Talk:Michael Scofield

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Scofield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fictional characters Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

}

Information on this page

In order to avoid redundancy, information on this page should be Scofield-specific, and not go into great detail about the plot of Prison Break. For this reason, I've kept the description of The Plan to a minimum. Any information (new or unaddressed) about Prison Break plot points that aren't specific to the Michael Scofield character autistic should be added to that page, not this one. Thanks. :) Simpatico 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ASIAN POWERS?! TURNED INTO A CHICKEN?!

I havn't watched this show since season one so I don't really know what direction it took but this: "In the episode "Killing Your Number" it is revealed that 4 years after the events of the series, Michael's friends and family visit his grave, this is clarified in the two-hour conclusion, "The Final Break," where it is revealed that Michael planned to sacrifice himself in order to allow Sara to escape from prison. He dies because Roland Glenn uses his Asian powers to resurrect himself and he turns Michael into a headless chicken. He is then mistaken for a dead chicken by C-Note who sells him to a butcher where Michael is ultimately eaten alive" was in the synopsis and that just sounds insane...please verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.41.230 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname?

Does anyone know why Micheal's nickname is 'Fish'?

Because he was the new "fish" in the "tank" when he first got to Prison and the nickname stuck, despite someone mentioning that "i guess we can't call you fish anymore" when the new inmates (including Tweener) arrived. DJDannyP//Talk2Me 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you very much. I missed the first few episodes and it's been bugging me the whole time.

This nickname is heavily used and should be mentioned in the article. He's also often called 'Pretty' by T-Bag.

"Fish" is a prison slang and not really a nickname so I am removing it from the introductory paragraph. --Ladida 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Due to Fox's terms of use and source information, the previous promotional picture has been replaced by a cropped television screenshot. If you seek to replace it with a promotional image, please specify its original source and copyright information. -- Ladida 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael In Nearly Every Scene In First Series

The citation relating to this statement is heavily biased and therefore doesn't deserve to be cited. How can an article be unbiased by using obviously biased sources? I suggest this is removed, as the statement adds no flavour to the article anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.10.26 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

spoiler warnings are useless!

I haven't watched every episode of prison break yet but would like to read up on the characters and cast of the show. This page has a spoiler warning, along with other pages which is perfectly fine. However the right infobox already "gives it away" for viewers because it says: Roles for Michael Scofield: prisoner, fugitive, sona prisoner sona prisoner?! oh crap! you just told people what would happen. This clear sucks.

Why would anyone look up an encyclopedia article and not expect to get spoiled? If there's ever something thats published or broadcasted that I haven't seen, I never look at wikipedia articles.--CyberGhostface 03:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote at all? I wanted to read up on the characters and the cast. You're saying its my fault for reading an encyclopedia. If thats the case, whats the point of spoiler warnings?

Yes, I read what you wrote, and that doesn't change anything. Spoilers suck, but looking at an encyclopedia page for specific characters is just asking for trouble. What did you think you were going to see, if not up-to-date information?--CyberGhostface 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the infobox. -- Ladida 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.

"Other": Years and Mike's Age

In this section, deduction is based on the fact that the series is set in 2005. In the ultimate episode of season 1, the president is sworn in as the 46th president of the USA, which is possible in the earliest by January 2013 (the year the 45th president can take seat at the earliest; GW Bush is the 43rd).

So this should be corrected. Arjunm 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The year 2005 was taken from the episode "Wash" where the date of Frank Tancredi's death is shown clearly. However, I think the numbering of the presidency is meant to be random since it is set in a fictional world. Regards, Ladida 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great information that has to be added

http://spoilertv-prisonbreak.blogspot.com/2007/11/prison-break-classified-fbi-files.html

--Prisonbreak12345 (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I Think The Image Should Be Replaced, With A Series Three Screencap If Possible, As It Is Most Recent Harmless 77 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the image should be of one more recent. Someone please update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherbed (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

There are person(s) trying to hijack this page saying that Michael survived. He didn't, he died due to an aggressive brain tumor. Being that he died about a month or so after his and Sarah's walk on the beach, it was probably a glioblastoma multiforme. He's dead.Mdriver1981 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He died through electrocution Pseud o Nym 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the final break made cause of death (if it occurred at all) more ambiguous. Michael is seen connecting the wires but not dying. As wanted fugitives Sara and Lincoln would be unable to claim his body meaning the grave is actually just a memorial stone. In the series characters whose deaths have been ambiguous have often returned - Abruzzi, Kellerman, Sara, Christina, Krantz to name 5. Where other characters have had more overt deaths Westmorland, Abruzzi (2nd time), Tweener, Haywire, Steadman, Whistler, etc. In this context it might be safer to say that Michael "appeared to die of electrocution" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.217.23 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's DEAD. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.41.108 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about what you or I think happened but what can be proven by citing references. The episodes referenced do not give details as to the cause or even answer whether michael truly died. So stating categorically that his death is due electrocution and that the stone on the beach is his tombstone when both are ambiguous. You can state that he's dead citing [1] but again Olmstead declared other characters dead in the media who later returned. i.e; [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.50 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is DEAD. The series is over. There's no point in citing Sara's death. Just because you are acting like a pathetic fan boy and crying because Michael's dead doesn't give you the right to post speculation. The movie makes it clear that he killed himself via electrocution. you are right about the body though it's quite possible that Sara was later exonerated after the escape. She even tells her son "Let's go visit your father" so it's possible that his body was later given to Sara and Lincoln.

The point in Citing Sara's Death is that the only citeable Source to Michaels Death previously cited Sara's and later rescinded it. The question is whether he can be considered reliable (and hence citable) if he is prone to changing his mind.

Also I'm not speculating - you were - the movie is not clear it deliberately flashed to the guards breaking through the door moments before Michael touched the cables together. They then fail to come after Sara. So what stopped them? Your last edit is an acceptable soloution until a citeable reference confirms which of the two outcomes is "Cannon". Despite all your edit comments to the contrary, I'm not denying his death - just stating that the nature of that death was left deliberately ambiguous by the writers (moreso than they did with kellerman) - so the ambiguity needs to be represented until the writers clarify it.

I'll remove the cause of death and leave it blank since it's not even visible on the page anyway. I doubt prison guards killed him though. It's heavily implied that the voltage shock killed him. And Matt Olmstead confirmed in two interviews that Michael is dead. The grave and tombstone remarks will stay. [3]

I was the first to cite Matt Olmstead, as proof of his death so don't keep quoting it back to me, the two things that are left ambiguous are what actually killed him - again the guards are shown bursting through the door in the shot immediately preceding the electrical overload. That shot is deliberately in there by he directors and can't be dismissed.

Secondly there is the question of whether Michaels body is underneath the lump of granite it's not answered and "Visit your father" doesn't answer it either it's a simplification - the kind of thing you tell kids. Memorial is neutral it doesn't imply the body is there and it doesn't require the body to not be there. Tombstone and Grave require the body to be confirmed as there - which you can't cite a reference to confirm. 149.254.218.41 (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put both versions in, according to some peoples thought....bla bla...and others see it as... bla l bla...or something like that. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely thats [WP:OR] "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas;"? It also doesn't sit in the flow of the season4 section - it might be suitable for moving to a separate "Death" section however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.41 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no OR, if you can't cite it it shouldn't go in, moving it sounds reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting annoyed with this continual reverting to "Tombstone" or "Grave". A Headstone has a specific meaning, but it is a subset of a Memorial, without citing a reference to the specific criteria proving that Michael's Memorial meets those Criteria to make it a Headstone/Tombstone or that his Grave is there. Adding 'She said "let's go see your father". It's his grave. Four years is enough time to be exonerated and allowed to have the corpse given to them.' to the editing comment is not citing a reference. Because I've already edited the article in line with this discussion more than 3 times and because of this user's regular changes to the page (Blatant Edit Warring) I don't want to make the edit myself under WP:3R but if someone else agrees could they change the article to neutral/appropriate wording? 149.254.224.57 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can do this for months. It won't change the fact that you are wrong and I am right. --70.127.201.57 (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean do this for months, this is coming up for a year since I started maintaining the Article surprisingly in that time I've had plenty of support from other Editors and seen you annoying a fair number of admins and editors on other articles. I've been patient and explained myself and provided references and cited articles whilst you've done what? - changed the article based on your personal opinion?

Feel free to cite an article proving how you're right and I'm willing to let it stand otherwise it remains neutral. 149.254.218.38 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been a year, Sherlock. It's been eight months. There's a difference. By the way, I see you have a dynamic modem or a proxy server. Your IP address keeps changing. How is London? I've always wanted to see Big Ben. Quit crying like a baby because you refuse to believe that his corpse was buried where Sara lives. Get over it. We can do this for several more months. --70.127.201.57 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it hasn't been a year that's why it's preceded with "Coming up to" implying closer to being a year than it is to the beginning. Yes both are correct, I use mobile Broadband it changes IP address nearly every time I connect it is also silently proxied. The other outcome is that my geographical location is masked.

You also miss the point of Wikipedia significantly it's not down to what you or I believe, that's not how it is designed to work - but you continue to do it on *every* article you edit. It's down to what you can prove by referencing it. If it can't be referenced then a neutral wording should be inserted which is exactly what I'm maintaining. 149.254.218.38 (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: This is an edit war which has been going on since at least June 3, 2009, and in which third party editors have already intervened. Third opinions are not available when third opinions — even if not given under WP:3O — have already been given, nor are they available in disputes which are not being carried on in a civil manner. I have requested page protection for this page to stop the edit war. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{Moved from User_talk:TransporterMan#Thank_You:}

Thanks for the application semi-protection status on the Michael Scofield article hopefully it will sort this mess out.

It's worth also noting that whilst my IP has always started 149.* the other editor started with a 97.* IP then switched to a 72.* before arriving at his current 70.* he received a ban under the 97.* IP for edit warring and a stern warning under the 72.* IP for significantly abusive behaviour. Both the ban and warning were by Toddst1, I have been trying to avoid making this an edit war hence requesting editor assistance and 3O involvement. I abide by any independent decision on the matter. 149.254.218.38 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight comment on your protection request - you claim I made 4 reversions to the article in the past 24 days in fact I've only edited the article 3 times in that period, you also claim that the other editor made 3 reversions point of fact he made 4 reversions in that period plus a further 2 edits not related to this particular matter. 149.254.218.38 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counts corrected at protection request. Sorry about that. Avoid making it an edit war by not reverting more than once; follow WP:CYCLE instead. If you can't achieve consensus in one cycle through that process, then go to Dispute Resolution without reverting again (doing an Request for Comments as the next step is usually a good choice). You'll get a much better reception in the DR process if you're not edit warring first. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree to adopt the new wording by Stuart Jamieson(talk|contribs)? I think it fits the purpose. 149.254.217.21 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's aliases

There is a missing alias on Scofield's Wikipedia page. A name is used in Season 4, episode 10 when Sara takes Michael to the hospital for tests on his brain. The fake name that he uses, based on the ID that Don Self provided for him, is Kevin Freeling. Just thought I should mention it so somebody could add it to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.40.119 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

his name

I was hoping to learn from this article why his name isn't Burrows. Was that ever revealed? (I'm in the middle of the first season.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Scofield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002142642/http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155985535134&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630 to https://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155985535134&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]