Talk:Lost (2004 TV series): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:24, 24 March 2006

Lost (2004 TV series) has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Lost (2004 TV series) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Lost. It is not for discussion about the programme itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Lost is a "good" or "bad" programme; or finding out what "this and that" is.

Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages. Before asking a question here concerning what can and cannot be posted in this article, please refer to the following Wikipedia rules:

What Wikipedia Is Not (Policy)
Neutral Point of View (Policy)
No Original Research (Policy)
Verifiability (Policy)
Reliable Sources (Guideline)
Disruption of Wikipedia to Prove a Point (Guideline)

Archives of previous discussions

Because of their length, certain previous discussions on this page have been archived. The dates are a rough estimate of the period. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Long ongoing discussions

References

Per the comment in the peer review for this article, I began adding references. The information in the first paragraph under Overview I remembered seeing in a special feature in the DVD, so I referenced the DVD for that material. I also added proper footnotes for the sources in the Fan Speculation section. I read through the article and found three things that need cited:

While Lost's pilot episode was criticized for being the most expensive pilot episode in television history, the series became one of the biggest critical and commercial successes of the 2004 television season and, along with fellow new series Desperate Housewives, helped to reverse the flagging fortunes of ABC.

"There's a link to IMDB here, but IMDB is not a citable source for this kind of information. We need something better like an interview with ABC or the creators.

I found this article which tells a bit more about Lloyd Braun's story, and how his decision to green-light Lost was instrumental in his losing his job at Disney. It includes a quote from DisneyWar: "If Eisner or Iger decided they wanted rid of him, he'd handed them the ammunition: he had green-lit a $12 million pilot that still didn't have a script." I personally don't feel that's a perfect source for this, but it's an improvement over IMDB. Baryonyx 23:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on that article! It does have quite a bit of sourceable info. I wonder what the ABC/Disney brass now say about LOST? —LeFlyman 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Iger is now the Chairman/CEO, so it may be that some of them still hate the show. Eisner's gone, however, so the opinion's probably better. However, I will note that the rift over Lost was big enough that it made DisneyWar, which came out 2/2005, just a few months after Lost began. Might have even been a final nail in Eisner's coffin, as it were. But that's just speculation on my part. Baryonyx 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some characters on Lost, by admission of the writers, reference famous philosophers through their names and connection to each other.

We need to find the interview where the writers said this, or else delete the by admission of the writers part.

During "Orientation" the bookshelf in the hatch contains The Turn of the Screw and The Third Policeman, which Desmond packs in his rucksack when fleeing. Craig Wright, who co-wrote the episode with Javier Grillo-Marxuach, told the Chicago Tribune that "anyone familiar with The Third Policeman will 'have a lot more ammunition' in dissecting Lost plotlines." [1]

It looks like someone tried to cite this, but there is no link at the end of the sentence.

Lastly, I have included instructions in HTML comments at the top of the page, so anyone who edits this article will have an easy guide to adding references.Jtrost 19:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these improvements; I think they go quite a ways to making this more encyclopedic, and closer to the ideal for a featured article. —LeFlyman 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find sources for the first and third items from USA Today and Reuters, however I was not able to find anything regarding the second item. Therefore, I've removed the text "by admission of the writers" since it is an unverified claim. If anyone is able to find a source for that, please add it. I've read through the whole article again and do not see anything else that needs to be referenced, but if you do find something please mention it here. Jtrost 02:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are good sources for references:

"Paul Dini Gives "Lost" Spoilers" Where it notes, "Paul's character's are John Locke, Sawyer and Sun [Daniel Day Kim's wife]. Paul said that Locke was based off of the real life philosopher John Locke."
Lost' book mention may be good for small press Regarding use of Flann O'Brien's Third Policeman book (Originally from Chicago Tribune)
The Book Standard about the "buzz" created by being mentioned on "Lost"
"Asking for trouble" - Sydney Morning Herald talks to Lost's producers
"Unlocking the Philsophy of 'Lost'" - From Zap2it.com

—LeFlyman 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an important clarification, which was long overdue, as to the origins of Lost; it's based on the Daily Telegraph article from last year Baryonyx found above as well as an article (in PDF format) I came across from the Australian Writer's Guild magazine "Storyline". Both articles clarify that Lloyd Braun did not originate the idea, but that it was pitched to him. The initial script was written by Jeffrey Lieber, and was rejected by Braun along with a rewrite. J. J. Abrams was called in to provide a fresh perspective. Thus, this explains why Lieber is referred to first in ABC's list of the show's creators, such as at the bottom of the show's "official" description. I've included the Daily Telegraph reference at the bottom, and the AWG article might be useful as a source for other content.—Leflyman^Talk 18:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Characters of Lost article someone made a crufty section about flashback crossovers. I decided to clean it up and keep it, and in the process used a quote from Damon from a podcast. You can see the section here. I'm not sure how to cite a podcast, so I wrote it as "Person. Name of Podcast. Date. Minute and second it was said." like so: Lindelof, Damon. The Official Lost Podcast. February 2, 2006. 14:24. If anyone knows if there is a standard way of citing podcasts please let me know. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just completed a major reformat of the references, according to the new system used by "MediaWiki" which takes the place of the previous "Footnote3" system we were using. This allows much easier reference citations to be done. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes and Meta:Cite.php for a fuller explanation. In brief, a new "HTML"-style tag is now used: "<ref>" just after the item being referenced, to allow in-line citations -- no need for the "cite" and "note" tags any longer. Follow with a standard "footnote" style for the citation, then close the reference with a </ref>. I've chosen to modify a Chicago Manual of Style format in the way I've written the references, like so: "Author Last Name, First Name. "Article Title." Publication (or Web site), Day Month, Year." —Leflyman^Talk 07:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Someone mentioned in the peer review that we write a section about the show's production. Specifically, about Oahu and how the Hawaiin islands are transformed into flashback scenes. However, before adding this section I'd like to get other people's opinions. First, do we need it? And if we do, what kind of information should be included? I found this page on About.com, and this page on the Seattle Times website that go into detail about the production. Jtrost 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am of the opinion we do not need to do that. Or if we do, we keep it a brief one paragraph deal. I've read a lot of articles in People and EW, etc., about this subject, but I'm not sure we need to add that all to Wikipedia. I suppose that I consider the article to be primarily about the fictional television series, not all the behind-the-scenes bells and whistles that go into the show. Danflave 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be enough interesting and reliable information to make an entire section from this topic. How does everyone feel about putting something like this at the end of the first paragraph: Lost is filmed on location on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. Jtrost 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black & White

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

Hear, hear, Baryonyx. I wanted to say all this, but a) couldn't muster the energy against the repeated and adamant postings, and b) wouldn't have said it as eloquently or comprehensively. Thank you! --PKtm 19:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, indeed. I think that for the Story Elements sections to remain "neutral", they should be kept brief and point out only the clearest (and least dubious) examples of the recurring elements. In the case of "black and white" it may not always signify "opposition" on the show-- as I clarified by editing the "meaning" to reference "Duality. However, the importance of the skin color of the two minor, married characters is pretty much non-existent; other than to provide an opportunity (as Baryonyx eludes to, above) for Hurley to quip (paraphrasing) "So Rose's husband is white; who would have seen that?" In terms of the ongoing plot, it has no material relevance.—LeFlyman 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I also agree. I've always found the inclusion of "Rose is black, Bernard is white" to have ulterior motives. However, you summed up the reasons why it should NOT be included perfectly. Danflave 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error creating thumbnail:

Also, the bit about the black and white dove flying out of Charlie's vision painting should probably be deleted. On a recent podcast, the producers read a question asking if it was two doves or just a shadow and they said it was a shadow. Bopo 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I was going on a previous entry when I rewrote that. I've removed it per your note. Interestingly, the painting on which Charlie's dream is based does have two birds, one white in the center, and one black, to the right of frame; which is also why I left it in. —Leflyman^Talk 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time out. Whoever said that the B/W theme had to include opposition? There are simply black and white pairs in the show. Some are opposing, some are not. (ie, Rose & Bernard, Locke & Eko) It's not racism to point out pairs of people who are B/W... Rose & Bernard are married, they are B&W. Locke & Eko are both the freaky philosophic types, they are B&W. So what?! They're really noticeable differences, so why are people afraid to point them out? I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I think it's just stupid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappa.jake (talk • contribs) February 23, 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Eyes

I believe there is an oversight (no pun intended) in this section; Sawyer developed vision problems partway through the first season. While this does not relate to the theme as directly as Locke's opaque pupils, I still feel that there is a strong connection between the eye motif and Sawyer's farsightedness. I'm a bit relucant to add it, however, because his glasses are covered in the section on Black & White, so it seems a bit repetetive. On the third hand, even if Eyes and Black & White when Sawyer had the funky glasses, he found a new pair in Maternity leave, so the Black/White duality no longer exists in relation to this issue. Could I get a little feedback on whether this is important enough and unique enough to warrant mention? --Cinder Lizard 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite A Lot To Do

OK, I've just gone through the infobox page by page, and some of the actor pages that branch off the main character pages, and, TBH... there's a lot of work to be done. WikiProject level work, IMHO, but not sure there's a precedent for a WikiProject for a show this young. Season 1 is being worked on, but if Season 1 is an elephant, Season 2's an apatosaur. With only half the episodes, it's already nearly as large as the entire Season 1 page. I see that Season 2 is listed in the signups above, and that's good, but I think we need to really focus our efforts on cleaning up one section at a time, instead of splitting off.

Doesn't stop there, though... the Characters page needs work (need to decide how we want to handle flashbackery, and trim out or eliminate the Census section altogether, IMHO), as do a significant number of the main character pages. Then there's the miscellaneous ones, like The Dharma Initiative, Oceanic Flight 815, The Hanso Foundation, The Others, etc. that have cropped up. Collectively, I think we've taken great strides in getting this article into better shape, and I think we can do great things with all the articles under the Lost category. Baryonyx 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough work to justify an entire wikiproject, but there certainly is a lot to be done. I think we can start by creating a todo template for each article on its talk page and identifying exactly what improvements could be made to each article. I think with enough hard work, we can get this article and all of the LOST related articles up to FAC status by the season finale in May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this article shouldn't be nominated for FAC until all other articles that talk about LOST are also up to that status, although they necessarily won't need a peer review. Jtrost 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing this with Leflyman, and the main reason why I mention a project is if we do eventually decide to split up the episodes (I hope not, but I'd defer to consensus), we'd need to get a tight grip on that process pretty quickly. As far as FAC, I agree... Lost shouldn't be nominated until the other key Lost articles are of at least A quality (using WP 1.0 guidelines). And by key, I mean the main article, Season pages (or episodes, if they do get split), Character page, Main character pages, and the minor spinoff pages related to Lost. Though, I'd note that I'd shoot for the end of June for FAC, since we'll probably need that long for the dust to settle from the season finale.Baryonyx 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all -- I apologize for not Wiki-ing much lately. Things have picked up at work and to add to my already enormous stress-load, I need to find a new apartment and move by March 1st. I didn't want you guys to think I was abandoning the Lost Wiki page. Things should be back to normal next month, and I am always willing to help out with upkeep and edits. I still plan on helping with the Season 2 episode guide, but can't do it anytime soon (which might work out fine, since Baryonyx wants to focus on Season 1 for now!) Danflave 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Speculation

I'm new as well, so please excuse if I've commited any netiquette faux pas in what was really my first editing of the Wikipedia. I added the relation of dharma, the bagua (Dharma Initiative) symbol and its relevance to binary code in the Philosopher section (would have prefered a Religious section, but I guess until then, this will do). All as far as I know are verifiable, objective connections. Please edit as you see fit, as I'm still seeing how things work here. I commend you guys very much for keeping this place free of baseless speculation, which it would quickly deteriorate to if it were a playground for fans to go rampant with theories on, and the articles were not peer-reviewed. -Pandora

First off, I'm new, please don't bite my head off if I'm going about this wrong In fan speculation, I think that someone should add that a lot of people think the island is some kind of mind game that the hanso foundation is playing with the castaways. I'd do it, but I really can't find this theory anywhere except internet forums, which doesnt really count as a source, but the idea is popular enough that is should be included. 204.218.240.90 14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to Wikipedia! If you plan on staying awhile, I'd urge you to get a username and join us! As to your question, this particular section is not about popular fan theories. It is about theories which have been publicly debunked or discredited by the producers of the show themselves. Anything else will be considered Original Research and removed. Additionally, because of the speculative nature of any theory that has not been commented on by the producers, we will not have a section on such theories. Baryonyx 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan speculation isn't a section where fans can run rampant and post any theories they may have about the island. It's a section where we list the theories that have been disproven. I encourage you to keep an eye out for that theory and any others that the producers may comment on, but don't mention it in the article unless disproven. Jtrost 17:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should rename the section to "Discredited Rumors" or something along those lines, the current title leaves people to believe that its somewhere they can post their own speculation.

Good idea, I'm going to make the change now. -- MisterHand 16:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent seen that in another media, but black and white rocks that are founds in the cavern in a bag are similar to two rocks appeared in Paulo Coelho's "The Alchemist", refered to a oracle rocks appeared in the bible, called Urim and Turim. That rocks are used to predict things. The white has the "yes" and the black the "no". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.32.82.216 (talk • contribs) February 21, 2006.

Planned seasons?

I think I recently read somewhere that there are plans to produce 6/7 seasons. Does anyone know if there are definite plans? if so, should it be added to the page? if not, just ignore me :-P SilentGuy 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, producer intent and network reality do not frequently correspond. Lost may be popular now, but that can change in a few months time, and next thing you know, Lost is going off the air at the end of Season 3 (I certainly hope not, but just pointing that out). J. Michael Straczynski had intended Babylon 5 as a 5 season story, but wasn't certain he'd get that 5th season, so he finished the story in 4 (giving the final, somewhat uneven, 5th season). Lost could be in the same boat. Nothing like that is ever truly definite unless it is stipulated in a contract... and even then, those usually have so many outs and loopholes as to make any postulating folly. Further, there's variation on what the producers plans are. JJ Abrams has said the first six seasons are plotted in at least outline form, other times people have said they have enough material to go eight, and Damon Lindelof has said he can't see dragging this out beyond four or five before people begin to abandon the show in frustration. Lost will end when Lost will end, and until it does, any comments on how long it will run are speculation at best, and should not be included on the page. Baryonyx 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Baryonyx said. As we are supposed to avoid "Crystal Balling", it would be futile to try to predict whether such a show as Lost can keep its audience happy. Lest we forget the lesson of Twin Peaks which was the hot water-cooler show of 1990, but ran out of steam in its second season. However, if it keeps its ratings, Lost should be on the air through season five, when it hits episode 100; after which contracts will be up again, and all bets are off. But that's true of any TV series. —Leflyman^Talk 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the rate Lost is going, (25 episodes last season, 24 ATM this season) it might be at episode 100 for the season finale of season 4! Also, all the first season actors are locked up through a possible sixth season (at least if they agree to the offer). That was part of the agreement they signed onto when they got their raises a few weeks back Source. Baryonyx 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Twin Peaks which was the hot water-cooler show of 1990, but ran out of steam in its second season." Best mixed metaphor ever, btw. --Krsont 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I had my writing staff working for weeks on that line. —Leflyman^Talk 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a fan of theorising, but it's pretty obviously planned to run for 2 seasons only ;) --Streaky 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites!

I miss some fansites in the external links section! This article and the official sites only covers a fraction of all the Lost theories out there! --158.36.240.121 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been covered before, I refer you to sections 4 and 5 above. In a nutshell, fansites are not acceptable sources nor can they be listed without risking being seen as playing favorites and resulting a links section dozens of links long. Further, Wikipedia is not the place for Lost theorizing, since it is, after all Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and not Wikifansite, the free fansite. As we've always done, speculation, original research, and non-verifiable information will continue to be removed. Baryonyx 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And chill with the exclamation mark there, fella. --DDG 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

I left a note on the original author's talk page about this section. If no references are cited, however, I think this section should be deleted. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunctional family

I hate to quibble, as there has already been much edit warring/revising on this page, but isn't "dysfunctional family" a really broad and somewhat subjective term? For one thing, each family's dysfunction is really just part of the character's backstories, and some of them are gritty, as this is a drama. In particular, Jack's relationship with his Dad is not great, but up until his Dad left for Australia, they seemed to have a fairly average, if strained familial relationship (his Dad even appeared at his wedding, and they practiced medicine together for some time). I think this categorization is just a really stretched attempt to find patterns among the characters. --DDG 20:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section originally was specific to "Fathers" which is a more source-able (as I recall an article pointed out the "father problems" of the characters); however, it was expanded to encompass the dysfunctional relationships of siblings such as Charlie and his brother, and Mr. Eko and his.

However, in the matter of Jack's relationship, I think it's actually been made pretty clear that Christian Shephard was an exceedingly poor father, and disconnected from his son. In all the episodes he's appeared, he's given oblique references to how the two of them are different. This was most clear in his pleading to Jack not reveal his negligence in operating under the influence, in the pointedly titled "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues":

Christian: I know I have been hard on you, but that is how you make a soft metal into steel. That is why you are the most gifted young surgeon in this city. And this, this is a career that is all about the greater good. I've had to sacrifice certain aspects of my relationship with you so that hundreds and thousands of patients will live because of your extraordinary skills. I know it's a long time coming. What happened yesterday, I promise you, will never happen again. And after all, what I've given. . . This is not just about my career, Jack. It's my life.[1]

It was the critical decision that Jack made to turn his father in (as mentioned by his mother in "White Rabbit") that led to Christian's loss of job and standing, alcoholism and eventual death in Australia. In the recent episode "The Hunting Party," there's even the implication that Christian had an extramarital affair, in the interaction between the two men, when Christian cautions against acting on the attraction between Jack and Gabriela: "Careful. There's a line, son. You know it's there. And pretending it's not... that would be a mistake." Jack's response is, "Guess you would know." To which his father replies, "It may be okay for some people, Jack, but not for you."[2] —Leflyman^Talk 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unconvinced. The fact that he's a "bad father" is a purely subjective call. True, they may not have a traditional sitcom father-son relationship, but it's a complete order of magnitude different from the destructive paternal relationships of Kate and Locke. I don't really see a theme here. --DDG 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're unconvinced that they have a dysfunctional relationship? I'm not sure how much more clearly the writers can paint it, beyond including in the title, "Daddy Issues", having the father state, "I've had to sacrifice certain aspects of my relationship with you...", and having the son ruin his father's career, sending him on a self-destructive path to his death. That's pretty dysfunctional to me. Please re-watch the episodes White Rabbit and ...Daddy Issues and note how Jack's responses to his father are always filled with veiled insults, to see why their relationship was rancorous.—Leflyman^Talk 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The theme is that most of the main characters have had really poor family relationships, and, with one exception (Jin), this is the case so far as we've been shown. The central difficulty I see is in the elevation of Jack's relationship with Christian to the same scale of dysfunction as that of Locke, Kate, and Sawyer, by virtue of the fact that Jack is given, with those others, as an explicit example. Further, I think there is some mingling of Christian's moral terpitude into his relationship with Jack, in addition to the prominence of the Jack/Christian relationship because of Jack's centrality as a character. Admittedly, Jack and Christian do not have a good relationship, but given the even greater depravity of people like Anthony Cooper, I don't know that we should be elevating the Jack/Christian relationship to that level by explicating it as we have. Baryonyx 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that while his father may be a good man, Jin's relationship with him, too, became dysfunctional: he claimed his father was dead, due to his shame of him being a fisherman, and cut off all ties to him— unclear for how long, but from the start of his the marriage, until he was about to leave Korea. See: The Jin Game, Reprint of Entertainment Weekly article: Jin has a whole magazine rack of father issues—Leflyman^Talk 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my problem is that the term "dysfunction" is so vague. By this reasoning you could probably find that this is a "theme" in every major TV drama to date. --DDG 16:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prevalence of "father issues" on Lost has been pointed out by others, both online and in the press; as I noted above, the initial element was expanded to be inclusive of "family" as we are seeing more of the problematic relationship of other characters' with their parents and siblings. "Dysfunctional family" is a pretty straight forward term, and precisely describes the familial situations of the characters. See, for example:

Lost TV Show - Fatherhood Issues, Jollyblogger
'LOST' ON MYSTERIOUS ISLE, Atlanta-Journal Constitution: Father issues:Is it significant or just coincidence that so many of the Lostaways had serious problems with their fathers?
Kate just runs from her past on ‘Lost’, MSNBC: Boy, does that Kate have some daddy issues

—Leflyman^Talk 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok if we narrowed the scope to problems with fathers, but my big hangup is that "dysfunctional family" is so vague. I honestly can't think of one modern drama in which each of the people couldn't be classified in some way with "dysfunctional families". --DDG 20:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

surely the point is that they are indeed *not* dysfunction, there's clearly hidden love with all of them, that was blatantly never expressed until it was too late. --Streaky 02:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Literary references

This section is becoming very long. I think we should limit it to just a few examples and be very strict about exactly what can be added in there just like we are with the rest of the article. Anyone agree/disagree? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As the show progresses, this section will grow exponentially. I also want to point out that while it's quite obvious that "Henry Gale" is a Wizard of Oz reference, it still is technically OR at this point. I haven't read any actual sources where the producers or writers cite this as their source for the name. Danflave 18:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a condensed version I made. It's something to work off of:

Literary works are frequently displayed or referenced on the show, a point of interest to many fans who try to connect them to Lost's mythology. ^[3] Some books parallel the strife of the survivors, such as when Sawyer is reading Watership Down, an account of a group of rabbits trying to find a new warren. Later he reads A Wrinkle in Time, a novel involving rescuing a lost father and Christian undertones about a universal battle between darkness and light. ^[4] Literary works may also foreshadow upcoming events. In "Special", Walt looks through the comic book Green Lantern / Flash: Faster Friends, which his father takes away and throws in a fire, revealing a panel containing a polar bear. A short time later, a polar bear attacks Walt.

When Desmond leaves the hatch, he packs The Third Policeman. Craig Wright, who co-wrote the episode, told the Chicago Tribune that, "Whoever goes out and buys the book will have a lot more ammunition in their back pocket as they theorize about the show. They will have a lot more to speculate about — and, no small thing, they will have read a really great book." ^[5] Biblical references have been pointedly used by Mr. Eko. He relates the story of King Josiah (from 2 Kings, chapters 22 and 23) to Locke, and he recites the 23rd Psalm with Charlie.

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-tro -- Looks good, I'd add maybe a tiny bit more, but for the most part, I think shorter is better. Danflave 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few (or more) words: I think the Literary references section could do with some pruning, however I do feel that too much "compression" can lose story context, and some lesser points that express more depth. For example, I consider it noteworthy to mention that Sawyer's excessive reading leads to his farsightedness, and likewise believe the "White Rabbit" material is important to include, as it was also the name of an episode and specifically attributed to a literary work by Locke. However, I would not suggest we make any claims to the meaning of such references. In the above rewrite, for example, we should be careful in making assertions like, "Some books parallel the strife of the survivors," and, "Literary works may also foreshadow upcoming events"— such statements border on Original Research. This may be a fine line, but when I first converted the section to prose, I intentionally avoided including such connections, because they involved a leap in reasoning beyond the level of presenting the bare facts. We can leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Of course, if an external source can be found which makes the claim, it can be provided with a citation.

Additionally, I'm of the opinion that including "Henry Gale" as a reference to The Wizard of Oz is purely speculative (sort of like how the "Black Rock" was somehow assumed to refer to Peter Pan.) In the book, that name is never given for Dorothy's "Uncle Henry":

What is Uncle Henry and Aunt Em's last name?

Nobody knows for sure. They are never given a last name in the books. In The Movie, Miss Gulch refers to Uncle Henry as "Mr. Gale," but in Return to Oz, Dr. Worley calls Aunt Em "Mrs. Blue." Since these references come from movies, and not the books, they're considered to be apocryphal, and the question is still unanswered.[6]

Thus, the most accurate thing that might be said is that the name "Henry Gale" was considered to be the name of Dorothy's uncle in the movie adaptation of The Wizard of Oz; however, that's not exactly "literary" and making such a connection also seems fan-crufty.

And finally, I'm beginning to feel the "Wikistress" of reading so much repeatedly injected trivialities with the constant reversions here, and in the other Lost-related topics, plus coming across newly fan-encruftified articles like Oceanic Flight 815. I don't feel like we're getting much further to featured status with improvements to the article(s), but spinning our wheels adding and subtracting the same content repeatedly. So I'll be taking a break from editing the Lost articles for a while-- at least until the next episode. I'd like to see the "Wikipedia is not a fan site" proposal get some more input and traction, but as it stands, it seems that new editors are determined to prove that wrong.—Leflyman^Talk 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that article was out there... I just never stopped to look at the beast it had become. It is a beast no longer. Hopefully, it'll stay in its new compressed form, but I'm not holding my breath. At this point, I'm also considering a nice long break, which I've in many ways already started, so I definitely understand your feelings, Leflyman. Baryonyx 10:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leflyman, the reason that I included some sentences that you said bordered OR is because I think that we need to synthesize the text. Otherwise it'll be nothing more than a list that's in prose form, which in my opinion doesn't look or read very well. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, if the article is to be held to the standards of WP, unless such synthesis can be cited to a published source, they really shouldn't be here. To quote the "nutshell" of the No Original Research Policy: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas."—Leflyman^Talk 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Leflyman that now isn't really the time to have some of those statements in there. They give a tone of scholarly research to a show that isn't yet in any college coursebooks. When the academe takes up Lost for study (and it one day might), there will be some type of critical concensus on the meanings of the books in the context of the show. At this point, before the show is half or even a third completed, it meets the OR standard. How about something like this (which is mostly Jtrost's, but some changes):

Literary works are frequently displayed or referenced on the show, a point of interest to many fans who try to connect them to Lost's mythology. ^[7] Some of the books are seen being read by the characters. One of the earliest such references was the comic book Green Lantern / Flash: Faster Friends, which Walt is first seen reading very soon after the crash. This particular comic would reappear throughout the first season, until it was destroyed when Michael threw it into a fire. However, of the main characters, Sawyer is the one who has been seen reading the most, a habit he picked up on the island that eventually led to his hyperopia. The first notable book he was reading was Watership Down, an account of a group of rabbits trying to find a new warren, which Sawyer read after finding a copy lying on the beach. Later, he reads A Wrinkle in Time, a novel involving rescuing a lost father and Christian undertones about a universal battle between darkness and light.

Other books have been briefly glimpsed on screen, or alluded to in conversation. There are several quite notable such occurences, including mentions of Heart of Darkness, Lord of the Flies, The Turn of the Screw, and An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, but three in particular stand out. The earliest of these is Alice in Wonderland, which is referenced by John Locke in "White Rabbit" In that episode, Locke converses with Jack, who believes he may be going crazy chasing someone who is "not there." Locke refers to this as "the white rabbit", and makes his first declaration of the special nature of the Island, "Is your White Rabbit a hallucination? Probably. But what if everything that happened here happened for a reason?"

Another prominent conversational reference has been the Bible, particularly in connection with Mr. Eko. He relates the story of King Josiah (from 2 Kings, chapters 22 and 23) to Locke, and he recites the 23rd Psalm with Charlie. The third major reference of this type has even been commented on by the producers: Desmond's packing of The Third Policeman when he flees the underground bunker in "Orientation. Craig Wright, who co-wrote the episode, told the Chicago Tribune that, "Whoever goes out and buys the book will have a lot more ammunition in their back pocket as they theorize about the show. They will have a lot more to speculate about — and, no small thing, they will have read a really great book." ^[8]

I think this removes all or almost all of the OR which has so frequently opened us up to inclusions of theory, speculation and OR. Baryonyx 17:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of think the shortened version loses something from the original- the literary references seem out of context, and thus less important. I suggest either keeping the section as it, despite being quite long, or shortening the section to a very short paragraph that does not include any examples, and then distributing all these examples to the trivia sections of the episodes that they belong in.--Silentword 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your version, Baryonyx. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward

Building off the section I started above, I wanted to start a conversation between the main editors here about a couple of things. First, I'm noticing that there's a couple of editors who want to split off the episodes, and apparently want it so badly, they're digging for ways to justify it. While I'm wholly against split episodes in principle, a thought came to me today: someone splitting the Lost episodes out is probably inevitable, and even if most of them get AfD'd, some will remain, leaving us a jumbled mess. I think we've been fairly fortunate so far in that most of those here have deferred to consensus, but that may not always be the case. The question I started asking myself is what is the better choice: watch the work we've done get undermined by a gung-ho fan or group of fans who don't take WP convention into account, or take on the task of splitting the episodes out ourselves, so that we can develop a template and move on this responsibly, creating good articles out of a bad situation? Second, tied to the first, if we come to some sort of agreement on splitting things apart, I'd like to re-iterate that the best way to approach the splitting up of the nearly 50 episodes we'll have by season's end would probably be through a WikiProject, but if that's not the best method, we'd need to devise a system to control the process and make all this easier. Thoughts?Baryonyx 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've already done a great deal of work rewriting the episode guides, and are almost done with the first season. The reasons for keeping them in one article have been stated over and over, so there's no reason to go over that again here. If some new editors do make unneeded articles AfDs will succeed, especially since we have two admins who regularly edit and watch over these articles. We've done a lot of working cleaning these articles up, and I for one have every Lost article on my watchlist and revert unnecessary edits on sight. I think if we just stick to what we're doing everything will be okay. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Jtrost, although I share moments of pessimism with you, Baryonyx. Nonetheless, we're prevailing at the moment, with constant and frequent reverts. As does Jtrost, I shoot on sight at fancruft, and am getting crustier and crustier about it. I'd like to keep going with the status quo for now, personally. --PKtm 04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, just a quick drop by to say that I am of the opinion that no matter how much some of us would want to keep the episode summaries minimized, eventually someone else will go ahead and get separate articles for the episodes put up. That process has had already been started with the List of Lost episodes. (See also the discussion on talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)) As the Lost fandom, and interest in editing/adding new content grows, articles here will only continue to expand; as I pointed out elsewhere, Lost's "sister show" Desperate Housewives has had this occur, with a List of Desperate Housewives episodes leading to individual (and extensive) episode articles. I'm fully in support of Baryonyx's idea to organize a Wikiproject for Lost, which would put a lot of these issues under some level of control. I would think that would be a worthwhile aim, as the series is sure to engender more random article creation, like the recently seen Geronimo Jackson, The Monster (Lost) and most recent Oceanic Flight 815 articles have shown. It would be nice to rein some of it in, in a centralized way, with a clearly defined set of guidelines for new editors interested in working on Lost articles. —Leflyman^Talk 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am commenting on this so late, but I agree with JTrost. While the idea of separate articles for each episode has its positives, I think it is an absolute recipe for mayhem. This was re-iterated for me the other day when I looked up something about South Park and happened to check out one of the "episode pages" -- it was filled with spelling mistakes, bad grammar, outrageous cruft, and original research. I can't imagine patrolling all those Lost episode pages -- I think even with our diligence, we (the regular Lost editors) let a lot slip through the cracks on the character pages and bric-a-brac pages (Dharma, Hanso, etc). As for a Wikiproject, if you all have the time and energy to organize that, it's an excellent idea. But as someone who holds a full time job and has (or strives to have) a social life, I don't know how much I could contribute. :-\ Danflave 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with my full-time and a half job, social obligations, move preparations, and the like, I don't have the time to do it either. However, if people here were behind the idea, I'd have found the time. Seeing as everyone's content to let things be, I'm not going to do it. Baryonyx 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as rude or dismissive in my last post. I am moving this coming weekend and things at work have become crazy, so I have felt pretty overwhelmed lately. I am always glad to help out, and if we made a WikiProject, I'd support that and assist in any way I could. Danflave 17:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it Dan, that's not what my point was. My point was that I'm not going to take any such actions without the core group agreeing. That creates more strife than it's worth, especially given that some of us have such full schedules now. :) Plus, I'm on Wikibreak now anyway... so it doesn't matter either way. Baryonyx 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Leflyman's idea of creating a guide for new users who want to contribute to Lost. I've been reverting so many edits by annonymous users lately that about 90% of my contributions to Lost articles are now reverts. I think it would be great to adopt the guidelines and policies we already have into something more specific to Lost. Heck, I'll start: Rule #1, no anagrams! I'll fully support a Wikiproject, but honestly I think we're doing fine right now. Maybe in the future when we get more articles we'll need it. However, right now I think our priority should be the episode guides. They're a complete mess. After that maybe we can do something with the airdates page and the characters page. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Just an observation, but maybe there should be a way to format the episode descriptions between the flashbacks and the present. As it is, it's confusing to distinguish between the two, even after seeing the episodes - imagine if someone has never seen the show (also for future visitors to Wikipedia in the years to come). Maybe have the flashbacks in italics, or indented, or bold Flashback, or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.51.8 (talk • contribs) February 22, 2006 (UTC)

All of the episode synopses are currently being rewritten (see above), and this is issue is cleared up from the episode I have read. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reruns

many viewers (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10573) are very upset over the reruns but for some reason wikipedia is not allowing anyone to write an entry about the reruns because it didn't have a source and then when it does have a source it wasn't "good enough." if a thread at a discussion forum has over 300 replies and still remains very active 3 months after it was posted, I think there is some real substance to this issue and unfortunately every time I try to make an entry someone out there doesn't take this controvery very seriously and deletes it. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE UPSET OVER THE RERUNS! is that not hard to figure out? it is a shame that wikipedia refuses to allow anyone to document this growing source of discontent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.28.148 (talk • contribs) February 24, 2006 (UTC)

This information, while true, simply is not encyclopedic. Reruns are inevitable when a network orders 24 episodes to run over a 32 week period. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well MSNBC documented the reruns but unfortunately that's unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisdaman (talk • contribs) February 25, 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the rerun issue itself, it's simply not appropriate in Wikipedia to document every fan controversy, whether it be over network policy, casting, relationships, whatever. Wikipedia is not a fan site. It might be different if a controversy turned larger, such as a letter-writing campaign that hits the news, or a boycott, or some such. Otherwise, this is just plain old fan swirl, and that's not encyclopedic. -- PKtm 04:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, re-runs are to be expected for every show on network television, with the exception of 24... which still other (or sometimes even the same) people complain doesn't start until January. Such an event is to be expected, and, as such, is completely non-encyclopedic. It doesn't matter that it's a "growing source of discontent," because it really shouldn't be a problem for anyone with even a basic knowledge of how TV works, and with the foresight to look at future Lost scheduling. The only people I can see being upset are people sitting down at 9PM and not seeing a new episode, but their gripes have no place here, since it was their failure of action to check the listings. Moreover, your "source" was the MSNBC article I remembered reading for last year's six week hiatus between "Numbers" and "Deus Ex Machina", and has absolutely no bearing on this season's messiness. The two controversies are very different: the last one was fans upset with such a long break, this current one is fans upset because the choppiness of the repeats is breaking momentum and bleeding veiwers. So, not only is the information non-encyclopedic, the cited source is inadequate to the task of defending the issue. Baryonyx 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Baryonyx. The reruns section is inappropriate. We need a litmus test for inclusion that goes beyond "am I currently annoyed by the rerun airing this week?" If, next season, there are few reruns, is this section still relevant? No. What about in a decade, when the show is off the air, is the fact that some viewers were annoyed by reruns in the middle of the second season at all interesting, valid, or encyclopedic? No. We need to view articles to the larger picture, the timeless accumulation of knowledge, and not a knee-jerk reaction to the here and now. If, after many seasons, the show has a wide-spread reputation for airing more reruns than most other shows, perhaps it is relevant information that we could consider adding. Nonetheless, even then, every show has reruns and the section just sounds too much like "they annoy me." Rlove 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nothing about reruns is specific to the tv show Lost. If anything, any sort of news on reruns should be put in to the ABC or a generic Television broadcasting article, but I can't see how any inclusion wouldn't be inherently editorial. --DDG 17:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person has stepped forward here to voice the opposite opinion from all of us right-minded folks above (<grin>), so I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp. Now if only we can stop the repeated insertion of Henry Gale of Oz, or the anagram represented by Ethan Rom's name. Idealism springs eternal... -- PKtm 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode guides

I have copied the list back to the main talk page since we are still rewriting the episode guides. The ones that have been completed are struck out, and I have bolded the ones that should be finished next. If you don't think you can finish an episode in a timely fashion, please take your name off and let someone else volunteer. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1 is complete. If you like, please read through some of the episode summaries and make copyedits. I will move the episode guides to the main page on Sunday March 19. Thanks for the hard work everyone! Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some authors from the Episode Guide Wikiproject who want to create separate articles for every episode. In fact new articles have already been created with no regard to the discussions we have had here, and my efforts to redirect those pages to the episode list were quickly reverted. Although I have referenced these authors to our previous discussion, they still think separate articles need to be created, so a new, centralized discussion has been started here. I'm asking everyone to read it and chip in their two cents. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2

Man of Science, Man of Faith: JustPhil
~~Adrift: Heyer8472~~
Orientation: open
Everybody Hates Hugo: open
...And Found: open
Abandoned: open
~~The Other 48 Days: Heyer8472~~
Collision: Danflave
What Kate Did: Danflave
~~The 23rd Psalm: Kahlfin~~
The Hunting Party: Danflave
Fire + Water: Danflave
The Long Con: Kahlfin
One of Them: open
~~Maternity Leave: Heyer8472~~

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR

Is this term really encyclopedic? The source is a livejournal... I don't think this belongs in this article at all, it is extremely crufty. Maybe if this term has been mentioned in an actual media source somewhere it can stay, but as is I think it has to go. --DDG 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It does not belong here. And I have removed it. Danflave 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I originally added the content, I might as well explain my actions. I merged the content from OMGWTFPOLARBEAR as per consensus in this AfD. Not being a fan of, nor someone knowledgeable in, Lost or of the blog in which the above term was first invented, I don't really care what you more knowledgeable folks do with it. The redirect left behind in the OMGWTFPOLARBEAR article still has the original content in the history, so there's no harm done in removing the content from this article. If anyone finds an ideal place to put that content, however, I really must ask that they switch the redirect to that new target to preserve the GFDL requirements of attribution. --D e ath phoenix 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having missed this AfD, I would have voted to delete this silliness, and would have pointed out that 98% of the search results on Google are self-promotional for a single LiveJournal user. This is where a closer look at results is important. This is neither a notable term, nor is it appropriate here. I may bring it up for Deletion Review to remove the redirect cruft. —Leflyman^Talk 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, bring it up for DRV. I've got no problems with that. I will point out, however, that DRV is usually, though not always, about process, and regardless of whether or not you want it deleted (if I were to vote in the AfD, I sure as hell would have voted Delete as well), the process was followed. If the DRV doesn't work, you might want to bring it up for WP:RFD instead, and point out that none of the original content in OMGWTFPOLARBEAR was kept in this article. In fact, if you decide to bring it up for WP:RFD, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll be sure to vote Delete there. --Deathphoenix 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - LeFlyman, if you RFD, let me know, I will also vote delete Danflave 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't put this up on RfD or reposted it at AfD (which may also be appropriate), because, we'll I'm supposedly on Wiki-break :)So please feel free to take the initiative, as I seem to have limited time/inclination. --Leflyman^Talk 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locke and Gale

I have been avidly removing a paragraph in Literary references that deal with Locke and Gale and Hemingway, and to prevent this from popping up again in its current form I would like to explain why. Gale is a recurring character who seems to be playing an increasingly larger role in the show. Until his story line is said and over with, I think adding any story elements regarding him as they happen will cause large amounts of cruft. Take the one that keeps popping up right now with Gale turning Locke against Jack for example. If we keep that then every time there's a hint of Locke fighting with Jack it'll be added to that section and it will have to be yet another thing that we'll have to constantly revert. I think we should wait until Gale's story is over with, then talk about what, if anything, should be added to this section about him. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement. We should hold out not only until we have much more information, but until we see the larger relevance to the season and the show as a whole. I feel repetitious in my constant attention to this issue, but we need to aim to be less knee-jerk and more encyclopedic. Additions to this article should not revolve around "hey, this just happened" in response to an episode but "in retrospect, look at this significance" in response to the season or show as a whole. Gale will probably be an interesting addition to this article; until we know the details, however, he should remain the foder of fan and speculation sites. Rlove 15:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Canterbury Tales

I've been looking at both the Canterbury Tales and Lost. There are a similarities between characters and the way that Lost is presented. I haven't had much time to put much thought into this. I'll just give the comparisons that I think work. Jack: The Knight or The Man of Law. Sayid: The Squire. Hugo: The Franklen. Sharron: The Wife of Bathe. Ana-Lucia: The Cannon. Mr. Echo: The Yeoman. Does this make sense to anybody else? Bradley Elenbaas

Unless there is a source from an interview with the show's creators, or a verifiable publication which can be cited for such a connection, it would be Original Research to include here. Save such new theories for fan sites. --Leflyman^Talk 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was allowed to ask questions and present ideas in an open discussion. I just asked if anybody knew anything else about this, or could further my understanding of a subject. I didn't know that looking for an answer without knowing that I was un-questionably right was taboo on wikipedia. I didn't post on the article site and I didn't vandalize anything. Bradley Elenbaas

You presented a novel theory that hasn't been brought up anywhere else and then asked editors to comment on it. Please take a look at the aptly put notice at the top of this page: This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Lost. It is not for discussion about the programme itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Lost is a "good" or "bad" programme; or finding out what "this and that" is.

In the interests of "Not Biting the Newbies", I can understand that you likely didn't realize that Wikipedia Talk pages are not "open discussion" forums, but tools to figuring out ways to improve the articles themselves. If you have a suggestion for the article, that's more than welcome; if your intention is to float your personal thesis of a comparison between Lost and the Canterbury Tales, then no, that isn't appropriate here. —Leflyman^Talk 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "Discussion" page is quite misleading. Though one could have been a slight nicer in stating such instead of just saying "This page isn't for that" and just shutting the topic down, perhaps you can help point me to a place that i might be able to bring my theories to an intelligent place of conversation where we could talk about theories with people that have more to offer than the retarded forums of fan sites. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Elenbaas (talk • contribs)

I only know the fan sites, which may have what you're looking for. Here are links to the particular sub-forums of interest:

Hope that helps.—Leflyman^Talk 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronicity

It looks that the idea about synchronicity are a major factor in the series. Like Eko and his brother, Hurley and his numbers, Jack and Desmond and so on. And the dreams about what is going to happen. Jung seems to have a big influence in the story's philosophy. And Locke keeps talking about there was a reason why they was lead to the island. And just a thought about the black smoke; could it be inspired by The Black Cloud (1957), by Fred Hoyle?

too much information

does anyone else think this article contains _too_ much information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.54.228 (talk • contribs)

It might help if you could be specific. —Leflyman^Talk 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited Theories

I edited in a discredited theory from the most recent podcast--that dead characters would not return as zombies (yes, laughable, but it is something that is discussed as a "real" theory elsewhere). I'm curious as to why this was edited out. Also, I added in a section just stating that Locke made reference to Jack about Hemingway/Dostoevsky, and I'm curious why this did not last, either. Also, apologies if this is not the proper process to go through to get answers... email me at bike.freak@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.50.174 (talk • contribs) March 21, 2006 (UTC)

I deleted those edits. The whole "zombie" thing, after I listened to it, sounded like they were joking. It's not a widespread theory in the first place, so I have doubts about its notability. As for the literary references, we are not compiling an exhaustive list of every reference. If the whole Hemmingway thing becomes more significant in the future we can definately add it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack -> List of songs featured on Lost

Someone added a long new section, which I think is encyclopedically valid, but should go elsewhere; either to its own article or merged to List of songs featured on Lost.--Leflyman^Talk 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the section. I agree that the table is quite long, perhaps it could be edited? I don't think it requires its own page, though. I think it should stay where it is on the Main Page. SergeantBolt 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with List of Songs featured on Lost, since that's basically what the soundtrack is. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely merge the material with List of songs featured on Lost. The main article shouldn't be laden down with this list, particularly as it grows. --PKtm 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Father

File:EmptyCoffin.jpg

Empty Coffin in episode White Rabbit

Jack's father was confirmed to be dead by Jack Shephard in the hospital.
But, when Jack opens the coffin, in the epsisode that he finds the caves (Episodes of Lost (season 1) - White Rabbit), Christian (his father) is not in it
Have you wondered where "the body" might be?
Any thoughts about this?

1.
2.
...

—Elremina^{Contr- - -Talk}--22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun does not speak English

In the description of Jin-Soo Kwon we can read the following :

"Note: Two largely ignored facets of Jin's personal history involves the mandatory military service (conscription) required of all native born South Korean males from the age of 19 for a minimum period of 24 months, and the fact that a Korean man of his age would have had six years of training in English in school, and more if he attended a university. However, the latter may be explained by his poor roots; perhaps he did not attend school or the school systems in his area were unable to fit government standards."

I will keep the "...a Korean man of his age would have had six years of training in English in school, and more if he attended a university..."
Also, we learn in episode "s02x16 - The Whole Truth" - Episodes of Lost (season 2) that Sun learned to speak English from her old friend/boyfriend.
Does this mean that a Korean woman would not have at least six years of training in English? We know that she (Sun Kwon) has a BA in Arts History, something which means that she should have known English prior to the English lessons she had with her old friend/boyfriend. Is this a wrong in the scenario?
Any thoughts about this?

1.
2.
...

—Elremina^{Contr- - -Talk}--22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 335: / Line 335: @@
 <li>2.</li>
 <li>...</li>
-</ul><br>—<font face="Georgia,Georgia" size="-2"><strong>[[User:Elremina|Elremina]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Elremina|Contr]]- - ->[[User:Elremina|Talk]]</sup></strong></font>--22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
+</ul><br>—<font face="Georgia,Georgia" size="-2"><strong>[[User:Elremina|Elremina]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Elremina|Contr]]- - -[[User:Elremina|Talk]]</sup></strong></font>--22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 == Sun does not speak English  ==