Talk:This Place Is Death

The Others or the Monster caused the sickness

posting this to avoid an editing war.

In the season 1 episode Solitary, Rousseau tells Sayid that it was the Other's that infected her crew with the Disease, which she had to execute them over, including her lover Robert. That is what she said in Season 1.

In this episode, This Place Is Death, we see that it was now some combination of the Smoke Monster or whatever was in that Temple that resulted in her crew being 'infected'.

That is a pretty major error in continuity, and is deserving of being addressed in the article. It is possible that in tonight's ENHANCED version of THIS PLACE IS DEATH, that the show creators will directly address this error in continuity, or if it is was planned/deliberate. If so, then that will certainly serve as the final word on the subject.

Whippletheduck (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All of what you have added to the article is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Only when the creative team of the show or an independent publication talk about this situation the information they provide can be added to the article. Also, continuing to add the same information, which has been repeatedly removed, can be considered edit warring. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IF you had made yourself familiar with the editing process regarding fiction, when citing fictional work, the direct wikipedia article summary's of the above episodes are sufficient enough to address story or plotline changes. And as you are the one continually removing my posts which are within the scope of the article, If you continue to do it, I'll report you for edit warring. The facts are that there is a major error in continuity from that episode which the Enhanced version did not address. Hopefully they will address it in the DVD or when it repeats in 2.0 on G4TV, but untill then, this error in continuity is notable and deserves to be addressed. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackieboy87 is not the only one reverting your edits. You cannot source Wikipedia, and, as you said yourself, they didn't address it on the enhanced version, and they may address it on DVD or G4. But for now, it's OR. We cannot, and should not, add material which may be referenced later. --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you continue to misunderstand what original research is. In order for us to say that there is (or could be) a continuity error then someone else, e.g. Damon and Carlton, the New York Times, TVGuide, etc. has to say so first. That is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, which is a tertiary source, not a secondary one as you seem to think it is. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Or...we go to the offical Lost episode summary from ABC.COM, which I have done, and noted that in that episode in season 1, what was said; and now cite the change in continuity, which is well within the scope of the article and our mission here at wikipedia. If they released a special edition of RETURN OF THE JEDI today and they now claimed that Han Solo was the one that destroyed the Death Star, then anyone whom saw A NEW HOPE would know it was Luke Skywalker that did it. So that would be an issue worthy of being highlighted. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The summary on the official Lost website says nothing about a continuity error. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is my entire point!!! That when you watch Solitary and This Place Is Death, that Rousseau did say it was the Other's that spread the disease, and now it does not seem to be true. It is possible that Rousseau believed Jin was an Other (she never had any real dealings with him when he landed on the island in 2004 and Jin was always within the large groups of survivors...and the fact is when you look at all the trauma that Rousseau faced from 1988 to 2004, with having her child stolen from her ,and no human contact in that time, must have been hard on her. It is entirely possible that the writers of the show did not catch this error either, or that some sort of ripple in time has happened that changed it from being the others infecting the crew to the SmokeMOnster/Temple. And no offense, but both on this issue and on the whole war between you and that other guy about Locke's broken leg/compound fracture, and no offense, but you have been a real (expletive) in the way you have handled both these cases. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this again. If you still don't understand what original research is then I simply won't engage in a debate with you over what should be included in the article. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good thing that "no offense" was there to cushion "you have been a real (expletive)". –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

believe it or not, ever since this exchange, things have mellowed out considerably between us and there has been a general level of respect between us since this exchange. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I get it, and I even get the Synchronization thing too, which is why I am letting it past. My point is that I don't think the creators of the show caught this error in continuity, and that I need something that actually says it to cite in order to mention it in the article. I intend on bringing it up at San Diego Comic-Con this year since I am going this year if it does not come up in the offical magazine next month. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Season 5 clip episode shown before the season finale, Damon Lindlehoff and Carlton Cuse both confirm that it was Rousseau that had "gone mad". It is brief but they do say it as they are describing what happened to Rousseau.

I've maintained that A) pregnant women are not that stable to being with. Add to it a pregnant woman that has seen at least one good friend killed by a smoke monster, add to it seeing a friend dragged thru the jungle by the said monster to an ancient temple, add to it seeing a man vanish into thin air, add to it seeing whatever 'changes' happened to her friends, and I think it affected her own personal grip on reality. It seems that these changes in her friends were for the 'better', for all we know, her friends by going into the temple and surviving the monsters judgement, were now ready to become "Others", but to an outsider, of course it probably would have seen terrifiying.

I imagine that Rousseau killing at least the three of them (Monstad was never accounted for, he may well have survived), perhaps that set off Widmore, wanting Rousseau killed for this and thus the mission he gave Ben and Ethan.

well enough speculating/postering, just summarizing up what I've seen, but I am suffering a terrible case of writers block as I can't really put into words myself how to address this in other articles so if anyone else wants to, be my guest. Whippletheduck (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read over this section. I suspect that the writers changed their minds and caused a continuity error; however, in-universe, it can simply be said that Rousseau is crazy, so things that she says can be discounted if contradictions are found. Or we can just say can just not mention the contradiction and everything is cleaner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I forget to say that also, I imagine that perhaps Rousseau in going mad lost her grip on reality. That she may have convinced herself that it was no smoke monster or no temple, due to the trauma and perhaps she blamed Jin for the sickness, believing he was one of the Other's (assuming there was additional contact between Rousseau's crew and the Other's that was not shown). Whippletheduck (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Is" or "is"?

I know the article was formerly titled "This Place is Death", but it was now changed to "This Place Is Death". I also know in the article there's a hidden message that says not to change it as ABC doesn't title it with a capital "i". But I also know things are different depending on Wikipedia's MOS. Which should it be? --HELLØ ŦHERE 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ABC uses a lower case i and therefore "This Place is Death" is the proper name of the episode. I am going to revert the move via WP:BRD. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the press release, I only noticed that title with a capital "Is" on the ABC website. --76.218.64.187 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Clips.

Well, I know in a couple hours this'll all be old anyway, but I came across this page on E! that has clips, one of which includes Smokey's return. Should we note it? I'm willing to bet the answer is going to be "no", but I thought I'd at least ask. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, seeing as it can be verified by a reliable source and the Lost policy has been retired. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

the old lady at the end is obviously Ellie from "Jughead". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.225.194 (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it Real

(195.168.241.242 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC))There are a couple of things I want to cover.

First. "Injured vs. Fractured" At what point are you pretty sure that a leg is fractured. It's multiple choice. A.) I say, old man. My knee doesn't feel quite right, wot? B.) Sorry, fellas! I can't seem to support my weight on my leg. Also, it seems to be bleeding. C.) Jumpin' Jehosephat! I can see the the broken end of my tibia shoved through my pantleg! Yeoouch!

Right! C.)! And this is what happens in this episode. Seriously, fellas, do you guys get a bonus if you can get through a week without a successful edit, or what? Does accuracy pale in comparison with not being corrected? What is it, exactly? Why do I have to fight to make an obviously accurate change?

Second. "Hallucinates vs. Sees" Jack has seen his dead father walking around. Kate has seen a horse. Locke has seen Jacob, Christian Shepherd, Walt, Yemi and a bunch of other things. They get to "see" them.

But Hurley, poor old Hurley, only gets to hallucinate stuff. He sees dead people, it's unheard of on this show. He obviously is gifted with the same sight Locke experiences, as he can see the cabin and Jacob. I agree that Ana Lucia gives him info that is self evident, but Charlie gave him information that he couldn't have known on his own. So why is he only hallucinating when Locke is seeing? I'm gonna make the change again. Can't wait to hear from HelloAgain telling me that I am vandalizing everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.241.242 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You have no evidence that he "fractures", it's an injury, please leave it as is. You've already been reported for continuous vandalism. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First off, let me preface this by welcoming you to Wikipedia. I can see that you are frustated and I would like to explain why your edits have been reverted. To address your first concern, it would be original research to say that Locke's leg is fractured. In the episode, we see him injure his leg and we also see his bone sticking through; this could be the result of a number of different injuries and therefore we can non definitively state that the injury is a "fracture". Next, I don't know if you're referring to this episode or "The Lie". In this article, neither the word "see" nor "hallucinate" is used; it says "Jack's deceased father, Christian Shephard (John Terry), greets Locke..." I don't know if you have problem with this wording, which is ambiguous as to whether Christian is actually there or Locke is hallucinating him. As for "The Lie", the word "hallucinate" is used to put emphasis on the fact that Ana Lucia isn't actually there. Lastly, continually making the same edit over and over where there is no consensus is considered edit warring and you can be blocked for violating the three revert rule. Also, this edit is less than helpful and doesn't help your cause. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I refer you to these

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fracture http://www.yourdictionary.com/fracture http://www.answers.com/topic/fracture http://kidshealth.org/kid/word/f/word_fracture.html http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fracture\ Confused. But fine. No more edits. When you feel that you have to take something to a jury rather than use your own eyes and do four seconds of research, it's clear that the rules are somewhat different here.213.160.185.247 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You say "do four seconds of research", which is exactly what we're not supposed to do. No original research. Period. Ever. Wikipedia only publishes what others have published first, it is a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary one. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP rules are very different and it's all changing as we go along, too. So it can be a race to catch up, and it can seem pointless. If I may: Try not to take the easily excited editors personally, being rude is never correct. Which is not to suggest WP is about determining Truth or WP:Reality; but if you can corral a consensus, it's almost as good. Choose your battles conservatively- battles you know how to win- and live to fight again another day. You are surrounded. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think we should report Jackieboy87 for edit warring. There are separate standards for fiction and non fiction on the site. In a fictional show like LOST, direct episode summaries for present and past seasons are open to be used. Using the direct episode that is being used for source is within the scope. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, was that so hard? Sheesh.78.0.229.22 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's common medical knowledge that when you fracture a bone in a way that it protrudes thru the skin you have a compound fracture, that is the medical term for it. Whippletheduck (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, none of the edits in question used the phrase "compound fracture". --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm sick of all this. I'll full on take the blame, I was the main one that kept reverting and even added that hidden message. At the time we did not know, and we could not just "assume". I'm sorry to have caused this much trouble, but it's all over with now. Sorry everyone. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. You are forgiven...I don't accept your representation of the events, however. When you SEE a broken bone, there is no assumption to be made. We used the general term "fracture" Jackieboy, to make sure there was no "assumption". Let's move on to the next tribulation, shall we?69.70.65.130 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This Place is Death → This Place Is Death — Correct capitalization per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). - Jafeluv (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. The manual of style is pretty unambiguous about situations like this: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." Jafeluv (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per shortness of the word. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - See my comments at Talk:Dead Is Dead#Is should be capitalized in the title. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose What MOSTRADE says is: use standard capitalization rules. It is non-standard, and pointless, to capitalize is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: 'is' is standard English capitalisation, and that is what MOS says we should use. There is no problem with creating a redirect at the Is name. dramatic (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) say: "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be." The word "is" is neither an article, the word "to", a preposition, nor a coordinating conjunction. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, Fine the way it is. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. DocNox (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

This Place is Death → This Place Is Death — - I wish I had noticed this discussion when it was happening last time. Capitalizing "is" IS standard. "Is" is a verb and verbs are capitalized in titles. The shortness of it is completely irrelevent. There are plenty of two letter words that get capitalized. As can be seen in that last link though, there are some styles that choose to capitalize all verbs EXCEPT forms of "to be" (i.e. "be", "am", "is", "are", "was", "were", "been"). I don't understand this at all personally, the lower case looks really wrong to my eyes, but both happen. However Wikipedia's manual of style tells us to use the first one where forms of "to be" ARE capitalized. Even if we wanted to go with the style ABC uses instead (which we're not supposed to), they aren't even consistent on the issue. The press releases for "Dead Is Dead" and "This Place Is Death" both have a lower case "is", however the release for "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead" has a capital "is", and on ABC's own episode guide they use a capital "is" for all three. --DocNox (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per a very clear rule in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles. Specifically, "Capitalize every noun, verb and adverb. This includes all forms of the verb to be (e.g., be, been, am, is, was, were)."Snotty

Wong talk 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per last move discussion above. Jonathunder (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support standardization per the manual of style. Opposers haven't presented any reasons why we should ignore the style guide. Dekimasuよ! 08:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the above, plus I can't see any valid reasoning from those opposing. Thedemonhog's oppose particularly confuses me, and I question how valid it actually is! Jeni ^(talk) 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, the cited guidelines seem clear on this. Sarilox (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.