Jump to content

Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2006 and April 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Black & White

Someone feels the need to aggressively defend keeping an observation about Rose & Bernard's race in the B&W section. Two of us have removed it as irrelevant and dubious, but it's been reinserted. Let me explain why this tidbit is both dubious and irrelevant. It is dubious in two ways: first, it is questionable as to the true nature of its posting, as in, what's the real motivation behind this repeated posting (since a reasonable person would be able to see that it's more than about any taboos on race), but more importantly, it is doubtful that it is an example of the dichotomy of opposition black & white are used to entail. One must ask themselves, since its probably likely that everyone noticed this little fact, does this relate to the use of the theme within the show? And, quite clearly in Rose & Bernard's case, it doesn't: Rose and Bernard are, at this point, very much not in any form of opposition, to either themselves or anyone else. They're both very nice, loving, caring people who just happen to be of a different skin color. It is quite doubtful that, given the nature of the section, we should equate a difference in skin color to a form of opposition (which is also why the observation of Locke and Eko's skin color has been removed repeatedly). Until the show makes it about opposition, there's no there... there. This can be taken a step further, making this irrelevant, because, since the section builds off of Locke's comments from the pilot, invoking the images of light and dark in opposition, skin color is completely irrelevant to determinations of that sort. Every example given in that section is representative of an opposition, on the sides of light and dark (even if only in the character's minds) between and within characters. Jack hiding the stones from Locke (the opposition between Locke and Jack, which Jack obviously felt to be real, even from that early stage), the color of Sawyer's glasses (the opposition within Sawyer's mind), the initial opposition between the two camps (the opposition between a group that just killed one of the other group's members)... all examples of this type of opposition. There simply isn't any opposition of a deeper sort between Rose & Bernard... skin color is a pretty flimsy example, especially when it doesn't even make sense given the overall use of B&W in the show. Even the show itself has commented on the irrelevancy of this "example", through Jack's exasperated (though not disdainful... an expression akin to, "Yeah, and?") dismissal of Hurley's comments about the couple. Further, factuality is not the datum for inclusion, verifiability is, and making the claim that Rose and Bernard's racial distinction is an example of the dichotomy invoked by Locke himself, and will be used by the producers as such in connection with the use of black and white throughout the show, is unverifiable. As always, perhaps, one day, when Rose & Bernard get their flashback episode (expected sometime in Season 3), this will become an important example... and if so, it can go in then. Baryonyx 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there are disturbing racial undertones to the continual erasure of the entry regarding Rose and Bernard as well as the Locke and Bernard references. Why are you desperately trying to downplay the significance to the black and white motif in these relationships? What in God's name are you so afraid of? Despite your PC tirade about the "true nature" of the entry, I believe you should carefully examine your own personal movitvation for continually deleting it. I think there might be some racism involved on your part for such a random stream of consciousness justification. I'm sorry but it doesn't hold water with me, and I seriously question your motivation on this issue. You might disagree with the insertion, but that's why WIKIPEDIA is for all of us, because several folks here have said they believe it should be there as well. Note your disagreement, now move on. Your continual deletion says alot more about you than you realize.
Hear, hear, Baryonyx. I wanted to say all this, but a) couldn't muster the energy against the repeated and adamant postings, and b) wouldn't have said it as eloquently or comprehensively. Thank you! --PKtm 19:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well said, indeed. I think that for the Story Elements sections to remain "neutral", they should be kept brief and point out only the clearest (and least dubious) examples of the recurring elements. In the case of "black and white" it may not always signify "opposition" on the show-- as I clarified by editing the "meaning" to reference "Duality. However, the importance of the skin color of the two minor, married characters is pretty much non-existent; other than to provide an opportunity (as Baryonyx eludes to, above) for Hurley to quip (paraphrasing) "So Rose's husband is white; who would have seen that?" In terms of the ongoing plot, it has no material relevance.—LeFlyman 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I also agree. I've always found the inclusion of "Rose is black, Bernard is white" to have ulterior motives. However, you summed up the reasons why it should NOT be included perfectly. Danflave 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Error creating thumbnail:
Also, the bit about the black and white dove flying out of Charlie's vision painting should probably be deleted. On a recent podcast, the producers read a question asking if it was two doves or just a shadow and they said it was a shadow. Bopo 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that; I was going on a previous entry when I rewrote that. I've removed it per your note. Interestingly, the painting on which Charlie's dream is based does have two birds, one white in the center, and one black, to the right of frame; which is also why I left it in. —LeflymanTalk 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Time out. Whoever said that the B/W theme had to include opposition? There are simply black and white pairs in the show. Some are opposing, some are not. (ie, Rose & Bernard, Locke & Eko) It's not racism to point out pairs of people who are B/W... Rose & Bernard are married, they are B&W. Locke & Eko are both the freaky philosophic types, they are B&W. So what?! They're really noticeable differences, so why are people afraid to point them out? I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I think it's just stupid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappa.jake (talk • contribs) February 23, 2006

Locke and Eko represent Pagan and Christian faith respectively. The two of them are in opposition. MrMorgan 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When was Locke's faith mentioned? Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the B/W theme for Rose & Bernard was further explained in "S.O.S." Simply put, their personalities are quite distinctive. Rose is a calm, rational woman who sees things as matters of fact, no matter how dire the fate may be (as seen with her reaction to her terminal illness). Bernard is an ambitious, easily flustered man who doesn't resign himself to fate (as seen with the S.O.S. sign and Isaac of Uluru). Despite their highly opposite behaviors, their relationship is warm, solid and pure. I believe the meaning behind this is that opposites can easily coexist, and often thrive that way. Tejayes 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is original research as far as I can see and therefore, ineligible for addition into the article. I also dispute that their relationship is warm, solid, and pure. It seems to me to be none of those things. --Yamla 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My wife and I are a black and white married couple for fifteen years, so I have a personal opinion on this topic. Many folks will argue they see opposites when they look at an interracial marriage, others will say they see nothing but two people. Some people get so incredibly nervous about recognizing two different races, they want to go out of their way to play the PC card. But it is something different regardless of your personal neurosis over the issue. As you can see by now, it's more than just skin color in LOST. Rose and Bernard's personalities are opposites which is a direct corellation to the current black/white topic. The topic is about black and white, and about opposites coming together. Rose and Bernard are an example of black and white coming together, and showing they can work together. Relax and take a breather, there is nothing wrong politically incorrect with recognizing that Rose and Bernard fit in the current black/white theme thus far.

Monster

The Monster article has been created again and supposedly cleaned up, even though it still looks very crufty and full of speculation to me. Joseph has a tendancy of getting into edit wars easily, so instead of taking any hasty actions I would like to discuss what to do about it. Here are a couple of links to reference:

Our options are we can put up another AfD, redirect it to this article, or leave it. I would like to redirect since there's a very high chance of this article being created again. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should redirect to that AfD entry, if that's what you mean. It'd be nice to move onto to new controversies, rather than just repeat the old ones. This one has been "asked and answered", as they say on the TV lawyer shows. -- PKtm 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Just Zis Guy has changed it to a regular AfD - please vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monster (Lost) Danflave 18:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As "the monster" has now been added to the main article as part of the "mythology" section, I've attempted to snip out some of the more speculative claims, which someone has insisted on re-inserting. However, in re-reading it, I'm finding it hard not to say that nearly all of it is Original Research, as we as viewers have to make the speculative leap between the the initial presentation of a creature and the "cloud of smoke" which Eko encounters. I seem to recall that Carlton Cuse or Damon Lindelof may have described their understanding of the difference between what Locke may have seen and what Eko experiences; that would be citeable as a basis for the section. Below are some problems I'm having with the following section:

"The monster is the first piece of mythology introduced. It first appears when, on the night after the crash, the survivors hear a load roar coming from the jungle and witness trees being torn down in the distance. The next morning, Jack, Kate, and Charlie go into the jungle to find the transceiver and see the power of the monster first-hand when it rips the pilot from the cockpit and leaves his mangled body in the trees. In "Walkabout", Locke has a direct encounter, but, unlike the pilot, he is spared. In a conversation with Jack, he says of this event, "I looked into the eye of the island. And what I saw was beautiful." The monster has had very few appearances since then, sporadically emerging in the jungle every so often and disrupting the treks of the survivors, who have so far managed to escape it alive. In "The 23rd Psalm", Eko has a confrontation similar to Locke's. The monster is revealed to be a large mass of black smoke, with images from Eko's past flashing throughout it."

  1. roar: this is a colorful interpretation of the "sound" made
  2. pilot encounter: we are to assume, but have no evidence, that "the monster" was what was responsible for killing the pilot
  3. Locke's encounter: we again are to assume that Locke actually had a direct encounter, as inferred from his description. However, as I mention above there may be a source for this outside of the presentation.
  4. "emerging in the jungle...escape it alive": yet another speculative claim hinting at the nature of the "monster"
  5. "large mass of black smoke": mass implies it has a physical density; so far it has been presented as a cloud, not a mass.

It's easy to be "sloppy" in writing such sections which deal with fictional mysteries. My feeling is if they are to be included at all, the content needs to be grounded in the direct presentation or by citing the expanded descriptions from the show's creators.—LeflymanTalk 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's not speculation among fans that the monster did all that stuff, it's fact. But since you seem to absolutely need a source, here's a quote for you from Paul Dini, one of the writers:

"The monster is sort of a reflection of yourself. The pilot saw it in horror and he was killed because he feared the monster. Locke saw the monster with true awe, therefore, he was able to survive his encounter."

You can find it in here: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/041109d.php

There you go, in one sentence its confirmed that it was the monster (Yes, its the same one that's doing all of these things, hence why the writers and producers refer to it in the singular form) that killed the Pilot, and later that it spared Locke. However, I think it's ridiculous that I need to prove this to you with a direct quote from a writer considering it's fact among Lost fans (and among the writers) that the monster killed the pilot. For that reason, I don't feel it nessecary to source it, but if you do, feel free to, the link's right above.

  • Yes, actually such assertions DO need to be "proved" -- no matter how much a "fact" it may be among fans. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Just because fans may believe something to be true, doesn't make it appropriate to add. From the core policy of Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" -- information presented here (even in fan-oriented articles such as this one) must be based on reliable sources; otherwise such information is likely to be classified as "Original Research". Your reference above claims to be a direct quote of Paul Dini; this is inaccurate. The actual line from the article starts " It was also said that the monster is sort of a reflection of yourself...." indicating that it was not a "quote" but a paraphrase. We don't know what Dini actually said, because the writer of the Dark Horizons article has synthesised the answer. I do expect that it is something similar, but we should not use a single passing mention at the Dallas Wizard World convention from early in the first season as the sole basis for a speculative claim on Wikipedia.—LeflymanTalk 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing it back to the way it was (albeit with the changes you suggested about certain words like "roar" and "mass"), and since I have proven that it's been confirmed by the writers, please don't delete it again.

As for the animal section I wrote, you've yet to explain why that's "speculation". It's all fact: they really have come across a polar bear (which doesn't belong on the island), there really was a boar that, Sawyer felt (key words there) was purpossely harassing him, there really was a shark with the DHARMA logo, and there was a horse on the island (something normally not native to the island) that Kate felt she saw before. There's no speculation there or any need for direct quotes from the writers because all of those things can be observed (not assumed) on the show. Some direct quotes, right from the show (which is, obviously, the ultimate source):

  • This section is speculative in being added as mythology. There are many unusual things we can say about the Island, and so far the general category of "animals" is not a major part. If anything, it is a sub-category of oddities. We might just as likely throw in "strange whispers", "crash-landings", "imaginary people/visions" -- as these all have also occurred as often as "animals" on the Island.
    While still speculative, it's likely the animals originate from the same source: a Dharma station focused on zoology. There is nothing inherently supernatural about these appearances -- unless one is to claim that polar bears are magical. Having said that, there is a sort of "motif" (more like an Easter egg) in the use of polar bears, as they reappear in flashback sequences. However, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest this rather fan-crufty point is worth a mention here. In short, the appearance of "animals" on the Island, while interesting, has yet to be established as a major part of the series' mythology, or so far as I know been talked about by the writers/creators as having importance.—LeflymanTalk 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Pilot:

BOONE: That can't be a polar bear. SAYID and KATE [at the same time]: It's a polar bear. SHANNON: Yeah, but polar bears don't usually live in a jungle. CHARLIE: Spot on. SAYID: Polar bears don't live near this far south. BOONE: This one does.

Here we have confirmation from the characters that it's indeed a polar bear, as well as the disbelief from the characters that a polar bear could live on a tropical island.

From "Outlaws":

KATE: A boar? Did all this? SAWYER: Last night -- wrecked my tent. This morning when I went to get my tent back it attacks me from behind and runs off into the jungle like a coward. KATE: A boar wouldn't just attack you for no reason. SAWYER: Thank you, boar expert. This one did. It's harassing me.

A direct quote from Sawyer in which he believes that the boar is harassing him on purpose.

From "What Kate Did":

KATE: You need a haircut. SAWYER: Oh, really? [Sawyer sees something in the distance] Maybe you ought to take me back inside.

[Kate turns to see the black horse.]

KATE: You see that? SAWYER: If you mean the big ass horse standing in the middle of the jungle, then yeah.

[Kate approaches the horse and nuzzles it before it walks away.]

SAWYER: Do you know that horse, Freckles? KATE: Yeah, I do.

Here we have confirmation that Kate (as well as Sawyer, to establish it's not a figment of her imagination) sees the horse, and she establishes to Sawyer that she thinks she has seen the horse before.

There's no need to reference to any of these things though because, as part of the show, these things can easily be observed and established (as opposed to assumed). There's no quote refering to the Dharma lgo on the shark, but that too can be observed... there's no speculation. All that I've put down is observations, not speculation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.35.180 (talk • contribs)

Ultraviolet Map

Someone created an article for the Ultraviolet map. I put up an afd for it. You can vote here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • A number of people are voting to "Keep" this article, although the content is based on speculation. Please check the AfD to review the discussion.--LeflymanTalk 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Camperdave: I found a copy of this map in a copy of Entertainment Magazine (I think). While I don't watch the show LOST, but I may have found something on the map - Heavy Water!

I put a box around an area, that in my personal magazine copy of this map, describes that there is underground heavy water. Image:Lost_heavy_water.JPG

I am aware that "bad" things are happening on the island. Heavy Water is bad for you...

The smaller text is the part that describes it... Camperdave 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The afd resulted in no consensus. Right now I see two options: delete all of the OR and speculation out of the article, or put another afd on it. The problem with the first option is that if we do that then there will be almost no content on the page. I'm perfectly happy with the second option, but I don't think other authors share my same enthusiasm about it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If the last afd resulted in no consensus, there's no reason to assume that another one will prevail. Looks to me like only the first of your two options is viable. I certainly agree that it will drastically reduce the content on the page. Here are some concrete things that I propose be done:

  • Rename the article, as there does seem to be a consensus that the name is at best a misnomer.
  • Remove all reference to anything that can't be seen on a normal, unenhanced freeze frame from the actual show. In other words, the EW article/map and various other internet replicas are off-limits. We really don't know the EW article's genesis (they claim they got their version of the map from the producers, but entities like EW say lots of things to sell magazines). They themselves say that the map is "blurry as heck and visible for only a split second". To me, any data or conclusions resulting from that article are fruit from a poisoned tree, unless or until Damon or Carlton say otherwise in their podcast etc.
  • To the best of my ability to see, I can't make out a single Latin phrase in its entirety, nor any dates. Much as those items are fascinating material for fan sites, they're not verifiable for Wikipedia. Their removal would tend to vastly reduce what's in the article.

Anything else? -- PKtm 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost Video Diaries?

The article currently says that the "Lost Video Diaries" will be distributed in early 2006. Did this happen as scheduled? If so, is there any information available about the content of these mini-episodes? (Does anyone actually call them mobisodes?) A Google search found only coverage of the press release, saying that they would be available in January 2006, but I didn't manage to find any information about the episodes themselves. Anybody here know anything about them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I recall hearing in a Podcast that there would be quite abit of content available late spring/early summer, don't know if that will include the diaries. Coffeeboy 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Coffeeboy. I'm guessing that these were delayed from the originally planned January release — I suppose there will be another publicity blitz when they actually do come out. —Josiah Rowe <small>(talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

b. f. skinner

the show mentions b. f. skinner, and maybe the article should talk a little about that. operant conditioning, utopian society, etc... hello? the plot's pretty predictable if a person just reads a little about b. f. skinner (his mention in the dharma initiative orientation tape).

Widmore

Another fun afd! Article | AFD Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If it has good content, shouldn't it be merged? Coffeeboy 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking

I'm not one for getting into an edit war, having now had two reversions on this, but please consider this from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links):

"On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

  • More than 10% of the words are contained in links;
  • It has more links than lines;
  • A link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence)..."

I don't believe that this article is so long that it's inconvenient to scroll up to the the list of characters. In addition to that list and elsewhere, Locke is linked three times within the "References to Philosophers" section alone, and his real-life counterpart is linked twice. Surely you can see that this is nonsensical? Chris 42 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the significance of this, but the number 108 (the sum of the numbers) and Dharma (as in DHARMA initiative) both link in to Hinduism, particularly with Veda

The number 108 occurs countless times in Hinduism and in other Indian cultures, further reading can be found here

Dharma can be interpreted as "God's will," and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said that the number 108 represents God.

I can't really relate this properly to the plot of Lost, but there is a definite link here.

Ooh, also 'Namaste' is written in the 'access denied' sections of the Hanso Organisation website, and also spoken by Dr. Marvin Candle, speaker of the orientation movie. It is a yogic greeting, and is from Hindi.

Fansites.

Recently it has come under discussion the deletion of the Lostpedia entry. as per that discussion it has been said that a link to this page is preferrable to an article. I have included both Lostpedia and Lostlinks to include two very important gateways to the LOST fandom. --GodEmperorOfHell 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL. Neither one of these websites are notable enough to be included as an external link. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the past, I have supported removal of all fan sites; however, I am willing to consider inclusion of one general site such as Lostpedia. An alternative would be the Lost Wikia site (which has a connection to Wikipedia), at http://lost.wikia.com -- such a link is neutral enough not to be consider "favoritism". In particular, it would offer an alternative venue for new editors who want to include speculative materials, which is not appropriate here. Under External links", it suggest: "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link" --LeflymanTalk 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to agree to that, too, if only as a means to prevent the incessant encroachment of fancruft into Wikipedia pages. Giving people a pointer, an outlet, to a place where that material can legitimately go seems wise. -- PKtm 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed several times before, and repeatedly decided against. However, apparently people keep adding these references in, because this article (and not the discussion page) keeps showing up in my referrer list for The Lost Wiki. --72.73.25.10 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal:LOST

hey there, I was woundring, why shouldn't there be a LOST Portal? I just created a portal for Saudi Arabia, it looks hard but Wikipedia really makes it easy! I think there should be one! tell me what you think--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok,,, no one answred,, so I started it, Didn't finish it yet but feel free to do so. Portal:LOST --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting idea, however, prior to starting such a new effort, you need to get input on the proposal. See: "How to propose a portal": "Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers."

    My feeling is, as there is already a Lost Category, there's no real need for a "portal" as yet. Further, since there are some controveries about the organization of some articles, it would be jumping the gun to put up a portal.

    You might instead want to consider helping to start up a Wikiproject, which have a similar purpose as a portal, but are aimed at organizing/improving content. Some examples are the Doctor Who and the Buffyverse Wikiprojects. There's been some discussion prior to starting up such an effort.--LeflymanTalk 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

French Poem?

In a recent episode, I think it was this week, I saw Locke trying to recopy the the map on a piece of paper. The paper contained what appeared to be a poem in french. I coul have sworn I saw the word jeune (Young), and would appreciate a full (or better) copy of the poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camperdave (talk • contribs)

New speculative "element": Healing

Removed from the Story Elements section:

Healing
A few of the characters have had serious ailments lifted from them upon reaching the island. Most notably, Locke, who was without the use of his legs before the crash, could miraculously walk again. In "S.O.S.", it's revealed that Rose was stricken with a fatal form of cancer which she feels has been cured. (There is also some speculation that Jin's inability to father children was also cured, resulting Sun's pregnancy in "The Whole Truth").
Additionally, Jack is sometimes seen as a miracle healer ("The Hunting Party") after he was able to fix his ex-wife's spine, a feat that seemed impossible given her condition.

-LeflymanTalk 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the reasoning for removing this section? Thanks --Jake11 21:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Leflyman, what is speculation in the removed healing section? All I can see is veryfiable facts from watching the show. It doesn't say "The Island healed their ailments", it just says "Their ailments are healed". I am considering re-adding this section, because the concept of 'miraculous' healing does indeed seem to be quite pervasive throughout the show. --Jake11 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, to explain further: this particular concept should not be included, because:

    1) "Healing" is not a "story element". If anything, it's yet another of the many supposed "mysteries" of the Island, which are yet unexplained. What you might take as fact is an interpretation of the story. An alternative interpretation could hold that the characters were not actually "cured".

    2) The section admits that the "healing" theory is a guess, saying "There is also some speculation..."

    3)It includes additional speculation that Jack is a "miracle healer" and that his operation of Sarah "seemed impossible".--LeflymanTalk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interconnections

The interconnections section I added is not speculation. It contains nothing more than specific descriptions of scenes from the show. I have re-added the section. Before removing the section again, can the editor explain the logic of the removal, and how the section is speculative? Thanks --Jake11 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is speculative because it drew conclusions on why the characters met and the ramifications of their meeting (i.e. Christian motivated Sawyer to shoot the fake Sawyer). There is already a crossover section at Characters of Lost that explains this in a much less speculative way. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not speculative to say Christiain motivated sawyer to shoot the fake sawyer, because you see the dialog play out right in the show. Christian explains to sawyer that if it would make him feel better, it's "just that simple" to just do it, and you see it dawn on sawyer's face. In any case, that one instance does not render the whole section speculative, just that one part needs modifiying (which it doesn't, per what I just explained). In addition, it fits very well in the "story elements" section of this article, regardless if there is a full list elsewhere, thus, it should be included. --Jake11 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Speculation aside, this cannot be considered a story element because so far the crossovers have not shown any significance in the grand scheme of the show. It's that simple. In the future there may be some big revelation that makes crossovers an important story element, but until then it's not necessary to include this in the article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. For two reasons: One, since when does a story element need to show any specific type of significance to be considered a story element? It's just a 'story element'. Two: the other listed elements haven't shown any significance either (black and white, literary refrences, refrence to philosophers). Please discuss this further to refine your point before removing the section again --Jake11 23:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps some sort of list might be appropriate, given positive consensus of other editors-- but not necessarily as part of "Story Elements". Unless can find a source that suggests there is a "thematic purpose" to such cross-overs, as Jtrost points out above, they aren't actually "elements" of the story. However, I recall reading somewhere that one or more Lost writers have discussed these appearances as being more than just what they term "Easter Eggs", but part of the series' mythology. (Can someone track down that reference?) Perhaps this might lead to a division between elements of the story, and the mythos therein. "The Numbers", for example, are actually more related to the mythology/mystery, than to "story elements". Likewise are many of the other things we've previously chosen to keep out of the article-- probably because we couldn't see a place in the article for them without being termed speculative: the Others, the Black Cloud, etc. So what do you all think of a new section, under which a short summary of such mythology be included? The differentiation might be that "story elements" are those parts of Lost which are only meaningful to viewers, and appear outside the apparent comprehension of the characters: the philosophical and literary references that the story makes, the appearance of certain recurring motifs, etc. "Mythology" would be those often mysterious things which have meaning/impact within the context of the story to the characters themselves. In other words, there are some things that only the viewers can understand, such as John Locke is named for a philosopher. There are other things which we as viewers do not (yet) understand, but have importance to the story in some way, such as "The Black Cloud" which Rousseau calls a security system. We should look at finding a place in the article for them, if they can be discussed in a neutral, referenced and non-specultive way. --LeflymanTalk 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the interconnections section is as much a 'story element' as the other ones listed. Can you define 'story elements' in a way that excludes the 'interconnections' section but includes all the others? Thanks, because that is what is required to justify the deletion of the interconnections section. As per the other comment, I think other lists on this article would be usefull, but with the interconnections section, the story elements section should not be greatly modified I believe. --Jake11 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comments suggest to me that these interconnections are more a part of the story than the "mythos". See my last comments below. Note that I don't delve into a lot of this stuff, black and white shirts, "ultraviolet" map, etc.; I'm just a viewer, and these scenes have made a greater impression on me as an important recurring theme. If it's also part of the mythos, great. --C S (Talk) 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I note above, the actual brief glimpses we get of main characters in each other's flashbacks have had (to this point) no bearing on the plot itself. In the cases of main characters crossing paths with secondary flashback characters, the issue is slightly more convoluted. For example, Locke being the home inspector for Nadia was interesting, but not crucial; likewise, Kate's mother waiting on Sawyer in the restaurant, or Kate's "dad" being on the transport with Sayid. All these "cross-overs" do is add some additional "hmm" factor. However, I would suggest that Christian Shephard speaking in a bar with Sawyer is (so far) a wholly unique example of this supposed "interconnectedness" thing, because 1) Christian is already dead at the "beginning" of Lost, thus, the meeting was a plot device to disclose what happened to him in Australia, without having Jack in the scene; 2) Sawyer figures out that the man he met was Jack's dad; 3) Sawyer reveals his meeting to Jack later, which provides a sort of closure to Jack's unresolved anger towards his father. 4) We effectively assume that Christian's speech was the deciding factor for the death of Frank Duckett, but Sawyer had already worked himself up to "finish" the job: he had the gun, he'd already visited Duckett, and went to get himself some liquid courage. Below, I'll touch on the different matter about the cast seeing each other just prior to the flight. —LeflymanTalk 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This is irrellevant, as the other 'story elements' have no more significance than what you describe in the first place, and you greatly downplay the significance of the crossovers by labelling them "plot devices". Well, anything can be considered a plot device if you describe it like that, but the fact is, what you see in the show is supposed to be what actually happens, and if that's significant, it doesn't matter how the writers came up with it or justified it; it's significant. --Jake11 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't the whole Sawyer and Jack's dad incident significant? It was in an episode that concluded with Jack being told by Sawyer that Jack's dad did respect Jack and appreciate what he had done. This is the culmination of a quite important development of Jack's character which was led up to in previous episodes, e.g. his guilt over what had happened to his dad. I think it's certainly worth mentioning the encounter, and there are other such "interconnections" that would fit right in with the mention.

I'm not at all convinced that such interconnections don't count as story elements. It certainly seems much more substantial than the whole bit about black and white, which I totally missed (black and white shirts?). Probably these other things like literary references fall under the category of story elements that "other elements provide a deeper understanding of the story"; however, I don't see why the interconnections section doesn't provide such a deeper understanding. It's certainly improved my understanding to realize that Libby was actually also in the same institution as Hurley, that Rose saw Locke in his wheelchair (this is also significant in the episode about Rose), that Anna-Lucia met Jack in the bar before the island, and that Shannon gets Sayid in trouble with airport security (thus making her later change and relationship with him have added meaning).

We should certainly edit the section and bring up its quality (rewording, for example, the statement about Sawyer's conversation with Jack's dad), but I see no grounds for totally removing it. Please don't delete it again without further discussion here. --C S (Talk) 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a great point, the interconnections have has had significance for the plot.--Jake11 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The meetings of Rose and Locke, and Anna-Lucia and Jack aren't really "interconnections" -- they see each other before boarding the same plane. One can't really ascribe particular meaning to the crossing of characters in a waiting area, when they're all hanging around, waiting for the same thing.—LeflymanTalk
Rose and Lock don't meet; she sees him pass by in his wheelchair, but he doesn't notice her. He certainly doesn't realize she had seen him prior to the island until they talk and she suggests that he will be on his feet quicker than Jack thinks. This is part of her realization that the island has healed her and lets her tell Bernard confidently that it wasn't the Australian healer he took her to. Bernard after learning of her belief that the island healed her then asks if she thinks leaving the island could bring on a recurrence. This is part of why he stops his project to create an SOS sign.
I can't understand dismissing Rose's previous "crossing of paths" with Lock as not having "particular meaning". I would say that the writers for the show gave it meaning by showing how it plays a crucial role in the story line of the SOS episode. While it is true that they were all hanging about in the lounge, Locke's regaining use of his legs is still a secret from most of the characters. --C S (Talk) 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I highly disagree with this section, I migrated the content from the Characters page onto this one because it is less speculative and cites a source for original claims it makes. I would still like further discussion on this because this is in no way a stroy element. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this is a much better take on the matter-- but again, I suggest that as Damon Lindelof indicates, that this be part of a new "mythology" section.—LeflymanTalk 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The writers have clearly chosen to advance the plotline by using flashbacks that reveal these chance encounters. Some of their chance encounters clearly affect the story, others have not. That's by any reasonable definition a "story element". The new section heading is a better description than "interconnections" in any case. --C S (Talk) 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite my expressed opinion right above, I personally don't care to debate longer on whether this material is listed as a "story element" or not, although I am in fact very puzzled by what criteria are being used here to deem it not one. I think it should be included in some fashion or other (for the reasons I've stated). The whole article, particularly the "story elements" section, could do with a reorganization and reworking. As Leflyman says, that seems to be part of the problem here. I'm not convinced it would fit under a "mythos" section or what should actually go there, but I don't find that discussion very interesting. Others can debate that. --C S (Talk) 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Jtrost: I will repeat what I wrote to Leflyman: 'Can you define 'story elements' in a way that excludes the 'interconnections' section but includes all the others? Thanks, because that is what is required to justify the deletion of the interconnections section.'
Also, the modifications you made to the crossover section is highly wordy and unclear. I am going to mix and match my old wording with the new one to get the best effect. But please don't just revert to your version without first explaining here how you justify that.
This part is especially atrocious:
'In various flashback sequences the survivors have communicated with, seen, been incidentally in the presence of, or been indirectly in contact with other survivors or their family members.'
Also, this quote from the new sections: 'Sawyer tells a teary-eyed Jack about the meeting, and helps Jack find closure regarding his father's death.' is just as speculative as saying that Christian motivated sawyer to kill the fake "sawyer", So I don't see the point in making the change at all and am re-adding that bit.
It also does not clearly state the scope of the crossovers. Thus, revise
Thanks --Jake11 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have watched the same episode you are referring to, and I did not infer that Jack's father motivated Sawyer to kill the "real" Sawyer. Since it is clear two people who have watched the same episode believe two different things, then your conclusions must be speculation. I've removed that particular example. Danflave 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. If two people disagreeing on a subject meant that that subject should considered "speculation", and thus unfit for an article, then you could basically just delete most of Wikipedia. Sometimes the intended effect on the viewers by the writers is just not as apparent for some people, for whatever reason (like being distracted while watching the show). I think you should watch the episode again. Watch closely. First, sawyer attempts to kill the shrimp-man, but he doesn't. Based on Saywers hesitation with the gun and his expressions, it can be infered that he doesn't have the heart to do it. Then he meets Christian. They talk, and the conversation turns to (roughly) the subject of doing things to make your life better. Sawyer says he can't do what he wants to do because it's "complicated", but Christian simply asks if doing what he wants to do would fix things. Sawyer says yes, and Christian then replies (roughly) that it's "just that simple" to do what he wants to do. There is then a look of Dawning on Sawyers face, after which Sawyer succesfully murders the shrimp man. I think based on this series of events that I outlined above that it was Sawyers conversation with Christian that changed his perspective enough to actually go through with the murder.
Since you believe that Christian may not or did not motivate Sawyer to kill the shrimp man, can you explain to me where in my above reasoning I went wrong, or how you interpreted things differently and why? Thanks, it would be greatly appreciated.
Otherwise, I think there is sufficient justification to consider that situation non-speculation, and if no complete argument against my reasoning is made besides "we disagree, therefore it's speculation", I will return the example--Jake11 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've divided the section, as per my discussion above into "motifs"—which are principally for fans' enjoyment and understanding— and "mythology" which is integrated into the plot. I've placed the "Crossovers" and "Numbers" in this new section, where (as mentioned above) there could also be additional items there. As to the content disagreement above, I should suggest that those involved should consider that if particular content addition is in dispute, it's probably not agreeable to the consensus-- and should not be added back in until such consensus is reached.—LeflymanTalk 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
(Note: the IP-editor for the section was me, getting timed-out.) I've also just edited the "Crossovers" to include a mention of the Sawyer-Christian interaction, but without the disputed "motivation". Likewise, I've reduced the claim that Jack was responsible for Shannon's father's death, as the accident was the direct cause. From the dialogue from "Abandoned", "Your husband was in a head-on collision with an SUV. He suffered massive internal injuries. He stopped breathing at the site of the accident. I'm afraid we were unable to resusitate him. I'm so sorry."—LeflymanTalk 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Definitely an improvement. --C S (Talk) 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Article on Oceanic flight 815 website now listed on AfD

The site may be official, but it's still fancruft, by definition, and it's not notable for a separate Wikipedia article. Please see and discuss at the AfD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic flight 815 website. PKtm 15:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article on Danielle Rousseau (Lost) now listed on AfD

Background: an edit war has transpired on Danielle Rousseau (note that this is a different page from the one I just listed on AfD) since the end of March, when it was created as a full article, rather than just a redirect to the Characters of Lost page, which it had been since last November. One user was blocked on Friday (WP:3RR) for repeatedly reverting the text to a full article rather than a redirect. Immediately upon his return, he created this new page, Danielle Rousseau (Lost), as a full article, similar to the old full article, but with some new text taken from Lostpedia. Please see and discuss at the AfD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost). -- PKtm 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark McNeil as Ramoas Jones??

Who? Blade 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

which dvds in Season 1 are 'Making of Lost' dvds?

I'm renting from amazon and trying to avoid the 'how they made Lost' dvds. Amazon don't describe what is on each dvd

The last disc (disc 7) is the special features. Every other disc has episodes. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, but the version amazon uk are sending me is this one [1] which has 8 discs (along with Season 1 - Part 2 has 4 discs). I know disc 4 (of season 1 part 1) is 'special features' because I got stung already. Do you know if any of the other discs in this version are 'special features'? thanks in advance

Discredited theories

Everything seen is a fictional reality taking place in one or more of the survivors' minds — dismissed by Damon Lindelof [13]

Does the episode "Dave" not discount this? 138.162.5.8 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, because in "Dave", not everything is in Hurley's mind; only Dave is a hallucination. The rest is real. --Kahlfin 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Lost articles

I would like everyone to be aware that there is a straw poll at Talk: List of Lost episodes to decide the fate of the Lost articles. Many of us work hard and regularly edit the Lost article. We all realize how difficult it is to maintain quality, non-speculative, grammatically correct articles. I hope everyone will realize how difficult it will be to maintain quality for the 100+ articles that will be created were we to make a new article for each episode. Please consider this carefully. Danflave 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Division of the Story Elements section

I have some problems with the way that this section has been divided up: 1) How is "Familial Dysfunction" a thematic motif that has "no direct impact on the story itself." Familial dysfunction is an element of the story, not "literary or philosophical subtext" that is "unnecessary for the enjoyment of the series." 2) The numbers, although at some points they do have an impact on the story, are also "subtly embedded within scenes," making them as much a recurring motif as "Black and White" and "Eyes" are. 3) Couldn't any of the thematic elements be part of the mythology of the series? We really won't know the significance of any of these elements until the show is over.--Silentword 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's all very true. There is a degree of categorization for all the old 'story elements', but not finely defined enough for them to be unarbitrary. I think 'Story elements' is good enough. I also think it's very POV to say that the thematic elements aren't necessary for the enjoyment of the show, and it could be equally said that the mythology elements weren't necessary either. Also, it's the Mythology section description is highly speculative. Wait a second, The whole categorization is speculative because we don't know which aspects should be considered "mythology" or not because we haven't seen the entire series yet! --Jake11 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Familial dysfunction has no mythological component; it's an everyday occurrence which is used to create dramatic and parallel backgrounds for the characters, but doesn't (yet) demonstrate any meaning to the Island or its mysteries. (Unless we discover that the Island is a gathering place for those who break the Fifth Commandment). In contrast, "eyes" and "black and white" are motifs reused by the writers within the context of the presentation, but have no overt plot component. The use of the numbers, however, comes out of the Island and its mythology, although their re-appearance throughout the story are "easter eggs"-- or like the "crossovers" a reflection of the interconnection between the characters. I wouldn't suggest we make that claim, but differentiating between what are the mysteries that are integral to the story, and those repeated elements which are principally for the viewers' interest seems worthwhile.—LeflymanTalk 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Quote: "In contrast, "eyes" and "black and white" are motifs reused by the writers within the context of the presentation, but have no overt plot component.". How do you know this?, since you have not seen every lost episode that will ever be made, and probably not even half? What about the glass eye in the Dharma Arrow bunker? Answer: you don't, thus saying eyes for example have no overt plot significance is speculation, much moreso than saying that Christian motivated Sawyer to kill shrimp-sawyer, or Jack allowed Shannon's dad to die, since you are making a claim entirely on the premise that certain event's wont happen in episodes you haven't seen yet. Can you clarify this? Thanks. --Jake11 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The claim that the thematic elements expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext is also speculation. Unless the producers have stated so, how do we know that black and white is meant to be subtext for the show? Maybe black and white will later turn out to have some specific significance to the show's plot; in fact I think I remember reading an interview with a writer who said that the significance of black and white would not be explored until season 3.--Silentword 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What I wrote is obviously based on what has been presented already. Viewing "every lost episode that will ever be made" is not necessary, and such a requirement is rather meaningless: Wikipedia is flexible enough that articles can be changed/added to as new information is revealed. Contrary to your claim, it's not speculation to make a statement based on present understanding; while it would be speculative "crystal balling" to include material based on expected or predicted possibilities. As to whether "black and white" should be removed, please feel free, as I agree that it doesn't have a clear verifiable source, apart from the connections made by viewers. —LeflymanTalk 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In looking back over the text, I can see Silentword's concern about the description for "familial dysfunction" as being broadly grouped with motifs that "have no impact on the plot" -- when clearly the dysfunctions themselves are integral to the character's histories. I do think there's a legitimate grouping there, but it needs a clearer description. Would someone like to take a shot at it? —LeflymanTalk 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost Phenomena page?

An idea I had recently: does anyone think we should make an entire page dedicated to the phenomena we see on the show (for example, the Monster, the numbers, the polar bear, the healings, etc)? Similar to the character page, we could list all of the phenomena on that page, list what episodes they appear in (or at least the first episode it appeared in), then give a description of that phenomena, it's appearences, and list debunked theories and other bits of data that have been collected. I think this could save a lot of room onseveral other pages, as well as give a good reference for all those Lost fans out there that are trying to come up with their own theories.

Punctuation

I have attempted to standardize the punctuation on this page to conform with the American convention of putting commas and periods inside quotation marks. While I acknowledge that there are different acceptable ways to punctuate articles on Wikipedia, punctuation using the American convention should be strongly favored in this article. This show is produced by an American production company for an American TV network. The three creators are Americans. The composer is American. Most of the main characters are American. (However, many are not.) The series is filmed mostly in Hawaii. And, of course, the article begins, "Lost is an American drama-adventure television series..." These considerations weigh in favor of using the American convention. LegalSwoop 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers

The crossovers section states that the first crossover was in "Outlaws". However, in "Hearts and Minds", when Boone is talking to the Australian police, Sawyer appears in the background, and even says something. Does this count as a crossover (since it wasn't at the airport)? If not, why not? --Kahlfin 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is. Just changed it. Thanks for pointing this out.

Polls on The Dharma Initiative

There are currently two polls on The DHARMA Initiative page:

  1. Merge The Hanso Foundation to here
  2. Splitting the article into multiple articles

Please voice your opinions on these. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive_7&oldid=1257399620"