that it's important information. There are many other things that may be important such as Gender, Hair Color, Current Affiliation, Current Location, etc., however these really aren't things that you'd want to clutter up the sidebar with.

Checking who's available for fanfiction doesn't really hold up to me as much of a reason for wanting the Status bar. Let's say you want to use Character X in your story, but you don't remember if he died or not on the show (absurdity of remembering the character, but not if they died, aside). You check the site and there are three possibilities:

• Character X is listed as Alive, in which case you're probabaly going to choose to use the character in your story, at which time you're probably going to read the article for research.

• Character X is listed as Dead, in which case you're probably going to read the article to find out how he died.

• Character X is listed as Unknown, in which case you can possibly still utilize the character for your story... however, you're going to have to read the article to find out why the character's fate is unknown.

Seems to me, if you're writing fan fiction, you're probably going to have read at least some of the article anyway, not merely the sidebar. It may be useful to check the Deceased Characters category to see who's definitely unavailable. However, if there's a page, or series of pages which detail character statuses in an organized way, you can get all the information you need on someone's fate without reading everything or reading only one word. --Proudhug 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm real sorry my memory doesn't live up to your high standards, Proudhug. But that's exactly my point. We don't know why people come here, and we shouldn't be making judgements about whether their goals are good enough for our wiki. Like I said, the practical use of the sidebar is to put the important information where it's convenient. One could argue that the whole point of the wiki is convenience. I mean, jeez, what's wrong with the lazy slobs who come here? Can't they do their own research?

Meanwhile, in exactly what cases is the one word - alive, dead, unknown - "too vague?" The article itself provides the extra information you want. What's the problem here? --StBacchus 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this solution works for most, and I guess I don't see how the discussion can change from being about subjectivity to being about about vagueness. As Ira Gaines once said "You're either dead or you're not dead. There's no such thing as sorta dead".

I don't see the point in making an extra page, when the information and the happenings of the characters are already listed on the character page. We already have categories for these characters, so it's already "vague", and you look at the character page for more information. The only vague status is one of unknown characters, and those can be explained on character pages, but it's not enough to take the sidebar off for all of the characters we want to classify as either living or dead.

I think the important thing here is that we have reached some sort of a solution with guidelines on the status bar, which was what the problem originally was in the first place. We already have several long arguments on several random pages, and I don't come on here for arguing, I just want to edit. I say we use the solution that we've provided, and move on. I know you're an administrator, and the three of us are just editors, but we probably won't reach consensus unless you decide to exert authority, or go along with it. But anyway, let's get back to editing and writing. - Xtreme680 03:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already got several large projects in the works (not to mention how busy my "real" life has been for the past few months), but perhaps when I get a chance, I'll whip up at least an example page and see if anyone likes it. --Proudhug 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past/Present tense

I do believe Aaron Pierce was described as "was", rather than "is", a secret service agent is because of character pages being in the past tense. - Xtreme680 07:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I changed it back from "was" to "is" because he's still active in 24. Jack's page is present tense. Wah! I don't know what to do. If past tense is the consensus, then that works for me. You're welcome to change it back, and my apologies to Warthog Demon. -Kapoli 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. I really wasn't sure myself so I was open for corrections. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 08:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we always use past tense for in-universe things like characters. If we try and make everything in the current season present tense and everything in previous seasons past...it just gets messy, and then next year we'll have to update it all. I personally think past tense reads better, and it's also less of a headache. That's my two cents, anyway. --StBacchus 12:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five administrations

During Day 7 7:00pm-8:00pm, Aaron told Olivia Taylor that he had worked as Secret Service Agent for five administrations. If he started working during Reagan's, then there were other four administrations he worked with:

1. Ronald Reagan
2. ???
3. Harry Barnes
4. David Palmer
5. John Keeler/Charles Logan

I'm not including Wayne Palmer because I'm assuming he was retired already. Should there be some sort of mention of this to establish a timeline or something? Thief12 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this could establish any timeline. And do we know for sure he worked during Barnes' administration? --Proudhug 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He was a member of the Secret Service during Day 1, when Barnes was POTUS.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Although, we don't know that Barnes was POTUS during Day 1. He may have been assassinated or incapacitated prior and had his VP take over. In the world of 24, that's actually more probable than him finishing his term! --Proudhug 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, it would still be his administration, much like Keeler/Logan/Gardner, Palmer/Prescott and Palmer/Dainels.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. --Proudhug 21:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We're assuming that our forcing of the EU character of Barnes onto the unnamed and unseen president during Day 1 is correct in the first place. The writers of the show, 24's own creators, may not have ever heard of "Harry Barnes". Now Harris Barnes, there's a different story. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Meeting Jack

Do you think that it counts that Aaron met Jack in season 7? He is being held with the hostages while Jack Bauer is being taken out of the lockdown room. 99.147.241.225 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They also talked via radio, so I'd say it counts.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   06:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Martha's relationship

It was never determined that Aaron and Martha's relationship ended four years before Day 7. He retired four years ago. It was impossible to be ended four years before, since Day 6 takes place three years before Day 7, and on Day 6 they were still together. He was no longer an SS agent on Day 6 already.

I would also suggest that it isn't clear that they were living together on Day 6. He could have just been bringing her some food. -05/07/09

I altered the line in the intro to account for the above concern, because I agree: I can't remember any certainty that they were definitely living together. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)