User talk:Ursasapien/Sandbox/Lost

Related discussions

---

• Talk:Lost (TV series)/Story elements

• Luck
• Coincidence
• Lost Love
• Leg injuries
• Animals
• Paranormal/Fate
• Murder

• Talk:DHARMA Initiative stations

• Anachronisms
• Product identification

• Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)#Original Research and identification of products

New technology section

Would this be a good place to start a "technology" motif section, that compiles the various types of outdated technology (turntables, vacuum tubes, etc.) that are used in the show? Or does anyone know if this has already been compiled on another of the Lost pages? --Elonka 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not the best place to discuss technology on Lost unless you find a source that talks about it. Do you have any such sources? I haven't come across technology in Lost being discussed elsewhere on wikipedia. I think this section would be a good place to start.--Opark 77 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't one of the characters (Ana Lucia?) comment on the age of an item (a gun?) found on an "Other"? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this whole technology section, since I consider it to be original research. There was a long and involved discussion, on the talk page of the season 2 episodes here (review surrounding discussions too), about not identifying the computer as an Apple II or the turntable as a specific model. Elonka, would you please review that discussion and reconsider your additions of this material? PKtm 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks for the pointer. --Elonka 16:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

removed section "Obsolete technology"

Someone has come up with a new section:"obsolete technology." As with the many other fancruft claims of "motifs" created when this was part of the main Lost article, I've removed the following as original research:

Many of the electronic devices around the island are specific examples of equipment that is decades old, or rely on technology that might not be affected by the island's magnetic field. For example, the computer in the hatch (as seen in Man of Science, Man of Faith) is based on a 1970s Apple II, while the monitor is an Apple Monitor III, dating from 1981. The turntable is a Technics SL-Q3, dating from 1979. In the Pearl station, the printout is generated by a dot-matrix printer. Other examples include the old-style film projector and pneumatic tube messaging system.

--Leflyman^Talk 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I take exception with my good faith addition being referred to as "fancruft". The section should possibly be edited, but not removed outright, as it is an obvious theme, which has been referred to as such by the Lost writing staff. This was already being discussed in the above section. --Elonka 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies if you feel that your addition isn't being given the credence it deserves. Your good faith isn't being questioned; but that doesn't mean the addition is any less Original research. "Obsolete technology" is most certain not an "obvious theme" -- no more so than any of the many other supposed thematic story elements that fans have come up with. The issue of specific identification of technology has also been discussed in reference to the DHARMA Initiative stations article. Please see: Talk:DHARMA Initiative stations#anachronism and Talk:DHARMA Initiative stations#Product idents. --Leflyman^Talk 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've also pointed Elonka to another previous copious discussion on this (see above), but have not yet seen a response. We had reached a great consensus back then, with the agreement of proponents for the two major sides (most vocal: myself and User:Bldxyz), so I hate to now rehash all the same arguments. -- PKtm 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen King Literature Motif

I added a note about the white rabbit in 03:04 with the blue number 8 on it's back, which is a clear reference to the Stephen King memoir On Writing.

Reverted edit

I've restored some information that was notable to the page. I think some folks are getting a little quick on the draw in reverting things or referring to other editors' new additions with the pejorative term "fancruft" (including my own!). Can we please try to be a little kinder and gentler, and remember WP:AGF? --Elonka 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that editors are encouraged to Be Bold when editing, and to expect that whatever they add may be edited or removed mercilessly, particularly content that's inappropriate or not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. It's important not to take personally when editors make changes to your edits. See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Boldness

Fancruft is a legitimate criticism of the sort of excessive minutiae that gets slipped into fan-oriented articles, such as this one. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia -- not a fan site, and even fictional topics should aim to fulfill the policy requirements of verifiability and No Original Research. The sections you re-inserted that claim that the black and white football jerseys have some relevance to the theme of "black and white" fails on both counts. The insertion of a list of episodes which open with "eyes" is purely fancruft which belongs to a fansite -- not in this article, which discusses the motifs, and give examples in general terms, not every single occurrence. Similarly, your statement "In other words, they are "lost" both physically and metaphorically" is an entirely subjective opinion, not a factual claim, which can be sourced. None of those belong here. Finally I believe you have a misunderstanding of "Assume Good Faith" which deals with editorial conflicts; please take note of the caveat, "Accusing the other side in a conflict of failing to assuming good faith can, itself, be a form of failing to assume good faith." . --Leflyman^Talk 04:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I would also recommend, however, that you read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes, especially the part at the top about deleting other peoples' work. I do have to admit that I am still baffled by your choices, which seem highly subjective to me. Can you please share your decision-making process? What criteria are you using on the "black and white", such that a dream is allowed, but the football jerseys with the numbers are not? Why do you feel that having a section on "eyes" is legitimate, but listing the episodes which refer to them is not? And why do you automatically assume the "physically and metaphorically" statement inappropriate, when it's been added by a trustworthy Wikipedia editor? Wouldn't it be better to tag something with a request for a citation, rather than just delete it on sight? --Elonka 05:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would ask that you might tone down the rhetoric, and take some time with the actual Wikipedia policy. The answer to your question is no, it wouldn't be better to ask for a citation for an obvious opinion. It doesn't matter how trustworthy you may be as an editor; articles aren't about your opinion, but about what can be cited to a verifiable source. I'm a bit "baffled" that you can't see why football jersey have no relevance to the thermatic motif of dualism demonstrated in in the use of the colours black and white. Not every appearance of the colours is significant. I also failed to include an explanation previously that trying to tie the name "Penelope" to the myth of Odysseus (as you reverted under Literary References) was also entirely Original Research. Please, please, please try to understand that "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth." If added content doesn't come from a reliable source or provides no citation for an assertion, it can be removed.

See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references."--Leflyman^Talk 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you just made my point. "Some editors may object," and I am indeed objecting.  ;) But getting back to the other subject: I agree that uncited information can be removed. However, most of the information on this page is uncited. So how are you basing your decisions, on what to leave, and what to remove? From where I sit, your decisions seem somewhat arbitrary, so could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. --Elonka 05:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Motivation

Who thinks a new section about character's motivations should be included, where character's past experiences affect their time on the island? They're definitely apparant in the show, such as Jack's need to fix things, Charlie's need to take care of people, Shannon's uselessness etc. If anyone could find official confirmation in an interview where the producers or writers discuss motivation, that'd be great. I won't add it currently as it'd probably be classed as OR. SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think cited additions on these lines would be great. I'm not sure they are thematic motifs and might be better off broken down into the character articles if they arise.--Opark 77 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't say as I'd be comfortable listing "Motivation" as a Lost-specific theme, since I see it as something that's more generic in any work of fiction, where different characters are given different motivations. If we are going to discuss new sections though, the top one on my list would be something to do with the passing of time, as that definitely recurs in an unusual way throughout the series. Characters frequently remark on how old a particular piece of technology is, and props frequently reference times and dates, in ways that other non-Lost series do not. For example, the date 9/22 seems significant. And the Hanso Foundation's interest in longevity research ties in as well. I'm just not sure how to best represent this as a "motif", or even title a section. What do others think? --Elonka 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Snow motif

Are there enough examples yet to justify a "snow" motif? The polar bear, the Brazilian polar research station, Desmond's reference to the island as a snowglobe, Inman's cryptic phrase, "What did one snowman say to the other snowman?", etc.? --Elonka 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Um, no. Snow has no meaningful usage in the series. The thematic motifs listed are ones which "expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext." How does "snow" do so? There seem to be a limitless number of repetitions one can think up with Lost. People have come up with "leg injuries"; "murder", "starting over/redemption"; I myself came up with "lost love"; and you've thrown in "obsolete technology". (See, more discussion: Talk:Lost (TV series)/Story elements) --Leflyman^Talk 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Obsession

Isn't Obsession a recurring motif of the series, too? Just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head:

• Locke, at one point, is obsessed with trying to get inside the hatch (apparently at any cost); once he finds out what's underneath, he becomes obsessed with pushing the button (until he gets disillusioned after finding Station 5, which is when the obsession "jumps over" to Eko)
• Michael is obsessed with trying to get his son back (to the point where he murders two people and betrays his friends in order to achieve this goal)
• Charlie in one episode gets obsessed by the idea that Aaron needs to be baptized to save him

In most instances, it is shown as a very destructive influence on the character in question and/or their environment 80.242.161.211 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

These are good examples but again if we're going to discuss this as a motif on wikipedia the first thing we need is sources. See this policy for advice on what sources might be suitable.--Opark 77 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some people are obsessed with finding motifs that aren't really there ;) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the motif is definitely there, and worth discussing, but personally I don't really see it as being notable enough for specific mention. I'd rather that we stuck with motifs which were clearly unique to the Lost universe/backstory, as opposed to something which could be construed as normal dramatic creative writing. If there are reviews which are covering the "obsession" angle which we could cite as sources though, that might make it worth mentioning. --Elonka 18:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What about octagons? :-) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New motifs

I'm listing these separately so that they can be debated separately as to whether or not they're appropriate to add. Please agree or disagree with as many as you like, and/or suggest new titles or possible wording. --Elonka 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think there's some confusion about what is being suggested as "thematic motifs". The only one I can see having any possible development/citability is "Dreams/hallucination" (or "Dreams and visions".). What are being called "easter eggs" or "jigsaw puzzle" below are not meaningful "thematically": they are just part of the method/format of telling the story, not a theme of the story itself. (It's like saying "doctors in a hospital" is a theme of "Grey's Anatomy".) In any case, these are exercises in Original Research: find sources that discuss the kinds of "themes" you wish to add, rather than coming up with them yourself, please.--Leflyman^Talk 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Easter eggs

According to one of the show's producers, "Easter Eggs" are a common theme in the show, so I'd like to add this to the motifs page. Is there consensus to do this? It has to do with the interconnection between the flashbacks and the different survivors, or little things like having Walt's picture on the side of the milk carton in Hurley's dream, or the DHARMA logo on the shark. --Elonka 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this one is already included, per Mythology of Lost#Crossovers and List of crossovers on Lost. --Elonka 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Island as palimpsest or jigsaw puzzle

Also according to one of the show's producers, Damon Lindelof, a common theme has to do with the way that the various pieces of the plot are being revealed. The audience confusion is deliberate, as "the show is being revealed in layers". Another quote from Lindelof is, "What we think we know, is not exactly what we know." Can I get consensus to add this in as a motif as well? --Elonka 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dreams/hallucinations

A common theme throughout the show is that most of the survivors are shown new information about themselves or the island in dreams and hallucinations. Hurley and his encounter with Dave, Jack running into his father, Charlie hallucinating about the baby, Eko and Locke following dreams to find the "?" station, etc. Is there consensus to add this in as a motif? --Elonka 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Litterature

During "S.O.S" (s2e19), we can see Locke trying to draw the "glyph/map" several times; at 39:01 we have a quick glimpse of him drawing on a page taken out of a book, on which lies a poem written by the French writer Alfred de Musset called "SUR LES DÉBUTS DE MESDEMOISELLES RACHEL ET PAULINE GARCIA". I was wondering if that brief apparence should be mentionned; as the fact that the poem is written in French (and the only relation I can see with lost is Danielle Rousseau), and that it could also "mean" something if placed under the serie's context... Anyway, there is more information. -swqt

Latest Original Research: Destiny

I've removed another interpretive fancrufty theory, based entirely on Original research:

Destiny

Some characters were not supposed to be on the Oceanic flight that crashed or were warned against it, and yet fate forced them onto the flight:

• Jack was not supposed to be allowed on the plane with the casket, as he didn't have proper legal documentation.
• Kate was on the run from marshal Edward Mars when the truck she was riding in suddenly rolled off the road. There was a farmer in the truck with her. Had she left the farmer in the truck to die, she could have escaped capture and the flight to L.A.
• Locke was supposed to go on a walkabout in the Australian outback, but because of his disability, he is denied permission and is forced to join the people on the flight back to L.A.
• Sawyer was forced on the flight for head-butting an Australian parliamentarian.
• Charlie's brother, Liam, told him to stay in Australia to rehabilitate, but Charlie stormed off and boarded the fateful plane regardless.
• Sun was supposed to leave her husband and start a new life; however, at the last moment she reconsidered and joined her husband on the doomed plane.
• Sayid too was not meant to be on that flight; in fact he was supposed to catch an Oceanic flight the day before. Instead, he caught a flight the next day to give him him time to bury his friend Essan, so he wouldn't have to be cremated against Muslim tradition.
• Claire was only on the plane because she had decided to give up her baby for adoption, due to the advice of a psychic. Claire later suspects the psychic predicted the fate of the plane and that she would somehow survive.
• Hurley stayed overnight at an airport hotel and a series of unlinked, mysterious events each almost resulted in him missing his flight.
• Michael was supposed to stay in L.A and Walt in Australia, as Walt's stepfather had adopted him, but the stepfather who was apparently scared of Walt begged Michael to take him to L.A with him.
• Joanna, a minor character who is killed early in the series, was not supposed to be on the plane because she had been grounded due to an inner ear infection.

--Leflyman^Talk 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The presentation of any theme is original research (go to college), the problem with the previously displayed information is that it does not fully explain itself. What the original editor is probably trying to point out is that within Lost there is a tension between the concept of Free Will vs. Pre-destination. Since this has been brought up recently in regards to Desmond, the theme of free will/fate should be added.

Self-referencing in "See also"

The "See also" section references the same page, "Mythology of Lost". This cyclic redundancy is unnecessary and shouldn't exist in wikipedia. Unless someone has any other sections worth adding the "See also" section should only include Lost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuracech lordum (talk • contribs) 09:14, 27 January 2007

• Perhaps there's some confusion -- Mythology of Lost is a different article, which is related to the Thematic motifs. --Leflyman^Talk 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Should religion not be considered a motif of the show? Benjamin is clearly a reference to the Bibles Benjamin whos mother died in childbirth, Jacob was his father. "The tribe of Benjamin" also could be the Others. Those are just off the top of my head, i know theres a lot more

First, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. Second, I think you may be on to something, but you need a reference. This can not be your own original research. I can think of a number of other religious references in the show, but I would need to find another author that speaks about it. Ursasapien (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apocalypse

I don't quite understand this. Why is my entry on the apocalyptic theme of "Lost" repeatedly deleted, and the entry on "Canada and Deception" stays online? "Lost" makes multiple obvious apocalyptic references, just as it makes multiple "black & white" references, and it makes many implicit references to various apocalyptic literature - particularly the biblical book of "Revelations." "Canada and deseption" is a tenative theme at best, while "Apocalypse" is one the writers put out there again and again. Its not just my speculation, nor is it just a "fan theory". Its there - its a part of the narrative. Please review my entry carefully and don't just delete it without consideration. I think this entry makes a valid point and can be expanded. Thank you.

--Qwerty7412369 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have to look again at the references for "Canada and Deception," but we have to be careful to cite references. No original research means we must have secondary sources for the information in this article. It does not matter how obvious the theme is, if no one else has written about it it can not be included. Ursasapien (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From the article "No original research": "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged... This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia... Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

I would argue that a currently running television series should be considered one of the "rare occasions" when an entry may rely upon primary source material as there are only a handful of secondary-sources currently in existence, and as it is, again, currently running. I plainly cite the primary sources I use. I do so in such a way that I believe complies with the two conditions listed in the above quote - 1) my entry is descriptive, in that it only lists the specific and overt instances of apocalyptic references in the narrative. 2) I do not analyze these apocalyptic references, nor do I attempt to draw some grand synthesis linking them with other aspects of the show, nor do I offer an interpretation of their meaning in the larger context of the show, nor do I attempt to explain their occurence, nor do I evaluate them in any way. I simply point them out, just as the entry of "Eyes" simply points out the instances where eyes are overtly referenced in the narrative. Thank you again.

--Qwerty7412369 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the section you added and I agree that it is no more original research than many other parts of the show. I can also buy your reasoning that this should be obvious from the show and hence, not technically original research. However, I am certain that another will come along, state that this whole article is fancruft, and we will have another wiki-battle royale. I am an inclusionist, but others see themselves as the wikipedia police, getting rid of anything that, in their view, is not "encyclopedic". Thank you for your contribution. I hope it lasts this time. Ursasapien (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Qwerty on this. I'm the one who wrote the Canada and Deception article, and this is the third time I've reinserted it. I'm sorry if it looks like I've done no research, but I really don't see what more I can do besides watch every episode and include links to those episodes' articles. The Canada-covers-a-lie thing is almost definitely an intentional theme that has been going from the first episode after the pilot up until the Season 3 finale. I would really appreciate it if my article would stop getting deleted.

--User:burnside65 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See below discussion on "Original Research" --Qwerty7412369 07:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I've removed "Eyes" and "Black & White" as these articles are original research and reference no secondary sources.--Doggoneit1976 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As my entry has been repeatedly deleted, apparently for reasons of "No Original Research", I agree that these entries should be removed as well. All entries should be held to the same standards. (Though as I've noted above, I believe that the No Original Research rule is here being used in ways which text of the rule does not support.)

--Qwerty7412369 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the contents of this article were removed. Thematic motifs of Lost is almost of essence somewhat interpretive. Even in secondary sources or commentary from the creators, this subject will require some analysis. Nonetheless, there are some secondary sources out there. Please give editors time to find them.

Some of these "thematic motifs" are so blatantly obvious from the primary text (the show its self) that IMHO do not require another source. I have become convinced of Qwerty7412369's interpretation of the Cpolicy]]. Specifically when it states,

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

Qwerty argues that the subject of this article meets this exception and we should use points one and two as our sole guidelines. Anyway, I wanted to explain my rationale for reverting your change. Ursasapien (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with (and argued for) this interpretation of the rule, and I would like to see it consistently applied to all entries. However, I feel that some individuals are being very inconsistent with their edits, deleting some entries for what appears to be reasons of "No Original Research" or "Fancruft" but leaving other entries which are just as much based on original research and can just as easily be labled as "fancruft" (I say "appears to be" because these editors are not giving me the simple courtesy and respect of alerting me to or discussing their problems with my entries before the delete them!). I find this inconsistency very frustrating, as it suggests that there is no set criteria that governs entries, only the arbitrary opinions of a few editors. I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that I can accept if others have a different interpretation of the rules, even though I may not agree with that interpretation - what I can't stand is when the rules (whatever they may be) are inconsistently applied. If my or anyone's entries are deleted for reasons of original research or fancruft, then every entry should be subject to those same strict rules (which is why I agreed with Doggoneit's edits). The rules are there to give this project some degree of objectivity and credibility, thus all entries should be held to the same standards. Thank you.

--Qwerty7412369 07:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please get some discussion/consensus on this article and original research. We have been back and forth on "Canada and Deception," "Apocalypse," and part of the "Black and white" motif. As far as I can tell, this whole article could be technically called "original research." I have looked at most of the references cited and they are generally speculative. I believe the original research concept applies, even if it is done by a journalist. As I see it, we have two choices. Delete this whole article as "fancruft" or make some standards regarding what constitutes an actual "thematic motif". Ursasapien (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please review just what the prohibition on Original Research actually says; OR is theory or speculation done by an editor which originates here and is not citeable to any external source (or obvious in some generally understood way). Specifically:

1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;
3. It defines new terms;
4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

There is no verifiable basis for "Canada and Deception" and "Apocalypse" as thematic motifs of Lost. A good clue that something is original research is when a phrase like "the reasons... are unclear" appears. Further, as described in the opening of the article, "thematic motifs on Lost... generally have no direct impact on the story itself. These repeated elements and references expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext." Neither "Canada" nor "Apocalypse" do so. In fact, the term "Apocalypse" is never used on the series; at best, the concept of "End of the world" plot element may be tenuously considered part of the Mythology of Lost. Finally, when an editor of 3+ years on Wikipedia with over 5000 edits tells you that something smells like Original Research, it would probably be a good idea to take heed.--Leflyman^Talk 06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As for sources for the motif of "Black and White" (apart from the many fan sites), feel free to use any of the ones below as references:

• Entertainment Weekly (4/08/2005): 'The black-and-white stones have been a recurring theme in the show,' says executive producer Damon Lindelof" (reprinted at [1])
• IGN's Top 50 Lost Loose ends: "#34: Black & White Symbolism" [2]
• TV Critic Roger Catlin's discussion from March 2006, "Black and White Stones, backgammon, Charlie's checkerboard sneakers, 'Man of Science, Man of Faith', etc., paired dualities" Lengthy 'Lost' Musings
• The Lost quiz from The Seattle Times, which posits: "6. The concept of black and white as complementary opposites is a recurring idea in the show. Which one of these has not been in the show, reinforcing the theme?"[3]

-Leflyman^Talk 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First, "Eyes" and "Familial dysfunction" are both not supported by citations. Second, the spirit of the policy on original research would include commentary that can be linked back to "verifiable" sources but is completely speculative in nature. (For example, it does not matter that I have a citation from a reputable news source, if the author states, "Paris Hilton obviously had a nervous breakdown" it is not automatically verifiable.) Third, there is no special, experienced group of editors that get to determine what "smells like Original Research." We are all supposed to make the encyclopedia better through consensus. I did not author the "Canada" or "Apocalypse" sections but no one has explained to me why they do not meet the exception

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

but "Black and white," "Eyes," and "Familial dysfunction" somehow get to stay. Even "Literature" and "Philosophy" are somewhat tenuous. I believe Apocalypse/End of the world is a well-documented thematic motif. Ursasapien (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the other motifs are supported by citation and/or mentions by the creators of the show. For "Eyes", for example, see: [4]; [5], [6]. You'll pardon me if your reading of WP standards doesn't carry the same weight coming from someone with fewer than 50 mainspace edits to a handful of articles. You have yet to cite any external, reliable source that demonstrates that "Apocalypse" is a recurring thematic motif and not merely your own belief/theory.--Leflyman^Talk 11:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You call those citable sources? Every single source you supplied was speculative and could be considered fancruft or tabloid material. I will provide you with sources for the apocalyptic theme by tonight, but pardon me if I do not have the same "taste" as you. You seem to have an inflated sense of self-importance. I think this article could easily be put up for deletion, but I want to improve it instead. Ursasapien (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary research is NOT original research

I think this is an issue which there is some confusion over; let's try to clear it up - Research based on a Primary Source should not automatically be labeled as Original Research.

From the article "Primary Source" - "A primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described... It refers to creation by the primary players... Types of primary sources... include fictional sources such as novels or plays."

From the article "Wikipedia:No original research" - "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"

Please note that these two have some significant differences - Primary sources are documents or other sources of info which are created by "an authoritive source - the primary players." Original Research is a new and unpublished argument or interpretation put forth by a user, without references. Wikipedia's own policy on No Original Research recognizes this distinction:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (From Wikipedia:No original research)

Please note that the above passage clearly outlines when and how primary sources may be used as the sole basis for an entry. As per Wikipedia's own policies, any article which meets these conditions is not Original Research - ergo, entries based on a Primary Source should not automatically be labeled as Original Research.

To the issue at hand - the entry on "Apocalypse" is being deleted because some users have labeled it as "original research." I assert that it is not - it is an article based on primary research which complies with Wikipedia's own policies. There is a real and substantial difference between the two.

The article in question is based on information and dialogue presented in the various episodes of "Lost." It is not hidden knowledge, it is not implicit, and it is not an interpretation. This is information that is obvious to anyone watching the show or reading the transcripts. Now, I cannot think of a source more primary than the actual show, scripted by the show's writers (a.k.a. "an authoritive source... the primary players") and run on national TV (a.k.a. published primary source, as opposed to unpublished original research). I clearly cite the episodes, by their title, which I reference in the text - thus the claims that this entry is "unsourced" are clearly erroneous. As I address a bit more fully in the previous discussions, I believe that the "Apocalypse" entry meets the strict conditions laid out by Wikipedia's own policies as stated above and in Wikipedia:No original research and is therefore a valid entry.

Now - if you disagree with this, fine. But please have the courtesy to share your position here with the rest of us. What is your argument? What is your evidence? Why should I and other users agree with you? Are you being consistent? I have repeatedly tried to lay out my position here, but some users feel that they are beyond such seeming trivialities. This is an untenable position - we have to build consensus here, or else we are all doomed to an unending edit war. If we do not talk, we can not resolve this; if we cannot resolve this, it is only a matter of time until an outiside third-party steps in and forces a resoultion on all of us through arbitration.

--Qwerty7412369 04:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Qwerty's well-stated points, the producers of the show have discussed the apocalyptic theme in both interviews and their official podcast. I contend that we could easily use the following for a reference: "4 8 15 16 23 42 GLOBAL INTERACTIVE PHENOMENON, LOST EXPERIENCE, TO REVEAL MEANING BEHIND MYSTERIOUS NUMBERS ON INTERNATIONAL HIT TV SHOW "LOST"", Disney-ABC Television Group, July 25, 2006. The numbers/the Valenzetti Equation are a reference to the apocalypse. The use of the book of Revelation is a reference to the end of the world. There are repeated references to "if you don't do X, the world will end." There is simply more reason (and documentation) to keep this theme than any other thematic motif in this article. I am not sure why this is even a contentious issue. Ursasapien (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be misreading or willfully ignoring No Original Research. It clearly says that use of "primary sources" in articles is rare and gives as an example legal cases. It further says, "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Qwerty is not providing descriptive claims, but creating a novel interpretation, and he admits to being the originator of the "Apocalypse" analysis. Verifiability states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." As there is no source for your unique analysis/interpretation, stop re-adding it.--70.189.74.49 08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I "admit to being the originator of the "Apocalypse" analysis?" I admit to being the originator of the "Apocalypse" entry, but I have specefically left out any analysis in my article in order to comply with Wikipedia:No Original Research. Entries are different from analyses. Please check your facts before you post things which are plainly false. --Qwerty7412369 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be misreading or willfully avoiding the point of Qwerty's argument. There is no analysis, synthesis, interpretations, or evaluations. Both the primary source and multiple secondary sources present the theme of the end of the world. Again, this theme is much clearer than "Eyes" or "Black and white". You seembent on causing disruption to make a point. Does the Valenzetti Equation reference "the end of the world" or not? Ursasapien (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you even understand what the word "descriptive" versus "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" means??? Has a SINGLE "secondary source" (let alone "multiple") been found for this theory? NO. Has the word "Apocalypse" ever appeared in Lost? NO. Has the "Valenzetti Equation" ever actually appeared on Lost the TV series? NO. This article is about the show, not some stupid online game to sell Sprite and Jeeps.70.189.74.49 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. The numbers on the TV series come from the "Valenzetti Equation". I have heard multiple references to "the end of the world", which is by definition the Apocalypse. I have heard characters on the show reference the book of Revelation which is about the Apocalypse. I do not know how much more I can say. I have never heard the word "eyes" mentioned specifically on the show, but I can see how it is a thematic motif. Ursasapien (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from being dense. The numbers preceded the "Valenzetti Equation", which was retconned as an online game, and has never been mentioned on the TV series. You have "heard?" Well, land sakes, that's good enough for me. I'm sure we can use you as a source, right? NOT. Also "end of the world" is not "by definition the Apocalypse", which is a religious concept. Any such claim about the appearance of "apocalypse" in Lost would be an interpretation and analysis of the story, which requires a published source. Finally it's not even a "thematic motif", which someone else has explained above. A motif is a "recurrent element which has symbolic significance". Seriously, how difficult is this that someone has to spell out every single thing for you?? 70.189.74.49 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, User:70.189.74.49 let me get this straight - I can cite the published opinion of some writer for, say, TV Guide or some other entertainment magazine, but I cannot cite the actual show itself? We can only do research based on secondary sources such as magazines and are forbidden to do any research based on primary sources, such as the dialogue spoken be the actors in a given episode, as published on air by ABC, released on DVD by ABC, and available in as streaming video through ABC.com? We are supposed to privelage some writer who is paid to engage in pure speculation and write down whatever wild ideals come into their head over the script created and approved by the show's writers, directors, producers and published in various citable and verifibile formats by ABC?

Not only is this argumen plainly absurd, it goes against both the spirit and the letter of the policies set for by Wikipedia in "Wikipedia:No Original Research" in which (once again) distingushes reseach based on Primary Sources from Original Research and which delineates how and when an entry may be based solely on primary sources. So, as you so eloquently state in the conclusion of your above post "Seriously, how difficult is this that someone has to spell out every single thing for you??"

(On a side note, you can keep typing these snide posts in which you argue that these entries are "Original Research" until your fingers fall off, but until you give me an explination that includes concrete evidence that my entry has made some novel interpertation or analysis and cannot be corrected, not just your usual "This-is-original-research-because-I-say-it-is" or "This-is-a-novel-analysis-because-I-say-it-is" posts, I will not be convinced by you position. We will just keep going round and round this issue without resolution.)

Furthermore, I fully disagree with your assesment that "Apocalypse" is not one of the Thematic motifs of Lost. As the first line of this article states - "There are several recurring thematic motifs on Lost, which generally have no direct impact on the story itself. These repeated elements and references expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext." I challenge you to provide clear evidence and explain to me why "Apocalypse" does not fit that definition.

Also, Just because you feel that the information provided through The Lost Experience is not canon due to its commercial nature, does not mean you are correct. in an interview Damon Lindelof has verified the Canonical status of The Lost Experience: "I would say in terms of all the… background that we did, in terms of the Valenzetti equation and explaining the formation of the Hanso Foundation and doing the other films…we’d consider that stuff cannon to the show." I found this interview here: "BuddyTV Interviews LOST's Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse - and gets Answers!" [7] Therefore, your critiques of the "Valenzetti Equation" are invalid.

However, I would like to end this post on a positive note, and show that I am willing to reach consensus - User:70.189.74.49 you argue that "Apocalypse" may not be the best title for this entry as it has some implicit references that you are not necessarily comfortable with. Though I am not unsympathetic to this position, neither do I fully agree with you argument as you state it above. If you truly want to end this edit war and build some consensus, let us start here:

1) What do you suggest we title the entry?

2) Could you explain with a bit more detail why you are uncomfortable with the title "Apocalypse"?

3) If we were to change the title and article so that it discusses the theme as, for example, "End of the World" instead of as "Apocalypse" would that resolve the particular problems you are having with this entry?

--Qwerty7412369 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re User:70.189.74.49

(Note - I have seperated this entry from the above entry Primary Research is NOT Original Research because I feel that these discussion have split into two different topics) --Qwerty7412369 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First off User:70.189.74.49 - thanks for finally finding the time to address me directly rather than deleting my entries without comment.

So, to answer your message, I do not believe I am "misreading or willfully ignoring" the No Original Research policy. I have reviewed it many time in the course of my discussions on this article's talk page, and am satisfied that my entry is comfortably within its guidlines.

With regard to the Wikipedia:No Original Research text itself - "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases)." I would argue that a currently running television series should be considered one of the "rare occasions" when an entry may rely upon primary source material as there are only a handful of secondary-sources currently in existence, and as it is, again, currently running. Though you correctly point out that the example given for this is "legal cases," nowhere do I see it explicitly or implicitly suggested that "legal cases" are the sole instances where primary souces may be used, and to suggest otherwise is to contort the text beyord all recognition.

Continuing with the text - "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I plainly cite the primary sources I use. I do so in such a way that I believe complies with this condition: my entry is descriptive, in that it only lists the specific and overt instances of apocalyptic references in the narrative. The references listed are only those explicitly stated during the show, and typically these references come directly from the mouths of the characters themselves. This is easily verifiable by "any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge;" indeed, anyone with a TV and the a meger attention-span would find these same references easily.

Furthermore, the text states - "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should... (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." I do not analyze these apocalyptic references, nor do I attempt to draw some grand synthesis linking them with other aspects of the show, nor do I offer an interpretation of their meaning in the larger context of the show, nor do I attempt to explain their occurence, nor do I evaluate them in any way. I simply point them out. In your message, you claim that "You are not providing descriptive claims, but creating a novel interpretation" - I challenge you to give me a clear example of any analysis, synthesis, interpertation, explanation, or evaluation I have made in my entry.

Now I would like to clarify some errors you made in your message to me:

First, you state in your message that I "admit to being the originator of the "Apocalypse" analysis." This is incorrect; I admit to being the author of the "Apocalypse" entry - as I have stated, I do not see any analysis in this entry and I have deliberately avoided making any such analysis, therefore I do not and would not admit to being the "originator" of any such analysis. I have simply listed a explicit recurring theme in a show that I happen to enjoy watching.

Second, you site the policy on Verifiability, which states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." As I have said many times before, I provide a source - the episodes I list in the text itself are the primary sources upon which I have constructed my entry and verify the information provided within. I do not know what source could be more reliable for the material that that. Furthermore, I do not understan why you continue to challenge my entry when I am providing reliable sources; such action seems to run contrary to the very rule you are citing.

Third, you conclude by stating "As there is no source for your unique analysis/interpretation, stop re-adding it." I have repeatedly given you the sources I am using, and I have rejected and will continue to reject your claim that I am making a "unique analysis/interpertation" until I am provided with evidence and clear examples to the contrary (simply put: just because you say it, doesn't make it true.) Therefore, you have no basis to demand that I stop restoring the entries you insist on deleting. I will continue to restore the article until I am convinced that doing so is not the proper thing to do.

In conclusion, I would like to point out some problems I am having with your edits:

One, by my count, you have now made six reverts to this article in a 24-hour period, well in excess of the Three-Revert Rule, thereby creating an edit war.

Two, until now, you have refused to discuss this issue with myself and other editors, nor have you attempted or are you currently attempting to reach any consensus, thus acting in clear disregard of Wikipedia's policy on conflict resolution and inflaming this edit war.

Three, your singular focus on this one article (as revealed in your edit history) suggests that you may be pushing your own personal agenda rather than attempting to improve what is, lest we forget, a collabrative project.

Four, you are being quite inconsistant in your claims of Original Research. I would point out that by your claims, the entries for "Black & White", "Eyes", and "Literature" should be removed as well yet you are strangely silent on these entries. Whether this silence be from your own bias, a personal interest in these entries, a "gut-feeling", or any other reason, the fact remains that you are inconsistantly applying your own rules, which only weakens your own position.

Ultimately you own flouting of Wikipedia's rules and policies coupled with your obvious inconsistant application of the very rules you claim to endorse make it very difficult for me to take your position seriously, let alone that you position does not seem to be supported by Wikipedia's own policies.

I should let you know that I will be reporting your more flagrant violations of the rules (i.e the Three-Revert Rule) to an administrator, and I am seriously considering sending this article up for Mediation as it seems we no compromise or consensus developing, only discussion posts which are growing less civil by the hour.

--Qwerty7412369 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop working against consensus

You were blocked for edit warring, and almost immediately start right back at it as soon as you come out from being blocked. You have been completely inflexible and contradictory. The consensus of editors of this article seems to be that "End of the world" is just as clearly a "thematic motif" as "Black & White" or "Eyes". Ursasapien (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You and one other confused editor do not equal "consensus", especially since you don't understand what No Original Research means, nor what the obvious point of this article is. Maybe you should have paid more attention in English Lit. Read the very first sentence again, and study it: There are several recurring thematic motifs on Lost, which generally have no direct impact on the story itself. These repeated elements and references expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext."

Do you see the words "thematic", "motif" and "subtext" there? Look them up. "End of the world" is not a literary motif (aka a recurring symbolic element), nor is it a subtext. I'm not even going to bother to explain why "Canada" doesn't have a place here. 70.189.74.49 06:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you do not see it but, again, "End of the world" is just as clearly a "thematic motif" as "Black & White" are "Eyes". "Black & white" are symbolic of dualism just like "End of the world" references or symbolic of apocalyptic themes and concepts. "Eyes," "black & white," and "end of the world" are each clearly a part of the underlying philosophical theme of the show. Ursasapien (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the edit war going?

70.189.74.49, why do you persist in continuing this edit war? You have been blocked twice and immediately come off block and start tagging this article up again. Can you please explain to me, oh great teacher that you are, why "End of the world" is not a thematic motif, yet "Black & White", "Eyes", and "Family dysfunction" are? Type slowly and in small words because, as you have told me, I am really slow and do not understand. BTW, it is somewhat curious that Leftyman who has an obssesion with these section goes away in a huff, and suddenly an anon comes along with a similar editing obssession and lack of tact. Hmmmm. Ursasapien (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, you're willing to conceded that there may just be a point to all this silliness. Riddle me this, Batman: what is "end of the world" a symbol for? (It can't be a symbol of itself.) The point I've been trying to get you to realize is that this isn't an article about themes of Lost, but about motifs, i.e. subtext alluded to by recurring symbols/images, which is not the same thing as the themes. In short, "End of the Wold" can't be a motif, because it doesn't actually mean anything other than "the end of the world", whereas the usage of Eyes, the colors black and white, naming of characters after philosophers and yes, even family dysfunction (representing the divisions between the characters' disassociation from their pasts) are recurring motifs. EoW might be considered a plot device or a macguffin, but that's an entirely different article. It might even be part of the Mythology of Lost, if some actual source linking it to the writers could be found. Its great that you want cites for the other stuff here; those at least can be found, because they've been discussed elsewhere, whereas the claims about "apocalypse/end of the world" (and the inane "Canada" theory) only exist on Wikipedia. And dude, I'm not Leftyman, but I read his comment on the Lost talk page and have seen him there for a long time, so I came here to see what was up. I was just a fan lurker from academia who anonymously made small edits to the Lost article for a while, until i saw the nonsense that this article had become.70.189.74.49 10:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I get that you are making a point. EOW/Apocalypse is a symbol for the characters fate - the battle of good vs. evil, which falls right into the concept of dualism and the Stephen King/literature theme. It seems that Canada represents deception. I don't know why the creators are using the motif of Canada equals deception but that would be original research. Now family dysfunction is a symbol of what again? Family dysfunction? Like some other academics, you seem blinded by your own brilliance. I am having a great deal of difficulty getting past your arrogance. You may not be Leftyman, but I find it incredible that you have used the same rhetoric, the exact same arguments, on the exact same article. Look, despite what you think, I am not some 16 y/o fan. I have a graduate degree and I know a good deal about "thematic motifs." I did not add these sections to the article, but I have become absolutely convinced that they belong in this article as much as any other section. Ursasapien (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just make up anything you want, call it a motif and claim that it symbolizes something. That's why Wikipedia has a policy against Original Research, and the whole reason that others have been having problems with this stuff. "Fate" may very well be a subject (not a theme) of "Lost". But it isn't symbolized by "end of the world" because that just isn't a symbol, it's a plot device, and no one outside of Wikipedia has ever made this assertion. "Canada and Deception" is just complete silliness. Anyone could string together any number of unconnected repeated things on Lost and claim they mean something they dont. Here's some I just came up with, which could be claimed as valid: The use of pop songs is a motif for the character's longing for home; the repeating of car crashes is a motif for the destructive force of society; the mention of "Others" really means fear of Minorities. The use of flashbacks symbolizes bad karma from previous lives. The smoke monster is a motif for the dangers of second hand smoke, because it kills people. The island is a symbol for the universe and the button is actually God, because you have to believe in it. See, it's fun to make stuff up. I'm sure there's some blog or forum I could find to cite these from. 70.189.74.49 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you will just be obtuse for the fun of it (Although you may have something about the "Others" illustrating xenophobia). I have absolutely no idea, using your criteria, why you don't just "prod" the entire article and get it over with. After all, "Literature" is a symbol of what? "Philosophy" exemplifies what? Where are the references for the "Eyes" section, if it is not complete OR, or are you conceding that this entire article is a needless OR fork and has only been allowed to stand because the show is immensly popular. See the above discussion regarding references. Ursasapien (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow - Just got an email to check this out. I'm off WP for a couple months on a new job and this article goes editwar-crazy. I have a feeling I know who the anon user is (and if so, Hi!) I've stated my own objections to the new sections, but I think that the anon may be getting caught up in the argumentation and failing to realize that none of the sections are purely "motifs". Here's a suggestion: why not retitle this to "Themes *and* motifs of Lost", which would solve the issue of including discussions like Fate vs. Free Will (into which the End of the world thing would fall). The Literature, Philosophy, etc. could likewise be handled as themes. Incidentally, my name is Leflyman, not leftyman. thx,-Leflyman^Talk 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Family dysfunction

"A motif or motive is a recurring element that has symbolic significance in the story." As I said above, family dysfunction is symbolic of what? What symbolic significance does family dysfunction hold? I think this section should definitely be removed from this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clearly a symbolic subplot reflection of the separation from their former lives that has been inflicted upon the characters as the main plot. JulesH 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Family dysfunction is a symbol of their separation from their former lives? Do you have a source or is this just more blatant OR? Ursasapien (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apocalypse II

I am not sure, 70.189.74.49, that this word means what you think it means. Are you saying that Stephen King's novel The Stand and Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen do not have apocalyptic themes? Are you saying that we need a reference that states these works have apocalyptic themes? I think this is so blatantly obvious and, although we could certainly find a reference, I do not see one as necessary. Wikipedia's article on the stand states, "The Stand is a post-apocalyptic horror novel." There is no reference or qualification. I have removed your "no reference" tag, as this section has two references (More than the "Family dysfunction" section BTW). However, your issue seems to be with the word apocalypse. You seem to believe this has some religious significance. However, Wikipedia's entry on apocalypse states, "Apocalypse is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind. Today the term is often used to mean end of the world." Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you need references that apocalypse is a theme of LOST, for which you have not found a single source. It may be blatantly obvious in your view. However, that's the very model of a modern original research-- a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". The Watchman and The Stand may be viewed as post-apocalyptic, and the writers of LOST may have read them (among countless other books and inspirations), but that doesn't automatically mean that LOST has apocalyptic themes. Likewise, LOST may contain a number of references to Stephen King, but that doesn't make Stephen King himself a motif in the series, or immediately mean that his work is a theme on the show; it's the usage of written literature, itself, (for which King is an example) that is the recurring motif, as has been noted extensively elsewhere. That's why the section is "unsourced"; it has no source for its primary claim. --70.189.74.49 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making no sense to me. The primary source has numerous references to "the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind." On top of that, you citation tag indicates that you want a reference that The Stand and The Watchmen have apocalyptic themes. Is this waht you are asking for? Because we already have a reference that the developers of the show had these works in mind when they wrote Lost.Ursasapien (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes no sense is how you can continue to confuse your own opinion with the requirement to have verified sources. Please, please, please reread what it says at Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Just because you think that apocalypse is a theme on LOST (or think it is a motif) does not make it so. Just because one of the writers likes a comic book which a Wikipedia article says has apocalyptic overtones-- ironically, the only source for that claim about Watchmen is a single "interpretation" by Darren Aronofsky-- does not make LOST a comic book. (Nor is there any source to say that anything derived from Watchmen appears in LOST.) Just because Stephen King's The Stand was a mined for inspiration for some of the LOST characters does not automatically make the series the same as the book. The best source for the connection between King and LOST's creators is this interview from EW which, while it states the clear King connections, never mentions "apocalypse" or "end of the world" as a theme for either The Stand or LOST. That is your own leap of interpretation ("synthesis"). I'll say it again: there's no source for your primary claim. 70.189.74.49 00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing more I can say then. If you want to see "Family Dysfunction" as a sourced motif but "Apocalypse" as synthetic original research, there is absolutely nothing more I can say about it. When someone argues with a logical discussion by simply refusing to look at the facts, what can one do? Like I have said, I advocate that they merge this with the main article and take out all the unsourced pieces like "Eyes," "Black and white," and especially "Family dysfunction." Ursasapien (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more clearly one can get for a source than Carlton Cuse saying, "Father issues are a big part of the show thematically". If that doesn't work for you, how about this from a recent EW article by Jeff Jensen: "So many characters on Lost have been wounded and warped by their relationships with their fathers or father figures. Season 3 has doted heavily on this theme... Carlton Cuse's response was to the point: "I don't think there is anything more powerful in film than father-son relationships, maybe even in literature, too." Damon Lindelof elaborated: "...We dig flawed characters on Lost, and a large part of being flawed is the emotional damage inflicted on you by your folks... For the record, Mommies don't fare much better...we just haven't focused on 'em as much yet." Or this article from CTV.ca: "Father issues on "Lost" about to pay off... But Locke isn't the only lostie with father issues - many of the other survivors of Oceanic Airlines flight 815's crash also have dark parental relationships." See how that works, sources that actually directly discuss the claim? 70.189.74.49 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)