Talk:Mythology of Lost/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 2006 and November 2008

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

Suggestion

The article needs some work to make it stand better on its own. I think linking to the pages of all the characters mentioned would be a start.--Opark 77 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably. When I moved it, I only copied and pasted. Lumaga 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to add the following elements to the show's mythology (or possibly themes)? (Spoilers follow obviously)

• Healing: The island appears to have healing powers. Locke, Rose and Sun all appear to have been cured of various physical ailments.
• Impossible figures from the past: Characters have seen and sometimes interacted with figures from their past while on the island. Eg Jack's dead father or Hurley's (imaginary) friend Dave.
• Children: Much is made of the special quality of Claire's baby, and something similar is implied for Walt (eg that he is somehow responsible for the polar bear's appearance after he read a comic book featuring the animal). Sun's pregnancy (once it comes to term) could be described as a miracle birth.

Some of these elements interact with each other. For example the same force that might cause Walt to have conjured the polar bear could also be responsible for the appearance of Jack's father. Sun's pregnancy falls under the heading of both "healing" and "children".

--203.158.52.189 12:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree it's wise to be cautious about adding too many new mythology elements (see WP:CRUFT), I'd be willing to signoff on something that covered the healing or hallucinatory nature of the island, since that definitely seems to be a common theme. --Elonka 14:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the monster part of the article, its not a nanobot according to the producers, and they often hinted in the season 1 dvd's that its not a monster at all.

The healing power of the island definitely needs a mention. It is key to the strangeness of the place that it has healed so many characters in apparently miraculous ways. Also, journeys such as Jack's search for his father are mental or emotional healing - all part and parcel of the same thing. raining_girl 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Polar bear

The Polar bears should probably be removed from Mythology if we gain any more information that the others took care of the animals. As of season 3 ep 1 we clearly know of cages for the bears at The Hydra station. This would remove the 'supernatural' aspect of their existance. -- N1ck0 06:08 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, though. The Others could have been capturing them for observation or testing, it is still out-of-place for polar bears to be on a tropical island, which is what the article notes is strange about them. Maybe take it out of mythology if it turns out that the Others or the DHARMA Init. brought them to the island or something. . . Riverbend 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The way the bear kidnapped Eko would keep it in mythology for me. raining_girl 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) I always thought it was created when Michael took the comic book away from Walt, since he seems to have telekinesis.

216

By addition of the numbers with the number of minutes in which they must be typed (4 + 8 + 15 + 16 + 23 + 42 + 108), you get the result 216. This number is the cubic number of 6. 6³ = 6 * 6 * 6 = 216. Shouldn't this bit be added? If no other reason as a coincidence or possible link? Mulder1982 19:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just numbercruft. Please don't add it. Lumaga 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

216 is often connected with 666. It'd hadly be an accident. It might not have any significance in the show, but it's damn freaky. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Animals

Would it be worth mentioning that Hurley encountered a parrot (or some huge tropical bird) that he believed was shrieking his name? Riverbend 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The bird was a kea and has since been added. Rob 13:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Numbers AfD

A new user moved the Numbers subsection into the cruft-filled The Lost Numbers which has been placed for AfD. --Leflyman^Talk 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

theories and internet community buzz

Lost has generated countless theories and is tracked, dissected and discussed by a massive (and obsessive, I'm one of them!) internet community. It's also widely shared so that many UK viewers don't have to wait for series 3 and are watching it right after it airs in the US. I think that this talkign and sharing is a particular aspect of the show that deserves mention. Although there is a section mentioning discredited theories there is no other reference to this aspect. raining_girl 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Subtitle of "Ghosts"/"Visions" section

Hi there.

I added the "visions" section a couple of days ago when I noticed that no one had included the encounters with Jack's father etc in this otherwise fine page. Initially, I subtitled this section "Ghosts" (with the inverted commas) for want of anything better. "Ghosts" would have done the trick, I think if this section hadn't included the visions of Walt by Shannon. Since then, this section has been renamed to "Visions" - while I knew "Ghosts" wasn't perfect, I don't think "Visions" cuts the mustard either. A vission, of course, could allude to any number of things (Kate's horse, the monster, Locke's dreams, even the brief early appearences of The Others). So does anyone have a better suggestion for a title? How about "apparitions" (either with or without the inverted commas")? Rob 13:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that changed it, I think that visions work better than ghosts (hurley's hallucination wasn't a ghost, walt wasn't a ghost, the sightings of dead people are not necessarily ghosts) but I agree that it could be improved. Also - the encounters with Jack's father (and with Yemi) (and the horse), were already there, under "monster". There is a lot of overlap between Monster and Ghosts/Visions, and still a lot of speculation under Monster. I think that, in general, we should do more work to both of these sections, and sort out what should go where, I would like to keep "visions" if we could get all the supernatural sightings (forms of dead people, horse, etc) in that section instead of in the monster section, or if that doesn't work (if all those things are really just forms of the monster, as is currently implied in the Monster section), would something like "Sightings" or "Supernatural sightings" work? I don't know. . . Riverbend 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent changes seem really good - it seems better organized now. Riverbend 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know if this counts as a ghost or vision, but I think that the whispers are the voices of people who have died or are going to die on the island. Either that or maybe they are 'The voice of the island' or Jacob that says The names of people on the island. Just an idea.

69.19.14.40 (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited the part of this section that talks about Boone's vision to say "It should be noted that the sights and sounds of the "monster" experienced in the hallucination are the same as in real life, this is possibly due to what all of the survivors saw and heard on the first night after the crash since Boone never saw or heard the monster up close."

I felt that what the survivors saw/heard the night of the crash could possibly be a sufficeint explanation for how Boone knew what it sounded like. I ended it like I did because this still does not exclude the possiblity that the island influenced his vision.

Hurley's death?

I noticed that someone had listed the Others as being responsible for Hurley's death. Either he/she has information unknown to the rest of us (and a large spoiler has occured) or he/she is mistaken. As of the end of Season 3: Part I, Hurley is still alive and at the main camp.

Hurley can't die. It's a mistake. And even if he does die, it shouldn't be on the article until he does. But he's not going to die. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Premeire Similarity

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else, but did anyone notice that the 2nd and 3rd seasons' premeires start out the same way? An unseen character begins playing some music (first on LP, second on CD), only to be interrupted by some catastrophic event (the hatch door being blown open, the airliner crashing). Worth noting, I think.

I noticed, and also, "Further Instruction" and "Pilot" start the same way. Not sure if that's mentioned anywhere. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You can add the Fourth Season Premier too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.53.83 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The statue

While at sea, Sayid, Jin, and Sun sight what appears to be the remnants of a massive statue — a large, four-toed marble foot broken off at the ankle, standing upon a rock in the surf. Sayid remarks that he does not know which is more disturbing, the fact that the rest of the statue is missing or that the foot has only four toes.

Taken from the episode summery from Live Together, Die Alone. I think this statue should be noted, as besides the fact that a large marble satue once existed on an island thought only to be used by Dharma, it also has only four toes (and it seems it never had five toes to begin with). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.188.142 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Add it, with the source. Davelapo555 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The statue was seen once and never mentioned again. It's not notable (yet). If you want to add this section again, please provide a source stating why it is notable. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Souce? The only source that is needed is one to prove it existed, which I havad provided, and I belive since Siyed extpressed disturbed fear when he say it, that is significant enough to mention.--68.192.188.142 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, four is one of the numbers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.40 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati

The number 23 is associated with the Illuminati. Could this have something to do with it, or is that just a coincidence? I'm currious. --Strongbad9405 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hurley's experience with the numbers

"In the episode "Dave", it is revealed that Hurley heard the numbers from Leonard Sims, a patient at a mental hospital"

This first revealed late in the first season. —alxndr (t) 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tricia Tanaka

From TV.com: "In numerology, you assign numbers to each letter of the alphabet: a=1, b=2, c=3 ... z=26, to find hidden meanings in text. Applying this to the name "Tricia Tanaka" and summing up the values gives the value 108: 20(T) + 18(r) + 9(i) + 3(c) + 9(i) + 1(a) + 20(T) + 1(a) + 14(n) + 1(a) + 11(k) + 1(a) = 108

108 is the sum of the numbers (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42)." 193.217.194.162 08:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Animals list

The list of animals that appear on the island has not been demonstrated to be "mythologic" (i.e. supernatural, science fictional or otherwise beyond explanation) which the other sections are. They are either native species (birds, spiders) or brought/studied by DHARMA (polar bears, shark, horses, etc.) Thus, I have removed the section. --Leflyman^Talk 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New photo of the Others?

Could someone acquire an uptodate photo for the Others section? The current one has Bea and Danny on it who are now deceased. ...in America! 16:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So the Others and the Dharma Initiative workers weren't/aren't the same thing? ie the Others aren't remnants of the Dharmas gone bonkers but were another group of people who kicked the Dharmas out? ThePeg 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea how this relates to the photo. ...in America! 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new article: The Monster

We have an article on the Others, and articles on several minor characters such as Cindy, Ethan, and Christian. The Monster is a very important part of the show and one of its core mythological items. In the past, attempts to make an article on the Monster were met with statements that the article would be too short, but the Monster has had many appearances, and if we fleshed out each appearance a bit more (a paragraph for each appearance rather than a sentence, as it is now, for example) then we could have a decent sized article. See Lostpedia's article on the Monster for how much info we could really put in an article. ShadowUltra 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that until there is some explanation as to what the monster is, it should remain under the mythology. Even though it has had many appearances there is still very little explained and most would be speculation rather than actual information on it. Incidentally, those minor characters should probably be condensed into a single article, Minor characters in Lost maybe. ...in America! 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Those characters used to be in the article Characters of Lost. However, a little while ago, it was suddenly decided that a few minor character deserved their own articles, and several were made without any consensus. As seen in the Lostpedia article I linked to, the Monster has so many appearances that it could have a big article without much speculation involved. If we have articles on such minor characters, I think an article on something as famous to the show as the Monster should get its own article. ShadowUltra 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Such an article has been rejected multiple times. (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Monster_(Lost) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monster_(Lost).) Wikipedia should not aim to replicate a fan site, or an extensive single-topic site such as Lostpedia (or the Lost wikia.) When and if there is actual, sourceable content about this aspect of the series, then it may be due for an article -- until then, it's inclusion here is more than enough.--Leflyman^Talk 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

with the new information regarding the smoke monster and it's mission revealed in Season 4 (Ben beign able to summon the monster via the ruins under his house) and season 5 (Jin encounter back in 1988 with it including the temple), perhaps there is more now to support it's own article now. Whippletheduck (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

The numbers

I don't know how much relevance it has for the article, but there is a rule called "rule 108" among the existing 256 elementary cellular automata. 193.217.195.197 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that'd be grasping at straws. Besides, the article on cellular automata on mentions Rules 30, 110 & 184. What's Rule 108? ...in America! 08:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Locke's Vision in "Deus Ex Machina"

Should Locke's dream/vision from "Deus Ex Machina" be added? Some could argue it isn't a vision, but the fact that it revealed information Locke hadn't known before ("Theresa falls up the stairs / Theresa falls down the stairs") does imply it was a vision of the same kind as in "Further Instructions" AldenCaele 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about that

Seems like those elements I included in the Lost mythology last season which were removed AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!, each and every time I added them, making me think autists were monitoring this article and making me so pissed it havn't been in here for almost a year, has finally been added. I'm talking about the visions, whispering, healing and pregnancy. The more popular an article is, the more morons it attracts. Sorry, just had to get it out. 193.217.192.213 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jin's miracle

Before the crash while in Korea, Jin and Sun had tried to get a baby but it hadn't worked apparently because there was a problem with Jin. Sun does eventually get pregnant on the island and it is verified that she got pregnant while on the island. Isn't the potency of Jin who had been proved impotent earlier a miracle? Kendirangu 11:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Article on the Numbers

I wrote a completely separate article on the numbers that was up for about a week, but for some reason got taken down. Does anyone have any idea why? ryanonthembta 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• While important, you can fairly easily describe the Numbers and their properties in 2 to 3 paragraphs, easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.104.233 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clones

I think the survivors are not exactly "survivors". I think they are clones of their original versions and two things lead me to think that. First - Naomi said, that Flight 713 crashed in the ocean and all the passengers were dead. Second - the new video of Edgar Halowax and the two rabbits with numbers 15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bTvAUVPyLI Batman tas 20:35, 31 August 2007 (GMT+2)

Lost Monster

The producers put an official question up on Yahoo answers - see it here - to gather responses about what people thought the monster is. They then picked the answer they liked best - though didn't confirm it as correct - here. Anyhow, I found this information very interesting, and although this answer obviously isn't from the producers themselves nor in the canon of the show (yet?), their selection of it is at least notable as being a possible theory. Is it worth including, it being half-theory, half-reliable source? Nshady16 08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Okay, since there were no objections, I inserted a paragraph. Nshady16 12:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the Island get it's own article?

The island is obviously very, very important in the Lost universe. It itself is as much of a character as an actual place. The Island article could comprise of its geography, known history, properties, servants (Locke, Ben, the Monster, and Jacob), and people exploiting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.219.85 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other areas of mythology

Hi, I feel there are two areas of Lost mythology that haven't been listed in the article so far: 1) Music - the song 'Catch a Falling Star', the one Claire's mother sang to her as a child, turning up in the nursery (presuming her memory of her time in the Arrow was accurate) is weird enough, but there's also the examples of the code in the Looking Glass being based on the Beach Boys' 'Good Vibrations' (Bonnie says that, "It was programmed by a musician"), the lyrics (to 'La Mer') Rousseau wrote over and over again on the pieces of paper that Sayid stole (the code to something else?), the fact that the tape in the Dharma van played the same song Hurley had previously encountered in the flashback - lots of examples, really. Should I add a 'music' section? Or not?

2) 'One light, one dark' - a hugely important Lost theme!?! Surely there must be a section on this somewhere...

So basically, if I were to add two new sections, would I be crucified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmbarton (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know. I don't think either of those are really aspects of the mythology of lost, they're more like common motifs. We're talking about "mysterious elements that have been ascribed to science fiction or supernatural phenomena" here. I think the Good Vibrations code was just the justification Charlie needed that this was what he had to do, which allowed him to accept his fate. Similarly, I fail to see how a common nursery rhyme appearing in a nursery or a crazy woman's scribblings of song lyrics are really significant in a mythological sense. The same goes for black and white - it's more a motif of the show rather than a mystery that needs to be solved. Nshady16 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Esoteric Truth?

“ An idea advocated by those that have studied such concepts outside of how they appear in the show is that certain esoteric truths, deep truths or hidden truths relating to an all-pervading, mysterious and strongly spiritual nature of reality are frequently addressed in the TV serial Lost. The show is effectively acting in much the same way as certain ancient writings do, by presenting a layer of surface-level and apparently "real" meaning (a group of plane crash survivors stranded on a tropical island) and simultaneously presenting, using the layer of surface-level meaning as a vehicle, a deep and mysterious truth about the human condition. For this reason viewers should be careful about reading too literally or too finitely into anything that appears in Lost, as a lot of the more bizarre, mystical aspects of what is presented are actually entirely unrelated to the material context they happen to appear in, and are merely using the characters, locations, plots and sub-plots as psychological "trojan horses" in which a real grain of spiritual truth can be delivered to the viewer in a manner that will not be rejected, as the underlying truth would be were it to be presented in its unveiled form, for it would appear simply too far-fetched and unfamiliar to be taken seriously. From this perspective, as entertaining as it is, and regardless of whether or not those involved are consciously aware of it, the ultimate purpose of Lost is not to entertain, but to arouse a spiritual rememberance of truth in those who watch and feel a connection to the recurring, mystical themes in the show. The island is essentially a metaphor for the material level of existence, that which we take for granted as "reality". Most or all of the bizarre ways the island interacts with its unwitting inhabitants are allusions to precisely parallel phenomena that operate in reality, albeit on a level that remains undetected by most. John Locke is the quintessential mystic and is testament to the truth that in order to even begin to understand the true spiritual nature of inner reality (man), and outer reality (the material realm), one must dedicate oneself to a spiritual path. To those who remain spiritually inactive, it either remains a seldom-seen and perplexing mystery or it is rendered completely invisible and an illusion of absolute physical reality sets in (Think The Matrix). This method of clothing a deep truth in an entertaining story is one that is well-known to all who have studied or are even remotely familiar with esoteric doctrine, in this sense Lost is following in a countlessly long line of material dating back as far as mankind itself, and it shares in their one purpose. ”

- Eternities Ohm

This section appears to be original research, but even if it were sourced, it reads like some polemic screed rather than having an encyclopedic tone. I have no doubt the editor was making a good faith effort to contribute, but I do not think this section belongs in this article. Ursasapien (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Time

On the Danish wikipedia we have added a section about the time issues on Lost, in the Mythology article. As I have had lots of direct contributions deleted for no apparent reason from the English wiki, I'm just going to suggest it this time. Suggest, that you could add this Time-section to the article, especially taking up some of the issues from season three. - Mark Jensen (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you post an example here, on the talk page? We want to avoid original research, but if you have something that is specifically sourced I would be interested in adding it. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Smokyvspylons.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Placental mammals and pregnancy

Jpgwriter wrote, "(Who says? We have no proof of this)," after the statement, "Other species of placental mammals like the wild boars, do not die due to pregnancy." I think he brings up a good point. Should we find a source for this? I believe they had baby boars in early episodes, but I still think it should be sourced. Ursasapien (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Character crossovers

What happened to this page. I can't find it. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I could probably come up with and format a fair use rationale for this image, I am not sure I should. I am not sure how much it adds to the article. What are others thoughts? Ursasapien (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not add much to the article, but I will not protest a fair use rationale either. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Islands.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies and Theories

In the article, it states that at least 8 survivors make it off the island—correct me if I’m wrong, but 6 are known to, and in a lie told by Jack in “Eggtown,” 8 originally survived the crash. That does not mean that left the island; if anything (although it is at least partially false), this implies that 2 people died on the island. Basically, I’m making sure I have just cause to change the number from 8 to 6, just in case…

Also, people seem to be inserting their opinions and theories into this article. For example, it states that the ‘purpose’ of the flashbacks is to provide everyone with constants, a concept introduced in “The Constant.” First of all, any ‘purpose’ of the flashbacks is narrative, and would not concern the plot itself; additionally, while it could be argued and speculated that this could, in fact, provide time traveling characters with constants, no such statement has been made to my knowledge. --Romulus (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe, although I could be mistaken, that the eight refer to the Oceanic Six plus Ben and Aaron. However, the "constant" premise, unless there is a solid cite from the creators of the show stating this is indeed the case, needs to go. I agree that this may explain the chance meetings and such, but it is complete WP:OR. Ursasapien (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think that the 8 thing is kind a fishy (especially since the producers said in an interview (with Entertainmetn Weekly, I think), that Ben could be one of the Oceanic 6), but I think we'll know the identidy of everyone who got off soon anyway.

I'm going to go ahead and remove the line about constants in the cross overs section.

--Romulus (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly feel we are led to believe that the Oceanic Six are exactly that - six people from the plane that got off the island. Jack suggested eight people survived the crash, but two died before rescue. As Ben wasn't on the plane, I don't think he counts, and Aaron also wasn't a passenger on the plane in a strict sense. The producers have alluded to this in recent podcasts, suggesting that they aren't part of the six. Nshady16 (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, too. I merely meant that the producers had stated that Ben could easily pass himself off as a survivor. I don't think that such a notion should influence the article, though, especially since they said something that amounted to 'We'll know who the Oceanic Six are in a few episodes.'--Romulus (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

theories and speculations

I hadn't been on here in a while, and all of the suddent the "Mythology" page has been inundated with speculation. Has there been some change in wiki philosophy that I missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrguido45 (talk • contribs)

"The Ship Black Rock"--mind if I edit?

I'm asking to make two changes to the section: 1) remove "ship" from the title 2) change the statement that log that Windmore bought was "possibly" from the same ship--the show has explicitly stated that it was from the Black Rock. --Romulus (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever changed it, but I still don't understand the word "Ship" in the subtitle. It states that it is a slave ship in the text, and there seems to be no reason for the word ship. For example, it's not called "The Titanic Ship." No offense to whoever put it in, and I'm just asking before I do it and make someone mad.--Romulus (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tense

What tense do fictional articles usually take on Wikipedia? I know that in standard writing, fictional events are always in the present tense. Which is the standard format? Is this an exception because it mostly is about objects? Just wondering.--Romulus (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chalres Widmore

The category on this page about the Island used to say that Charles Widmore was looking for it and wished to exploit it. I changed it slightly to show that while we know Charles Widmore is looking for the island, we have no idea what his intentions are outside of what Ben has told us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmcpheezy (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tense disagreement

The tenses in this article disagree. Choose past or present. Don't alternate mid-sentence! Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

About the numbers and the polynomial equation in the text

"The Numbers are the solutions to the polynomial equation

   x6 − 108x5 + 4405x4 − 87270x3 + 881464x2 − 4239552x + 7418880 = 0.

Both 108 (sum of the numbers) and 7418880 (product of the numbers) , which appear as coefficients in the equation, are of significance in the show. This equation can be factored as

   (4 − x)(8 − x)(15 − x)(16 − x)(23 − x)(42 − x) = 0." 

For any equation of the type

(a-x)(b-x)(c-x)... = 0,

the coefficient of the 2nd term will always be the sum of the factors and the last term their product. Try it for yourself !!!

There is absolutely nothing special with the Lost Numbers from this point of view (actually, the reverse would have been special :-). I suggest to remove this part from the "Numbers" paragraph.

Since 108 and 7418880 are used in the show, reference to these should be kept.

Something I noticed in the ad for tomorrow

At the end of the commercial, when the logo and all new pop up, the reflection of the island in the ocean is a city skyline complete with skyscrapers. Now I have my own theories, but I will refrain. Does anybody have any links to anything else like this? I know original research isn't allowed but they are pics I just took of my TV during an ad break on the west coast feed of Pardon the Interruption. Billywhack (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• And here are the pics: (blah blah blah, i took them, free use, blah blah blah)

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n204/billywhack/Lostreflection.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n204/billywhack/Lostreflection2.jpg

Billywhack (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been known since the beginning of season 4. It is ment to reflect the flashforwards. Tabor (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well isn't it part of the mythology? And therefore, deserving of a mention in the Island section? Billywhack (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's more of an advertising campain. Tabor (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the monster

Upon the latest visit by the monster (se4ep09), it was revealed that Ben goes somewhere inside the secret hidden room in his house and when he comes out, the monster attacks the people from the freighter who had come to take Ben away. There is some talk of this control room thing for the monster in the article so this might be it.203.188.226.130 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Island needs its own article

Seriously it really does. Its long enough and we need to since it is more of a character in the show than a location. And it is certainly the most important part of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.85.107 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree-I agree you makes a good point.

Clean up

I am going through and removing a lot of Orginal Research, Speculation, and just general cleaning up. tabor-^{drop me a line} 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I went through and removed a lot, but I still feel like it needs some more clean up. Anyone else agree? tabor-^{drop me a line} 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article in many places needs editing. There are many places where the article reads like a howto guide (e.g., "[The Orchid] should be used only in case of a last resort…"). The article also seems to jump between describing generic third-party actions and addressing the reader (e.g., "Once one arrives on the Island, it is nearly impossible to leave it unless you know a specific bearing in which to leave it…", though most cases are not so obvious). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Island name

has any character ever given a proper name to the island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.162.12 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet to the best of my knowledge.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Prehaps someone may add a timeline? I think that would be very helpful. With the ruins on the island (the colosus foot and temple ruins) I get the feeling that this may be Atlantis! Lol. But that is bedside the point. What would the timeline look like?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

who else thinks the two might be taking place in the same universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.101 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sickness (with new info from episode This Place is Death

Ok, this is to prevent a possible edit warring with another user.

In the episode, THIS PLACE IS DEATH we see that it was directly whatever happened in that temple that was gaurded by the Smoke Monster. We don't know what happened to the one guy that was dragged inside, but we do know what whatever 'changes' were not physical and I did not see Robert acting in any way eratic (at least in so far in how one would deal with a woman that has already shot and killed two of your friends and was preparing to kill you too).

Danielle had said in the season 1 episode Solitary that it was the Others that infected her crew. Based on the events of THIS PLACE IS DEATH, we know that it is no longer the case.

It is reasonable to assume that either A) Danielle, in the 16 years between her executing Robert (and nearly Jin) to the time that she catches Sayeed in that episode, that she has had no human contact of any kind during that time. It is possible that under those conditions because perhaps she has never seen the Smoke Monster or the Temple since that time, and the only contact she had was when the Others stole her baby, that she somehow forgot.

The other explanation is that it was done on a Production end, that the writers had forgotten that Danielle had said it was the Other's that spread the disease, and this either somehow slipped past their editors, or they are revising history to what we have now seen.

I'll let [[1]] chime in from here....

Whippletheduck (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I still agree with the one edit you've been making which states that she is the "infected" one. You say it yourself, "[reasonable] to assume", which is not reliable, it is original research. So, in that sense, all we have to go on is the stated comments of Danielle that the Others' were the carriers. I really don't see what you're trying to "persuade", but I personally do not agree that she has become infected as there's no proof except assumptions. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, the events of that episode do completely contradict what Danielle said in the Season 1 episode Solitary. I suppose it is possible in the time that Jin was "gone" for, that the Other's showed up. But we did not show that. All we now have to go on is Danielle saying it was the Others that infected her crew; and now we have Danielle claiming it was the Temple that 'changed' them and 'made them sick'. Robert disputed it, the bottom line is that now we know that the sickness was not physical; and Danielle seemed to beleive the Temple/Smoke Monster did something to them. What, we don't know. But Danielle's conduct was the one that seemed questionable, including her accussing Jin of being sick as well.Whippletheduck (talk)

I've decided that I am going to wait untill after they have shown the rerun of last weeks episode in the Enhanced Version that they have been doing. If the creators directly say why the discrepancy between Danielle's "The Others spread the disease" to the "SmokeMonster/Temple changed/started the disease", then that will serve as the final word on exactly why/what happened. If they don't address it, well we can continue discussing it later. Thanks for the feedback and continue to discuss it here where it belongs for now. Whippletheduck (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should be a mention that the story seems to have changed, if it's worded correctly. Here's my only remaining problem; Danielle acting "sick", I do not agree with that at all. Just because Robert wasn't showing any signs doesn't mean he hadn't moments before, and the same for Danielle. That is my only remaining problem. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My major contention is that is indeed a pretty big thing to mix up, the difference between the Other's spreading the disease to now the Monster/Temple. The writers at Lost HAVE to know that the Lost community watches and scrutinizes just about every moment of every show and to make an error like this in the continuity is a pretty major blunder on their part. Like I said, I am hopefull that in the Enhanced Episode, they will directly address it. I have to tell you that if they don't address it, then this error in continuity HAS to be referenced to in the above article as either Danielle had forgotten/mixed up what happened or the Writers directly forgot it. Hopefully they will address it on the show. thanks for the feedback. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sickness

This is to pick up on a discussion having between myself and another user to avoid an edit war.

Basically, it's like this: Ok, we know thru Rousseau (assuming she was telling the truth of course), that she claims the other's spread a disease amongst her crew that were on the island with her; and how she had to execute them to prevent the sickness from spreading. We also know that the castaways have been on the island for several months and as far as we can tell, have not suffered from any sort of sickness as Rousseau had described, even after exposure to the Other's, whom it is implied were carriers of this 'sickness'. We also saw the complete change in Keamey's emotions/attitude from the time we first saw him to the time he returned from the Island.

Based on this, i believe there is enough here to warrant the following: the Sickness may be something that the Island does to those that "are not supposed to be on the island". The fact that those that seem to be "acceptable" to the Island don't seem to suffer from any ill reactions from this sickness makes it more palatable that the Island has it's way of dealing with certain people. If the Island can prevent people from committing suicide as far away as NewYorkCity (ie, when Michael tries to commit suicide on several occasions), then it seems that causing a sickness that may be physical or mental is not so far fetched. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory, but unless you have either some source that explicitly mentions the theory, then it's just speculation on your part and shouldn't be used on the article. We're supposed to report the clues but not solve the mystery. Someone, for example, tried adding into the article before that it was Ben in the coffin and that it was undisputable fact. We all know that's no longer the case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that on a show like LOST, where they are not telling us the whole story and intentionally throw stuff out to mislead us, we have to take what they give us at face value, and at least for Wikipedia standards, have to report what was said/done. Your right about the coffin. Thru out season 4, it was totally OK to speculate on whom was in the cofin, but all speculation ended when we see Jeremy Bentham in it. Back to the point of the sickness....we still don't know the particulars of the Sickness save for what Rousseau has said for sure as definite. We know that the Sickness, assuming of course that Rousseau was not the one off her rockers, seems to be treatable by the vaccine (or that was just Ethan doing something as part of a giant mind game with Claire). We know that the castaways, even after 4 months on the island and exposure to the Others (which Rousseau always claimed were the carriers of the disease), that none of the castaways have been infected with it.

We saw Keamy PRIOR to him going to the island, and at least in that episode where he first appears, he seemed stable enough. It was not untill after he returned that he showed....well........we all saw how he acted after that. Yes, it could have been the stress of the mission, the passage between the island and whatever time distortion that takes place on it. But with the insinuation by Captain Gault that something was wrong with Keamy (and I will have to wait untill I get it on DVD to get the exact quote), it is within the realm of possibility that the Keamy was infected by the Sickness.

And while speculative, it seems within reason based on what has been shown on LOST, that the Sickness is directly done by the Island on those that 'don't belong there'. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not doubting that your theory doesn't have any weight. But at the same time, unless the show *confirms* it, or at the very least, a reliable source (like a magazine) theorizes it, it shouldn't be included. That's basically my stance. If you want, I won't make any more edits and I'll go ask an established user like thedemonhog what he thinks is the best solution.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can be 100% substantiated that A) Rousseau's crew got this disease (which is still not for sure exactly what it is). My part about Keeamy deserves to stand on the grounds that another character suggested something was wrong with him, and those of us whom have watched the show can make a connection between that and what Rousseau said originally. But fine, if you wan to get demonghog in on this, fine with me. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, Well!!! Once Again WhippletheDuck was proven right!!! The Dead is Dead episode confirms that at least the Other's believed that Rousseau was the one "infected", and was insane. That was said by Ben and Charles Widmore and was probably why they wanted her eliminated. Ben may well have 'violated' whatever ruling was given by Charles, but the fact is, it seems now that Rousseau was the one that went insane when she killed her crewmembers, just like I suspected. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What they believe is only what they believe. It is not confirmation. Lest you forget, Robert seems to have knowledge that logically he should not have known. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents.....that Robert and whatever the rest of the crew experienced, perhaps they were on their way to becoming "the good guys" and that from at least Rousseau's standpoint it seemed like they were no longer themselves. Yes, Pregnant women can be unstable. Robert's actions seemed consistent with someone that would do what he did if from his viewpoint a crazy woman had just shot and killed two of his best friends (possibly three as Monstad who was dragged into the Temple by the Monster was not accounted for). In any case, I'm not going to push it too much but do think that there is enough now to support that Rousseau may have been the one imbalanced and over the 16 years....well in this episode, Rousseau again accuses the "others" of spreading the disease again, although I imagine Rousseau probably thought that Jin was an OTHER and spread the disease and maybe was already believing that the temple was all imagined maybe. Dunno, lots to ponder....Whippletheduck (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ressurection

Done to avoid an edit war with Penguin.

First off, I fully complement the writers of the show and actor Michael Emerson for Benjamin Linus. Fantastic writing, fantastic actor.

So...Ben tells Locke one story about how he came back to life and how he knew it would happen.....and then 20 minutes later in the show, tells Sun a story that does not conform to what he said previously.......

Gee, can Ben be possibly "lying" here? no way..... But seriously, Ben Linus cannot be taken at his word; he at a minimum is lying to either Locke about KNOWING that he would be restored to life; or he is lying to Sun about how people can't come back from the dead, even on this island. Just like when I said that I did not believe Locke committed suicide and how I with nothing to back it up, said "I bet Ben probably killed Locke and made it look like a suicide", I believe Ben is lying yet again to at least one of them (probably Locke) and probably both of them. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, new sections go at the bottom. Just because you happened to guess correctly doesn't mean all your guesses are correct. The sentence already implies he's lying to one of them. It's useless filler to shove doubt every which way for the sake of that doubt. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And thus, the door needs to be opened for readers that despite what ben has said in the episode, that he at a minimum is lying to one of them and IMHO is probably lying to both of them. So keeping the words "Whether Ben was telling the truth to either Sun or Locke about ressurection or lying is unknown" needs to be mentioned because what Ben has said is not definitive. Ben has also said he knew nothing about the Smoke Monster- a lie and the story goes on and on....again great acting on Emerson's part. Whippletheduck (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The door is already open. If he tells one person one thing and the other person something else, then he obviously misled one of them. All you're doing is throwing unnecessary obfuscation into a plot which is already pretty damn confusing. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry.....did you realize that LOST is a MYSTERY??? Here were are, 5 seasons into it, and there are still questions out there already. Pointing out Ben lied to at least one (and probably both) of them is not adding to that part, it is notifying the readers that Ben is doing just what it said. I've looked at your TALK record and it seems that if we continue this and it goes to 3RR, I have a very good chance of winning this debate and seeing you put on a BLOCK for a little while could happen....do you really want to go there? The facts of what I am saying are on my side. Whippletheduck (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Threats aren't going to work, and your record ain't much better if you want to go there. You're trying to force your your opinion, nothing more. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OH NO! You used "Ain't"!!!!! (whine whine whine!!). I'm not forcing an opinion, putting out the fact that "Whether Ben was telling the truth to either Sun or Locke has yet to be revealed" is NOT an opinion, it is a statement. I'm trying to get a hold of JackyBoy to see what he thinks, and if he agree's with me, I'm putting it in and will send it to 3R for review. My record is improving and yours has too, but the fact are both of us might get the time out over it. Also, following EVERY edit I make, I don't mind, but I can play the exact same game too! Whippletheduck (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But it becomes an opinion the minute you begin imposing your own theories into the text, which is what "he may have been lying to both" is. He "may" be doing a lot of things, but Wikipedia isn't here so we can guess left and right. As for why I follow your edits, seeing as how you consistently make grammar mistakes in articles (it doesn't matter on talk pages), it would seem prudent. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that though. I said "Whether Ben was telling the truth to either Sun or Locke has yet to be revealed" is not that big a deal and is very critical that it puts out that because of Ben Linus credibility (how many times has he lied on the show and done it without so much as flinching- bravo Michael Emerson, btw?). By all means if there are regular grammar mistakes, fine, correct them.....you mispelled something that I had to correct, don't remember what, but I don't make a big deal about it the way you do. Anyway, lets wait for Jackyboy to chime in and see what he thinks. Whippletheduck (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That statement in and of itself is an opinion, because it forwards the idea that Ben may have been lying to both of them. He was surely lying to at least one of them, and the reader can draw that conclusion on their own just by reading it. Your line suggests to the reader that he could be lying to both, your own opinion. As for my misspelling, you're probably thinking of ordnance, which is not to be confused with the word ordinance. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, seeing the two of fight is just childish. I've been following this very closely, and I must say, I very much agree with TRP. It's obvious he's lying to one of them, and since that's obvious, and we don't know which one, it's obvious it has yet to be revealed. That statement seems to be too much of a "on the next episode" type of thing. And Wikipedia is no place for that. As for everything else you've been arguing and debating about, please take it to your respective talk pages. This talk page is about making the article better, no "Oh, I'm gonna WikiStalk you if you WikiStalk me", or "Oh, you used 'ain't'", that's just ridiculous and childish here and it could turn off other editors. So, in conclusion, I myself agree with TRP about the matter at hand of "has yet to be revealed". --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you are right and I did notify Jackyboy for mediation here. Unfortunately, for a show like LOST, we are going to have to rely on a "Wait till next episode" sort of feel. For example, we don't know that an ancient civilization built all that stuff, that has NEVER been confirmed, and sooner or later we are going to get direct answers. For example, in the Ethan Rohm page, I posted "At some point, Ethan would end up a member of the Others under circumstances that have yet to be revealed", because at the time I wrote that, it was impossible to know exactly HOW he ended up a member of the Other's, only that he did. Obviously, last week, we got a direct answer when we see that by 1988 he is a Other. But if Jacky agrees with you two, then fine, but I can play that game too and go after his own 'personal comments' too.Whippletheduck (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I love JackieBoy, and the edits that user makes, but you don't have to rely on one specific person. You have two users who are just as active in the WikiProject. And even if JB sides with you that doesn't mean you're right. On Wikipedia there is no need for a "wait until next episode" 'sort of feel'. On the Ethan Rom page all that's needed is "At some point Ethan would join the Others". No need for anything else, and by posting that you're going against the rules and guidelines. But as I said before, attacking someone over the internet is just childish and pointless, and not needed here on Wikipedia. If you wish to make these types of comments, please go to Lostpedia or a LOST forum, but a "on the next episode" mentality is not correct. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Ethan, that is exaclty what I did, but Penguin edited out anyway, saying I was speculating when it is 100% certain that Ethan ended up an Other, although at the time I wrote it, I was cautious that it might turn out that time had been changed by Sawyer and his group saving Amy/Annie (forget her name at the moment) despite what Farraday had said. As far as the entire arc of stuff, JB stated that we are supposed to go with writer's intent, which is not always possible as the story of LOST is ongoing and going to face revisions. If you say that JB agreeing with me changes nothing, then you agreeing with Penguin changes nothing- Can't have it both ways. The whole point of anyone being able to do an edit seems to me that as soon as pertinent information is revealed on the show, an edit can be done to put it in...for example, I stopped having to put in my first comment about Ethan joining the Others with a "By 1988, Ethan has joined the Others and etc, etc". It takes two to feud and Penguin is the one instigating all of this, not me. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

When did I say that myself "siding" with TRP made it correct? But overall, you don't seem to want to fix or agree on anything but that your edits are correct, so I won't continue to argue with you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be several issues to be debated here. First off, the producers have confirmed via podcast that Amy's Ethan is in fact Ethan Rom. Since we don't know the circumstances of his joining the Others, then it makes sense to say something along the lines of "Ethan would later join the Others under unknown circumstances." This "yet to be revealed" stuff is unencyclopedic and unnecessary because for all we know, the show might never explain it. This leads right into the whole thing about Ben lying. Yes, we know he is lying to one of them and, yes, we know that it will most likely be resolved in the next few episodes, however we don't know for sure. And on WP when we don't know for sure, we present the facts in a straight-forward neutral tone without jumping to conclusions or leading the reader in any particular direction. In this case, I suggest briefly summarizing what he said to both Locke and Sun, which wasn't entirely contradictory, and allowing the reader to decide what to take away. As for the enitre thing about the resurrection, we don't know if anyone has fully come back to life on the island. The circumstances surrounding both Locke and Christian have not been explained, and to flat out say that the island can bring people back from the dead is not appropriate. I think we should be careful on how we word the resurrection section, taking into account what the producers have said on the matter and avoiding language such as "appears to be". Anyways, that's my two cents on the issue, sorry for the block of text. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But very good text, none the less, thanks for your input, hopefully this will help solve the situation. Obviously, because they solved the problem of my going from "Ethan would end up a member of the Others under circumstances that have yet to be revealed" to "By age 11, Ethan was a member of the oThers and...etc, etc".

Penguins point seemed to be that it is worser to put in the mysterious stuff (which I dont' know how anyone can chide since LOST is a mystery show anyway) then it is to put in something as definite as the circumstances allow only to change it later when newer fact's come to light.

As far as Ressurection goes, we have to at a minimum go on the fact that Locke is indeed back to life. I would point out that Ben seemed quite alarmed when Sun and Lapidus told him that Christian had told them to wait for Locke, perhaps Ben had spoken to Christian but did not beleive he was back to life. Anyhow, your right, that's speculation but I am glad that you chimed in and will try to take what you have said to account. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy-Updated

Just a few notes after the recent episode "La Fleur". Basically we have seen that women of the Dharma Initiative were able to conceive and give birth on the Island, at least that one woman was. While we still don't know the details about Dr Candle's new born son or Charlotte Lewis details (ie, whether they were conceived and born on the island or not), we do know that Juliet, in her time with the Others, only dealt with members of the Other's in their pregnancy problems. It is entirely possible that the pregnancy problem ONLY affects women amongst the Others/Hostiles or if it affected all women and whatever caused this problem had not happened yet during the time of the episode LaFleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The show absolutely 100% confirms that so far, it is ONLY the women of the Other's that are effected by the phenomenon that causes women that get pregnant on the island to reject the fetus as an invader and causes the death of both the mother and child. Juliet's research is 100% on that. The ONLY woman that ever got pregnant on the Island that was not an Other was able to successfully give birth to young Ethan, and as far as we know, both Charlottte and Miles may well have been concieved on the Island as well. No woman that is not an other has ever lost their child in any manner known on the show. Therefore, while there has not been an "event" yet to show otherwise, my revision that I am attempting to put in withstands scrutiny. I'll message JackieBoy for this to see what he thinks. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, go to JackieBoy because apparently no other Wikipedia editors are trustworthy and if that user agrees, you must be correct, right? That seems to be how you operate. The only reasons I've reverted is because of your use of "unknown" or "not known at the time" or any form of that phrase in your edits. If the stuff is 'unknown' it's not needed. I reverted this such edit: "It is not known if the women of the Others are the only ones that suffer this abnormality,", if it is not known, it's not worth documenting or reporting. Add it here first if need be. But until it is known, leave it out of the page. That's how Wikipedia works. Please read over the rules and guidelines on such topics. Your theory and reasoning is correct, I will not disagree, but the "unknown" portion of your comment(s) is the main reason why I personally have reverted. You may be right, but until it is known, we leave it out. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, we are talking about a show that does not give us all the answers, or gives us answers from people that WITHIN CHARACTER, have shown they can't be taken at face value. Right now, it is 100% that ONLY women of the Other's die giving birth; the record shows that women that are NOT other's CAN give conceive and give birth on the island. Remember that as far as we know, people just started coming to the island in the recent half of the 20th century. So for now, to say "Whether this abnormality is unique only to women of the Other's or effects all women has yet to be revealed" is something you better get used to seeing, at least till we get an answer on the show. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "has yet to be revealed" is not correct. That is WP:OR and against policy. And you're correct, they don't give answers, so wait until they do. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it going away anytime soon, so you know what, it's not a crime to wait to until it is confirmed. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I do a lot of the "Has yet to be revealed" or "It is not known if...", etc is because there have been times where I posted things THAT AT THE TIME I POSTED THEM, were posted in a definitive way, but later turned out as the show progressed, to not be correct or accurate. While we are getting more and more answers to the mystery of LOST with every episode, I could post instead "Thru Season 5, only women of the Others are shown to be affected by this abnormality" and such, which I guess I should do, but I want to keep that door open for other reasons. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See, that's fine in my opinion. It tells us what is true without speculating what could happen. I did reword it a little though. Plus you may want to learn to use the more widely used (and some, not me, but some would say 'correct') "through" instead of "thru". But overall, I find nothing wrong with that. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First Appearence of "The Monster"

The article says that "The Monster" was first 'seen' on the first night on the island. I disagree. When the engine blows up in "The Pilot, Part 1" while Jack is talking to Claire, if you slow down the engine exploding, you can see "the Monster" hitting the engine then flying away. Also, some people think that that the man that was thrown into the turbine in the same scene was pushed into it by the cloud, as you can see a faint cloud in front of the man.

That was only an error in post-production, as said by the producers, it was not the Monster.

Couldn't it be argued that they did not actually "see" The Monster the first night? I may be remembering wrong, but didn't they just hear the crashing and see the trees and get all freaked out? Riverbend 19:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe treetops were visably ruffled in the distance, making the monster seen albeit indirectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.232.113 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could speculate that "The Monster" was mentioned/experienced that 'night'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.12.166 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ressurection Redux

Ok, after tonights "THE INCIDENT"..........well, what do we have to go on now that we saw what we saw??? While I can think of several ways around this (ie, the body that was in the thing was a complete fake, designed to discredit Locke at Ben's request), the fact is we are now back to a point where Ressurection may NOT be possible......Whippletheduck (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Revamp.

Okay, looking through the article, I think it needs a major revamp. The format now seems to be a little bit looking like OR. It's not, but still. One thing, not large by any sense, is I think a lot of the "the"'s should be taken out. (Ex.- The Black Rock ship, The Ruins, etc.) But I think some more of it needs to be cleaned. I know I personally have been trying to fix up a couple things, and The Rogue Penguin and Whippletheduck, when they're not fighting and edit warring, have also been trying to fix it too. But, I think some major revamping is needed. Just my opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are reaching a point where it is between Completeness and Too Much at times, yes. For example, I had tried to post something about the reasons that the Other's might/have chosen/rejected certain people to become Other's. I think it was TRP that kept reverting them, claiming it was original research, so I went ahead and specficially listed EVERY INSTANCE where Ben, Goodwyn, Dimitri, had all given reasons why certain people are meant to be others or not, and quite frankly, it looked terrible. It was complete to be sure, but it looked terrible to read; finally someone summarized it and it must not have been me since TRP tends to attack any attempt by myself to do that.

I think some sort of "Ancient Ruins/Civilization" needs to stay, perhaps summarized more then what we have already, but that is a pretty important feature. T hey do a good job of summarizing up aspects that are sizable onto themselves. For example, we mention the Dharma Initiative but immediately link it out to it's own article. Same with Richard Alpert. I think the Smoke Monster could probably use a similar "own page" to cut down on the article. I might even do an "Ancient Wonders of LOST" section that directly deals with anything on LOST that is pre...well, that is the problem because we don't know how far back to go, and there is still so much left unknown about this ancient culture, and given how TRP goes off any mention of anything that is unknown (even when it is), that I see him edit warring anything that comes off. Still, it's a good idea. I thought at first when I tried to summarize Miles page it would work, but I did not like the way it looked and am glad it got reverted now. Whippletheduck (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you agree, but I didn't post this so you would go off on TRP. I just said that because in the edit history for the last several days the majority has been you, TRP, myself and a couple of different IP's. I just meant it as, at this point in time, the three of us are trying to improve the page a lot, but if you two (myself included at time) are going to continue to edit war, it's not even worth trying. Now, not everything warrants its own article. I don't think there's enough info on Smokey to warrant a page. Because it's being kept a major secret, and there isn't necessarily a lot of outside, reliable sources, I don't think it deserves a page yet. I will say this though, there is a lot in this article which can be eliminated and expanded but we need to figure out what those things are, together. I'm probably going to invite other members of the WikiProject to this discussion and we can all possibly work on this page together. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to say that without definitive answers on a subject then it can't even be alluded to, how did the show LOST ever get an article here at WIKIPEDIA in teh first place. I can't even imagine how anything could be written about when there were NO ANSWERS on the show, just nothing but question after question. For example, we got conflicting reports FROM THE SHOWS CREATORS about the Smoke Monster, with one claim that it is indeed the Dharma Initiative Cerebus System, but overwhelming evidence that it is something ancient, well, we don't even know what it up with the Ancient Civilization, for all we know what we have seen is ancient could turn out to be some sort of ruse/hoax on Dharma's part to look older then it is. I am OK with a revamp, just know that there are people that like the look and I am ok with things too. Whippletheduck (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking out the "the's" is a good start. Not sure what to do for a good reformatting, though. Details can be trimmed here and there and some sections probably collapsed in on each other, like the Island movement. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the trimming out of specific event details, yes, that would go a long way towards trimming out a lot of fat. If there is any questions about a trim, or if something wants to be added, the "details" should be listed here on the discussion page and then the trimmed edit should be put on the main page.Whippletheduck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

I added some fact and OR tags today. This article is a mess. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sickness Redux

This is to pick up from the previous discussion on the Sickness.

In Dead is Dead we see that Danielle now believes it was again the Other's that infected her crew and made them sick (note I need to rewatch the episode tonight to get the exact quote). Now, obviously, we saw her say in This Place is Death that it was the Temple.....

I am not going into the continuity debate again per se, as I actually believe that truth is, that makes more sense.....that a pregnant woman is not the most stable thing mentally in the first place; and add to it that Danielle IMHO can now be said that she may have been the one suffering the dementia/sickness, not her crew. I believe her Crew was indeed changed, but for the better, not the worse. I believe that Danielle however thought they had been changed for the worst, and in whatever reasons (perhaps the same way that Keamey deteriorated mentally years later) did what she did. She probably thought that Jin was a member of the Other's and blames them as a result for the "sickness" and perhaps convinced herself that the Temple was not really, it was a nightmare and that Jin was the one that infected her.

I know in my head what I want to write, but I am having a hard time finding a way to put it to words, but in a nutshell, I am convinced the Sickness is "mental" in nature. I think per Richard, that the Temple does indeed change people, for the worse in Ben Linus's case, but may be not always. In any case, I believe the Sickness can be said causes dementia, persecution complexes, and phobias, and that we have directly seen it now in Keamey, Rousseau, and Regina. Note that if I can figure out how to write what I intend, it may go a long way to shortening down that part of the article.

I'll pause for your thoughts now.Whippletheduck (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, new threads go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Use the new section tab to automatically place them as such. Anyway, emotionally unstable does not equate to insane, though it's quite obvious killing her crew took its toll. Regardless, all this is idle speculation, and has no place in the article. What's there already, verbose though it may be, is the facts as we've been given. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I have not posted it yet, as I am having a hard time getting it from my mind to my keyboard.....I just rewatched several scenes from that episode. The Other's believed Rousseau needed to be eliminated; Ben didn't because she "was insane". Since there are people that seem like they want to take Ben at his word....there is some more to come, but overall, I can claim she is the one that was insane and show the comparisons to Rousseau, Regina, and Keamy on the Island's sickness causing mental deteroriation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can claim that, but that doesn't make you right, nor does it make it suitable for the article. It's just your opinion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I also just rewatched "A Journey In time" clip show that aired before the Season finale. In it, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindlehof both directly stated that it was indeed Rousseau that had gone mad.

So once again, I was RIGHT!!!

The good news for you is I am having a hard time putting to words all this, but it is well established that when the creators of LOST confirm anything, it is sourceable. But like I said, I am having a hard time putting to words exactly how to write it into the article. I know you are going to claim 'yeah they said she was mad, but didn't say that the Island did it to her' and that is a lot to do with my writer's block right now, so if you want to find a way to put it into the article, please feel free. Whippletheduck (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Add statue to items under structures?

Anyone mind if we add a write up of the statue / Jacob's lair to 1.3 (structures) of the article. Season 5 seem to focus more on this item and would appear to be valuable to the growing mythology arc. thanks B.S.N. - R.N (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought someone already did, add Jacob's lair to it. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ressurrection

"However, the Island is also apparently able to revive the dead, as shown with Locke and possibly Christian Shepherd."

Well this seems to be proven wrong with the final episode of season 5.--88.249.208.186 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We are writing inaccurate things. This is because the whole article is original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, we don't know for sure. While I can see several ways around this, we still don't know Christian's status. As soon as we get updated information on what is up, that section needs to be revamped or even scrapped if it is proven that Christian is indeed dead and Locke status is confirmed. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete geography section?

What is the consensus on deleting the whole of this section. It is entirely orginal research. I believe many of us believe this article to be important to the lost project; However, It seems to be overburdened with OR. Thought I would present this before being bold and deleting the whole of a article section. In the meanwhile I will attempt to find some third party sourcing for the material. thanks for any input B.S.N. - R.N (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I support you on this. I was thinking to delete it as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have to support, since yeah, there is alot of OR in it. The show has yet to give us a real set in stone map, the blast door map is all over the place on what is where. There is a rumor that the 5th season DVD set will have an interactive map of the Island up to the time of the Incident on it, which might give us our first true look at it. And while some of the OR is based on observations of the show, it is not wiki-standard yet. We do need to be open that there may be some release giving us a real map of the island in which case we can totally re put in the Geography section. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty and deleted the section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

character time lines

should the U.S. army and the freighter crew be included along with DI and the others or is that just adding things for the act of adding things? also, should Richard still have his own section there still or be added in with the others? One more thing; do you think there should be a section added that describes the DI either being able to use tech in ways not known to be possible (example 486PC like computer to somehow sustain that huge electromagnitic energy, The fence that protects the DI housing, etc.) just a thought? thanks B.s.n. (R.N.) 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Magic box

This is the least of the article's problems, but should we really have a section for it when it was just a metaphor? –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree that this article needs a lot of clean-up. Luckily, one "good" thing coming from this being the last season is that we'll have certain answers so certain things won't be left as ambiguous. But I personally don't think it's needed. Possibly a minor mention, especially since it was brought up more than once. But if it's brought up again ins Season 6, I think it should be re-added. Just my opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 08:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The magic box is a metaphor. I think the article right now gives overdue weight to a plot device used in 2-3 episodes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

agreed. I think the "magic box" has something to do with the Others Abillity to teleport/get places they should be able to get to. For example, it would explain how Harper was able to appear and vanish in front of Juliet and Jack; and might explain how Tom was able to get so quickly to the NYC to deal with Michael Dawson and still be back on the island in a time that does not seem to have time to do what he did. I think Tom may have also been in the US to abduct Cooper as well as deal with michael. Whippletheduck (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the latter, as far as I remember the producers said that it was a mistake and that "it's just a TV series" afterall. We don't have to put everything under the microscope. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question on sourcing

Is the official Lost mag a reliable source to use to help cite this article or is using non-web sources frowned upon do to difficulty to cross verify. Just thought I would ask because Ive seen that there are 100 issues and each one talks in depth about the myth aspects of the show hopefully removing much of the OR problems that exist. thanks B.s.n. (R.N.) 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This magasine is a good start. It's much better citing the magasine than episodes. Non-web sources are welcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

agreed. just link to the current issue, since this is fiction you don't have to go TOO far into it for a real source, even on something controversial. If it deals with 'our world' production, then that might be an issue. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify this? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The magazine was helpful with the portion I used for the expanding Jacob's Lair. The problem I see and the reason I havent used more examples from the magazine is that it is not easily verifable with other editors. That is also why so much of what I added is in quotations. I have looked for an online portion of the magazine but for now dont believe it exist which is unfortunate because the next issue is suppost to deal extensively with both the "smoke monster" and the ruins from the writers of "Lost" —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.s.n.R.N. (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Parody of the Numbers

Is it worth mentioning that the numbers (4 8 15 16 23 42) were used in "Numberwang Night" in the second series of "That Mitchell and Webb look" as a set of numbers for a killer robot to 'test'? Just an example of them being used in pop culture Mackay64 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

and would put that in the pop culture reference part? Just use a good link and I don't think it should be a problem. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In Half Life 2 : Episode 2 when you enter Silo 2 in White Forest a vortigon in a lab coat opens a faulty door for you. If you head to the end of the room, turn right behind the tank and crouch down you will see through to another room with a computer monitor on a desk. If you use the zoom function of the suit you can clearly see the screen has the numbers displayed on it. - StEvil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.121.58 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been briefly mentioned in the Fandom and popular culture section of the main Lost article ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Island own article?

It seems to have plenty of information and the setting is extremely important which warrants its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.207.61 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea has been introduced; however, I am unsure whether it would pass as not being WP:fancruft. Calmer Waters 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the Island Atlantis?

Is the Island really Atlantis? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this page? We are not a forum. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ressurection redux

Sayid was confirmed dead by both the Other's and then by Jack (a medical doctor). And then is returned to life. Does this warrant bringing back the previous ressurection section, omitting Locke, but including the information on Chrisitan shephard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.87.9 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's been confirmed that he was brought back the same was as Jack's father and Ben's daughter; being infected by the smoke monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.15.133 (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Where was that "confirmed"? And when did they "confirm" the same thing about Christian? --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In LAX- Dogen declared Sayid dead. Jack attempted to ressurrect Sayid via CPR but also declared Sayid dead. By the end of the episode Sayid is back to life. Pretty conclusive he is back to life to me. In the previous edition of the RESSURECTION debate we had some mention that Christian may be alive again as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.167.246 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We see him walking around, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was "confirmed", for the longest time Locke was walking around and apparently that was 'confirmation' enough for people. They wouldn't have included it if there wasn't a reason. There is no rush for anything to be added or taken away, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. And debate about Christian being alive or not isn't necessarily the best reason. We debated it, but what was the outcome? If these things are true, they'll most likely address them in the show. As I said, there's no rush. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

your right about there being no rush- we have waited 6 seasons for answers. Although they did say at comic-con 2009 that there might be some things that never get answered, we can wait a bit on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.73.114 (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Monster certainly needs own article

Its been in 20+ episodes now, and is also apparently the main antagonist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.106.210 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please add new topics to the bottom. Second of all, I believe you may be right, but we need more information based on reliable sources. If we have it awesome, if it'd just be from what's in the show, not-so-awesome. Thirdly, we don't necessary know he's the main antagonist. The producers have gone on record a few times saying that just because one person is in white and the other is in black doesn't mean white=good, black=bad. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The main antagonist changes every 10 episodes. At some point last season people were requesting page for Charles Windmore as the main antagonist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That was true of season four but of season six especially, and the show as a whole (right back to the PILOT!!!), the Monster is the main villain. And indeed other contenders Widmore and Ben have their own articles. I think Jacob should have one too. Or maybe a joint one for the pair of them. But anyway whether or not he's an antagonist (although he definitely is, an antagonist isn't necessarily a villain) is irrelevant to whether the character is suitable for having its own article! MultipleTom (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Monster article split

There have been a couple attempts in past years to give the Monster its own article, but now there is little reason not to.

• Its section in this article is incredibly long and poorly formatted. It would be better suited to a nice, neat character article like the other main characters.
• A great deal of information is being revealed about it and its motives. It is clearly more of a character now than a simple plot device or mythology element.
• It has contributed as much as or more than the other secondary characters who have their own articles.
• The clincher: it is now played by Terry O'Quinn and is, for all intents and purposes, a "series regular" like the other main character articles.

I propose splitting the Monster section into its own article, with series history and information divided up like the other characters. As far as the name, there are a few options:

• The Monster (Lost): Simple and accurate. Fits the "common name" convention as this is what the characters in the show and fans call it.
• Man in Black (Lost): A more debatable title. "The Man in Black" is what Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have said is a good general name to use until we find his real name. Doesn't necessarily meet "common name" conventions as the characters in the show do not call it that and fans are more likely to search for "the Monster" or...
• Smoke Monster: Debatable title; meets the "common name" convention because this name is very widely used by fans, cast and crew members, and even Damon and Carlton. It is the most likely title people will search for. However, no one on the show has actually called it that and it seems a little informal.

So, let's have this discussion. Should the article be made? And what should it be named if it is? ShadowUltra (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

the Enhanced episodes refer to him as "the Man In Black", which I agree is not really much of a title. I agree that once this smoke monster/person has a real name, an article that details him and the monster is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.167.246 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. He has been in more episodes than any other supporting character (maybe minus Rose and Rousseau), and is technically a main character now. The name doesn't matter that much, since Ben had an article before his name was established. Its like saying they shouldn't make an article for Cigarette Smoking Man because we don't know his real name. For all we know we may never find out The Man in Black's real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.106.210 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO I think the article should wait. There are still too many questions and an article at this stage would be an opening for much original research and person observations (we already have this problem at this page). Let wait until more reliable sources are available (which will probably won't be till the story arc is complete). Calmer Waters 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should wait. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. If we wait, we'll have a better article to create once we do. Also, the implication from around the beginning of the season (if not explicitly stated) was that we will find out the name of MIB. I'll have to find the link, but Damon and/or Carlton even specifically stated for now to call him "the Man in Black", which to me, means that we will find out his real name later. But overall, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and we wouldn't have many reliable, third party sources to make the article stick. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's that article. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are to make an article for the Monster we have to wonder: Are there any interviews for the portrayer for his role? Are there ant references that discuss the subject independently from the show ro we will end up with an article for John Locke that will be 90% plot summary? Do we have third part sources or only first party (plot observations, podcasts)? I think an article right now would fail any verifiability, would be lacking sources and probably be original research full of speculations. If they are reliable sources why they are not already here in this article? PS Rose and Bernard have 1/3 references to Wikipedia itself! -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I must make a point of order here. I do actually know of at least three sources (finding at least one of them may be difficult though) from before the beginning of season 6 which may help. The first of which (regarding the "leaked" footage) can be found above. Damon and Carlton talk a little about him. Another interview has its/his portrayer, from the end of season 5, talking about how he will be back and how, even though he only had one scene, he actually received the entire script for that finale. The third would be former ABC president Lloyd Braun, who originally greenlit LOST, admitting to being the voice of "Previously on LOST", and saying that in the past, he knew what the Smoke Monster was, but that he isn't necessarily sure if it's changed. Believe me, I will try to find these other sources and I'll link them here. And if I can, we'll have at least three. Very much NOT a reason to start a full article, but it could be a start. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The monster has been maybe the show's biggest mystery since it started. There is definitely enough out there. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Titus Welliver regarding the character and making the season five finale. And article on Lloyd Braun's involvement even after leaving. So those, along with the IGN article I linked above, gives us three sources. And I also believe there's something regarding a "Yahoo Answers" interview or something like that. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why you don't try to improve the Mythology article as a first step? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if the Monster gets a new article or not, the Monster section needs a desperate rewrite. The "Yahoo Answers" paragraph is completely irrelevant, and most of its activity from the 5th season and much of the sixth is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.106.210 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything the producers say about the Monster is a primary source, certainly a much better source than "I saw it on this episode and it's obvious what happens" but still a primary source. The interview with Titus Welliver is a secondary source.Secondary sources are welcome but we need third part sources and I think they are not available at the moment because a critic can review a piece of art, fictional character in our case, only it has seen it in its completeness. I consider all the articles right now to have this main problem. It's like you start reading a book, finish chapter 1 and stop to write an article about the characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand. And I know it may go against WP:OSE, but if you look at Jack's article, it only has about 12 sources. Looking at the Monster's section here, there are about 6-7 citations (some may be episodes, podcasts, commentaries, etc. I understand) but were we to get a reception/reaction section that would certainly be a boost. Especially since it was one of the "main mysteries" for five years. Then, as we've both noted, there's the three sources I provided which, yes, are primary and/or secondary. In all seriousness, I actually think the article could and should wait until probably the series is over. That way we'll have all of the provided information on not only the monster, but the actual Man in Black himself. I'm merely stating that, were an article to be created, it could potentially have about as many references as Jack's article (for example) even before an actual reception section was added. --HELLØ ŦHERE 08:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We should be looking for sources already. That's for sure. I get disappointed when I know that thez should be tenths of refernces, interviews, etc. for some Lost characters in media, magazines and sites and most of the editors are only interested to update the "biography" section by rearranging the plot and filling the gaps with speculations. Unfortunately, I don't have access to English literature and related magazines myself. It's nice we have this discussion now so in three months or so we can be ready to really improve Lost related articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is even a discussion. The Monster should have its own article. It is currently being played by a series regular and the entire show is revolving around its machinations (along with those of Jacob). And let's face it, the section on here is huge. As for the name, the only name it has been given formally was when Ben addressed it in "LA X", "You're the Monster!", surely that would suffice for now? MultipleTom (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot summaries should be kept in the individual articles. We have enough episodes articles, probably for every single episode, for that. More can be added in the season's summary. Rewriting the plot of an entire TV series is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of specifics on separate article

To JpGrB and not only: What is better: To have a short description based on podcasts or a long description based on plot observations? I think the first. We can of course say that the audience sees a black smoke in many occasions and that the plot leaves a mystery around it that is slowly revealed in season 6. Sentences like "the monster is apparently locked in a form because Ilana (who?) says that to Sun (who?)" Make no sense to me. Ilana i just a character. It can be mistaken, lying, talking nonsense, etc. It's part of the episode. It's not even a primary source! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think those interested in creating an article for the Monster should start work on a draft in a sandbox (I am willing to contribute to it myself). Those opposed, namely Magioladitis, will be able to review it and give input/criticism. Once the draft is good enough and everyone agrees, we can create a full article. This will also help this article- removing a large chunk of plot summary, allowing us to leave a few sentences here and a link to the new article, will at least start this page on its way to being improved, especially with the end of the series on the horizon. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although it may not sound like it, I am very much against an article being creating right now. I personally feel we don't have anything except podcasts and two or three interview sources, and, of course, we'd probably have a very large "reception/reaction" section. I think we'd need more sources. An "arc" section would clearly be there also (even thought it'd certainly be all plot), but a "development" section or something would probably be needed. I do agree with the sandbox idea, and, if no one immediately creates one or objects within about 24 hours, I'll personally create one and link it here. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

..and I never wrote that I disagree with the ideas of a separate article in general :P I agree with JpGrB: The question is if we can create an article with the material we have now. I find the idea of a sandbox version excellent. On the "Arc" part: Right now a lot of Lost characters articles have the same problem: Huge arcs, "biographies" which in fact cam be found written in a better way in the episodes articles. If someone who haven't watched the series tries to read these article will be get confused, if not bored, in the first few lines. I tried myself to read articles about characters from series I haven't watched and the result was to get upset. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I've taken the liberty of creating a sandbox article. Before you click, please be aware that all I've done to begin this page is take several revisions of the Monster's section and compiled the information. It needs to be cleaned. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I will start paring it down in the next few days and see where it goes from there. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous that he doesn't have an article. The Monster is technically a main character right now, not supporting. Nikki and Paulo have one and have no impact on the overall plot, and Ilana has her own article, and we know nothing about her and a lot more about the Monster. Plus the mythology page of the Monster looks like crap since it is missing a gigantic portion of the Monster's story. There are plenty of sources about reactions to the Monster, but yall are just too lazy to go find one. And if yall are holding out because he hasn't revealed his real name yet, then that excuse is just as good of an excuse for not creating an article for "Cigarette Smoking Man", and for all we know we may not ever learn his actual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.190.54 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In Nikki and Paulo I see at least 20 references that seem to worth, casting is covered by references, plot summary is 3 paragraphs and well balanced ti the whole text, etc. These characters caught media attention and discussed, in some case independentally from the show (check for example the article for Kiele Sanchez. Readers could read about the character without having to known the show first). This doesn't be the case for the monster. I don't say it's not an integral part of the show. The contrary. Right now: It's the show. Then add it using the main article and the season 6 article. As soon as it catches media attention we can create a separate article if necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When has the Monster not had media attention, especially now? Yall are just too lazy to go out and find sources, and they shouldn't be that hard to find. And you didn't address the fact that the Monster IS A MAIN CHARACTER. THIS IS NOT DEBATABLE SO HE SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE AN ARTICLE AS MUCH AS ILANA SHOULD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.60.137 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So is a page being made? I think the sandbox (which no one outside of hardcore wikipedia users see) is very good right now, and people can gather sources as the article is being created. There is absolutely no reason the Monster shouldn't have an article since it is now a main character, and the sandbox article is a good article for the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.60.137 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To Magioladitis, at the beginning of the show, the monster was one of the most covered/debated aspects of the show. Just because it is less so today doesn't mean there aren't plenty of sources from that era discussing it. I have been quite busy these past few days, so I won't be able to start working on the article for a little while, but I plan to do some digging for references/sources. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If they are I would be more than happy that you add them when you find some time and I can in creating the article. I don't know of any, I didn't say they don't exist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that an article now would save a lot of time, because when the finale airs, we can merely edit and add all the relevant information. We have enough to start, I believe. Look at what has been revealed already:his role in the occurrences of events, hints at his past, his desires and his interaction with other characters. The simple fact is he is one of the oldest characters in the story, and the series. Far more has been seen of him and is known about him than Ilana, and yet she has her own article, despite the fact we only know she is connected to Jacob and saw him as a father figure. Let us face this fact: Smokey is the driving force in where the story is heading, and so an article should be done on the Smoke Monster. I would also like to say that Smoke Monster is the most common term associated with him. When anyone wants to read up about him they type 'Smoke Monster', so I do believe that should be the title of the article until his name is revealed.Felix laetus (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, ABC credits the character as "man in black" (no caps) in their press material.[2] So maybe that will at least help with the naming issues. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I second the name "Man in Black" since it has now been stated in the show. Ilana has an article and we know a whole lot less about her, and the Man in Black is now a main character. If you guys are just holding back just because we don't know his name, its just like not making a article for Cigarette Smoking Man. We may not even learn his real name in the series, so is there one slightly good excuse there isn't an article for him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.190.183 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I completely agree that Ol' Smokey needs an article of his own. The creature/character has been a significant presence on the series throughout it's duration, and has now become essentially a main character this season (even though he is in the form of John Locke). It doesn't matter if he doesn't have a name, but I think "The Man in Black (Lost character)" would be sufficient.

• "The Man in Black" would be a disambig page for any other potential articles of a similiar character/nature.
• "The Smoke Monster"/"Smoke Monster"/"The Monster (Lost)" would be obvious redirects.
• "The Monster" would have to be a disambig since "The Monster" I believe is also what they call Frankenstein's monster.

The article could have a fictional biography, since we have some information regarding his character both from the series and from the producer's. Any articles that discuss the smoke monster throughout the history of lost would be good secondary sources, and there are LOTS of articles that discuss this part of the mythos. But something needs to be done so we don't have a HUGE plot summary style article in the mythology article.

I just started a new article called The Man In Black (Lost). I've just titled it and added the basics. I'll leave it up to others to do the rest.(Robertomaynard (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I think it ought to be the more commonly used name "The Monster", in terms of a placeholder. He is known as "Locke" and occasionally "the Man in Black" but I suspect he will be more formally identified with his real name as the series progresses. MultipleTom (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Island at bottom of the ocean

I recall that in the series finale, it was revealed that the Island's location was, in fact, at the sea floor. Can anybody go through the finale and find the reference, or something? 63.25.87.65 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you saw "The End"? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am. 63.25.44.70 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock

The sub-section on the Black Rock currently states as fact that it was the Black Rock sailing on the horizon that is spotted by the Man In Black in the tease for "The Incident". Is there any sources to back this up? I've seen every episode more than once and I don't recall anything suggesting the Black Rock was that particular ship, at least not within the context of episodes. 24.79.89.131 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Island, Located at "...The Second Star to the Left..."

What is fascinating about the "Island" in the "Lost" TV mythos is the ambiguity the writers and producers impose on the plot notion. Nothing specific about the the island's nature is pontificated on, thereby giving the viewers the delicious opportunity AND freedom to ponder and speculate the possibilities of its nature. One aspect of the supposed temporal displacement is that the island is of course its own dimentional\ temporal generator, existing out of physical sync with the rest of the planet. On the nature of "entry" to the island, there may exist-periodically, shifting portals that project from the island to anywhere on Earth. This would explain how Mr. Eko's brother's plane, heavily-damaged, could traverse the impossible distance(or, in truth get anywhere far in its condition,) of thousands of miles to the island (as ppl supposed earlier that the island was somewhere in the South Pacific) from the west coast of Africa, specifically Nigeria. (This also is the solutuion to the daunting question in Jules Verne's novel "the Mysterious Island" of how the refugees found their way to an island in the Pacific with a flimsey hot-air ballon amidst a raging hurricane from the deep South, in the southern Atlantic seaboard.)

Otherwise, there is another juicy tidbit about the island's location that NO ONE has even mentioned, much less thought about. That is could a person, who is standing on the island, look up at the stars' position and determine where the island probably is on Earth at that exact moment? The astronomical references could have allowed anyone of the maroons to calculate a way off the island and its influence. I got this idea from the very first "Lost" episode, "The Pilot". When Jack, Kate, and Jerry sought to find the front-end section of the plane, and discovered the still-liivng pilot, though shortly after, the "Smoke Monster" quickly dispatched him first. "Why?". I thought. Near the end of the third season, inretrospect it was clear that the pilot had the neccessary skills-set to determine the way off the island, pure and simple. But this begs the question: Do the stars shift wildly at night with the erractic temporal displacemnts? Is the canopy or even the Moon visible to the inhabitants? What about bird and other sea-going vertibaes' flight patterns? If one sails off the shores, can one follow the sea gulls far away from the island's influence? These things were never, ever touched upon in the series. Another notion is that if the island "moves" from place-to-place, has it ever been possible that a entrance "portal" had appeared dangerously close to the coast of another land mass, and that either shore was visible to the other? As with Yemi's plane, the "Blackrock" slave ship launched from the Azores in the North Atalntic! Curiously, the same sea storm which bourned the Blackrock to the island and destroyed the Tatweet statue originatedd in the Atlantic, so a portal appeared there. In the third episode of the first season, the castaways were shocked that tidal patterns had-to their understanding-radically cshifted in three days, denoting a change in wind and sea currents peculiar to the South Pacific Ocean for that seasonal period, were they thought they were. And then there was the inciteful, though wrong estimate by the hapless Mr. Artz about the seasonal tidal patterns, facillitating the launch of their makeshift raft. --67.86.106.69 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Literature??

Maybe a section on literature? There is only about one sentence pertaining to it on the main article thru over two dozen books have been featured on the show with both writers and producers stating that many are referenced as allegories in the show (props, plotlines, etc). An example would be Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. The book Locke gave to Ben. The Russian writer - philosopher that was once quoted saying “Try to pose for yourself this task: not to think of a polar bear, and you will see that the cursed thing will come to mind every minute.” an example of Ironic processing fairly prevalent in the series (along with the whole polar bear mystery of season one). Trusted sources a must; however, would a section on this be beneficial? Thanks B.s.n. (R.N.) 07:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is nowhere near quality standards, so I would say that anything without speculation is acceptable. And "Trusted sources a must"—hey, that is a bonus. –thedemonhog talk • edits 09:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the same sequence of numbers from the Lost series were also found inscribed beside a homicide victim in the Taman Shud case of 1946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.51.65 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The above mental excercise cited in "The Brothers Karamazov" about being made to "fixate" on polar bears may have been inspired by a famous Edgar Allen Poe story "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", in which the fictional French detective Aguste Dupin manipulate his American guest and nocturnal rambling companion's (some say this was Poe himself, speaking in the firsrt person, in an actual, or alleged visit to France,)thought processes and then reveals to the latter where his thought would lead. --67.86.97.149 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Veryverser