Talk:Ben Linus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ben Linus article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within Lost.

This article has been kept following no consensus at this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Flashback?

I think that Ben's first flashback appearence should be A Tale of Two Cities (Lost) as the opening scene was about events that happened in the 'present' (in Lost). If the scene had been played in the Pilot, I would agree it was not a flashback, but I think it is one. I have just recently watched reruns of season 1 and in them I saw Ben as a Janitor in the mental instition. The episode was when Hurley had won the lotto and went back to see Lenard about the cursed numbers. Ben was changing a light globe on a very unstable ladder and Hurley told him to stop and do it someother time.(4/12/2006)

I don't know about A Tale of Two Cities being Ben's first flashback, but Ben was not the janitor in the mental institution. If you have a closer look at hi-def pictures of the scene online, it's clear that it isn't him. Michael Emerson was not involved in Lost until his first episode as Henry Gale, One of Them. -- Flummery 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities would have been Juliet's flashback, not Ben's, he's just featured in it (He's also in Locke's and Juliet's future flashbacks). And we know for a fact that Ben hasn't left the island since he was around 10.

???? Do you know something we don't???--CyberGhostface 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Gale a secondary character?

It's my understanding that Emerson (who plays Henry Gale) has been casted as a main character in season 3 per Damon Lindelof. Is he really a secondary character?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormacalian (talk • contribs)

Where does Lindelof say this? Until this is officially confirmed, he is a secondary character. If I remember correctly, Lindelof only said he plays a 'prominent role'. SergeantBolt 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He's said it many times, including to TV guide. Don't know the exact issue, but I have it at home. He even has a flashback next season.--Unopeneddoor 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it of interest that, in the pilot/debut of "The Night Stalker" starring Stuart Townsend, victims of the beast attack are HENRY and EMILY GALE! Now, if their little girl's name had been Dorothy... (Yes, I know the originals were aunt and uncle.) I just think it's an oddity that two Henry Gales have shown up relatively recently. Cyn Lankford 7/28/06 I should mention my WOZ Theory: The film is so engrained in our memories that you will hear a reference to the film nearly every day, sometimes several times a day. Cyn Lankford (again) 7/28/06

Michael Emerson was comfirmed as a main character in a by ABC in a press release. You can find it here Thunderous503

[edit] Move?

If/when Gale's real name is revealed (and it was implied it will in the Lost bonus section of this week's Entertainment Weekly), should this article be moved to his real name? --DrBat 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) His name is definitely Ben, now, as revealed when the cast was introduced and in the actual pre-viewing of the premiere. I vouch for a move to "Ben (Lost)," but maybe we should wait until Wednesday. 67.86.8.180 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote wait. It would ruin. its only a few days :)203.217.33.170 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's wait until either the episode airs, or we have a solid source which confirms it. --Elonka 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a solid source, at "Sunset on the Beach" he was introduced to the crowd as 'ben', but I still say it should wait untill the airing at 9pm (est) at least. 209.248.175.82 13:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to update the article from Henry/Henry Gale to Ben Funnyfarmofdoom 20:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat?

Where did the information come from saying that his name was Pat? 67.188.180.58 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In the last part of the episode, he is referred to as "Pat" by Juliet (or at least that's what I heard). Did anyone else hear this? Andromeda321 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, everyone heard it as Ben.

[edit] Real name

Do we have a source from ABC saying that Ben is his "real" name? Otherwise, we might want to hedge this to say simply that he is called Ben by the Others, without specifying whether or not it's his actual real legal name. --Elonka 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's unneccessary speculation. What reason would the woman have to lie about his name? None of the 'lostaways' were present. Also, its been mentioned in articles that his real name would be revealed in the opener.--CyberGhostface 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the latest episode revealed his real name: Benjamin Linus (I think). Welp, time for a move.--Janarius 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why move it? Technically, that's a spoiler, and it's only fully aired in Canada as of now (to my knowledge). And besides, Ben (Lost) is good enough. -- Doran 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe his real last name was revealed to be the same as his father's Workman. I believe it was shown that the nametag is simply his last name and not a title.

I thought Workman was an occupation that the father had. I mean, even after the episode aired, no one's ever called him Benjamin Workman.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone calling him Linus either. In the episode that reveals how he came to the island it is shown all the clothes have the last name of the person wearing them. It would be odd if he was given a special tag of Workman when everyone else's states their last name and not title. None of the suits said scientist or farmer or whatever. -- Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.101.119.130 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been referred to as Ben Linus numerous times throughout the show and magazine articles and reviews. In addition, there was a scene in Curtain where Roger was griping about his job as a workman.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Henry" throughout article

Should we now change all the references which say "Henry" to Ben? It is quite clear what his name is and it seems unencyclopedic to constantly say "Henry" told Locke, etc. when we have his real name. This whole quotation-marks-around-Henry just seems very unprofessional. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I think that in time, the name may switch to "Ben" everywhere, for now, I think we should stick with the rule of "using the name that the individual is most commonly known as", per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). In other words, even though President Clinton's full name is "William Jefferson Clinton", he's most commonly referred to as "Bill Clinton". We should watch outside sources to see how the character is referred to. If he's being written up in reviews as "Ben", then we should follow that lead. But if most people are still referring to him as "Henry Gale", then it makes sense to continue using the name that most people are familiar with. --Elonka 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A major part of my criticism is the quotaion marks around his name (Ana Lucia takes a gun to kill "Henry" but cannot bring herself to do it looks terrible, IMHO). At the time the article was written, it seemed like the best way to do things, but now that we know his name, we should use it. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of using the name "Ben", to refer to an incident that occurred when he was going by a different name. For example, it would be very odd to go into Season 2 plot summaries, and change all references to "Henry Gale's" name to Ben. --Elonka 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should refer to him as "Henry" up until A Tale of Two Cities, where his name is revealed. SergeantBolt (t,c) 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be referred to as Ben in episode articles before A Tale of Two Cities or in other character articles before AToTC. But on his own page, where his real name is revealed in the title, it just seems silly to refer to his as "Henry" throughout. Especially with those quote marks which I also think looks terrible. On his own article he should always be called Ben. On every other article it should depend on when it takes place. My .02 - DocNox 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, most of that stuff should just be removed from the article. It's practically a complete plot synopsis for every scene Michael Emerson's ever been in, which is complete overkill. It's also nothing but spoilers for anyone who isn't current with the series. I think it needs to be pared down to the significant events, probably no more than two paragraphs. See Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), especially about maintaining "out-of-universe" perspective. -Anþony 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reworked a good bit of the article, changing things that were suggested here and trying to make it flow better, rather than being a report of what happened in each episode. I think that it still needs to be condensed some more, I will work on it when I have time if someone else doesn't get to it first. Let me know if I have made inappropriate changes so I will know not to in the future - I haven't done much editing to Lost articles yet. Riverbend 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have done some more reworking, I think that there are still many details that could justifiably be excised to reduce the length. . . Riverbend 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tumor

Why is it assumed that Ben is the one that has the spinal tumor? There's nothing to tie him to it other than speculation. It should be corrected as such. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the trailer for next week?--CyberGhostface 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Lost episode guidelines: "Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included." - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His eyes

In the first episode of the third season, when the others are seeing what happens to the plane in the air, "Henry Gale"/Ben turns around and says he wants a list within three days. When looking at his eyes when he says this, he appears to have slit shaped pupils. Is it just a reflection of what is in front of him, or is it really his pupils? 217.68.114.116 16:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His age

I think is 29 cause 26 years so old was him when Juliet came and it had went 3 years --83.248.198.93 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)OMiD

What are you talking about?--CyberGhostface 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he means: "I think he is 29 [years old], because he was 26 when Juliet came,and it has been three years [since she arrived]." I personally have no idea where this "26" figure comes from, though... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The 26 years old came from when Juliet got breffed about the new job at "Portland" - OMiD

[edit] Spoilers?

Ought there be a spoiler tag somewhere on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 35.11.134.97 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC). It's an article about a TV show character. I agree that it's loaded with spoilers, but I think there's a general, unspoken agreement that reading it is prone to reveal things about the show. Besides, none of the other character or episode articles have bothered with spoiler tags. If it were up to me I'd have them there, but I don't think it hurts not to. -Ringer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.197.58 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move/rename

Please discuss page moves and see if there's agreement before moving pages (like the recent move to Benjamin Linus). Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin or Ben

This page has been moved twice now, with no discussion either time. What do editors think the page should be titled? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he likes to be called Ben doesn't change the fact that his full name is Benjamin Linus.--CyberGhostface 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is his full name, but is it the most commonly used name for the character? Which name is used more on the show? Look at Category:Lost (TV series) characters - do the article titles for Kate, Locke, Libby, Walt, etc use their full names? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Should Kate become Katherine, Walt become Walter, Libby become Elizabeth, Batman become Bruce Wayne and Prue Halliwell become Prudence Halliwell? We follow naming conventions, which are logical and fair.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder

Did Ben kill someone?

He killed his father for one, and has indirectly orchestrated the deaths of many people. So, yeah, he's a murderer -- what's your point? NickRinger (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen King

For one thing, I don't know how in all cases what amounts to little more than throwaway comments amounts to any real encyclopediac notability, the whole bit about Ben hating SK could very well be false. The only time we hear that he hates it is from another Other, but when Ben is seen reading it later he just comments on it that he finds it depressing. That, and he later asks for it. I thought about adding this, but it would become way to overwieldy for something which really has no relevance besides the writers giving little shoutouts.--CyberGhostface 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former book club member?

Is this true, or has someone just slipped it in without anyone noticing?

If it is true, could someone provide a reference, as it is quite a strange remark.

Dnzperson 10:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Its true. Watch the first and last episodes.--CyberGhostface 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? What seasons? Thanks. Dnzperson 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The last season. I'm referring to the episode that introduced Juliet and the most recent one with Juliet going to the camp.--CyberGhostface 14:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image

Okay, to revert an edit frenzy let's have a vote on the main image. We've got at least two options, the current and the one that was on for a bit before:

Picture1

Image:Ben Linus.jpg

Picture2

Now, in my opinion I vote for Picture 2, since it is both a seasonal promotional picture, not just episodic, and it shows Ben more authoritarian and powerful, like a leader, while Picture 1 depicts him more like a small and cowardly man. So that's why I think Picture 2 should be the main image. Even if not Picture 2, then perhaps we can bring other pictures which depict him just as well, such as the promotional picture from "The Brig" and such, but between these two, I pick Picture 2. --Sauron18 19:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the picture 2 is better as well. However, the first one better qualifies as fair use according to Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive14#Fair_use_and_Lost. However, if you can find another promotional picture (try Lost-Media) from another episode, go ahead. Maybe once the next episode comes out there'll probably be some great shots there.--CyberGhostface 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the most recent episode's promotional photography included a very good Ben shot which is in some ways similar to the seasonal promotional picture. I'll label it "Picture 3". And yeah, next week's episode is bound to have some Ben-full promotional pictures. --Sauron18 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture 3

Yeah, Picture 3 is great. I added it to the main article. If better ones from the next episode come along we can change it.--CyberGhostface 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical reference to infertility

In The Bible, Benjamin was the son of Jacob, and that sort of parallels the fact that Benjamin on Lost is a follower of Jacob. That's already noted in the article. But in The Bible, Benjamin was the last of Jacob's many sons. Do you suppose that is supposed to parallel the fact that the women on the island can't have children anymore? Is Ben supposed to be the last of The Others? I might be reading too much into this. -- Shaheenjim 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Ben

Should we include some mention of the actor who portrayed young Ben in "The Man Behind the Curtain"? Applejuicefool 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... I don't think we did for the other actors when they were portrayed by kids. I'll add a pic of him as a kid though if I can.--CyberGhostface 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben's Birth Location

I just re-watched the Ben Birth Scene, and I couldn't find anything that placed it definitely near Portland, Oregon. It may also be Portland, Maine-- there are many "Portlands" in the US and Canada, but none large enough to have signage 32 miles away except for Oregon and Maine. But it's still presumption rather than fact that Ben Linus was born outside Portland, Oregon at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayorcurley (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Main Pic Again

To prevent two seperate discussions on the same topic, go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost#Main_Ben_Pic to vote on which picture you think is better suited for Ben.--CyberGhostface 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death in Season 3 finale?

This is pretty speculative and shouldn't be added to the article, but I think it is very likely that Ben is the one whose funeral Jack attended in "Through the Looking Glass". The obituary that Jack was reading has a name which is partly readable. At the very least, the letters "ntham" can be seen in one frame. Considering the other references with main characters, I think that this refers to Jeremy Bentham, the philosopher who proposed the Panopticon, a prison where inmates would be made to feel that they were under constant surveillance, which fits very well with Ben's modus operandi. I think that Jeremy Bentham was another alias that Ben used after the island was discovered in this future. This would fit with why no friends or family aside from Jack attended and why Jack stated that he was not one of the above. Percy Kittenz 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better pic of Henry Gale

Can we get a better picture of Ben as Henry Gale? It's an important part of the character's history and the only pic we have of it is some cropped off promotional still where he's posing for the camera. I think a shot of him tied up in the hatch or something like that would be much more appropriate.-- DocNox 06:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find one, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 14:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I snagged one from Lostpedia of Ben imprisoned. Do you like this one better?--CyberGhostface 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. It's much better. --DocNox 07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical allusions

Resolved.

Cite a specific source other than your own conclusion and inferences about a connection between biblical characters and the show's. Words like "seems" are a dead-ringer for OR. "Seems" to whom? If just to you (or me), sorry, Wikipedia doesn't care. If it "seems" so to someone who's generated a published, reliable source, then cite the source. --EEMeltonIV 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is what we need. We need an EXTERNAL NOTABLE SOURCE OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA that says Ben's birth or Jacob's name has biblical allusions to it. I don't doubt that you're adding true facts, but they're unnecessary to an article about Ben Linus unless you know *for sure* that Lindelof and co. made specific references to it in the series.--CyberGhostface 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The passage in question does not say that Ben's birth or Jacob's name were biblical allusions. It merely states them as noteworthy parallels, and that's undeniable. People can decide for themselves whether or not they think they were allusions. We can change the name of the section from "Literary references" to "Literary parallels" or "Parallels in other literature" or something if you want. - Shaheenjim 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source that identifies them as "noteworthy parallels" and I'd be happy to include it. But WP:ITHINKIT'SNOTEWORTHY is not the policy. --EEMeltonIV 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And the ridiculous edit-warring over this issue needs to end as well. It's not accomplishing anything. -- MisterHand 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Benjamin Linus is a deputy to Jacob is not a theory. It's a fact. I can change the words "seems to be" to "is" if you prefer. It was shown in the episode of Lost titled The Man Behind the Curtain. Also, just in case it was unclear, note that it does not mean that he's a deputy to the Jacob from the Bible. It says he's a deputy to the Jacob from Lost. I can specify that too, if you want. Something like, "In The Bible, Benjamin was the son of Jacob. In Lost, Benjamin Linus is a deputy to the Lost character Jacob." - Shaheenjim 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know Benjamin Linus is a deputy of Jacob, and of a similar biblical story. But do you know that these two incidents are intentionally connected? If not, by stating that Ben's allegiance under Jacob is a literary reference to the bible, then this counts as WP:OR. I mean, in a Louis Sachar book there's a kid whose real name is Benjamin but everyone calls him something else because there's a mixup. So we have someone named Benjamin going under a false name. Does this count as a connection?--CyberGhostface 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We can change the name of the section from "Literary references" to "Literary parallels" or "Parallels in other literature" or something if you want. That way it'll only present them as parallels, and people can decide for themselves whether or not they think they were references. - Shaheenjim 22:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The broader point here is that even if we refuse to make the obvious inference that these are references/allusions, and we insist that they're just coincidences, then they're still noteworthy coincidences. - Shaheenjim 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

shrugs* I'll wait until people with better understandings of the guidelines give their two cents. But on my personal opinion, I don't want to see everyone throw in their favorite book and connecting it to Lost, which could very well happen if we make a section for similarities in fiction that have no basis in fact that they are intentional or not. The last thing I want to see happen is for Wikipedia to turn into Lostpedia and throw in various unrelated works of fiction and try to find far-reaching Lost connections. Just look at their page on Stephen King.--CyberGhostface 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto comment above: please cite a reliable source that identifies them as "noteworthy coincidences" or that validates the "obvious inferences." Additionally, if we're going to put side-by-side the relationship between Lost's Ben and Jacob and the Bible's Ben and Jacob, why not also list, I dunno, the parallel between the Dr. Seuss book in which Zookeeper Jacob hires deputy zookeeper Ben? Furthermore, more big picture, considering the show's three-year history of supposedly minor characters all of a sudden becoming important and vice versa, I think it's especially premature even to be asserting a deputy/superior relationship between these characters. 'cause, ya know, Ben and the other Others might -- brace yourselves -- be misleading Locke. Crazy theory, I know. Of course, I'm not going to put it in the article, because that would be original research. --EEMeltonIV 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to both comments above: I'm not suggesting we include every work of fiction that has a tiny, far-reaching parallel to Lost. I'm suggesting that we include every work of fiction that has an enormously huge obvious parallel to Lost. So far there are only two. That's not too many to list. Ben's relationship to Jacob wouldn't be a noteworthy parallel in and of itself, but it is when you consider it in combination with the parallels between Jacob on Lost and Jacob from the Bible, and Ben's relationship with his mother.

And re-read my previous post. Again, it said that they're noteworth as coincidences even if we refuse to make the obvious inference that these are references/allusions. So if we're not making the inference that these are references/allusions, then we don't need a source for the inference that these are references/allusions.

If you want, we can rephrase the note to say that Ben said he was Jacob's deputy. That way it would still allow for the possibility that he was lying. - Shaheenjim 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not enormously huge parallels or else there'd be valid external sources to back up your claims. A lot of it just seems to be coincidences with names. I mean, I'm sure someone if they wanted to could find a parallel with Benjamin (Animal Farm) or Benjamin (Khazar).--CyberGhostface 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a limit to how big a coincidence can be before an intelligent person will conclude that it is not just a coincidence. But it doesn't matter, because as I said, even if it is a coincidence, it's still a noteworthy coincidence. If you are aware of equally big parallels to Animal Farm or Khazar, then post them. But I don't think they exist. I think at most you'll find a tiny, far-reaching parallel, and as I have stated, I am not suggesting that those be added. Furthermore, something that is true does not stop being true just for lack of external validation. For example, I checked, and I couldn't find any external validation that two septillion plus two septillion equals four septillion. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. There are a lot of times that TV shows put something interesting between the lines, but don't spell it out for the audience. - Shaheenjim 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"it's still a noteworthy coincidence" - this is the third? fourth? time you've asserted this, yet I still don't see the published, secondary reliable source that substantiates your claims of notability. The reason CyberGhostface isn't going to add to the article some blurb about parallels with Animal Farm or whatnot is because he knows there's no reliable source out there that has made the connection. You have a similar burden of proof. I'm starting to suspect that this material you want to add may be more appropriate at the lostpedia project, where such speculation is embraced. Here, it's against policy. --EEMeltonIV 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you can bet Lostpedia would allow it. Christ, if that encyclopedia was to be merged with Wikipedia you can bet that half the articles would be castrated before Hurley could say, "Dude...that's harsh."--CyberGhostface 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no significant parallel with Animal Farm for him to have a source for. That probably has something to do with why he hasn't added the parallel.

In order to determine that one thing has parallels to another thing, all that is necessary is knowledge of the first thing (for which a source has been cited) and knowledge of the second thing (for which a source has been cited). Then if they're parallel, it is self apparent.

I think Lostpedia is distinguished from wikipedia's articles on Lost because it allows theories. But the fact that Lost has parallels to the Bible isn't a theory. It's a fact. If we're going to move everything over from the regular Wikipedia articles to Lostpedia, then what's the point of having the regular Wikipedia articles? - Shaheenjim 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're describing synthesis [in the second paragraph], which is a form of OR and against Wikipedia policy. --EEMeltonIV 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis is where you combine two things to form a third, additional argument. There is no third argument being formed here. It's just being pointed out that the two things are similar. That's not an argument. That's self apparent. - Shaheenjim 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Lostpedia is better because it allows theories...if anything, that makes it less of the valid encyclopedia that wikipedia strives to be and just a fansite. I like that its more indepth about Lost, but someone really needs to go over that site with a fine-toothed comb and clean out all the speculation. An encyclopedia needs to be a place where you can find verifiable fact, not a place where teenagers can add in their theories about Jack and Kate. Obviously Wikipedia has a long way to go but we're farther along than Lostpedia is in that regard. And if Lost does have obvious parallels to the bible, and its a fact, why can't you find an external reliable source that confirms it to be true?--CyberGhostface 00:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No one said Lostpedia is better because it allows theories. Although they're supposed to be kept separate from the rest of the information.

As for the lack of an external source, again, I couldn't find any external validation that two septillion plus two septillion equals four septillion. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. There are a lot of times that TV shows put something interesting between the lines, but don't spell it out for the audience.

Also, it occurs to me that even if we do find an external source that says that there's a parallel between the Bible and Lost, I can't think of a way to cite it that doesn't sound stupid. For example, our first sentence would be that in the Bible, Rachel dies while giving birth to Benjamin. The source for that is the Bible, so we link to Wikipedia's page on the Bible, and Wikipedia's pages on Rachel and Benjamin. Then our second sentence would be that in Lost, Benjamin Linus's mother died in childbirth. The source for that is the episode The Man Behind the Curtain, so we link to Wikipedia's page on that. But where in those two sentences do we cite the source that makes the obvious statement that there's a parallel between those two stories? Do we add a third sentence that literally says, "Some people have said there are parallels between those two stories"? Then add the citation to our external source at the end of that? That would be a waste of a sentence. People reading it would think it's ridiculous.

This further emphasizes my point that there isn't synthesis, because there is no separate third argument here. Look at Wikipedia's article on original research. In its example of synthesis it says it's fine if you state the first two points, if they have sources. Look at the part where it says, "That much is fine." It's only the sentence after those two points where it becomes synthesis. But here there is no additional sentence. If there is, I ask you this, what would these two points look like if we included them, but did not include the additional argument? They'd look exactly the same. Which is evidence that there is no additional argument. - Shaheenjim 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because I haven't found the time to respond doesn't mean a consensus was reached. According to WP:OR, original research is defined as 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.". Finding connections between the Bible and Lost and saying that its a literary reference are theories.--CyberGhostface 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's a connection. I'm just listing facts, with the sources cited, and the readers can decide for themselves whether or not they think there's a connection. Again, look at the OR policy's description of synthesis where it says, "That much is fine." It's only the sentence after those two points where it becomes synthesis. But here there is no additional sentence. - Shaheenjim 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have readded the information, including a source for the research necessary to determine that it is a parallel to the situation in Lost. As I said before, including a source for such an obvious statement looks stupid, but since you insisted, I did it in a way that looked stupid. - Shaheenjim 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So in other words you're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? Also, since you're so keen on using lost-theories.com, can I use this link? After all, if lost-theories is a valid site for encyclopedic use surely another theory would be appropiate?--CyberGhostface 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I found another literary parallel. In Wayside School is Falling Down by Louis Sachar, a student called Benjamin Nushmutt is introduced as Mark Miller erroneously by the teacher, and for the rest of the book is referred to by the wrong name. A character named Benjamin going under a fake name? Surely this is no coincidence, and the notion of Ben going under the name Henry Gale is a definite reference to Wayside School.--CyberGhostface 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you that citing a source would make it look stupid, but you insisted I do it anyway, and now you're mad that it looks stupid? What the heck? You can't have it both ways. If you can think of a better way to cite the source, then change it to that way. If you now think that the source doesn't need to be cited, then feel free to delete the citation of the source, but leave the facts. But that's no reason to delete it altogether.

Also, I'm not suggesting we start adding theories to wikipedia. What I added isn't a theory. It's a fact.

And again, for like the 30th time, I'm not suggesting that we add every tiny, far-reaching parallel to Lost. Just the enormously huge obvious parallels. - Shaheenjim 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked with the other administrators at WP:ANI and they agree that your edits are in violation of WP:NOR. As you have been repeatedly warned about this, you have now been blocked for your violations. Furthermore, your continued editing against consensus is also in violation, though this is not particularly relevent here because you are already blocked. --Yamla 00:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like only one guy at ANI commented, and it looks like he didn't even read the discussion. So I wouldn't put too much faith in that. And there is no consensus here, so I can hardly be in violation for going against it. Furthermore, what Wikipedia policy says is that when there's a dispute, people are supposed to solve it through talking about it on the discussion page. - Shaheenjim 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't act all innocent with "What the heck? You told me to do it!". You know what I mean by adding proper sources, and its not "These editors are skeptics". You write it like In an interview with scifi magazine, Damon Lindelof stated that Ben and Jacob and are based on their biblical counterparts. [urlsourcehere] or something to that extent. And it DOES need a source...a legit one, not a site thats an equivalent to a forum where anyone can post theories.--CyberGhostface 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the way in which the source was cited, then you can change it so that it's cited in a different way. But that's no reason to delete the whole paragraph. And Lost is just a TV show. If you wait to post something until it's confirmed in a scientific medical journal, or something like that, then you'll never be able to post anything about it. The source I cited should be sufficient for these purposes. Again, I'm not saying that we should be posting theories, but this isn't a theory. I'm not saying Ben Linus is based on the biblical Benjamin. That would be a theory. I'm just saying there are parallels between them, which is a fact, and worth noting in and of itself. - Shaheenjim 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your source was a fan site where fans post their own personal theories. Thats not a reliable source. If you can find an interview with the writers or something official that'd be one thing.--CyberGhostface 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider looking at WP:TEND. --EEMeltonIV 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EEMeltonIV - It says Tenacious editing is editing that is biased. It is not biased to claim that Lost has some parallels to the Bible. It's clearly true. That policy also says that it's tenacious editing to repeatedly insert or delete things. And I suppose I am repeatedly inserting things. But you guys are repeatedly deleted things just as much. So that policy doesn't help resolve the dispute. I think we stick with the dispute resolution process, including discussion. If necessary, at some point we can move to the step where we solicit opinions of outsiders. But hopefully it won't be necessary now that I've found a source and complaints about the edit being original research are now even more without merit than they used to be.

CyberGhostface - If we waited until we found an interview with the writers before we added anything, then nothing would ever get added. It's an unreasonable restriction. The reliable source and original research rules were created to prohibit physics cranks from publishing wacko theories, since most editors didn't possess enough knowledge to confirm or disprove physics theories on their own. (See the Notes section of the NOR rule.) It doesn't make sense to apply it in the same way to cases of undisputed, true facts about TV shows, for which less official sources should be sufficient. (And again, I'm not saying it's undisputed that Lost is based on the Bible. I'm not even saying that Lost is based on the Bible. I'm just saying there are parallels, and that's undisputable.) - Shaheenjim 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "source" is from LOST-Theories, a place where anyone can add their own personal theories. Anyone. I could go over there right now, register, and say that Ana Lucia is really a giant space squid from Uranus. And if you looked far enough, you could find parallels with almost anything. As I said before, I found a similarity between Lost's Benjamin and the one from Sideway Stories from Wayside School.--CyberGhostface 20:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if he had an adequate source, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to mention any editors by name in the actual article. It's like you went out of your way to make it look bad. --Semidelicious 05:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Semidelicious - I stated their position accurately. If it looked bad, it's because they took a bad looking position. I actually previously told them that, and gave them an opportunity to suggest a way of stating it that would look better. But they didn't. Also, I don't see why we shouldn't mention an editor in an article. It seems like that would contradict the general principle of citing your sources.

CyberGhostface - If you said that Ana Lucia is really a giant space squid from Uranus, that'd be a theory. I'm not suggesting we add theories. I'm just suggesting we should be able to use less reliable sources for undisputed, true facts about TV shows. And again, for like the 31st time, I'm not suggesting that we add every tiny, far-reaching parallel to Lost. Just the enormously huge obvious parallels. - Shaheenjim 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious to whom? Again, simply cite a reliable source that acknowledges or even speculates about the theory and it'd be fine to include. --EEMeltonIV 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious to everyone. Are you serious saying that you don't think that these things are parallels? Or are you saying there are, but you just think they need a source.

There might not always be official sources for obvious, undisputed, true facts about TV shows. They aren't important enough to be written up in scientific journals, and the show's creators might prefer to leave things implied, rather than explicitly stated. If we waited until we found an interview with the writers before we added anything, then nothing would ever get added. It's an unreasonable restriction. The reliable source and original research rules were created to prohibit physics cranks from publishing wacko theories, since most editors didn't possess enough knowledge to confirm or disprove physics theories on their own. (See the Notes section of the NOR rule.) It doesn't make sense to apply it in the same way to cases of undisputed, true facts about TV shows, for which less official sources should be sufficient. - Shaheenjim 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious saying that you don't think that these things are parallels?

It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think -- what we think is original research. Cite a reliable source -- producer, writer, some other authority on the show or its development -- who makes this assertion about there being deliberate parallels (a coincidental parallel is just trivia, and not unencyclopedic). --EEMeltonIV 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If its 'obvious, undisputed and true' shouldn't there be some concrete source to back it up? When I say 'concrete source', mind you, I'm not referring to a fan site like lost-theories where anyone can add their theories. WP:OR isn't just restricted to scientific series. Its for ANYTHING thats unsourced and can't be proven, including undisputed theories that happen to be, erm, disputed.--CyberGhostface 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

EEMeltonIV - Clearly it's not original research if I cited a source for it. There might not always be official sources for obvious, undisputed, true facts about TV shows. They aren't important enough to be written up in scientific journals, and the show's creators might prefer to leave things implied, rather than explicitly stated. If we waited until we found an interview with the writers before we added anything, then nothing would ever get added. It's an unreasonable restriction. I agree that this is trivia, but I don't agree that trivia is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia's policy allows for trivia.

CyberGhostface - The show's creators might prefer to leave things implied, rather than explicitly stated. Also, are you saying that you're seiously disputing that there are parellels here? - Shaheenjim 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The information we have here is information from the show itself. That is where we should get our information. I mean, what if I thought that Ben Linus is based off Iago from Othello? If I believe that its undisputed, should I post it?--CyberGhostface 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to post whatever you want. But if you posted that, I'd delete it, because I dispute it. Then you'd know that it isn't actually undisputed. That isn't the case here. - Shaheenjim 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that people are disputing your theories make them disputed?--CyberGhostface 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in arguing with him. consensus and original research has been explained several times and this argument is over a month long. He obviously doesn't understand these concepts so there's no point in debating. --68.78.135.127 02:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys seem to be disputing that an undisputed and obvious fact should be allowed to be added without a reliable source. But you aren't disputing the obvious fact that there are parallels, are you? - Shaheenjim 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Bible to gauge whether it's a parallel, a coincidence, a whatever -- which is why I'd like to see a reputable source assert whether there's some significance to the names. --EEMeltonIV 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the show's creators explicitly say it too. That way I wouldn't have to go through this debate with you guys. But we don't always get what we want. Apparently the show's creators have chosen to leave some things implied, rather than explicitly stated. So given that, we have to decide whether we should exclude things that are clearly implied, even though they're obvious and undisputed. If you don't know much about the Bible, you can check the reliable source that I gave for the information that comes from the Bible. I referenced Wikipedia's own page on The Bible's [Benjamin]. Or you can check an actual Bible if you want. - Shaheenjim 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So many of these so-called 'allusions' could easily be interpreted in different ways. You have your own interpretation, but if it was undisputed, you wouldn't have us disputing you now would you? Earlier you wrote "If you posted that, I'd delete it, because I dispute it. Then you'd know that it isn't actually undisputed." What about us? Doesn't the fact that we dispute your theories make them no longer undisputed? You can't just go "So what if I can't find any concrete source, to me its obvious, and therefore it should stay". Wikipedia doesn't work like that.--CyberGhostface 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you guys seem to be disputing that an undisputed and obvious fact should be allowed to be added without a reliable source. But you aren't disputing the obvious fact that there are parallels, are you?

Also note that I'm not saying they're allusions. They are, of course, but I recognize that is disputable. So for the sake of resolving the dispute, I'm just saying they're parallels. Since that's undisputable. Then the readers can decide for themselves whether or not they think they are allusions, in addition to parallels. - Shaheenjim 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The amount of possible literary parallels with Ben and Lost could be limitless. If we are to add your personal theory, whats to stop others from finding other farfetched connections and adding it? Why can't I say that Ben is based off Harry Osborn from Spider-Man, in that his mother died giving birth to him, his father blamed him for the mother's death and he later became a villain himself? Since Damon Lindelof is a self-professed comicbook fan, this shouldn't be too hard to assume a connection, right?--CyberGhostface 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, for like the 32nd time, I'm not suggesting that we add every tiny, far-reaching parallel to Lost. Just the enormously huge obvious parallels. And the fact that Lost has some parallels to The Bible is not a theory. If I said Lost was based on The Bible, that would be a theory. But I'm not saying that. I'm just saying there are parallels, and that's a fact. - Shaheenjim 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what parallels are enormously huge and what are not?--CyberGhostface 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can use consensus on that. - Shaheenjim 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Consensus. So far, you're the only one who believes that the connections are big enough to warrant their own section in an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, EEMeltonIV, MisterHand, Yamla, numerous other users on the noticeboard and I all state that its not. Wouldn't you agree that the consensus is to not use it?--CyberGhostface 03:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To date the discussion has only been whether or not Wikipedia policy allows the parallels to be added. No one has stated that they aren't enormously huge. Probably because they obviously are. - Shaheenjim 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it helps add another nail to the coffin, I disagree; they strike me as coincidental or, at most, the result of producers saying, "Hey, let's drop in some Biblical names." But, once again, it doesn't matter what you or I think.... Everyone all at once, now; you know the chorus line.... --EEMeltonIV 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone stated that they are obvious parallels besides you?--CyberGhostface 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

EEMeltonIV - I'm not arguing that the parallels are a reference. They are, of course. But since I don't have proof, I'm not saying it, for the sake of argument. I'm just saying they're parallels, which is true and noteworthy regardless of whether or not they're a coincidence.

CyberGhostface - No one else here has been intellectually honest enough to recognize something that is obvious. But that doesn't mean it isn't obvious. If I were the only one who said that 2+2=4, it would be just as true. - Shaheenjim 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But 2+2=4 can be easily proved by taking out a calculator. You can't say the same here. You've stated that you can't prove that the parallels are a reference, but that since they are parallels in and out of themselves they deserve mention. If you do that, whats to stop people from finding other connections? Take a look at Lostpedia's article on Stephen King...its a complete mess. Everyone is finding unfounded 'parallels' and adding them to the article and it looks really unprofessional. And if you can add what you see as obvious literary parallels, I don't see why anyone else can't.--CyberGhostface 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep asking the same questions, over and over again, even after I've answered them, I'm not going to keep repeating the same response. Instead, from now on, I'm just going to refer you to my previous answer, by date and time. It is my hope that looking up my past answers will help you understand that your repeated questions have already been answered, and that you don't need to keep asking them over and over again. So this time, instead of answering your question again, I just refer you to my previous answer at 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC). And in anticipation of your next question, I also refer you to my previous answer at 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC). - Shaheenjim 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't given any other answer to begin with! The policy is the policy, and if you want to add your personal theories go to Lostpedia.--CyberGhostface 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaheenjim, a while ago I referred you to WP:TEND. You misread it as an essay on "tenacious" editing -- please look, and read it, this piece on "tendentious" editing and ask whether any of it rings familiar. I really do appreciate that you haven't recently tried to re-add your original research to the article, and I think CyberGhostface and I, plus a handful of other editors, have in common with you a frustration and fatigue with playing the same broken records. At a minimum, I hope you recognize that there is strong resistance to adding to the article mention of biblical parallels in the absence of a compelling reliable source. Until such a reliable source is offered up by you or some other editor, the divisive material shouldn't be in the article, and won't survive long if added. I'm someone who enjoys allusions and clever intertextual tapestry-weaving -- if you can provide a reference to a producer or writer asserting that such naming similarities are more than a coincidence, I welcome their addition to the article. Until then, however, it is a non-starter. --EEMeltonIV 04:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CyberGhostface - Of course I haven't given any other answer. The answer I gave is right. If you ask me what 3+3 is, I'm going to say 6 every time. Also, the fact that I have a source clearly establishes that this isn't a personal theory. In fact, it isn't a theory at all. If I said it was an allusion, then it would be a theory. But since I'm only saying it's a parallel, it's an obvious and undisputable fact.

EEMeltonIV - Tenacious, tendentious, whatever. It says tendentious editing is editing that is biased. It is not biased to claim that Lost has some parallels to the Bible. It's clearly true. That policy also says that it's tendentious editing to repeatedly insert or delete things. And I suppose I am repeatedly inserting things. But you guys are repeatedly deleted things just as much. So that policy doesn't help resolve the dispute. I think we stick with the dispute resolution process, including discussion. If necessary, at some point we can move to the step where we solicit opinions of outsiders. But hopefully it won't be necessary now that I've found a source and complaints about the edit being original research are now even more without merit than they used to be.

I'd like to see the show's creators explicitly say that there are Biblical parallels in Lost too. That way I wouldn't have to go through this debate with you guys. But we don't always get what we want. Apparently the show's creators have chosen to leave some things implied, rather than explicitly stated. So given that, we have to decide whether we should exclude things that are clearly implied, even though they're obvious and undisputed. If you don't know much about the Bible, you can check the reliable source that I gave for the information that comes from the Bible. I referenced Wikipedia's own page on The Bible's Benjamin. Or you can check an actual Bible if you want. - Shaheenjim 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ben Linus2.jpg

Image:Ben Linus2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 12:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JackBenAlex.jpg

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

BetacommandBot 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben watches flight 815 crash?

What's with the image captioned "Ben watches Oceanic Flight 815 crash"? That's not Ben? Isn't that the kid from the OC? Why is it there, and why does it seem it's been there forever? -R. fiend (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Some schmoe replaced the picture of Ben watching Flight 815 crash with the OC guy. Its back to normal. Once again, thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ben.jpg

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "After the island"

Does it say anywhere that the flashforwards are "after the events on the island"? It may be during the events on the island; between seasons, or during a season. Maybe the header should be changed to reflect the possible context: "Future", "Flashforward(s)", or something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.67 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I checked Hurley's and Jack's article and both of them say "After the island". Maybe you could bring this up in the wikiproject if you want--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben and Juliet

Should we add about Ben's infatuation with Juliet in the "before/after the crash" sections?--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)