Jump to content

Talk:John Locke (Lost)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightandday (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 28 November 2008 (→‎Age). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject Lost

"No, Luke. I am your father."

Wild and baseless speculation of the week: Given the show's thematic obsession with fatherhood, the tendency of main characters to be interconnected in surprising ways and the fact that Locke is the oldest protagonist on the show, I have a hunch that the island's spiritual leader will be revealed to be somebody's daddy. Most likely candidate to play the role of Anakin's love child: Claire. Runner-up: Boone. Thoughts? 152.163.100.74 14:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, nor is it a chat room. Please use article Talk pages for discussion of how to improve the article, not to float silly theories. —LeFlyman 17:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! So I was right...it is a wild and baseless speculation! (Go ahead and delete this section. I just wanted to document my silly theory so that, in the unlikely event I'm proven correct, I can dig through the history of this page and prove I said it first. Except I'm an anonymous user and it won't prove anything. C'est la vie.) 64.12.116.74 13:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I thought that might be the case, I should have put that theory in. User:FreemDeem I heard that his father was called Andy Miller, it was a hidden clue in Season 1, episode 13...

Questions about Helen

Did Helen and Locke actually have a relationship? From the episode "Walkabout" I assumed that Helen was just a woman who worked for a company who Locke called a lot because he was lonely. (I haven't seen any of the second season episodes, I've only read about them here.)

In the second season episode "Orientation", we see Locke in an actual relationship with a woman named Helen; however, it's not clear whether it's the same person he was on the phone with in "Walkabout". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear that the "Helen" from Walkabout is not the same Helen as introduced later in Orientation. The phone worker stated that they had never met, and had only been taking for a short while. Remember, also, that when Locke bought the tickets to Australia, he had already been a paraplegic for several years:

HELEN: (from phone) John, we've talked about this. I like you.

JOHN LOCKE: (to phone) Yeah. I know.

HELEN: (from phone) And I've enjoyed talking with you these past few months.

JOHN LOCKE: (to phone) So have I. Eight months.

HELEN: (from phone) I'm not allowed to meet customers.

Likewise, as mentioned before, the telephone "Helen" was never identified as a operator; she may have been a psychic phone service (albeit the more salacious version is the standard cliche.) —LeFlyman 18:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Helen in Walkabout wasn't really named Helen, but he told her to call herself that.--86.43.64.115 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line between "Improving the article and floating silly theories"

General Question: I've found that many of the personality traits of the character John Locke (Seemingly superhuman skills in the art of hunting and tracking in the wild, his near endless knowledge and experiences of everything, highly sympathetic "nice guy" tendencies etc.) could be enough to stamp him as a "Gary Stu"-character (For more information please refer to the Mary Sue-article, look under the Gary Stu-section). Now, would this question be contributing to "improving the article", or am I just "floating a silly theory"? (81.232.114.123)

If you read Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research, you'd have your answer.—LeFlyman 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! But hey, if it weren't for at least a little "Original Research" from time to time, we would still be living in huts!

Ha ha ha Leflymann you've told him off for speculating yet in the topic immeadiately above you yourself speculate about the Helen Locke was talking to on the telephone!

Instead of just saying her profession wasn't defined and leaving it at that you've gone on to speculate. How do you spell hypocrisy again? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.107.189 (talk • contribs) March 14, 2006 (UTC)

Um, let's be respectful here (and it would help if you'd sign your remarks, by the way). Leflyman did his speculating here on the Talk page, not in the article. There's no need to throw around words like hypocrisy. --PKtm 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive story-retelling in article

As a fictional biographic article, this does not need to be a complete retelling of every event that the character has been involved with. Thus, I'm reducing the content to the essentials and removing the material that is already covered in the Episode Summaries.—LeFlyman 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonel

I'm surprised that there has been no mention of Locke's nickname from the Pilot and the First Season flashbacks: "The Colonel." Kaijan 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's because it was used jokingly in reference to the war game he played with his co-worker, and it was used derisively by "Randy." There's no indication nor suggestion that Locke ever was in the military. --LeFlyman 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I never suggested he was in the military -- hence the use of the term "nickname". Kaijan 10:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Reaction

Perhaps some mention of Locke's popularity amongst the fan base of LOST shoud be mentioned. His board on the Fuselage is easily the largest.IndieJones 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer or Boone

The article starts out by saying Locke recounts to Sawyer about his childhood. I don't have the episode on hand (late year 1) but I remember this story being told to Boone. In fact, there's never really been a bonding talk between Locke and Sawyer. Can someone with the episode handy (or a better memory) either verify or correct this bit? Thanks. Spookyadler 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Swan

I think that the fate of the Swan shouldn't be put so decisively as "Desmond destroyed the hatch." when in truth we have no idea what did happen to the hatch when Desmond turned the key.

Guaranteed Survival

He definetly survived the destruction of the hatch because:

a) They're not going to kill off Locke (but that's considered speculation, so ignore that), and

b) In the podcast, the producers stated that the reason why Locke was in a wheelchair will be found out in season 3 - so he's going to have a flashback (unless he's prominent in someone else's, but nevermind that).

Last flashback appearance

He appeared in Desmonds flashback in "live together, die alone"

Age

Where did we get Locke's age as being "58" (which is 42 and 16 combined)? He just said he was over forty. Did someone take Terry O'Quinn's age as the age for Locke?- JustPhil 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That couldn't have been the case, either, since Terry O'Quinn is 56, now... in 2006, he was 54. Nightandday (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for the Guns in 'Further Instruction' Shows his d.o.b. to be 11/15/46

Yet his drivers license in the same episode shows it as 5/30/56. How'd the cop not catch that? -- DocNox 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the DOB shown for Locke's mother in Deus Ex Machina (in the flashback with the private investigator) says she was born October 15th 1940, so Locke couldnt have been born in 46. If he was born in 56, it would also give an explanation as to why he was put into care. Durnar 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this has been confirmed in "Cabin Fever", Locke was indeed born in the late 1950s (although, technically, it would have to be 1957, not 1956, since the Buddy Holly record his mother was listening to was released in 1957). Nightandday (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random User (not fixing the problem): Good Point!! LOL i was confused too. --[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 02:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Toys R' Us, not a department store

Upon closer inspection of "Deus Ex Machina" it appears that Locke doesn't work at a department store but more of a toy store. In fact the layout of the store resembles a Toys R' Us and also Locke wears a smock like Toys R' Us employees wear.

Missing Information: Locke met Nadia (Sayid's childhood friend)

I think in season 1 or two, locke's other job (not the toy store one) he met Nadia which was Sayid's childhood friend. Someone please mention in the article that Locke had seen Nadia but doesn't know that he was actually meeting a friend's old friend. There should be some mention of that in the article. --[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

John Locke the Philospher

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why John Locke is named after the Victorian philopher of the same name? 156.34.15.245 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Smartpants March 24, 2007[reply]

--> This talk post is admittedly a bit old, but as the entry for the character Rousseau sites Jean-Jacques Rousseau as her namesake, it seems fairly obvious that Locke is taken from John Locke. I suggest that on the first paragraph of the Locke entry, John Locke is sited as the namesake to look consistent with the other articles for the show. (Tekiclutch 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

>There's so many vague references it's uncanny! I should add Desmond Hume to the list, being reminiscent of David Hume. Is there a page for all of the name similarities? I know you can go to individual character biographies for this information, but I've yet to see a comprehensive list (although such references are speculative which might not comply with some Wiki Rule). Neutralitybias (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> I've found a website with name references at http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Philosophy but does one exist with all references (such as a current physicist sharing a name with a real life physicist..sorry, that's a bit sketchy)? Please edit the link if posting it is a violation. Thanks. 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan

Hi im Afrox from spanish wikipedia, in some easter eggs i found on a blog with screenshots of this week's episode, it said "Jonathan Locke" and some other data, please check. http://lostph.blogspot.com/2007/03/gracias-dark-ufo-por-estos-huevos-de.html http://bp3.blogger.com/_2KIJWGCLnzM/RgUf3S3LfoI/AAAAAAAAAr4/r2XIF1WyHak/s1600-h/fffff.jpg --83.180.145.44 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Shouldn't somebody nominate this article for featured article status? John Locke is one of the biggest and well- known TV show characters of late. The article is well written and researched, and by far the longest of any LOST character. The material inside is interesting and as Locke is undoubtedly the most intriguing LOST character, the article will be of benefit to the casual reader. --Pinknoise 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it in small steps - you can self-nominate, but I'd recommend going for GA first. MelicansMatkin 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA's aren't supposed to be really long plot summaries. They should talk about his impact on the real world, as well. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. See Andrew Van de Kamp for how this can become an FA. I have worked lots on Paulo (Lost) and am nominating it for FA tomorrow. --thedemonhog talk contributions 07:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Locke is dead?

Has his death been confirmed? For all we know, he could just be wounded... --Nat.tang 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status should be "possibly deceased." He may or may not be ready to go in the cart. I think he's dead, IMHO, but that's just me.--Aresef 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the phrase "John Locke was a fictional character" to "John Locke is a fictional character". His death has so far not been confirmed, and everywhere else in the article where it is mentioned (the infobox and in season three), it is said that he is possibly deceased. Therefore I changed for continuity, and lack of confirmation. MelicansMatkin 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dead or not, he's still fictional. Saying that he "was" fictional makes it sound like he's real now. - LeonWhite 04:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the word dead to serverly injured - hope thats ok.

And, as we all know, injuries don't last long on the Island. -- 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chess Game citations "needed"

I think these citation needed markings should be removed. They are observations of fact, regardless if they appeared in a primary source or not... (right?). clapre

Hi there. I've found a clip of the sequence at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQBDrP8YMSE which verifies the not-checkmate issue - white (computer) can escape using either bishop or knight to f1. However, checkmate would inevitably follow with John's following moves: rook takes either bishop or knight on f1, white recaptures, and black takes again with the queen for checkmate.

As to the Brisbane Bombshell game reference, a citation is needed I'd say - even if the game positions used are similar the Bombshell game, a citation to indicate that this was in fact an intentional reference would be appropriate (or you could just say that the end-game positions were the same/similar as in the Brisbane Bombshell game).MattnW 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Benshootslocke1.jpg

Image:Benshootslocke1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LockeandCharlie11.jpg

Image:LockeandCharlie11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lockelost.PNG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Contract

Can someone actually look up when the Social Contract was written? I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1979 as it is presented in the article

Edit 9.3.08: Locke never wrote something called "the Social Contract." His contract account is in the Second Treatise, which is difficult to date but is generally thought to be written sometime in the 1680's. Rousseau did write something called "On the Social Contract."

Also on the subject of contract, the article's claim that David Hume was a contract theorist is simply mistaken; Hume was, in fact, contract theory's greatest critic and did more than anyone else to bury the theory until it was revived in the mid-20th-century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.54.134 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional Character Biography"

The first subsection was titled "fictional character biography", which I felt was superfluous... I've changed this back from a revert to simply "Biography" because the article is pretty clear that "John Locke... is a fictional character"; even the title "John Locke(Lost)" indicates that this article is about "Lost", a fictional television series. 202.67.89.42 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locke and Stations


This is a great paragraph for Lostpedia, but for Wikipedia? This is a listcraft that doesn't add anything in character's profile. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Locke_(Lost)&oldid=254523648"