Talk:Lost (TV series)

 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Because of their length, certain previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:

• Archive of Story Elements (October 2005 to TBD)
• Archive 1 (October 2004 to March 2005):
• Archive 2 (April 2005 to September 2005):
• Archive 3 (September 2005, Page move discussions):
• Archive 4 (September 2005 to October 2005):
• Archive 5 (November to December 2005):
• Archive 6 (January 2006):
• Archive 7 Next to Start:

Long ongoing discussions

Story elements/themes

See Talk:Lost (TV series)/Story elements

Present tense in bios

See Talk:Lost (TV series)/Present tense

Episode guide changes

See Talk:Lost (TV series)/Episode guide

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

I have the citation link for the DHARMA parodies, however i do not know how to insert it, http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/index.html

Lloyd Braun v. Jeffrey Lieber: LOST creator?

Last month I wrote:
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)

BUT: After someone had been re-inserting the idea that Lloyd Braun pitched the series, I did some further searching— yet haven't come across a definitive answer to this. On the surface, it seems like it doesn't make sense: to whom would he pitch it? He was the head of the network, and thus greenlit projects and pilots for development. My take (initially) was that it must have been Jeffrey Lieber who originated the idea, and floated it around town. According to The Daily Telegraph article noted above, which references the book DisneyWar, "Braun was fascinated when he first heard the story outline. The idea for the drama had been pitched to Hollywood agencies and producers, and ABC ordered a script. But both the first version and a rewrite were rejected by Braun." This makes it sound like Braun read the the story outline from somewhere else, and ordered a script based on someone else's outline. That first and second script were Lieber's, and he is listed as the "first" creator, which was why I made the speculative leap to say he must have originated the concept— although he now appears to have no further connection to the show. (He didn't even get to hold an Emmy when the show won for best drama).

Further, I've just come across an article which claims, "According to the book Disney War by James B. Stewart, when The Sopranos creator Lloyd Braun pitched Lost to ABC's top bosses, they said it would never work..." An interview at LOST-TV.com with Damon Lindelof— who came in after the concept was underway— gives a second-hand account that, "JJ got a call from Lloyd Braun who was the head of ABC, back at the every end of January 2004...Lloyd told JJ, 'I want to do a show about a plane that crashes on an island.' This is an idea I guess he'd had since last summer." The article from Storyline magazine, says that "Lost was pitched as ‘Cast Away meets Survivor’. The idea of then ABC executive Lloyd Braun, the first script was written by Jeffrey Lieber..." However, if Braun had devised the story, he would be listed as creator, no? A November 10, 2004 New York Times article repeats the claim that Braun came up with the story, and omits mention of Lieber entirely:

"The speed with which ABC's Wednesday night breakout hit drama "Lost" went from a network executive's half-baked suggestion to one of the most elaborate and expensive pilots ever filmed was brain blurring.

Determined to see his idea into the fall lineup, Lloyd Braun, then head of ABC Entertainment, brought together J. J. Abrams, the producer of the funhouse-mirror spy drama "Alias, and Damon Lindelof, a writer for "Crossing Jordan, to kick around his idea about plane crash survivors stranded on an island, a notion that he freely admitted was inspired by the reality show "Survivor. The result has been a show among the top 10 this season.

"I met Damon for the first time on a Monday," Mr. Abrams remembered. "By that Friday we had written a 20-page outline. And they green-lit the pilot on Saturday. At that point, we didn't even have a script, but in less than 12 weeks we had to start shooting."

So how do we handle the discrepancy of LOST's origin— clearly Lieber had some original part of it, but what? I can't see why we can't find anything more to explain his role. (Is it all a big cover-up?)—Leflyman^Talk 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think there are disturbing racial undertones to the continual erasure of the entry regarding Rose and Bernard as well as the Locke and Bernard references. Why are you desperately trying to downplay the significance to the black and white motif in these relationships? What in God's name are you so afraid of? Despite your PC tirade about the "true nature" of the entry, I believe you should carefully examine your own personal movitvation for continually deleting it. I think there might be some racism involved on your part for such a random stream of consciousness justification. I'm sorry but it doesn't hold water with me, and I seriously question your motivation on this issue. You might disagree with the insertion, but that's why WIKIPEDIA is for all of us, because several folks here have said they believe it should be there as well. Note your disagreement, now move on. Your continual deletion says alot more about you than you realize.

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

I think the B/W theme for Rose & Bernard was further explained in "S.O.S." Simply put, their personalities are quite distinctive. Rose is a calm, rational woman who sees things as matters of fact, no matter how dire the fate may be (as seen with her reaction to her terminal illness). Bernard is an ambitious, easily flustered man who doesn't resign himself to fate (as seen with the S.O.S. sign and Isaac of Uluru). Despite their highly opposite behaviors, their relationship is warm, solid and pure. I believe the meaning behind this is that opposites can easily coexist, and often thrive that way. Tejayes 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is original research as far as I can see and therefore, ineligible for addition into the article. I also dispute that their relationship is warm, solid, and pure. It seems to me to be none of those things. --Yamla 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My wife and I are a black and white married couple for fifteen years, so I have a personal opinion on this topic. Many folks will argue they see opposites when they look at an interracial marriage, others will say they see nothing but two people. Some people get so incredibly nervous about recognizing two different races, they want to go out of their way to play the PC card. But it is something different regardless of your personal neurosis over the issue. As you can see by now, it's more than just skin color in LOST. Rose and Bernard's personalities are opposites which is a direct corellation to the current black/white topic. The topic is about black and white, and about opposites coming together. Rose and Bernard are an example of black and white coming together, and showing they can work together. Relax and take a breather, there is nothing wrong politically incorrect with recognizing that Rose and Bernard fit in the current black/white theme thus far.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

"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)

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

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)

• 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)
• And chill with the exclamation mark there, fella. --DDG 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

Here is an idea: just make a chart that shows two things: the title of the book as a link to the book's page, and the title of the show it was in. It's simple and complete.

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Boston Globe - With So Many Reruns, Lost Beginning to Lose its Fans. The Boston Globe is reporting that a lot of viewers are tuning out because of the reruns which is one of the main reasons for the show's declining ratings. This is a very interesting article and I think that we should think about documenting the Rerun controversy especially if the ratings continue to decline. We should at least examine whether reruns are sustainable for a show like Lost which relies on dramatic plot twists to entice viewers for the next episode. --Flunky 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Previous Discussion
• Season 1
• Season 2

Signup

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
• The Whole Truth: open
• Lockdown: Kahlfin
• Dave: Kahlfin
• S.O.S.: open
• Two for the Road: open

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)

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

• 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. --Deathphoenix 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • LeFlyman, if you RFD, let me know, I will also vote delete Danflave 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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:

• TheFuselage.com "Speculation"
• Lost-Forum.com "Theories"
• LostFan.co.uk "Theories"
• Lost-TV.com "Theories and speculation"

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

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)

I would argue that the bit about the opening (Overview) is unnecesary, as well as a lot of the stuff in the Story Elements section, for example Eyes and Literary Referances.

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• I've gone ahead and moved the soundtrack album table to the List of songs page, and kept the useful content under "Incidental music" (which is really what is being discussed). —Leflyman^Talk 02:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Monty" parody

I'd add the citation for this to the article myself, but I'm not sure how to format a citation for a comic strip. Anyway, the Lost parody/homage began on March 1 (following on from an earlier storyline in which Monty was on a cruise ship with a bunch of old folks who were all much cooler than him), and continued through March 18. (Those links will work only for 30 days after the original publication date, so there's probably not much point in putting them in the article citation.) So, if anyone knows the best way to cite a comic strip, please do so. (I should add that Monty is a pretty widely syndicated strip, appearing in many newspapers across the US, including the Washington Post, so notability shouldn't be a concern.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've added the dates on which those comic strips occurred, which should take care of the requisite verifiability for a syndicated work.—Leflyman^Talk 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to why this "Lost in popular culture" section has been added to the main Lost page? It seems rather crufty to me, but both of you do not seem to have a problem with it. I am just worried that the section could grow out of control, as Lost is bound to be cited/spoofed/discussed/etc rather frequently. I would like to remove this section -- we had been removing the crufty "Veronica Mars" and "lotto" references in the past... Danflave 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Issues at Featured Article nomination

Someone has nominated this article as a featured article candidate; without really going through the review process (again) prior to being so proposed. The poll is looking rather unfavourably at the Lost article and claims there are some serious deficiencies and speculative content. I would suggest the long-standing editors read through the discussion there, and consider the validity of those objections to this article as an FA. If you believe that the objections are accurate or not please comment there. According to the requirements for comments: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." —Leflyman^Talk 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we are not ready to be a FA. I think the article is excellent, and we've all put a lot of work into it, and I object to a lot of the comments made in the nomination discussion (i.e. the article is crufty and has too much trivia). However, one comment I do tend to agree with is that Lost is still in a very early stage of its development, and I think more time should pass before it is a FA. I was actually quite surprised when Arrested Development was made a FA, but 3 seasons had already passed and it was presumed to be close to the end of its run. I think we should continue our work, but with the goal of it being a Featured Article sometime in the future. Danflave 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal: "Addicted to Lost"

I don't think there's enough content in Addicted to Lost to warrant a full article. Everything about this commericial is there, and it's only a couple paragraphs. At the most, this should be a section here in the main article. -- MisterHand 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please nominate this trivial cruft for deletion? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to. :-\ Danflave 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. :) I have nominated it for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Addicted_to_Lost Please go to vote. Danflave 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Monster

The Monster article has been created again and supposedly cleaned up, even though it still looks very crufty and full of speculation to me. Joseph has a tendancy of getting into edit wars easily, so instead of taking any hasty actions I would like to discuss what to do about it. Here are a couple of links to reference:

• Previous discussion
• AfD

Our options are we can put up another AfD, redirect it to this article, or leave it. I would like to redirect since there's a very high chance of this article being created again. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should redirect to that AfD entry, if that's what you mean. It'd be nice to move onto to new controversies, rather than just repeat the old ones. This one has been "asked and answered", as they say on the TV lawyer shows. -- PKtm 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've put it up for speedy delete for repost of an article. —Leflyman^Talk 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Zis Guy has changed it to a regular AfD - please vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monster (Lost) Danflave 18:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As "the monster" has now been added to the main article as part of the "mythology" section, I've attempted to snip out some of the more speculative claims, which someone has insisted on re-inserting. However, in re-reading it, I'm finding it hard not to say that nearly all of it is Original Research, as we as viewers have to make the speculative leap between the the initial presentation of a creature and the "cloud of smoke" which Eko encounters. I seem to recall that Carlton Cuse or Damon Lindelof may have described their understanding of the difference between what Locke may have seen and what Eko experiences; that would be citeable as a basis for the section. Below are some problems I'm having with the following section:

"The monster is the first piece of mythology introduced. It first appears when, on the night after the crash, the survivors hear a load roar coming from the jungle and witness trees being torn down in the distance. The next morning, Jack, Kate, and Charlie go into the jungle to find the transceiver and see the power of the monster first-hand when it rips the pilot from the cockpit and leaves his mangled body in the trees. In "Walkabout", Locke has a direct encounter, but, unlike the pilot, he is spared. In a conversation with Jack, he says of this event, "I looked into the eye of the island. And what I saw was beautiful." The monster has had very few appearances since then, sporadically emerging in the jungle every so often and disrupting the treks of the survivors, who have so far managed to escape it alive. In "The 23rd Psalm", Eko has a confrontation similar to Locke's. The monster is revealed to be a large mass of black smoke, with images from Eko's past flashing throughout it."

1. roar: this is a colorful interpretation of the "sound" made
2. pilot encounter: we are to assume, but have no evidence, that "the monster" was what was responsible for killing the pilot
3. Locke's encounter: we again are to assume that Locke actually had a direct encounter, as inferred from his description. However, as I mention above there may be a source for this outside of the presentation.
4. "emerging in the jungle...escape it alive": yet another speculative claim hinting at the nature of the "monster"
5. "large mass of black smoke": mass implies it has a physical density; so far it has been presented as a cloud, not a mass.

It's easy to be "sloppy" in writing such sections which deal with fictional mysteries. My feeling is if they are to be included at all, the content needs to be grounded in the direct presentation or by citing the expanded descriptions from the show's creators.—Leflyman^Talk 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's not speculation among fans that the monster did all that stuff, it's fact. But since you seem to absolutely need a source, here's a quote for you from Paul Dini, one of the writers:

"The monster is sort of a reflection of yourself. The pilot saw it in horror and he was killed because he feared the monster. Locke saw the monster with true awe, therefore, he was able to survive his encounter."

You can find it in here: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/041109d.php

There you go, in one sentence its confirmed that it was the monster (Yes, its the same one that's doing all of these things, hence why the writers and producers refer to it in the singular form) that killed the Pilot, and later that it spared Locke. However, I think it's ridiculous that I need to prove this to you with a direct quote from a writer considering it's fact among Lost fans (and among the writers) that the monster killed the pilot. For that reason, I don't feel it nessecary to source it, but if you do, feel free to, the link's right above.

I'm changing it back to the way it was (albeit with the changes you suggested about certain words like "roar" and "mass"), and since I have proven that it's been confirmed by the writers, please don't delete it again.

As for the animal section I wrote, you've yet to explain why that's "speculation". It's all fact: they really have come across a polar bear (which doesn't belong on the island), there really was a boar that, Sawyer felt (key words there) was purpossely harassing him, there really was a shark with the DHARMA logo, and there was a horse on the island (something normally not native to the island) that Kate felt she saw before. There's no speculation there or any need for direct quotes from the writers because all of those things can be observed (not assumed) on the show. Some direct quotes, right from the show (which is, obviously, the ultimate source):

From the Pilot:

BOONE: That can't be a polar bear.

SAYID and KATE [at the same time]: It's a polar bear.

SHANNON: Yeah, but polar bears don't usually live in a jungle.

CHARLIE: Spot on.

SAYID: Polar bears don't live near this far south.

BOONE: This one does.

Here we have confirmation from the characters that it's indeed a polar bear, as well as the disbelief from the characters that a polar bear could live on a tropical island.

From "Outlaws":

KATE: A boar? Did all this?

SAWYER: Last night -- wrecked my tent. This morning when I went to get my tent back it attacks me from behind and runs off into the jungle like a coward.

KATE: A boar wouldn't just attack you for no reason.

SAWYER: Thank you, boar expert. This one did. It's harassing me.

A direct quote from Sawyer in which he believes that the boar is harassing him on purpose.

From "What Kate Did":

KATE: You need a haircut.

SAWYER: Oh, really? [Sawyer sees something in the distance] Maybe you ought to take me back inside.

[Kate turns to see the black horse.]

KATE: You see that?

SAWYER: If you mean the big ass horse standing in the middle of the jungle, then yeah.

[Kate approaches the horse and nuzzles it before it walks away.]

SAWYER: Do you know that horse, Freckles?

KATE: Yeah, I do.

Here we have confirmation that Kate (as well as Sawyer, to establish it's not a figment of her imagination) sees the horse, and she establishes to Sawyer that she thinks she has seen the horse before.

There's no need to reference to any of these things though because, as part of the show, these things can easily be observed and established (as opposed to assumed). There's no quote refering to the Dharma lgo on the shark, but that too can be observed... there's no speculation. All that I've put down is observations, not speculation.

Ultraviolet Map

Someone created an article for the Ultraviolet map. I put up an afd for it. You can vote here. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• A number of people are voting to "Keep" this article, although the content is based on speculation. Please check the AfD to review the discussion.--Leflyman^Talk 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Camperdave: I found a copy of this map in a copy of Entertainment Magazine (I think). While I don't watch the show LOST, but I may have found something on the map - Heavy Water!

I put a box around an area, that in my personal magazine copy of this map, describes that there is underground heavy water. Image:Lost_heavy_water.JPG

I am aware that "bad" things are happening on the island. Heavy Water is bad for you...

The smaller text is the part that describes it... Camperdave 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The afd resulted in no consensus. Right now I see two options: delete all of the OR and speculation out of the article, or put another afd on it. The problem with the first option is that if we do that then there will be almost no content on the page. I'm perfectly happy with the second option, but I don't think other authors share my same enthusiasm about it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If the last afd resulted in no consensus, there's no reason to assume that another one will prevail. Looks to me like only the first of your two options is viable. I certainly agree that it will drastically reduce the content on the page. Here are some concrete things that I propose be done:

• Rename the article, as there does seem to be a consensus that the name is at best a misnomer.
• Remove all reference to anything that can't be seen on a normal, unenhanced freeze frame from the actual show. In other words, the EW article/map and various other internet replicas are off-limits. We really don't know the EW article's genesis (they claim they got their version of the map from the producers, but entities like EW say lots of things to sell magazines). They themselves say that the map is "blurry as heck and visible for only a split second". To me, any data or conclusions resulting from that article are fruit from a poisoned tree, unless or until Damon or Carlton say otherwise in their podcast etc.
• To the best of my ability to see, I can't make out a single Latin phrase in its entirety, nor any dates. Much as those items are fascinating material for fan sites, they're not verifiable for Wikipedia. Their removal would tend to vastly reduce what's in the article.

Anything else? -- PKtm 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost Video Diaries?

The article currently says that the "Lost Video Diaries" will be distributed in early 2006. Did this happen as scheduled? If so, is there any information available about the content of these mini-episodes? (Does anyone actually call them mobisodes?) A Google search found only coverage of the press release, saying that they would be available in January 2006, but I didn't manage to find any information about the episodes themselves. Anybody here know anything about them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall hearing in a Podcast that there would be quite abit of content available late spring/early summer, don't know if that will include the diaries. Coffeeboy 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffeeboy. I'm guessing that these were delayed from the originally planned January release — I suppose there will be another publicity blitz when they actually do come out. —Josiah Rowe <small>(talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

b. f. skinner

the show mentions b. f. skinner, and maybe the article should talk a little about that. operant conditioning, utopian society, etc... hello? the plot's pretty predictable if a person just reads a little about b. f. skinner (his mention in the dharma initiative orientation tape).

Widmore

Another fun afd! Article | AFD Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If it has good content, shouldn't it be merged? Coffeeboy 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking

I'm not one for getting into an edit war, having now had two reversions on this, but please consider this from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links):

"On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

• More than 10% of the words are contained in links;
• It has more links than lines;
• A link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence)..."

I don't believe that this article is so long that it's inconvenient to scroll up to the the list of characters. In addition to that list and elsewhere, Locke is linked three times within the "References to Philosophers" section alone, and his real-life counterpart is linked twice. Surely you can see that this is nonsensical? Chris 42 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu links

I'm not entirely sure about the significance of this, but the number 108 (the sum of the numbers) and Dharma (as in DHARMA initiative) both link in to Hinduism, particularly with Veda

The number 108 occurs countless times in Hinduism and in other Indian cultures, further reading can be found here

Dharma can be interpreted as "God's will," and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said that the number 108 represents God.

I can't really relate this properly to the plot of Lost, but there is a definite link here.

Ooh, also 'Namaste' is written in the 'access denied' sections of the Hanso Organisation website, and also spoken by Dr. Marvin Candle, speaker of the orientation movie. It is a yogic greeting, and is from Hindi.

Fansites.

Recently it has come under discussion the deletion of the Lostpedia entry. as per that discussion it has been said that a link to this page is preferrable to an article. I have included both Lostpedia and Lostlinks to include two very important gateways to the LOST fandom. --GodEmperorOfHell 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL. Neither one of these websites are notable enough to be included as an external link. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the past, I have supported removal of all fan sites; however, I am willing to consider inclusion of one general site such as Lostpedia. An alternative would be the Lost Wikia site (which has a connection to Wikipedia), at http://lost.wikia.com -- such a link is neutral enough not to be consider "favoritism". In particular, it would offer an alternative venue for new editors who want to include speculative materials, which is not appropriate here. Under External links", it suggest: "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link" --Leflyman^Talk 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to agree to that, too, if only as a means to prevent the incessant encroachment of fancruft into Wikipedia pages. Giving people a pointer, an outlet, to a place where that material can legitimately go seems wise. -- PKtm 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal:LOST

hey there, I was woundring, why shouldn't there be a LOST Portal? I just created a portal for Saudi Arabia, it looks hard but Wikipedia really makes it easy! I think there should be one! tell me what you think--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok,,, no one answred,, so I started it, Didn't finish it yet but feel free to do so. Portal:LOST --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's an interesting idea, however, prior to starting such a new effort, you need to get input on the proposal. See: "How to propose a portal": "Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers."

  My feeling is, as there is already a Lost Category, there's no real need for a "portal" as yet. Further, since there are some controveries about the organization of some articles, it would be jumping the gun to put up a portal.

  You might instead want to consider helping to start up a Wikiproject, which have a similar purpose as a portal, but are aimed at organizing/improving content. Some examples are the Doctor Who and the Buffyverse Wikiprojects. There's been some discussion prior to starting up such an effort.--Leflyman^Talk 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

French Poem?

In a recent episode, I think it was this week, I saw Locke trying to recopy the the map on a piece of paper. The paper contained what appeared to be a poem in french. I coul have sworn I saw the word jeune (Young), and would appreciate a full (or better) copy of the poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camperdave (talk • contribs)

• There is a lot of info on the poem in an article on the Tailsection. I can't see reason to include any of this in Wikipedia though. Arru 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

New speculative "element": Healing

Removed from the Story Elements section:

Healing

A few of the characters have had serious ailments lifted from them upon reaching the island. Most notably, Locke, who was without the use of his legs before the crash, could miraculously walk again. In "S.O.S.", it's revealed that Rose was stricken with a fatal form of cancer which she feels has been cured. (There is also some speculation that Jin's inability to father children was also cured, resulting Sun's pregnancy in "The Whole Truth").

Additionally, Jack is sometimes seen as a miracle healer ("The Hunting Party") after he was able to fix his ex-wife's spine, a feat that seemed impossible given her condition.

-Leflyman^Talk 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the reasoning for removing this section? Thanks --Jake11 21:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's speculation/Original Research.--Leflyman^Talk 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, what is speculation in the removed healing section? All I can see is veryfiable facts from watching the show. It doesn't say "The Island healed their ailments", it just says "Their ailments are healed". I am considering re-adding this section, because the concept of 'miraculous' healing does indeed seem to be quite pervasive throughout the show. --Jake11 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, to explain further: this particular concept should not be included, because:

  1) "Healing" is not a "story element". If anything, it's yet another of the many supposed "mysteries" of the Island, which are yet unexplained. What you might take as fact is an interpretation of the story. An alternative interpretation could hold that the characters were not actually "cured".

  2) The section admits that the "healing" theory is a guess, saying "There is also some speculation..."

  3)It includes additional speculation that Jack is a "miracle healer" and that his operation of Sarah "seemed impossible".--Leflyman^Talk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interconnections

The interconnections section I added is not speculation. It contains nothing more than specific descriptions of scenes from the show. I have re-added the section. Before removing the section again, can the editor explain the logic of the removal, and how the section is speculative? Thanks --Jake11 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is speculative because it drew conclusions on why the characters met and the ramifications of their meeting (i.e. Christian motivated Sawyer to shoot the fake Sawyer). There is already a crossover section at Characters of Lost that explains this in a much less speculative way. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not speculative to say Christiain motivated sawyer to shoot the fake sawyer, because you see the dialog play out right in the show. Christian explains to sawyer that if it would make him feel better, it's "just that simple" to just do it, and you see it dawn on sawyer's face. In any case, that one instance does not render the whole section speculative, just that one part needs modifiying (which it doesn't, per what I just explained). In addition, it fits very well in the "story elements" section of this article, regardless if there is a full list elsewhere, thus, it should be included. --Jake11 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation aside, this cannot be considered a story element because so far the crossovers have not shown any significance in the grand scheme of the show. It's that simple. In the future there may be some big revelation that makes crossovers an important story element, but until then it's not necessary to include this in the article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. For two reasons: One, since when does a story element need to show any specific type of significance to be considered a story element? It's just a 'story element'. Two: the other listed elements haven't shown any significance either (black and white, literary refrences, refrence to philosophers). Please discuss this further to refine your point before removing the section again --Jake11 23:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think perhaps some sort of list might be appropriate, given positive consensus of other editors-- but not necessarily as part of "Story Elements". Unless can find a source that suggests there is a "thematic purpose" to such cross-overs, as Jtrost points out above, they aren't actually "elements" of the story. However, I recall reading somewhere that one or more Lost writers have discussed these appearances as being more than just what they term "Easter Eggs", but part of the series' mythology. (Can someone track down that reference?) Perhaps this might lead to a division between elements of the story, and the mythos therein. "The Numbers", for example, are actually more related to the mythology/mystery, than to "story elements". Likewise are many of the other things we've previously chosen to keep out of the article-- probably because we couldn't see a place in the article for them without being termed speculative: the Others, the Black Cloud, etc. So what do you all think of a new section, under which a short summary of such mythology be included? The differentiation might be that "story elements" are those parts of Lost which are only meaningful to viewers, and appear outside the apparent comprehension of the characters: the philosophical and literary references that the story makes, the appearance of certain recurring motifs, etc. "Mythology" would be those often mysterious things which have meaning/impact within the context of the story to the characters themselves. In other words, there are some things that only the viewers can understand, such as John Locke is named for a philosopher. There are other things which we as viewers do not (yet) understand, but have importance to the story in some way, such as "The Black Cloud" which Rousseau calls a security system. We should look at finding a place in the article for them, if they can be discussed in a neutral, referenced and non-specultive way. --Leflyman^Talk 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the interconnections section is as much a 'story element' as the other ones listed. Can you define 'story elements' in a way that excludes the 'interconnections' section but includes all the others? Thanks, because that is what is required to justify the deletion of the interconnections section. As per the other comment, I think other lists on this article would be usefull, but with the interconnections section, the story elements section should not be greatly modified I believe. --Jake11 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments suggest to me that these interconnections are more a part of the story than the "mythos". See my last comments below. Note that I don't delve into a lot of this stuff, black and white shirts, "ultraviolet" map, etc.; I'm just a viewer, and these scenes have made a greater impression on me as an important recurring theme. If it's also part of the mythos, great. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• As I note above, the actual brief glimpses we get of main characters in each other's flashbacks have had (to this point) no bearing on the plot itself. In the cases of main characters crossing paths with secondary flashback characters, the issue is slightly more convoluted. For example, Locke being the home inspector for Nadia was interesting, but not crucial; likewise, Kate's mother waiting on Sawyer in the restaurant, or Kate's "dad" being on the transport with Sayid. All these "cross-overs" do is add some additional "hmm" factor. However, I would suggest that Christian Shephard speaking in a bar with Sawyer is (so far) a wholly unique example of this supposed "interconnectedness" thing, because 1) Christian is already dead at the "beginning" of Lost, thus, the meeting was a plot device to disclose what happened to him in Australia, without having Jack in the scene; 2) Sawyer figures out that the man he met was Jack's dad; 3) Sawyer reveals his meeting to Jack later, which provides a sort of closure to Jack's unresolved anger towards his father. 4) We effectively assume that Christian's speech was the deciding factor for the death of Frank Duckett, but Sawyer had already worked himself up to "finish" the job: he had the gun, he'd already visited Duckett, and went to get himself some liquid courage. Below, I'll touch on the different matter about the cast seeing each other just prior to the flight. —Leflyman^Talk 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is irrellevant, as the other 'story elements' have no more significance than what you describe in the first place, and you greatly downplay the significance of the crossovers by labelling them "plot devices". Well, anything can be considered a plot device if you describe it like that, but the fact is, what you see in the show is supposed to be what actually happens, and if that's significant, it doesn't matter how the writers came up with it or justified it; it's significant. --Jake11 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't the whole Sawyer and Jack's dad incident significant? It was in an episode that concluded with Jack being told by Sawyer that Jack's dad did respect Jack and appreciate what he had done. This is the culmination of a quite important development of Jack's character which was led up to in previous episodes, e.g. his guilt over what had happened to his dad. I think it's certainly worth mentioning the encounter, and there are other such "interconnections" that would fit right in with the mention.

I'm not at all convinced that such interconnections don't count as story elements. It certainly seems much more substantial than the whole bit about black and white, which I totally missed (black and white shirts?). Probably these other things like literary references fall under the category of story elements that "other elements provide a deeper understanding of the story"; however, I don't see why the interconnections section doesn't provide such a deeper understanding. It's certainly improved my understanding to realize that Libby was actually also in the same institution as Hurley, that Rose saw Locke in his wheelchair (this is also significant in the episode about Rose), that Anna-Lucia met Jack in the bar before the island, and that Shannon gets Sayid in trouble with airport security (thus making her later change and relationship with him have added meaning).

We should certainly edit the section and bring up its quality (rewording, for example, the statement about Sawyer's conversation with Jack's dad), but I see no grounds for totally removing it. Please don't delete it again without further discussion here. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a great point, the interconnections have has had significance for the plot.--Jake11 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The meetings of Rose and Locke, and Anna-Lucia and Jack aren't really "interconnections" -- they see each other before boarding the same plane. One can't really ascribe particular meaning to the crossing of characters in a waiting area, when they're all hanging around, waiting for the same thing.—Leflyman^Talk

Rose and Lock don't meet; she sees him pass by in his wheelchair, but he doesn't notice her. He certainly doesn't realize she had seen him prior to the island until they talk and she suggests that he will be on his feet quicker than Jack thinks. This is part of her realization that the island has healed her and lets her tell Bernard confidently that it wasn't the Australian healer he took her to. Bernard after learning of her belief that the island healed her then asks if she thinks leaving the island could bring on a recurrence. This is part of why he stops his project to create an SOS sign.

I can't understand dismissing Rose's previous "crossing of paths" with Lock as not having "particular meaning". I would say that the writers for the show gave it meaning by showing how it plays a crucial role in the story line of the SOS episode. While it is true that they were all hanging about in the lounge, Locke's regaining use of his legs is still a secret from most of the characters. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I highly disagree with this section, I migrated the content from the Characters page onto this one because it is less speculative and cites a source for original claims it makes. I would still like further discussion on this because this is in no way a stroy element. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a much better take on the matter-- but again, I suggest that as Damon Lindelof indicates, that this be part of a new "mythology" section.—Leflyman^Talk 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The writers have clearly chosen to advance the plotline by using flashbacks that reveal these chance encounters. Some of their chance encounters clearly affect the story, others have not. That's by any reasonable definition a "story element". The new section heading is a better description than "interconnections" in any case. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite my expressed opinion right above, I personally don't care to debate longer on whether this material is listed as a "story element" or not, although I am in fact very puzzled by what criteria are being used here to deem it not one. I think it should be included in some fashion or other (for the reasons I've stated). The whole article, particularly the "story elements" section, could do with a reorganization and reworking. As Leflyman says, that seems to be part of the problem here. I'm not convinced it would fit under a "mythos" section or what should actually go there, but I don't find that discussion very interesting. Others can debate that. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Jtrost: I will repeat what I wrote to Leflyman: 'Can you define 'story elements' in a way that excludes the 'interconnections' section but includes all the others? Thanks, because that is what is required to justify the deletion of the interconnections section.'

Also, the modifications you made to the crossover section is highly wordy and unclear. I am going to mix and match my old wording with the new one to get the best effect. But please don't just revert to your version without first explaining here how you justify that.

This part is especially atrocious:

'In various flashback sequences the survivors have communicated with, seen, been incidentally in the presence of, or been indirectly in contact with other survivors or their family members.'

Also, this quote from the new sections: 'Sawyer tells a teary-eyed Jack about the meeting, and helps Jack find closure regarding his father's death.' is just as speculative as saying that Christian motivated sawyer to kill the fake "sawyer", So I don't see the point in making the change at all and am re-adding that bit.

It also does not clearly state the scope of the crossovers. Thus, revise

Thanks --Jake11 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have watched the same episode you are referring to, and I did not infer that Jack's father motivated Sawyer to kill the "real" Sawyer. Since it is clear two people who have watched the same episode believe two different things, then your conclusions must be speculation. I've removed that particular example. Danflave 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. If two people disagreeing on a subject meant that that subject should considered "speculation", and thus unfit for an article, then you could basically just delete most of Wikipedia. Sometimes the intended effect on the viewers by the writers is just not as apparent for some people, for whatever reason (like being distracted while watching the show). I think you should watch the episode again. Watch closely. First, sawyer attempts to kill the shrimp-man, but he doesn't. Based on Saywers hesitation with the gun and his expressions, it can be infered that he doesn't have the heart to do it. Then he meets Christian. They talk, and the conversation turns to (roughly) the subject of doing things to make your life better. Sawyer says he can't do what he wants to do because it's "complicated", but Christian simply asks if doing what he wants to do would fix things. Sawyer says yes, and Christian then replies (roughly) that it's "just that simple" to do what he wants to do. There is then a look of Dawning on Sawyers face, after which Sawyer succesfully murders the shrimp man. I think based on this series of events that I outlined above that it was Sawyers conversation with Christian that changed his perspective enough to actually go through with the murder.

Since you believe that Christian may not or did not motivate Sawyer to kill the shrimp man, can you explain to me where in my above reasoning I went wrong, or how you interpreted things differently and why? Thanks, it would be greatly appreciated.

Otherwise, I think there is sufficient justification to consider that situation non-speculation, and if no complete argument against my reasoning is made besides "we disagree, therefore it's speculation", I will return the example--Jake11 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've divided the section, as per my discussion above into "motifs"—which are principally for fans' enjoyment and understanding— and "mythology" which is integrated into the plot. I've placed the "Crossovers" and "Numbers" in this new section, where (as mentioned above) there could also be additional items there. As to the content disagreement above, I should suggest that those involved should consider that if particular content addition is in dispute, it's probably not agreeable to the consensus-- and should not be added back in until such consensus is reached.—Leflyman^Talk 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(Note: the IP-editor for the section was me, getting timed-out.) I've also just edited the "Crossovers" to include a mention of the Sawyer-Christian interaction, but without the disputed "motivation". Likewise, I've reduced the claim that Jack was responsible for Shannon's father's death, as the accident was the direct cause. From the dialogue from "Abandoned", "Your husband was in a head-on collision with an SUV. He suffered massive internal injuries. He stopped breathing at the site of the accident. I'm afraid we were unable to resusitate him. I'm so sorry."—Leflyman^Talk 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Definitely an improvement. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Article on Oceanic flight 815 website now listed on AfD

The site may be official, but it's still fancruft, by definition, and it's not notable for a separate Wikipedia article. Please see and discuss at the AfD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic flight 815 website. PKtm 15:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article on Danielle Rousseau (Lost) now listed on AfD

Background: an edit war has transpired on Danielle Rousseau (note that this is a different page from the one I just listed on AfD) since the end of March, when it was created as a full article, rather than just a redirect to the Characters of Lost page, which it had been since last November. One user was blocked on Friday (WP:3RR) for repeatedly reverting the text to a full article rather than a redirect. Immediately upon his return, he created this new page, Danielle Rousseau (Lost), as a full article, similar to the old full article, but with some new text taken from Lostpedia. Please see and discuss at the AfD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost). -- PKtm 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark McNeil as Ramoas Jones??

Who? Blade 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

which dvds in Season 1 are 'Making of Lost' dvds?

I'm renting from amazon and trying to avoid the 'how they made Lost' dvds. Amazon don't describe what is on each dvd

The last disc (disc 7) is the special features. Every other disc has episodes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, but the version amazon uk are sending me is this one [9] which has 8 discs (along with Season 1 - Part 2 has 4 discs). I know disc 4 (of season 1 part 1) is 'special features' because I got stung already. Do you know if any of the other discs in this version are 'special features'? thanks in advance

Discredited theories

Everything seen is a fictional reality taking place in one or more of the survivors' minds — dismissed by Damon Lindelof [13]

Does the episode "Dave" not discount this? 138.162.5.8 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, because in "Dave", not everything is in Hurley's mind; only Dave is a hallucination. The rest is real. --Kahlfin 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Lost articles

I would like everyone to be aware that there is a straw poll at Talk: List of Lost episodes to decide the fate of the Lost articles. Many of us work hard and regularly edit the Lost article. We all realize how difficult it is to maintain quality, non-speculative, grammatically correct articles. I hope everyone will realize how difficult it will be to maintain quality for the 100+ articles that will be created were we to make a new article for each episode. Please consider this carefully. Danflave 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Division of the Story Elements section

I have some problems with the way that this section has been divided up: 1) How is "Familial Dysfunction" a thematic motif that has "no direct impact on the story itself." Familial dysfunction is an element of the story, not "literary or philosophical subtext" that is "unnecessary for the enjoyment of the series." 2) The numbers, although at some points they do have an impact on the story, are also "subtly embedded within scenes," making them as much a recurring motif as "Black and White" and "Eyes" are. 3) Couldn't any of the thematic elements be part of the mythology of the series? We really won't know the significance of any of these elements until the show is over.--Silentword 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's all very true. There is a degree of categorization for all the old 'story elements', but not finely defined enough for them to be unarbitrary. I think 'Story elements' is good enough. I also think it's very POV to say that the thematic elements aren't necessary for the enjoyment of the show, and it could be equally said that the mythology elements weren't necessary either. Also, it's the Mythology section description is highly speculative. Wait a second, The whole categorization is speculative because we don't know which aspects should be considered "mythology" or not because we haven't seen the entire series yet! --Jake11 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Familial dysfunction has no mythological component; it's an everyday occurrence which is used to create dramatic and parallel backgrounds for the characters, but doesn't (yet) demonstrate any meaning to the Island or its mysteries. (Unless we discover that the Island is a gathering place for those who break the Fifth Commandment). In contrast, "eyes" and "black and white" are motifs reused by the writers within the context of the presentation, but have no overt plot component. The use of the numbers, however, comes out of the Island and its mythology, although their re-appearance throughout the story are "easter eggs"-- or like the "crossovers" a reflection of the interconnection between the characters. I wouldn't suggest we make that claim, but differentiating between what are the mysteries that are integral to the story, and those repeated elements which are principally for the viewers' interest seems worthwhile.—Leflyman^Talk 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "In contrast, "eyes" and "black and white" are motifs reused by the writers within the context of the presentation, but have no overt plot component.". How do you know this?, since you have not seen every lost episode that will ever be made, and probably not even half? What about the glass eye in the Dharma Arrow bunker? Answer: you don't, thus saying eyes for example have no overt plot significance is speculation, much moreso than saying that Christian motivated Sawyer to kill shrimp-sawyer, or Jack allowed Shannon's dad to die, since you are making a claim entirely on the premise that certain event's wont happen in episodes you haven't seen yet. Can you clarify this? Thanks. --Jake11 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the thematic elements expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext is also speculation. Unless the producers have stated so, how do we know that black and white is meant to be subtext for the show? Maybe black and white will later turn out to have some specific significance to the show's plot; in fact I think I remember reading an interview with a writer who said that the significance of black and white would not be explored until season 3.--Silentword 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote is obviously based on what has been presented already. Viewing "every lost episode that will ever be made" is not necessary, and such a requirement is rather meaningless: Wikipedia is flexible enough that articles can be changed/added to as new information is revealed. Contrary to your claim, it's not speculation to make a statement based on present understanding; while it would be speculative "crystal balling" to include material based on expected or predicted possibilities. As to whether "black and white" should be removed, please feel free, as I agree that it doesn't have a clear verifiable source, apart from the connections made by viewers. —Leflyman^Talk 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• In looking back over the text, I can see Silentword's concern about the description for "familial dysfunction" as being broadly grouped with motifs that "have no impact on the plot" -- when clearly the dysfunctions themselves are integral to the character's histories. I do think there's a legitimate grouping there, but it needs a clearer description. Would someone like to take a shot at it? —Leflyman^Talk 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost Phenomena page?

An idea I had recently: does anyone think we should make an entire page dedicated to the phenomena we see on the show (for example, the Monster, the numbers, the polar bear, the healings, etc)? Similar to the character page, we could list all of the phenomena on that page, list what episodes they appear in (or at least the first episode it appeared in), then give a description of that phenomena, it's appearences, and list debunked theories and other bits of data that have been collected. I think this could save a lot of room onseveral other pages, as well as give a good reference for all those Lost fans out there that are trying to come up with their own theories.

Punctuation

I have attempted to standardize the punctuation on this page to conform with the American convention of putting commas and periods inside quotation marks. While I acknowledge that there are different acceptable ways to punctuate articles on Wikipedia, punctuation using the American convention should be strongly favored in this article. This show is produced by an American production company for an American TV network. The three creators are Americans. The composer is American. Most of the main characters are American. (However, many are not.) The series is filmed mostly in Hawaii. And, of course, the article begins, "Lost is an American drama-adventure television series..." These considerations weigh in favor of using the American convention. LegalSwoop 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers

The crossovers section states that the first crossover was in "Outlaws". However, in "Hearts and Minds", when Boone is talking to the Australian police, Sawyer appears in the background, and even says something. Does this count as a crossover (since it wasn't at the airport)? If not, why not? --Kahlfin 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is. I just changed it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.