Talk:DHARMA Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Hugh on Jimmy Kimmel?
2 Linking to Dharma sites
3 Aren't there 6 areas of research?
4 Linking to fansites
5 Purpose of the station (was: removed speculation)
6 Missing sources: geothermal energy & 540/108
7 Splits and mergers
8 "The"?
9 DHARMA acronym
10 CANDLE/WICKman: Play on words
11 Does this remind anybody else of the Myst computer games?
12 Star Trek?

[edit] Hugh on Jimmy Kimmel?

Should we put the information we learned from Hugh on Jimmy Kimmel Live in?
--Rroepke 06:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Dharma sites

Ive found some DHARMA Initiative websites why are links to them removed when I add them?

I was wondering about this site: http://thedharmainitiative.org/ Is it a fansite or official site or what, and why isn't it linked to here?

Not an official site. Check out the list over at LostPedia [1] Blade 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aren't there 6 areas of research?

According to the orientation film, there are six areas of research, though the sixth is somewhat hard to hear because of the poor quality of the film. It is something like "utopian social experiments". Shouldn't this be added as the sixth area, after electromagnetism?

This has'nt actually been confirmed yet, and we don't know if that is a station. Untill its confirmed, it remains speculation.

There are six films. No mention of there being six stations --Gonzalo84 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are six fields of research. The narrator says "...and utopian social...", at which point they jump to Alvar Hanso (so we don't know the sixth field). I know we aren't allowed to theorize, but I think that that is what the Others are.- JustPhil 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to fansites

The links to Lostpedia was recently removed by Jtrost. I replaced it, since I think it's perfectly good to link to notable fan sites, especially when they are clearly marked as such.

While I think Wikipedia should not contain fan speculation or even probable but unverified information, sites like Lostpedia serve a purpose for collecting this - obviously of interest to a lot of Lost fans. Arru 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL. Lostpedia does not meet any of the requirements for an external link. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think LostPedia perfectly fits the type of website described by point 5;

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article."

It is far better to link to a neutral, wiki-based site that collates more detailed information than to fill Wikipedia with more fancruft IMO. --82.47.218.247 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL said that linking to one fansite may be appropriate. I know there is already a link on the main LOST page for TV IV, but maybe a link to Lostpedia should go there. There IS a lot of details and fan speculation for LOST. In fact, the show (and writers) encourage it. Maybe by pointing to a place where less encyclopedic editing is allowed would help direct fancruft and speculation away from Wikipedia articles. At least we could say "Take that to Lostpedia" when info is reverted? Blade 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of the station (was: removed speculation)

Excised Purpose of the station:

The Lost storylines about Station 3 are constructed to make the viewer unsure as to whether the procedure carried out is as important as stated (Desmond recalls Kelvin equating following the procedure with "saving the world"), or if it is some kind of elaborate Skinner box. In Orientation, Marvin Candle describes the DHARMA Initiative's founders as "following in the footsteps of visionaries such as B.F. Skinner". In the same episode, Jack debates the purpose of the station with its incumbent:

Jack

It says quarantine on the inside of the hatch to keep you down here. To keep you scared. But you know what? We've been up there for over 40 days and no one's gotten sick. You think that this is the only part of it that's true? Do you ever think that maybe they put you down here to push a button every 100 minutes just to see if you would? That all of this, the computer, the button, it's just a mind game? An experiment?

Desmond

Every... single... day. And for all our sakes, I hope it's not real. But the film says this is an electromagnetic station. And I don't know about you, brother, but every time I walk past that concrete wall out there, my fillings hurt.

Later, in Dave, "Henry Gale" disdainfully addresses Locke on Swan station, and states that "this place is a joke." After accurately describing the post-countdown occurances, he says "and you know what happened next? Nothing happened, John. Nothing happened at all. The timer just flipped back to 108. I never entered the numbers, I never pressed the button."

--Leflyman^Talk 14:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What about that is speculative? -Litefantastic 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a breakdown of the elements that make this Original Research:

Claiming that the storylines are "constructed" in a particular way;
Making a leap from passing mention of B.F. Skinner to "Skinner box" (which itself is being misused here) -- and connecting that to the countdown procedure;
Providing quotes to build a case for this particular speculation as to the purpose of the station/procedure.;
Not having a verifiable and reliable source to cite for the theory.

This could be easily rectified if an external article could be found which states the points explicitly; or it might be reworded to more simply delineate the difference in belief between Jack and Locke. —Leflyman^Talk 19:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I think this is useful, and can be salvaged - with editing. Here is my take on your points:

Good point. Take it out.
Ditto. Actually, I don't think this is such a leap, really, but I won't debate the point. Furthermore, the implying reference to Walden Two in the main article should probably be expunged as well.
Disagree. There are two theories, created within the show itself (and encapsulated in the quotes above) on Station 3. This would only be original theorizing if it made a third theory, and would only be POV if it took the side of one theory. It does neither.
Disagree again. The quotes are the source.

-Litefantastic 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal. The only thing that can be presented to readers is that, yes, the station could be an experiment. Which is a rather easy theory to make up yourself, as a viewer. Because, even though it is a verifiable fact that Jack questions the meaningfulness of the station, this isn't discussed anywhere else in the series. "Henry Gale" also questions the station, but most things said by Henry this far appear to have some manipulative purpose. I think however, that linking to B.F. Skinner is warranted since it is one of the few things said in the Orienation film. Arru 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Walden Two is not mentioned. And if we put this section back, people might be less likely to theorize because the official theorization has already been done for them. -Litefantastic 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

~~The discussion on the Purpose section was cut prematurely.~~ I've attempted to make it more explicit by replacing the quotations with summaries of what transpires in the relevant episodes. If this makes this section seem OR or just redundant, it's because of its claims (that were implicitly made by quoting). ~~The excised text is preserved in the archive.~~ Arru 11:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that happend. Please remove it from archive 2 and re-insert it here if that is the case. I only tried to archive old and inactive discussions from this page. -- UKPhoenix79 12:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No harm done really. Arru 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing sources: geothermal energy & 540/108

I remember that Sayid checked out the source of the magnetism in the hatch. What episode does this occur in? I wanted to resolve whether he stated or just speculated the hatch was powered by geothermal energy. I also wanted to see if he said anything firm or worth mentioning about the magnetism.
What official source does the statement of 540 being "5x108" come from? Have I missed it in one of the podcasts? I don't think 5x108 belongs in the article unless it's backed up by a official statement that 540 is an oblique reference to "the numbers". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.173.23.111 (talk • contribs).

I agree with your point that it is not relevant. Consider the units: since the timer has a cycle of 108 minutes, multiplying it by 5 yields 540 minutes, or 9 days which has no significance whatsoever. 540 days = 777600 minutes which is divisible (it follows since 540 is), the quotient being 7200 cycles between crew replacements. Again, not very significant. Arru 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splits and mergers

As The Hanso Foundation has become the core of the Lost Experience, I've made a couple of "Be Bold" moves: 1) I've withdrawn the merge consideration, as unnecessary; 2) I've gone forward with the split of the stations from this article. In the new The DHARMA Initiative stations article, I've further removed some speculative elements, albeit there is more work to be done. I think, as has been noted by others above, that this article should stick closer to discussion of DHARMA itself, rather than discussion of what the characters of LOST discover in the stations-- since the survivors are not "part" of DHARMA (that we know of, anyway!)--Leflyman^Talk 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what the consequences of that will be, but I'd like to applaud your decisiveness. -Litefantastic 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You made the split when not only was there no consensus on the matter, but those opposing the split actually exceeded those who supported it? How exactly do you justify this? I am reverting the change. Please do not change back untill a consensus is made, otherwise leave as is. --Jake11 23:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You know from my previous comments that I wanted such a thing to occur. You did indeed create cleaner pages when you did this... But I would have liked my split vote to continue for a bit longer... As to see what the consensus would have become! -- UKPhoenix79 04:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I closed the strawpoll/survey as it had run for two weeks, which is generally enough time for a survey discussion. While no consensus had been reached, on actually re-reading the section in question, I realized that it had strayed far from what this article was actually about— the DHARMA Initiative itself— into the minutiae of what the survivors had found inside the Stations, particular The Swan. (This is likely why some had suggested re-titling this article.) A short summary about the stations in the scheme of The Dharma Initiative was appropriate, while a break-out of the extended (and non-DHARMA-related) descriptions about the Stations themselves was clearly appropriate.

In answer to the editor above, who has since reverted the change: opinion surveys don't overcome good sense on Wikipedia; they are a tool to generate discussion and ideas, not to making binding decisions. Wikipedia editors are admonished to "Be Bold" in making substantive changes; this is part of the "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle, and a process in the evolution of an article. —Leflyman^Talk 05:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hay your preaching to the choir here, thats exactly what I said to begin with :) Nice to know that someone else thinks its a great idea also... I tried to point out that this article was no longer about the Initiative but its stations. So I figured that the stations need to be moved to a new article or it should just be renamed. If others agree with what you did I'd say go for the breakout... the seperated articles looked much better even having a good ammount of info on each one. If we can keep the information seperate that would be great, but I fear that it will only be reverted, unless you can get the right people to agree. Heres hoping! -- UKPhoenix79 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, if your supporters at least had a well established majority in the vote, I might be prepared to let this go. But you do not have a consensus or a majority. So your only justification for the merger is that you and some other people think its a good idea. No majority, no consensus. Since you clearly won't budge, I think the comprimise that must be made is that we will have a short list of all the stations in this article, with the same information as in the extended article except briefer and with less detailed. Let me know your thoughts. --Jake11 18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if there was some consensus that I haven't seen yet, but I did notice that lefly split the article again. With there being a 'no consensus' from the discussions above, I didn't think he would be allowed to do it, especially after people reverted his split once after arguing that he couldn't do it. I'm all for splitting the article, but I want it done right, I don't want some random anti-splitting users to come back a month later, after I put a lot of effort into an article, and just revert everything. If we can just split and merge and do whatever we want, please someone let me know, so I can start right away. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the split. We already have differences between the articles with just one episode - "?". The other article has a nice write up about station 5 "The Pearl" which may say more about the initiative then station 3. We only have a small write up of the orientation and purpose in this article. While I expect we'll correct this and I've already started adding a bit. It seems we would be less likely to have this problem if it was one article. Morphh 11:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The"?

Is there any particular reason why this article should begin with the article "the"? Typically, Wikipedia articles don't begin with articles such as "a", "the", "an", etc. unless its the the proper name of something (e.g. The Mind Robber, The Godfather, The Evil Dead, to name a few) so I'm wondering whether this page should be moved. If there is a specific reason, my apologies, but I can't find any reading the article and its references. Opinions?--Sean Black 08:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. An admin would be needed to clear DHARMA Initiative, so I've placed a speedy-delete there to prepare the way for this article to be moved. --Leflyman^Talk 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Just a bit of housekeeping needed now.—Leflyman^Talk 10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  - I've moved it back, and think I owe you an explanation. It's usually referred to as "The Dharma Initiative" in the show (excepting examples like "Dharma Initiative stations" and "Dharma Initiative Ranch Dip", regarding properties of the Initiative) and, to play what I hope doesn't sound like a stupid trump card: it sounds better with "the" in front. If it comes down to a substantial disagreement we could always stage a vote, although I suggest you read WP:VIE and WP:VINE first. -Litefantastic 17:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia naming conventions (section "Avoid the definite article "the"... at the beginning of the page name"), which says,

"Convention: If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name."

Likewise, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name) says,

"If the name of the article is not the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name."

Thus, Sean Black is correct, that the article should not have "the" at the beginning of the title. For comparison, see the article titles United States, United Nations, Annenberg Foundation, none of which start with "the". Please do not change it back. —Leflyman^Talk 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. -Litefantastic 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DHARMA acronym

Is there a citation on that being the acronym? Blade 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's in one of the official podcasts of early 2006 Arru 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it's a reference already used - podcast 17 january - only not in the introduction. I've corrected this. Arru 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CANDLE/WICKman: Play on words

Every CANDLE has a WICK. Should there be a note pointing out this play on words?

--Notes on these names should be added to the relevant LOST articles that already contain discussion of the significance of names in the show, i.e. the philosophers (John *Locke*, Desmond David *Hume*, Danielle *Rousseau*) and the deliberate misleading with the tailies by naming Nathan in a manner that evoked an already identfied other, Ethan.

[edit] Does this remind anybody else of the Myst computer games?

In the sense that they are on a mysterious island with outlandish mechanisms and so forth, yes, but no, in the sense that in Myst and in Riven one arrives on these islands by way of looking in magic books.