Jump to content

Talk:Dharma Initiative/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome to Dharmaland

Since I'm a self-confessed poor judge of what is/is not speculative, I'd like to know if this, which is also linked to from the article page, is or is not speculative. It clearly (at least in the clarified version) says, among other things, that station 4 is The Flame? Can we use this? I don't want to get shot down for trying... -Litefantastic 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not from a verified official source. -- PKtm 02:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean that particular screenshot (which has been edited, I know); I meant from the map - which, being part of Lost, should count as official. I think. -Litefantastic 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You have a point, but then only with information that can be reasonably read from the unaltered map - which is not much, unfortunately. Arru 22:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The map is not speculative

jtrost this is addressed to you in particular, the map was something shown in the series. Any information displayed in the map must not be considered speculative merely because no one in the show has had a chance to talk about it yet. It IS speculative if we jump to assumptions like "the dotted line means the hatch is underwater" or "Cerberus is the black smoke", if we simply list the information on the map, there is NO SPECULATION. So stop removing, deleting, reverting, and changing every piece of information you see that relates to the map. Your conduct in these discussions and edits is rude and inappropriate, you need to behave in a civilized manner and stop doing whatever you please. Unless you provide us with ACTUAL proof that something written violates a wikipedia rule (as opposed to you just constantly saying stuff like 'uh...no speculation'), stop editing here. (Here is some speculation on my part though, it seems as if everyone agrees with me and doesn't like you tampering with our edits.) ArgentiumOutlaw 02:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In it, you'll find:
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
-- PKtm 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I quote the page you gave me: "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks." My statements regarding that particular user are my opinion that his opinions (edits) are incorrect and have no factual backing. Attacking someone is a forming of addressing the person directly (such as with name calling), I have not done that but merely emphasized that this user's opinions are his own point of view which very few other people seem to agree with as well. Also, keep in mind: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions". If you are going to accuse me of attacking someone personally, please be more specific so we can discuss it. ArgentiumOutlaw 03:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The summary of Image:Lost_uv_map2.gif clearly states "My own interpretation of the UV map", which makes it original research, so it cannot be published here. Any information that is extracted from that image must therefore be immediately deleted, and that image as well should be deleted. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that speculation is a pretty cut and dry issue. Either it's verifiable and can be cited or it cannot. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you still dont seem to understand: At the very least, leave a descriptive comment in the 'Edit Summary' field, or I will have to revert any of your edits that dont make sense to me (not a threat, just telling you what I will do as a wikipedia editor when i dont see a good enough reason for action). It is unclear what missing citation you are referring to, because I wasn't referring to that image you quoted when I made certain edits. ArgentiumOutlaw 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not too sure about the context of this, but looking at some of the edits I have to agree with argentium outlaw. Some of the information (such as the text written) seems easily identifiable, and if that's so, I don't see anything wrong with adding in a more thorough description of the map. Tejastheory 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bigger pictures

Hey everyone. Found same larger screencaps. Thought these might be useful. Neither is by me, just some other fans:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/gumpy500/snapshot_j_2006329_.jpg
Includes some speculative notes:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5039/new14aq.jpg

The Goblet

Where did the link for 'the Goblet' come from? Any idea to it's authenticity? Blade 07:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And 'Dharma' was the name

As a trivia question, I'd like to know if anyone other than Hurley has even actually spoken the name of this project alloud (He did it when reading the name of a food product). Marvin Candle doesn't count. -Litefantastic 14:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate trivia

hey there all - I just thought I'd mention that the trivia section on the main page says that Dharma is a term used to describe the later buddhist teachings. This statement isn't really true; in Buddhist ideology there is a clear distinction between "Dharma" as the notion of duty or social responsibility and "the dharmas" (notice it isn't capitalized) which is a somewhat general term used for the collection of later buddhist texts thought to be (although there is no proof) the actual words of the Buddha as recorded by his students. I think this is an important distinction, and what do we have if not factual correctness? thanks.69.139.196.247 07:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Tuna.

    • I'll remove the "words of the Buddha" statement based on what you are saying, but would you (with an insight into the subject) please edit the article on Dharma accordingly? The information is taken straight from there. It's the only way this encyclopedia will improve ;-) Arru 08:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Logos

There used to be pictures of the DHARMA logos; they have since been removed for reasons I have no doubt were good. However, I'd like to see them brought back, since we're up to a total of four known stations with three logos. Since each station now has its own section, it would be good for each one to have its own logo, too. Thoughts? -Litefantastic 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Noone has made any comments about that the DHARMA Initiative logo is based on the Feng Shui Bagua (Pa Kua?) symbol? Take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagua_(concept) and
http://www.windwatrcanada.com/bagua.JPG

Map-stations correlation

Whoever wrote up the DHARMA stations section doesn't get it. The Arrow is the bunker that the tail section survivors found. First seen when they bring Michael, Jin and Sawyer there. The Staff is the bunker that Claire was brought to in the first season when she was captured. This is first seen in "Maternity Leave" when she remembers what happened to her and they revisit it. Make the necessary changes. If you want to put a less concrete bunker on the list you can add the Pearl which is mentioned on the blast door map but first encountered as a symbol on the shark in episode 2 of the second season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.176.2 (talk • contribs)

  • It is assumed that the station in those episodes are those names, but the article section deals with when the names are actually revealed. It still is not concrete that those places visited are the same even those most assume they are the same. Coffeeboy 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. The 'speculation' here is, at most, that the crude drawings on the Map are the snazzy Dharma logos appearing on stations around the islands. I argue that this is not speculation, it's just lousy drawing skills: the picture for the staff does indeed look a little like a rhythmic gymnast's baton, for instance, but all the logos are so highly stylized that there's no real danger of mistaking one for the other. I'm changing back to the old versions until I hear a better argument. -Litefantastic 23:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, it is not certain but fully reasonable that the named stations correlate to the the known DHARMA structures with their respective logos on the island. Arru 09:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to prove that previously visited bunkers are the same ones on the map. Yes, they probably are, but there is no reason to jump the gun with this. Be patient and we will add the information when we have a sufficient amount of proof. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll amit you win the academic argument, although you lose out on common sense. Anybody can see that those are the same logos, but unfortunately this page has been used as a springboard for theories so many times that all of us - and especially you - have become wary and jaded. So yes: I'll concede the point for the moment. We can wait. -Litefantastic 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may be being too pedantic in this case. Blade 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure there's no way to prove they're the same, its also true that there is no way to prove that the logo of the 'swan' in the orientation video is the same as the one thats on all the food items. See my point yet? Are we talking about how clear the image is, because it was never said explicitly on the show that the orientation video belonged in the hatch that they are at, so it could belong to a real 'The Swan' hatch with a logo almost identical. I dont believe that, but my point is: what is your definition of proof? if its just visual, then i think the map logo looks visually like the one on the hatch they're at. If proof is them saying it, then they haven't explicitly said the one from my example above either. We have to maintain consistency, what should we decide on as a rule for these posts? ArgentiumOutlaw 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The stations on the map are clearly the same as the ones we've seen. "The Arrow" is the tail-section station, and "The Staff" is Claire's adoption agency. I can't see not merging these sections and adding more information from the map. --SFoskett 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My own personal opinion is that Jtrost has got us erring so far on the side of caution that we're into the guard rail at this point. If - if - we can agree, or at least receive a majority opinion on this, I'd like the other side, whether it be pro or anti map, to throw in the towel. Otherwise this will just become a pitched battle that degenerates into an edit war. Believe me here. -Litefantastic 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont mean to seem pessimistic, but there is no way on earth you're getting either side to 'concede' like that. I disagree that there will be edit wars (at least sever ones anyway). Also, I dont quite understand what you mean by 'got us erring so far on the side of caution'. Unless the wikipedia admins themselves come down and tell me that what I'm doing is wrong, I'll continue to edit the way I do, there is no halfway point. It is basically impossible for me to sit back and watch this part of wikipedia be destroyed. Dont even bother commenting that that's not whats happening, and especially dont tell me this stuff about how wikipedia will become too much like a fansite (have you seen Stargate, Startrek, and all the other tv show sections?) ArgentiumOutlaw 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide irrefutable proof from official sources without any original research that the drawings on the map correlate with previously visited stations then you can add that information. But as far as I know, such proof does not exist, so until we have proof this information is considered speculation. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncertain on this issue, but either way it must be consistent. The Map shouldn't refer to the structures (especially the dotted-line ones) as "stations" if they are not identified as such in the DHARMA article. And, if they are identified as stations visited in a certain episode, episodes should be properly named and linked, not like "an episode when the tail section of Oceanic Flight 815' survivors were discovered" as written by 12.75.245.141 Arru 21:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point, as is the one Jtrost makes above. If the conceptual leap cannot be made from the map to the station logos without further proof, then we can neither claim them to be stations, much less specific stations. But if we can't say they're stations at all... then what? -Litefantastic 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am AMAZED that people are allowing "The Pearl" station to stay on this article when all people do is complain about the speculation in the map article. Where in the world was The Pearl station even mentioned? I can't even find it on the map.
  • Despite my many attempts to keep this article free of speculation and original research, it seems like each time I or another editor clean up this article someone else inserts the information back into it. Therefore I added an {{OriginalResearch}} template because readers should be aware that this article does not contain all factual information. Hopefully once season 2 is over this will all settle down. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer

  • In an attempt to mediate this disagreement I've added a disclaimer which will lead to the best of both worlds: we can list the alleged stations without making readers believe that they are known to exist. Arru 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Two Station Sections

There are two station sections in the article. Is there any good reason to keep them both? Coffeeboy 12:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging Ultraviolet map

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Consensus on a Merge.

After an AFD that closed with no consensus, it is proposed that Ultraviolet map be merged here. Please discuss.

Support merge

  1. Litefantastic 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Coffeeboy 13:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Arru 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Merging it will place the map in a logical place and give the info the attention it deserves from not just the most hot-headed Lost fans. Should there be an explosion of info and plots regarding the map, it can be split back into an article on its own with no harm done. Arru 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Blade 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. SorryGuy 07:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. PKtm 07:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Merge, but delete all the stuff based on non-verified and/or augmented versions of the map. Face it, very little on the map as seen in the show is actually readable.
  7. LeflymanTalk 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC) : Merge the non-speculative content; so far the "map" has appeared briefly. Can be expanded/split when it becomes a verifiable and notable part of the show.
  8. Radagast83 22:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Merge, with all information that has been competely verified, not speculated. Wikipedia is not a place for rampant speculation, when you see the word "interpretations" is a pretty clear sign that this is just guesswork. It isn't even clear if this will become something "more important" to the plot. If an event or date presented on the map is actually explained it should end up in the history part of DHARMA. However if it does later on in the series, this could be revisited, but for the time being dump all the speculation, and put into the DHARMA page with "just the facts, ma'am"
  9. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) It's the next best thing to deleting it.
  10. Rillian 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC) An article full of speculation about a map that appears for 20 seconds in one episode of TV series is not notable enough for a stand-alone article.
  11. Danflave 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia, we need to take this seriously. There's no need for an article entitled "Ultraviolet Map" - all of the information contained within can be merged with the DHARMA article.
  12. TBC??? ??? ??? 04:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Merge and clean-up the article, as a lot of it seems to be unverifiable and speculation
  13. nihil 05:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) as with others (pun intended ^^) above, merge & wikify (de-theorize, keep clean)

Oppose merge

  1. Though my original AfD vote was to merge I'm content to leave the article where it is after a no consensus. If this had been a POV fork from The DHARMA Initiative, I'd probably feel differently, but as it is not, I'd say just leave it for now (well, let it move to a more logical name as is being discussed). Per things the creators have said this will likely be a big enough plot point that it will likely end up forking eventually anyway if it does get merged.--Isotope23 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mongrel 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) - I feel that the map article is too long and contains too much information to be merged. It would dominate the Dharma Initiative article and would harm the flow and readability of both articles. I also feel that trimming down the article and limiting the information to "what was seen on the TV screen" is narrow minded. The Entertainment Weekly article clearly states that they got their image of the map from the producers of Lost. How is that not a credible source?
  3. No merge, it deserves its own place. Look at the AFD for my reasons why. ArgentiumOutlaw 10:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose merge - it looks like "The Map" will become a larger plot point for Lost and to try to keep the main article smaller in size I would have to vote no to the merge. -- UKPhoenix79 10:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: I would support a merge with an article written only about "The Swan Hatch" (or other such name). Remember this article is about "The DHARMA Initiative" and should focus on that. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this subject should be expanded on in another article (another reason why I oppose a merge). The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." -- UKPhoenix79 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

1. I don't watch or care one iota about Lost, so I'm utterly impartial. Feel free to ping me on my talk page for mediation or to ask for a conclusion of the discussion. Stifle 12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Breaking out the Swan (and possibly other stations)

What if... instead of merging it or keeping them separate, we rearrange the whole set up. The 'Map' is a story element that is thus far impossible to compare or classify without knowing just how important it will prove to be in future episodes. Therefore, abstaining from making any assumptions about its potential significance would keep the map simply in the realm of where it was found which is the Swan Station. Until we know more about it, it is just another hatch element such as the computer, the shower, the food storage, the laundry machines etc. I propose that each DHARMA hatch is given its own page that links off the Initiative page. The Swan Station page would include the whole section regarding the "MAP". The greatest argument not to do this would be because 1)There is not enough information on the other hatches to make sizeable, dedicated pages and 2) Without the section about the Swan Station, the Initiative page is rendered relatively barren.

I would argue that this framework would certainly bring ease to the organization of further information about the hatches that is likely to come in later episodes. Even if there isnt much information, it would not be a waste of space as long as its easy to get to. For the Arrow station we would have a paragraph about its inventory the tailies discovered and how they interacted with the hatch and how it differs from the others. There would be a bit more to say about the Staff hatch as seen in Claire's episode. As for the Pearl and Flame, they do not get a link just yet because they are still "Terra Incognito". What do you think?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentplanet (talk • contribs)
  • I completely agree with you, it's a very good idea(clean and organized). Unfortunately, the majority editors here will not allow us to do anything like that, even though we should be allowed to create a framework to make things organized (encyclopedias are organized right?). ArgentiumOutlaw 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good route to take if/when there is more on the various stations. The DHARMA page should contain a brief description of each station and Main article... links to those of which enough is known to warrant their own article. I still support the Map->DHARMA merge, but this is a good next step. Arru 08:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with what you are saying. Something of a middle ground between having an article for each station (which right now is only merited for Swan) and all rolled into DI. Coffeeboy 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would think that this is a great idea since it makes sense. The main page will be "The DHARMA Initiative" and all relevant information about what it is. Inside the article there will be some brief info about each known hatches. For hatches with more info, a separate page where all info will be collected, including "the Map". Right now I don't see any reason to merge "the Map" into this page since info on "the Swan" would then take up a disproportionate amount of space to everything else... yet it would make complete sense to move "the Map" into "The Swan Hatch" (or some other such name) along with everything else. It is a far more elegant solution that I believe everyone could agree on. This way Hatch information could be allowed to grow as information increases about them without reducing the focus that this article is supposed to have on "The DHARMA Initiative." -- UKPhoenix79 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I support breaking out the Swan article. It seems that there's more than enough information to constitute a whole page, especially with the inclusion of the map. Sdalmonte 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As I noted on UKPhoenix's talk page, I would not be opposed to splitting off the Stations from this article, which should rightly be focused on the fictional organization, itself. However, it would not be advisable to have separate articles for each station— but one single article for all the stations would likely be acceptable if there is consensus among editors to create it. So far, the consensus is that the "Map" info should go here. I'd suggest that first the map contents be merged/edited (since there is already a section about it here) and afterwards the division of this article be entertained.—LeflymanTalk 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • So, we would break out the Swan (which is logical since it constitutes about 50% of the DHARMA article, even more after a merge with the map) and try to focus this article on the bigger DHARMA Initiative picture. I'm also seeing a Hanso Foundation merge on the horizon, but that's a different debate. Arru 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with what you are saying. Something of a middle ground between having an article for each station (which right now is only merited for Swan) and all rolled into DI. Coffeeboy 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd support a break out. I think that simply a 'List of DHARMA Hatches' page or some such would be sufficient for now, maybe with 'The Swan (Lost)' linked from it. Blade 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not a klaxon

The alarm in the Swan does not sound like, or look like a klaxon. In the Lockdown episode the speakers are also used for transmitting speech, which is not possible with a klaxon. Arru 07:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Theorization box

Because of the recurring speculation about DHARMA (which may very well be the most fuzzy and mysterious part of the Lost universe) I though it would be a good idea to be a bit more upfront about separating facts from creative thinking. Naturally this box should go when Lost finishes airing or closure comes on the DHARMA Initiative. Arru 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT WISH TO SPECULATE. The Lost show includes many deliberately raised but unresolved questions. It is not my intention to speculate on them, but to state what those questions are, and to include relevant quotes from the characters and writers, as they explore the issue in the narrative. You have deleted out-of-hand these statements and quotes.
You have engaged in deleting statements and quotes and you are misrepresenting them as "creative thinking". There is no creativity in repeating what the characters say, only collation and filing. If you think this is the wrong place to file the question, or the question is unimportant, please say so. 81.178.81.212 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be a good idea. The real problem though, is that it's considered original research if we put those quotes together, however truthful they are and however obviously relevant to the 'question' or topic they may be. There's absolutely nothing you can do on the matter, if the word 'speculation' appears in your argument and you're not attacking people for doing it, then what you're asking for will not be allowed. That's my theory anyway. Good luck, and you have my support in getting people to agree with you and helping you organize that information when the time comes. ArgentiumOutlaw 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, it's not that bad... The problem is that if you make uncited statements, it's basically the same as saying "Arru thinks that...". So, when someone else disputes this, there are few ways to ascertain this information. One is to present a balanced picture of verifiable facts only, to let the reader draw her own conclusions. Another is to cite a credible source on the statement (which in the case of Lost is the producers, pretty much). Do you think that the "purpose" section fulfills either of these? Arru 09:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging/breakout consensus

There seems to be sufficient support for

  1. breaking out The Swan
  2. merging the UV map into it

I'm going to be bold and do this very soon. Arru 15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see good consensus that Ultraviolet map should not be its own article, less consensus about splitting off The Swan. I think that for the moment Ultraviolet map should be merged into The DHARMA Initiative. If the section on The Swan gets much longer, put {{splitsection}} on it. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not for speculative interpretations, please use WikInfo or something for that. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I support this. If the other stations can ever be officially aligned with their names (as they appear in the Map), and if they become notable, they can follow. -Litefantastic 23:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My feeling is (to reiterate what I said above) that the Map article should be merged into here first and then the decision about what parts might be split off can be made. —LeflymanTalk 06:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like the article is long enough to split. What is the point? I would only split if each station becomes large enough in size to justify it's own page and the DHARMA page is too long with all stations listed. Otherwise, it just seems like extra clicking and a less powerful article. Morphh 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I gotta agree with you Morphh. The article as is isn't long enough to split off. Only when/if there is any information provided on other hatches with the detail of the Swan should there be a split. Radagast83 07:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree too - after the Map got a taste of the chainsaw of verification, it fits just fine. I revert my support of splitting the Swan, for now. An idea though, was to break out the Swan (still >50% of this article) and instead merge the Hanso Foundation here. But this better wait until the end of the season. Feel free to remove the breakout proposition box. Arru 09:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point Arru, perhaps in late May or early June when the season is complete there might be some possibility to merge Hanso with DHARMA, all depends on if there is any clear explanation on their current connection. From what I gathered the Hanso foundation funds DHARMA, and from what we have seen from onscreen, there isn't much about them that doesn't directly involve DHARMA. I think looking at this next month would be a good idea. Radagast83 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge of the Map

The technical part of the merge is done, and I've taken great care to preserve all content of the Ultraviolet article except dupes of course. I think it is a good plan, as suggested in the discussions above, to first edit the Map information and then decide on breaking out the Swan. Preserving all content does not mean I think it's all accurate or warranted, but editing should be done collaboratively.

While merging, I realized that there is close to a complete duplicate on the synopsis of the Film. This must be fixed. Arru 11:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For My Own Twisted Amusement

For totally unencyclopedic purposes, I'd just like to snap together a list of all the Dharma stations that never were:

  • Catbird Station
  • Goblet Station
  • That rather elaborate spoof with four made-up stations.

And please, if you've found more, add them to the list. -Litefantastic 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What the Film contains and does not contain

I've edited the Film from dupes and information that is not mentioned in...the film. All this info is mentioned elsewhere in the article.

  • the numbers are not mentioned specifically, just "the code" (also, the code entering procedure is already mentioned some three times in the article. I think readers will get the point)
  • 4 + 8 + 15 + 16 + 23 + 42 = 108 is already mentioned in Trivia, which is a better place since it carries no significance as of yet

Meaning of Dharma

a stated in the Trivia section can be found in the Dharma article on the well known Wikipedia™ Arru 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. We don't cite Wikipedia itself as the source of an article's information. By that, I mean an external source needs to be found. The Dharma article may start with one definition, but has many more variations in the body. So far as I've found, the word is not easily defined as just "Natural Law or Reality". For example, these sources give meanings which are entirely different:
"What is Dharma? Dharma is so called, because it holds; Dharma alone holds the people, etc. The word Dharma is derived from the root Dhr - to hold - and its etymological meaning is 'that which holds' this world, or the people of the world, or the whole creation from the microcosm to the macrocosm...
There is no proper equivalent word in English for the Sanskrit term Dharma. It is very difficult to define Dharma.
Dharma is generally defined as righteousness or duty. Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness. It is also the principle of unity."
From "Hindu Dharma", chapter 3 of All About Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda
Another citation holds a slightly different meaning,
"A study of Indian literature reveals that two main meanings of the word "dharma" have been preserved throughout the ages:
to sustain (its generic meaning, based on the word dhr ), and
nature or characteristic (a specific meaning, based on realisation)."
From Dharma—Its Definition and Universal Application at Dhamma.org
So you see, it's not so clear cut as to what it actually means, or whether including an explicit definition is appropriate for the article; deciding which meaning should be associated with Lost seems to me to be Original Research. --LeflymanTalk 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a point. I've tried to correct the Dharma statement, to avoid misinterpretations by readers who do not wish to sift through the entire Dharma article. Arru 08:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed factual accuracy warning

The map section has become quite slim. And, the Entertainment Weekly disclaimer stays. Arru 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I checked the remaining map description, and it covers only items visible in the screenshot. I've removed the disclaimer. Arru 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman numerals on the map

there are not. At least not the "CVIII" etc. In roman numerals 109 is CIX, not CVIV. As someone noted (but has since been removed) the inscriptions are more likely CV I, CV II and so forth. Arru 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In the screenshots the CV boxes can be seen to have the numeral part (after CV) written with bars above and below, as roman numerals are. Arru 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking to fansites

The links to Lostpedia and TV IV wiki were recently removed by Synflame. I replaced it, since I think it's perfectly good to link to notable fan sites, especially when they are clearly marked as such.

While I think Wikipedia should not contain fan speculation or even probable but unverified information, sites like Lostpedia serve a purpose for collecting this - obviously of interest to a lot of Lost fans. Arru 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge vote on The Hanso Foundation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —LeflymanTalk 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Strawpoll on whether The Hanso Foundation article should be merged into this one.

Support merge

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
  1. LeflymanTalk 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC) - The website from which nearly all content for the article The Hanso Foundation was drawn has disappeared— for many months now— and thus, the article has been left without verifiable information. I proposed a while back that it be merged here, removing the now-invalid info. However, Web design company "BigSpaceship.com now has online a brief discussion of their work for ABC, which includes the domains Oceanicflight815.com, Oceanic-Air.com and TheHansoFoundation.org. The link to the first two still go to the proper Web sites, but the last goes to an archive at http://www.bigspaceship.com/archive/hanso/ — which seems to indicate that the content is not considered "active" (nor "official" for ABC) any longer.
  2. Blade 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC) - Sounds reasonable to me
  3. Coffeeboy 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) - Merge it
  4. Arru 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - sounds reasonable, and to me the DHARMA Initiative and Hanso foundation are totally intertwined, story-wise. Also, if the website is resurrected, there still won't be need for a Wikipedia article reiterating everything said on the website.
  5. Radagast83 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - Sounds good. As Arru said above, the DHARMA Initiative and Hanso are intertwined.
  6. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Support per reasons stated above.
  7. PKtm 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - Support. Let's stay verifiable and encyclopaedic, focused on official sources.
  8. Kahlfin 19:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)-While it's true that ABC has officially stated that the site will return, I still think that it would be neater to merge these two pages, because I honestly don't think we're going to learn much more about the Hanso foundation, at least for years to come.
  9. Nihl 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) - Support. We know very little about the Hanso Foundation right now, and in my opinion there's not enough information for it to warrent its own page, so for now it should be merged into the DHARMA page. If we do get a suffient amount of information in the future, then we could consider giving it its own page, but for now it isn't important enough.
  10. Litefantastic 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) - Agree

Oppose merge

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
  1. Elwood00 T | C 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC) - According to the Lost Podcast, the site is being improved and will be back soon.
  2. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC) - Yeah, the producers said it would be back soon and that it would become "way more involved", so it's a waste of effort to merge just yet.
  3. Gonzalo84 02:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC) -- Don't merge it. First, the DHARMA article is already rather extense. Second, the two institutions should be addressed in their own articles.
  4. Plasma 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - Both articles are more than large enough to be able to stand on their own, and the content seems to me to suit seperation perfectly well.
  5. Jake11 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Two different topics, enough unique information for each, yes they should stay seperate
  6. Jambalaya 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - Not logical to merge two articles about two different organizations. While The Hanso Foundation funded/funds The Dharma Initative, Hanso might as well fund _other_ projects than Dharma as well.
  7. Danflave 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry guys, I think both articles should remain. Lost will be around for at least 3 more seasons, and we'll be learning a lot more about DHARMA and Hanso in that time. No point in merging info that will need to be "un-merged" later. Also, any speculation as to how "close" the relationship between DHARMA and Hanso is would be OR. I just think that we will need separate articles in the future, and we already have separate articles, so there's no need to create more work.
  8. Cormacalian 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) - If anything Hanso should merge with DHARMA since DHARMA is the bigger point in the series.
    I think he's opposing this particular merge, if he supported this merge then it clearly wouldnt result in the merge that he wants to happen. ArgentiumOutlaw 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    What? This particular proposal is for Hanso to be merged with DHARMA. He just voted against specifically what he said he wanted.Radagast83 20:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    You're completely right, I misread what he wrote. ArgentiumOutlaw 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. 195.173.23.111 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) As has already been said, we can't speculate on where Lost may go with both DHARMA and Hanso. They have been presented to us as distinct entities. While the Hanso article is short in comparison to other Lost articles, it's not short for Wikipedia in general. Give it a few more seasons; if they still haven't said anything about Hanso after that, then there may be a case.
    • Who are you to tell me I can't vote in someone else's straw poll? You're meant to be looking for consensus, not trying to drive people away with arbitrary, unstated, invented requirements. 195.173.23.111 08:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is only common sense and is a standard of wikipedia. If an IP could vote then anyone including myself could log out and vote twice. It was all stated in the welcome page specifically stating this policy here. So if you wish to vote please register and please remain civil! If you feel this strongly about it please register... Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 11:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I publically declare that this account is only for allowing 195.173.23.111 to vote, when people refuse 195.173.23.111 to vote. This account will vote for 195.173.23.111 if you refuse 195.173.23.111's vote. This account won't be used to edit, 195.173.23.111 will be used to edit. WP:WHY is a promotional page, it is not policy. I feel strongly about being pressganged into registering an account I don't want, just to stop another editor continually plucking me out of someone else's vote! Why do you think that's civil? Extraordinary rendition 13:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Qirien 05:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -With the new hansofoundation.org website and The Lost Experience, these are clearly two separate organizations and need two separate pages.

Other comments

  • Maelwys 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - I would suggest that since the Dharma Initiative is a project undertaken by the Hanso Foundation, that it would make more sense to merge the Dharma information into the Hanso article, and then leave the information on the Dharma stations themselves in their own, seperate article (as proposed below, so there would still be two articles, just reorganize the content into a more sensible manner).
  • These are not really "two different organizations" (as claimed by one of the respondents above); they are a part of a fictional television show, so they are inherently linked. It's speculative to say "[Hanso] might as well fund..." as nothing of the sort has been presented. When the Hanso site reappears, and/or actual verifiable information is added about the foundation, it would be easy to re-create a separate article. At the present, there is no longer any non-Dharma-connected verifiable information about the Hanso Foundation. In contrast to Maelwys' comments, I would suggest that Dharma Initiative is the more notable article, with information about its funding source a less-important part.—LeflymanTalk 17:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said to you on the Hanso Foundation talk page, W:CITE states that websites don't stop being valid citations when they go down, and mirrors of the information (for convenience) can stand in their stead. So the disappearance of the main website is not a valid reason to merge the article. The TV show and web media present The Hanso Foundation and The DHARMA Initiative as two distinct entities. You're arguing that Jack Shepherd and John Locke are "not really two different people" because they're both fictional characters on the same TV show, which is nonsensical. 195.173.23.111 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The producers have stated that the hanso site will come back in may, expanding it's content. It is possible, mabye even likely that Hanso and Dharma will be differentiated as the series goes on, which would justify not merging. In any case, as it stands now, based on the Orientation video, Dharma and Hanso are seperate, so it would be speculative to merge the articles based on the belief that they were 'intertwined'. We really don't know how intertwined they are, other than that they are in fact, connected, which isn't saying much considering how everyone seems to be connected to everything else somehow in Lost. --Jake11 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split vote on DHARMA Initiative stations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —LeflymanTalk 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you were looking at this article to find out information about The DHARMA Initiative its doubtful that this would be the article for you since 90% of it consists of information about DHARMA Initiative stations.

I would like to put up a proposal that we either; rename the article to The DHARMA Stations since that is the main focus of this current article; or we split info on the stations off into another article called The DHARMA Stations. -- UKPhoenix79 10:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Support split

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
  1. UKPhoenix79 10:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC) - In addition to the above I'd like to say that, yes there is currently only a little information about The DHARMA Initiative. Yes there is currently only a little information about The DHARMA Initiative. Yet, I believe that it is a bit inappropriate to fill up this article with information about another topic that is only slightly related to the main article only to take up space. Just because information isn't complete in one section shouldn't hinder the natural evolution of articles. Please don't forget that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and should be allowed to grow naturally. Please remember that the article title should reflect its contents and as of right now that is not the case.
  2. Litefantastic 12:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - Good idea, but I suggest a correction: The DHARMA Initiative Stations would be better.
  3. Arru 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - support if the Hanso foundation is merged. I took the liberty to change the proposed name to The DHARMA Initiative stations (lowercase s) conform with WP:NAME, see Other comments. I do agree that if Hanso is not merged, this article should be renamed the stations article and The DHARMA initiative mentioned in a section.
    • I'm not sure about this, but it feels like that 's' should be capitalized. I guess it depends on what context 'The DHARMA Initiative Stations' is being used in. In some cases, to me, 'Stations' does appear to be a proper noun and part of the title of a station, but I don't know enough about grammar to just make that claim. Does anyone know for sure? ArgentiumOutlaw 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I do. Consider the non-translation property of a proper noun: when translating "The DHARMA Initiative Stations" you would certainly not keep "stations" in English. An "The..." goes because the rules say specifically to avoid definite article in the beginning of titles, BTW. Arru 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - We need organization, and I think there is enough useful information to start. I support it for all of the reasons we've heard so many times by now.
  5. LeflymanTalk 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - Support division, as Arru above, if Hanso Foundation article is merged here; and only verifiable information is the basis of the "stations" article. References to "Map"-derived speculation should not be included.
  6. Coffeeboy 12:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose split

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
  1. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC) - Maybe in the future, but right now there is not enough verifiable information to create a separate article for this.
  2. Jake11 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)DHARMA initiative is the more logical name for this article, because the organization encompasses more than just the stations, and we don't really have enough information on just the stations to justify an entire article just for the stations. In general, I see no clear reason to have two seperate articles on the two subjects, even when significant new information about DHARMA becomes available from the show.
  3. Radagast83 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC) There is not enough information on the other stations for seperate articles.
  4. PKtm 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - "More is not better". Not enough information exists at present.
    • Plasma 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - I don't see there being enough content. A "Dharma research stations" article (or similar name) I could understand, but a bunch of near-stubs? In time, a split will likely be called for, just not yet. - VOTE WITHDRAWN
    • Umm... the way I read it, a single "Dharma research stations" article is exactly what is being proposed here... I haven't noticed anything about creating a "bunch of near-stubs"... Maelwys 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) - This is not a vote, it's a comment clarifying somebody elses vote. Please don't make it appear as something it isn't.
    • Sorry I didn't mean to cast that as a vote, I'm glad that you caught it. You are correct in what your saying, this is not a vote to create several station articles but a vote on creating a single station article. -- UKPhoenix79 12:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, okay, I obviously misunderstood the proposal. I withdraw my oppose vote, though I'll abstain, I'm still not 100% convinced it needs to be split, but I can see the argument a lot easier now. Plasma 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    We might want to redo this vote so that there are 3 options (no strawpolls). Just a simple vote to decide between splitting off all stations with each on their own, all stations in a single seperate article, and keeping things the way they are. Or maybe we should do that after this one ends or something. Also Plasma, if you're withdrawing your vote, I think it is still being counted as one, so you might want to change the above. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Danflave 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I agree with JTrost. I also don't think that, at this point, an encyclopedia article entitled "DHARMA Initiative stations" is appropriate.
  6. Cormacalian 18:42, 26 April 2006. I think it's to early to make the stations a seperate article, but I support a split when more information on each station merits a spilt. In addition to that I feel as if the stations make the bulk of this article and removing them would make this seem like its not really that important. Perhaps merging Hanso and Dharma and then spliting this section into its own? Again, it should be waited until more information is given and each article can be indepentant.
  7. Morphh 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Doesn't seem like the article is long enough to split. I also don't really see the point of having a stations article since it seems the Dharma Initiative seems to encompass this. I would only split if they were each long enough to justify their own article. It seems too early to me and would result in unnecessary clicking and a less powerful article.
  8. 195.173.23.111 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) IMHO, people should work on cleaning up this page and making everything succinct, readable and verifiable. Currently, I don't personally think there's enough information to warrant breaking out the Initiative's stations into a seperate article. There's not a huge amount you can say on either the Initiative or its stations at this time.
    • You're meant to be looking for consensus, not trying to drive people away with arbitrary, unstated, invented requirements. There is nothing in any wiki policy or guideline saying you must automatically discount votes from well-established IP-address editors made in good faith. Besides, this is a straw poll to determine consensus, to see if your merge is a good idea that everyone can agree on and won't immediately revert if you do it. If you can't achieve consensus, there's no "pulling rank" possible. 195.173.23.111 08:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is only common sense and is a standard of wikipedia. If an IP could vote then anyone including myself could log out and vote twice. It was all stated in the welcome page specifically stating this policy here. So if you wish to vote please register and please remain civil! Thanks BTW this is a vote not a straw poll with no one pulling rank... Please assume good faith with others out there! -- UKPhoenix79 11:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I publically declare that this account is only for allowing 195.173.23.111 to vote, when people refuse 195.173.23.111 to vote. This account will vote for 195.173.23.111 if you refuse 195.173.23.111's vote. This account won't be used to edit, 195.173.23.111 will be used to edit. Extraordinary rendition 13:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Other comments

  • I would suggest that since the Dharma Initiative is a project undertaken by the Hanso Foundation, that it would make more sense to merge the Dharma information into the Hanso article, and then leave the information on the Dharma stations themselves in their own, seperate article (as proposed here, so there would still be two articles, just reorganize the content into a more sensible manner). --Maelwys 12:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind a general reply to what most if not all of those opposed to the split on The DHARMA Initiative have said "we don't really have enough information on just the stations to justify an entire article just for the stations." I would like to point out that it is exactly the opposite, there is very little information about "The DHARMA Initiative" since everything seams to be about the stations. I decided that I'd see exactly how much of the article actually talked about the Initiative compared to the Stations. So I grabbed the sections that talk specifically about those subjects and I used the word counter found inside of MS Word to judge the content. Here is what I found:

Initiative focus on the page : These sections were the "intro" "History and purpose" & "Dr. Marvin Candle"
  • Pages - 1
  • Words - 242
  • Characters (no spaces) - 1,309
  • Characters (with spaces) - 1,544
  • Paragraphs - 7
  • Lines - 23
Stations focus on the page : Everything not in the Initiative focus, except for "Trivia" "References" & "External links" were included in the Stations.
  • Pages - 4
  • Words - 1,476
  • Characters (no spaces) - 7,143
  • Characters (with spaces) - 8,574
  • Paragraphs - 46
  • Lines - 132

The judgment that this page doesn't have a lot of info about the stations seams to be incorrect... the problem is that going by word count only (and almost exactly) 1/7th of the page actually talks about the Initiative while the rest of that 6/7th talks about the stations... This page is heavily focused on the stations and it should be acknowledged as such. So we have a choice to create a new article about the stations or re-name this article to reflect its focus! I hope that this helps... -- UKPhoenix79 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Poenix, a few things in re to your above comments. First, I was speaking in terms of absolute size. Check out some of the longer articles on Wikipedia(e.g. United States), they are many times the length in words as the current Dharma article. So since it is acceptable that this article can be much longer, on that grounds alone I would say that the split is unnecessary (The Station-only information isn't so huge that it is unweidly to include with other information). Secondly, the relative size that you noted between the station and non-station section of this article should be temporary, as we learn more about the history of the island I'm sure we will have a beefy content section just for general DHARMA stuff. Thirdly, some of the content that is listed under the Swan station can also be classified as general DHARMA content. That is, to have it only in the stations article, should it exist and not in the main DHARMA article would be excluding relevant information from this article. Lastly, This isn't a Lost wiki, and as much as I love the show, I think it's excessive to have two articles for really the same exact topic. Having a seperate article for DHARMA and DHARMA Stations is crossing the line I believe. Not that the content shouldn't be here, but being that its all about DHARMA, I again see no need for seperate articles. --Jake11 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The size of the article is not the issue here since I think some articles have a good reason to be larger. The reason for this split vote is that this article dosent talk about the Initiative but it talks about the Stations. As I pointed out 6/7 of the article talks only about the stations going compleatly off topic. The United States article focuses on the United States as it should and if that article focused 6/7 of itself to England that would be a problem and would have to be removed, renamed or split. I don't think the 1st option should be taken on this article but the other two are better options here. The stations article wouldn't be duplicating info since it would be split into its own article. The argument to keep the DHARMA inititive here since it will be explained later by the series doesn't mean that you should keep content that dosen't belong in an article to help fill up space in the mean time. And like I said in my vote Please don't forget that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and should be allowed to grow naturally. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Talking about 'the stations' is talking about the DHARMA Initiative. They are DHARMA Initiative stations after all. It's the same topic. It's similar to splitting an article on the CIA into 'The CIA' and 'The CIA Offices' (roughly). Most of the content listed under the Swan station is also relevant to DHARMA as a whole/in overview terms. It also would be less usefull to regular users, because now they have two articles to switch back and forth from to see if it has the information they need.
I just think it's a little extreme to split the article for this reason. The only argument I've seen supporting a split is 'This article is mostly about the stations'. Well yes, but I fail to see why that means the article should be split. That fact doesn't somehow seperate DHARMA from its stations. What else is DHARMA exactly besides its stations? --Jake11 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dharma_Initiative/Archive_2&oldid=1089771835"