Talk:The Incident (Lost)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1845?[edit]

How do we know it's 1845? I'm not saying it's necessarily right or wrong, but I didn't catch any reference to that year in the episode... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the year the ship was launched or lost or some such. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the black rock? I mean, probably, but how do you know? 207.179.180.88 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't hit a hydrogen bomb, its was the plutonium core alone, with out the fusion parts, so just a regular fission bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.60.253 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin translation is slightly flawed. Ille qui nos omnes servabit actaully translates to “He who will protect (or keep) us all.” it also cant mean "that which will". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.209.193 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the Latin, Ille can only refer to a masculine noun and qui can only relate to masculine singular or plural nouns. --Zackgidding (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original translation "that which will" is not flawed. Although ille is masculine, it does not imply that the antecedent is a person. E.g., Richard could be referring to a tree (arbor, which is masculine) in the shadow of the statue, and his response would be correct. Not that I think this is particularly likely, but my point is that it can't be ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.94.166 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, perhaps an inanimate object is very much possible. After all, the query was "what [not who] lies in the shadow of the statue?" Again, we can't rule anything out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castjean (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthwhile recognizing that the Latin language has a very small vocabulary and uses words (especially verbs) for a variety of meanings. SERVO, SERVARE does indeed mean 'watch over' but also commonly means 'save.' The difference is enough to warrant mention in the article. My instinct tells me the second meaning will be more pertinent. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.131.245 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin translation shouldn't rely on someone's instinct. The literal meaning of servo is "save" according to Lewis and Short's A Latin Dictionary. "Watch over" may be what it means here, but without more context I think we should stick to the literal meaning, which makes sense in context. I would change it, but the article is locked. Chrysologus (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does Jacob say, ask he's die? It was a bit inaudible. Malpern (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They're coming" – cacahuate talk 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is Sobek —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4Zi3L (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the episode, the statue in the opening is a human male figure with an Ankh in one hand, and a crocodile face. This is Sobek. Regardless of the fact that "the statue" referred to in the ABC recap and the Wired puzzle is named Tawaret (which does mildly link into the story in regards to pregnancy), the statue pictured is not of Tawaret. I propose that the summary should relate what's on screen. The outside references might even be talking about a different statue, or might constitute a blatant disregard for history. I mean if they said the statue was the colossus of rhodes in a recap and a puzzle, would that make it true? Clearly it's not straddling a port entrance, nor is it a female hippo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.120.236 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present a reliable source that says the statue is Sobek? Otherwise, your observations are original research. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine the source would be the video images (Example). This statue doesn't look like Taweret (A pot-bellied hippo goddess), it doesn't look like Anubis, it doesn't have Sobek's headdress. It does have these features: Human torso, arms, legs, and feet. Sandals, carrying two ankhs, one in each hand to the side, a skirt like covering, a short round cap, two tiny pointed ears, a face that looks like a crocodile (long snout, lots of sharp teeth), hair from the hat to just below the shoulders. -- Dlamblin (talk · contribs) 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centric?[edit]

I've seen a few episodes that claim this is a centric episode for characters like Jack, Locke, Juliet...etc... Wouldn't it be more accurate that this episode is Jacob-centric? -- TRTX T / C 15:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd agree with that. I guess you could also argue it'll eventually be considered centric for this rival of Jacob, when we know whoever the hell he is... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference for that, or is it just original research? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Hunter Kahn. Jacob's rival only appeared in one of the episode's flashbacks whereas Jacob appeared in almost all of them. Mle3 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this, really. Just giving some input. A question though for Magioladitis, is a source needed to list an episode as centric to a specific character? If so, you will probably want to comb through all the character pages, because they all lack citation tags under the "Centric episodes" lists in the infoboxes... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough call but I would have to say it is Jacob-centric as well.

The End Of The Episode[edit]

As the page has an edit restriction, I am requesting that the word "before" in "before the bomb explodes" is changed to "as" ie "as the bomb explodes". This is more accurate as there is clearly the sound of a blast at the end of the episode before the screen goes white. Mrtriangles (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting proposed / Tawaret?[edit]

I think the plot summary of the episode has to be rewritten as exactly it was presented to the audience and not by changing the order. My proposal is based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we should describe the story in the exact order we see it? You want it so that we go piece by piece? This is something that goes completely against Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, which says, "Not only should a summary not go scene by scene, there's no reason why a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order they appear." Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) states ".. editors should consider what to write about a subject, and how to best present that information. Because these questions are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should address both these questions simultaneously in order to create a well-written article." For episodes of Lost, which have multiple concurrent storylines, the best approach, as has been the de facto style for writing Lost episode articles, is to separate out the multiple storylines and summarize the events of each to from a coherent article. If you think your proposed way is better, I suggest that you be WP:Bold and go for it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think discussion in this case is better than being bold. We have to fix a strategy of the way we want to present this episode. I am not talking for a scene by scene description here. The plot summary is already long and obviously much longer than any other section in this article. I would suggest that we shorten it a bit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranging it by how the episode presents it will not help that. If anything, it will just make it longer. It makes more sense to separate the details by their distinct timeframe/context. That can be trimmed with far greater ease. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the last sentence should read "seemingly" detonates, because we as the viewers are not 100% sure that it detonated or if the screen just faded to white. yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthnexus77 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC recap says that the bomb goes off.[1] --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the person who writes the recaps at ABC is privy to the secret plot details of next season. I changed the text to be perfectly accurate -- the screen goes white, and the episode ends. No one (except the writers) knows what actually happened. [personally, I think the bomb did NOT go off, and it was a time travel event, similar to what we saw in prior episodes.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ABC makes the show—I think that they know or at least would check with the show's creative team. Also, Michael Emerson confirmed it in the latest podcast. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt the very busy creative team bothers to read or review the web site's recaps, which are most likely written by a low-level flunky. What difference does the recap make to the franchise? The ABC recap is not a good source for future plot details. Also, Lost is notorious for NOT telling the actors anything until they read the next script. I will believe the bomb exploded if it's confirmed by one of the writers of the show. Michael Emerson is most likely making an assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is talking about future plot details; we are talking about what happens in this episode and the recap for this episode says the bomb explodes. Anything you say about who writes the recaps can not be substantiated and it is merely your opinion that a "low-level flunky" is in charge of writing them. For all we know, Cuse and Lindelof wrote the recap themselves. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. No one knows who wrote the summaries, and we have no reference to say whether these recaps are written with full creative approval, or if they're just written by someone watching the same stuff as us (more likely, IMO). The rational thing to do is to not make assumptions based on no evidence, and to just describe how the episode ended: with a noise and a white flash. Or, to put it another way, why not? How is the article made better by including information that has a good chance of being wrong? Nairebis (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I had not seen this discussion when I made my edit, nor had I reviewed the article's history, so I wasn't deliberately edit warring - however, I strongly agree with Nairebis and Darthnexus77 on this. We should say what we saw on the screen, not what someone says happened in a recap. We also should not be divining what the authors "meant" - if we have information from an interview or such by the creators, we should identify it as such, and include it as well as what we actually saw. Here we saw the screen go white, and we do not know definitively that the bomb went off. I didn't say in the text that they time shifted - that was in edit summary - I merely said it "apparently" detonated, and reported the screen going to white. It's a cliffhanger - we do not know what happened. I don't see that consensus has been reached here, thedemonhog, so I'm not convinced that your version should be the one included. Seems to me that it's better to not say definitively that something happened when it was left ambiguous on the screen, and say "apparently". As for shifting perspectives, I see the problem, so can agree with leaving off the screen going to white. Same thing for "Tawaret" - nice that someone in recap said that's who the statue is, but it's not stated on the screen, so why are we saying it? Tvoz/talk 07:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recap comes from ABC, so it is perfectly reliable as far as stating the obvious. Recap says boom, there be a boom. There's also that podcast mentioned earlier. Same thing for Taweret. Unless it can be said definitively that the source is unreliable, which it being ABC is quite unlikely, there's really no logic in interpreting the scene ourselves (WP:OR) when an outside source is clear as to its meaning. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing OR at all - I'm reporting what we saw. She hit the device. The screen went white. That is ambiguous. I acknowledged that we might not want to say the screen went white because it takes us into a meta perspective - I don't really agree with that but I am willing to go along with leaving it off if that's the consensus here - but I do not agree that we saw definitively that the device detonated. I am not claiming that ABC is unreliable, I'm saying that we are on safer ground sticking with what we see - not interpreting it, as I did not do - because we don't know what reasoning is behind the writing of the recap nor do we know whose view of events it represents. We do know what they told us on the screen - and they did not say "Tawaret" as far as I recall. I might agree if it were, say, the Sphinx rather than Taweret, as it would be pretty much instantly recognized by viewers as such, but Tawaret is certainly not that. And you'll see I did not remove the word "Tawaret" (I reinstated "four-toed" which is the only thing that most viewers who don't read abc.com knew), in a spirit of compromise, but indeed I would prefer to see it included only as a footnote to "four-toed", such footnote saying that the ABC recap identified it as Tawaret - that's quite different from implying that the aired program identified it as such. We are writing an article about an episode that was viewed - not an article about the podcast or recaps written by unknown people that may or may not accurately reflect what they presented on screen. Their responsibility is to get their points across on the screen - they can supplement it with podcasts and writing, but we should report what was presented on screen in our text, with footnotes to clarify things that came up in podcast etc, and identified as such. Tvoz/talk 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything has to be reported in the episode for it to be true. The recaps by ABC clarify details which are already fairly obvious. Quite frankly it's very clear the bomb went off, otherwise that explosion noise wouldn't have sounded. There's also few Egyptian gods which match the statue. What you're suggesting is that we deliberately dilute the facts rather than accurately report what is said to happen by outside reliable sources. The last part just makes no sense. Duh, we're writing an article about the episode, and the podcasts, recaps, and other secondary sources are used to clarify and better inform the reader. You say we don't know the reasoning behind the writing of the recap, but all this boils down to is your opinion that it might not be accurate, with nothing to back that up. It's on ABC's website, so we can take it on faith that whoever wrote it probably knows what they're talking about. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not at all saying we should dilute anything - I quite clearly said we should identify, name and distinguish the "facts" that are gleaned from podcasts and recaps from the "facts" we saw on the screen - and that can be done with footnotes. About the Egyptian gods, sorry, but you're the one doing the OR here. As for the sound when the screen went white - could have been an explosion, could have been something else - it was ambiguous, which is why so many viewers on the web are saying the same thing. (I am reminded of The Sopranos finale - is Tony dead? Does it matter what David Chase said about it later on? Is that more correct than the ambiguity we saw?) As for taking it on faith that the recaps are accurate, I'm sure you've heard of the fine art of misdirection, as befits a show that thrives on ambiguity, contradictory evidence, and stunning reversals. So to suddenly take as gospel anything that Cuse and Lindelof say or the recaps print is ridiculous. What I take on faith is only that this is what they want us to believe right now, just as they clearly wanted us to believe that Locke was brought back to life when he returned to the island. Here's an excerpt from the ABC recap of season 5 episode 7: Caesar and Ilana ignore the plane and continue to the beach where they meet this mysterious man. He introduces himself as none other than John Locke. Sure enough, he's wearing a suit and a tie, and he talks. Locke is no longer a dead man in a coffin. Misdirection. Fair enough, and totally appropriate, but is it accurate now that we've seen the finale? Will what the recap implies about the finale necessarily be true when the last season plays out? If I had said in a similar discussion like this one, about ep 7, that we should say "Locke appears to be alive", would you have pointed to the recap and said we should make the definitive statement that he is alive? I haven't looked back to that article here so I don't know what it says, but do you see my point about the recaps? I do not see how the word "apparently" regarding the nuke is in any way OR or inappropriate - it is based on watching a deliberately ambiguous closing scene, and I am not swayed by what they want us to believe. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once you start assuming that anything and everything is just there to trick us then nothing will ever get done. That recap you point out is accurate per the events that happen in the episode. By all appearances that is Locke. Though it later turns out not to be Locke, it is then as far as episode goes. Same thing here. The bomb went off, and that's what the recap says. The statue is Tawaret, and there it is. You're arguing that we should ignore the obvious on the off-chance that the producers are just screwing with us. The word "apparently" is OR because the recap says it goes off. You admit you do not trust them, therefore "apparently" is your way of inserting your own opinion of the scene into the text. Recap says the bomb goes off, and no wall of text is going to change that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now Tawaret is obvious? Whatever you say. And plot summaries are to be based more on the recaps and interviews than what's on the screen? Why don't we just link to the recap and not even bother writing up our own? (And I did not say that everything is there to trick us.) And finally, if the "wall of text" comment was your way of insulting me, thanks very much - if you can't win on logic, go for a nasty crack. Is this really how you go about reaching consensus with established editors when there are differing opinions on how to handle something in an article? Tvoz/talk 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to argue that two lines is somehow the entire body of the text. Get some perspective. These are two somewhat ambiguous events which the recap clarifies for us. I see this as rather simple. There's two lines, referenced, which provide clarity. That's all there is to it. You're trying to provide all these reasons why it might be misdirection or some other thing so the page can be made ambiguous. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I'm arguing in favor of adding one word which reflects the ambiguity that you acknowledge. Tvoz/talk 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Excellent find on the "none other than John Locke", etc. This definitively proves that the recaps can NOT be trusted when it comes to plot details. The recaps just report what we are meant to assume, and we're meant to assume that the bomb went off. But if anything is up for grabs, it's what actually happened RIGHT AT THE POINT OF A CLIFFHANGER. And just for the record, if you review the time travel events, there is a boom and white flash. I don't see why this has to be a big debate. Can someone just find a reasonable reference to an analysis that it's an open question? That's all we need. Is there a good, verifiable source that says it's an open question? If yes, then it's something we ought to include. If the bomb going off is considered rock solid fact, then there shouldn't be any good sources that question it. Nairebis (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← You said it yourself: we're meant to assume the bomb went off, and so the recap reflects that. Once we start speculating that maybe it didn't and adjusting the text to allow for those assumptions, it becomes OR. We have a source saying it went off, and in the absence of evidence contradicting that, there's no reason to start second-guessing it. To the question of finding an analysis which paints it as open-ended, unless it comes from the cast or crew, it would just be a review.

Agreed. We cannot just assume that they are misdirecting us. If we find out later that the bomb did not go off, then we can change it. But right now, we know that it did. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We "know" this because the ABC.com recap said so - not because we saw it. Saying it "apparently" detonated would be true to what we saw. And to Penguin - I think Nairebis is talking about a third-party analysis of the ep, who would be talking about the ending being ambiguous or open, if such a thing exists. You can't be saying that the only sources you'll allow to be quoted are ABC or Darlton - as long as reviewers are in reliable publications, of course they can be cited. Tvoz/talk 06:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it detonated is also true to what we saw. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we saw a white flash -- also associated with time travel. We did NOT see definitive proof of detonation. Considering they had just opened up the pocket of energy that causes time travel, it's hardly a stretch to theorize that it was a time travel event. And yes, I was talking about a third party analysis that gives us a reference for the open question. Nairebis (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
White flashes are associated with a number of things: teleportation of the island, blowing up the hatch, etc. This flash had a boom, while the other flashes were a loud charging noise. A third party reference would not change the plot details. If ABC says it blew up and some third part speculates that it might be more time travel, ABC trumps that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, a reliable third party source reporting that there was ambiguity in what happened is not at all trumped by ABC. But let's see if we have any such sources so we can stop talking about theoreticals. (And I am not so sure I'd call it a boom.) Tvoz/talk 02:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you find them they can be reviewed, but nonetheless you're missing the point. A third party source would imply that it is neither cast nor crew reviewing the episode's contents, nor a source relating to the company which airs the series. ABC's analysis would therefore trump what anyone else thinks of it short of those types of sources I just mentioned. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ABC's web site recap (let's be specific) has been proven to be unreliable when it comes to plot details (see above analysis, "none other than John Locke" -- clearly wrong). So we currently have no definitive source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only by your opinion. It's still accurate per the events of the specific episode. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I see other editors have also questioned the "Tawaret" id, which does not come from the on-screen episode. I again state that I think we should remove the name, and not use any name - not Sobek, Tawaret, or any other. Tvoz/talk 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who questioned the Taweret ID, stated that because in his opininon the statue looks more like Sobek, it should be identified as such, which we all know is original research. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the ABC recap, other than more opinions from other editors that the recap is inaccurate based on another matter which hasn't been clearly resolved. No third party has come forward and made an allegation that the recap is inaccurate or that its information should be discounted. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My take is look at the image and see that it's not clearly recognizable, is never referred to by any name other than "the statue," and if you read about Tawaret it just doesn't mesh with what you see on screen. I think a better attribution would be "a statue ABC identified as Tawaret." Dlamblin (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A statue of Tawaret" is synonymous with "a statue ABC identified as Tawaret." –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo: Andrea Gabriel (not GaRbriel)[edit]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1320997/

Rose and Bernard undue emphasis[edit]

In the Reception section, what's with all the undue emphasis on Rose and Bernard? They are two minor characters on the show and barely feature, yet over half of the Reception section is dedicated to talking about them. That is a little odd. JettaMann (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ship[edit]

I've reverted an IP edit but wanted to double check my memory. The IP has changed the description "sailing ship to Rouseau's ship.[2] However not only is it not identified that way, but if I'm not mistaken Rouseau arived in the mid 1980's on a research ship, not an old time sailing ship like the Black Rock. Am I misremembering anything?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are correct. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incident_(Lost)&oldid=1201082114"