Talk:Mythology of Lost

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)