Talk:Karen Hayes

Untitled

Karen was correct when she said American Muslims provide the most tips about potential Islamic terrorists. American Muslims value their right to worship in their way. They may be the most fierce opponents of Islamic terrorists, and report people who try to recruit them into terror cells.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karen.jpg

Image:Karen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hayes v Lennox

I'm not sure the details regarding Lennox's blackmailing of her is correct. Neither she nor Buchanan did anything illegal or inethical. They both followed procedure and released Fayed due to lack of evidence.

Did she actually make an attempt to conceal this fact? I don't think she did. Lennox's angle was that it would be seen to be negligent - I think he was intending to use public perception, rather than legality, to damage Hayes and by association, the Administration.

Any thoughts? 82.13.43.168 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Keep at least for now. Karen was a pretty major part of Season 6 and the latter half of Day 5. She also is Bill's wife and was in a very high position in the government. As Bill is returning in Day 7 I think we should wait to see if Karen will appear (like the Tony-Michele reappearances in Day 4) and if she's absent from that season then we'll see what happens from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.17.210 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep for the time being and for the reasons stated above. The character is still alive and could reappear whenever Season 7 is finally aired. --MiB-24 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep She was a major character in season 6, appearing in 18 episodes, and 12 in season 5, which is 30 episodes in total.Lan Di (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. She wasn't a CTU agent, so the merge isn't a valid proposal. If she's going to be merged somewhere, it's not going to be on a list of minor CTU agents. TunaSushi (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag changed if she wasn't an agent then she was a character removal undone and edited to reflect this.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, that makes no sense. Consensus says no merger - see above. If you're bent on merging, please restate your position before adding a tag. TunaSushi (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus says wait and see with definitive yes or no at this time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Keep" means no merger. Plus, the tag was introduced for the wrong article, so it's going. If you want to introduce a new merger tag, create a new post here to argue your case. If consensus is reached, add your new tag. TunaSushi (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"for the time being" Is a caveat so now you are doing what you accuse me of you are being unilateral and acting without consensus and don't bring your blatant sock Angel in to this to create fake support.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus says "keep". You tried to merge it to the wrong article without any support whatsoever - you're the only one pro-merge here. My "unilateral" action keeps the status quo and has no negative impact, whereas your actions threaten to eliminate an article that consensus deigns a keeper. Your strident comment about fake support speaks volumes. Angel's not a "sock puppet", but I doubt you'll believe me as you've already accused me of fakery. The fact that people disagree with your actions bothers you, doesn't it? I've already asked for third party advice so this doesn't become an edit war, but you know my stance. TunaSushi (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we are having this discussion at all is a good thing as both of us are kept in check by the other. Shall we also do what the actual consensus says and that is don't merge for the time being but wait and see until the new season starts before we pass a final judgment. So in effect the case is in limbo remaining partially resolved for now until the new season fully resolves it. This is not about a debate on the tag that is a front to try and prevent the merging, now you now know where my position stands.

One final thing did you mean to use the word deigns which refers to ones own dignity or to giving or granting in a condescending fashion. Neither definition makes any sense in the context, or did you mean to use a different word?--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Marie, first and foremost, I am no one's sock puppet. If you have proof that you'd like to offer up, please do so or apologize for the accusation. Secondly, Tuna is correct. Karen Hayes does not belong in a list of minor CTU agents. She was the Division Director of Homeland Security. Honestly, does your insane merger madness have any boundaries? At ALL? Third, you are one of the last people who should be critiquing the context of someone else's remarks. You are barely literate in what you write, and have mangled the English language so thoroughly, that I have to read your comments several times to even ATTEMPT to understand what ridiculous point you're trying to make. Angelriver (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to intercede here which I am happy to do as the edit war is really stupid. Firstly everyone needs to stop edit warring over the tag. Let's just leave the tag alone for a little while, it really doesn't hurt to have it there for a little longer. Lucie Marie, concensus appears to be against you. Please state your reasons for this character not meriting an article of her own. You need to perseude everyone else to change their mind. Also everyone please remain civil. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by. I've been civil, though I was tempted otherwise by her hostile reverts and accusations. Basically, you're saying the same thing I am, except I wanted the tag removed while Lucy-marie states her case. What's a reasonable amount of time before tag removal? The original merge tag was added November 4, and Lucy-marie already failed to garner any support in almost 2 months. TunaSushi (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of a week or so. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP she was a major character in 2 seasons of the show. I see Lucy is trying this nonsense yet again. --MiB-24 (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Lucy has failed to comment on this talk page in the past 5 days I'm going to state that there is no concencus for the merge and remove the template. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag- No Citations

I'm currently attempting to add extra citations to the article, so far, I have added one citation, so should the tag "No citations or sources" be changed? Personally I do not know how to do this, could someone else do this? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have found some URL's that could have information that could be used for citations for this article. They're just plain URL's, I apologise that they don't look neat.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07105/777542-237.stm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/24/ - This one really does not have much to do with Karen Hayes, as much as "24" Tiptoety ^talk 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2007-01-11-24-review_x.htm - This one does not give much context relating to this article, thought if you can find an applicable passage in this article, it could be used. Tiptoety ^talk 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
http://seattlepi.com/tv/299361_tv12.html
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2006/05/a_new_heroine_f.html

Steve Crossin (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, the ones i did not comment on above could be used in the article, especially the 1st and 3rd one, but seeing as this article is more of a plot summary i am not sure where you could stick them. Also the current tag the article has looks fine, it explains exactly what needs to be done: "more sources/in text citations to verify the content of the article". Tiptoety ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)