Talk:DHARMA Initiative stations/Archive 1

Station 4?
I'm pretty sure on the Blast Door Map it clearly indicates that the Flame is Station 4. I think I remember editing that on there, and for continuity's sake I placed Station 4 on the Flame title, however someone removed this. As the Blast Door Map got Station 3 right, I see no evidence to state that the Flame is anything otherwise, and I'll add that on again. If I'm missing something, please tell me, but for now I'll say it is Station 4 for completeness' sake. Again, if you see something else, please do whatever you want, but I'd also like to know why I can't put that on there.

>>Does anyone else find it funny that the high resolution map that Entertainment Weekly got has been taken down?

Number 7
I think I remember reading on the blast door map that there was an abandoned #7. Near it it mentioned heavy water tables, but I decided not to add that to the comment since I wasn't sure if the two writings were related. Any idea on if they were? Oh, and I just read that it was alleged, according to Razzinski/Kelvin. Maybe I shouldn't have written that... 70.242.131.95

Adjusting the Purpose of the station part
I believe it should be organized as this, considering it is much more encyclopedic to categorize and rationalize the different perspectives on the matter:

Purpose of the station Station 3 is still very enigmatic, and it is not clear whether there will be a negative consequence of not resetting the timer Jack's perspective In "Orientation", Marvin Candle describes the DHARMA Initiative's founders as "following in the footsteps of visionaries such as B.F. Skinner" (in a Skinner box, a test subject is enclosed and subjected to a psychological experiment). In the same episode, Jack questions Desmond about the purpose of the station: "Do you ever think that maybe they put you down here to push a button every 100 minutes just to see if you would?" Jack suggests that the code procedure is a "mind game" and also questions the quarantine message. This is again supported by the orientation video describing the purpose of the station as a "social science experiment". Desmond's perspective Desmond recalls Kelvin equating the procedure with "saving the world" and takes the strong electromagnetic field as proof that the station has a non-experimental purpose: "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." Henry Gale's comment on the station In Dave, "Henry Gale" (who has previously displayed very manipulative behavior) disdainfully addresses Locke about the Swan station, and states that "this place is a joke." After Henry accurately describes the post-countdown occurances to Locke, 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."

If no good reasons are given for changing the current version to this one, then I will change it to this one. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The preceding section was shortened, and speculative theories removed (such as the supposed connection with a Skinner box, which has no basis for inclusion.) There is no encyclopedic purpose in extending the section or breaking out the supposed "views". — LeflymanTalk 06:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of an encyclopedia and wikipedia in general is to provide and organize all points of view, since there is no sure answer to the purpose of the station and what will happen with the timer, we must present all views and all facts associated. They are not "supposed views" or whatever you want to call them, it is simply describing the different ways that the characters view the purpose of the station. Please provide a better argument as to what is unencyclopedic about it. (for the Skinner box comment, there is a STRONG basis for inclusion, the skinner box is exactly what Jack believes the station is, I dont understand your reason for removing it) ArgentiumOutlaw 11:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand why you have such difficulty seeing the difference between speculation and verifiable information. It is speculative when you say, "there is a STRONG basis..." because that is purely opinion, and not actually anything drawn from a verifiable source. Likewise, your claim that there are "different ways that the characters view the purpose" is an interpretation of the story. Again, I must request that you please stop trying to insert your own theories of what Lost is about; find a published source, outside of fan sites for such material. — LeflymanTalk 15:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 questions Desmond about the purpose of the station: "Do you ever think that maybe they put you down here to push a button every 100 minutes just to see if you would?" Jack suggests that the code procedure is a "mind game" and also questions the quarantine message.
 * There is no point to this section without mentioning Skinner's Box. It would be OR to include an editor's theory that actually links the stations to Skinner's Box.  I don't think it is out of line to include a parenthetical remark like the previous inclusion '(in a Skinner box, a test subject is enclosed and subjected to a psychological experiment)', or a better variation '(Skinner developed and used the Skinner box, an container where test subjects were subjected to psychological testing and analysis)'. This is allowing the reader to make their own decision, while providing them with details so their decision is informed.  agapetos_angel 15:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's misinformation to include any mention of a "Skinner box", which was never used for human psychological testing. It was always used to study animal cognition (i.e. basic intelligence), based on rewards for certain animal behavior (never punishment). A widely-discredited urban legend held that Skinner created a variant of his famed box for his infant daughter, and perhaps this is where this theory comes from. It's entirely speculative to include a mention of a Skinner box as a possible explanation for the "purpose of the station"— there's no sourceable basis for it. More likely, but just as speculative, is that the Orientation film was connecting DHARMA with Walden Two— but again, we don't know what "following in the footsteps of B. F. Skinner" actually means, nor should we theorise about it. Such things are best left to fan sites.— LeflymanTalk 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignoring for just a second the Skinner box comment (which we'll take out if it's bothering you that much), please point out what is wrong with using a 'perspective approach' in the way I want to organize it. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew it was not used for human experimentation IRL (note that I previously added information to the Skinner and Lauren Slater articles regarding that rumour). However, it is not unfeasible in the scope of the show that 'in the footsteps of ...' means that others took over for human testing.  Theories aside, though, it is not misinformation to state what Skinner was famous for, and let the reader draw their own conclusions.  As I said, it provides the information without making a theory in the article. agapetos_angel 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Not unfeasible that X means Y" is a restatement of a particular theory that you want to "let the reader draw their own conclusion" about. That's more like putting down numbered dots and asking someone to connect them. It's precisely what we're not supposed to do on Wikipedia: building a case for our idea of what something means, rather than providing verifiable sources for information from somewhere else. It's hard to separate our own opinions from Wikipedia articles, but that's the core of what policy tries to aim for. Basically it comes down to whether you are drawing a conclusion beyond what is presented explicitly by the show.  It may be entirely true that the station is a psychological test, derived from Skinner's work; but that doesn't mean it's verifiable content or that such Original Research has a place here. — LeflymanTalk  07:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restate my question/statement from above in hopes that you address it, without referring to the Skinner box again. "Ignoring for just a second the Skinner box comment (which we'll take out if it's bothering you that much), please point out what is wrong with using a 'perspective approach' in the way I want to organize it." ArgentiumOutlaw 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to restate what I wrote at the very top: "There is no encyclopedic purpose in extending the section or breaking out the supposed "views"." Please don't take this the wrong way, but just because you want to do something in some way doesn't mean that it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks — LeflymanTalk 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For some reason or another, you're not fully reading my posts. I read what you wrote at the top, and I'm asking you to explain yourself. I gave my counter argument in that my method provides the different ways the characters see the Swan, in an organized fashion, which is what I believe an encyclopedia and wikipedia are supposed to do. I've already explained this part above as well, had you read: "They are not "supposed views" or whatever you want to call them, it is simply describing the different ways that the characters view the purpose of the station." I'm not 'assuming' the characters are viewing it in a certain way, they are viewing it in that way. Look at the direct and unaltered quotes from Jack and Desmond in which they describe their feelings on the matter. Finally, I'm going to reply to your last comment, using your own comment: "Please don't take this the wrong way, but just because you want to do something in some way doesn't mean that it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks". ArgentiumOutlaw 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. It seems as if it's quoting, not summarizing, which is what is usually done in an encyclopedia. -Whomp 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense, the quoting is to summarize the viewpoints, which is what is actually done in an encyclopedia. What is this anyway? lefly come out here and discuss this, without backing away every time you have no answer to my legitimate questions, or else you have no right to keep fighting with me like this. Stop abusing your position as an editor, and play by the rules of decency. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense, the quoting is to summarize the viewpoints, which is what is actually done in an encyclopedia. What is this anyway? lefly come out here and discuss this, without backing away every time you have no answer to my legitimate questions, or else you have no right to keep fighting with me like this. Stop abusing your position as an editor, and play by the rules of decency. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please review the Civility policy of Wikipedia. Such statements as above can be viewed as particularly uncivil. — LeflymanTalk 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer my question. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but no answer I give you is going to satisfy you. At this point, I would suggest you try to promote the RfC you started, seek a Third Opinion, or just drop it. In my view, you are arguing purely to be argumentative, as it appears you have some sort of personal beef with me (and others). Comments such as those you left on Stifle's talk page, in which you refer to my edits as "dictatorship", and your response to my polite request further reinforces why discussions with you are unproductive. (As does your |past behavior towards other editors).— LeflymanTalk 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You never stated why my organization of that section was unencyclopedic, and I felt that it was rude of you to attack me and my edits without providing that reason. As for any comments I have made toward you, I stand by them as my point of view, just as your point of view is that I am "arguing purely to be argumentative" and that I "have some sort of personal beef with" you. Also, you stopped your "discussions" with me, long before I requested help from other sources or your comments on my page, so I believe that your "beef" with me was what actually caused you to think that "discussions with [me] are unproductive". In my opinion, you should learn how to speak to people in a more appropriate manner than by simply putting a warning on their talk pages. It's not always just what you say, it's how you say it, and that constitutes civility as well. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the RfC: First of all, we're getting side tracked here discussing civility in an increasingly uncivil manner. If we could all just remain civil, there'd be no need to discuss it. Now, It seems to me that both of the main editors involved in this conflict are not assuming good faith, each appearing to believe that the other is out to get them or squash their views. To me, this doesn't seem to be the case; I think as usual on wikipedia, people are very heart felt about certain articles and have strong opinions of what's best for it, and it just so happens that the two of you have differing opinions of what that is, but please assume for the time being that these edits have nothing to do with malice or poor intentions.

As for the issue at hand, this is my take on it. Breaking the section into subsections seems reasonable provided there's substantial information, which from what I see in the original post, there is. However, I would suggest avoiding referring to them as "views" unless someone in the show actually states something like "Well this is my take on it...", since it could be seen as speculative. I would probably leave it more in the style of the last subsection, referring to them as comments or observations made by different characters. The last two sections seem fine to me, but the first section could be seen as slightly speculative without any external references. I'd like to see it cleaned up a little. I think the opening quote, while a very plausible theory, is still just a theory. Unless the character whose name is on that subsection actually voices the connection, I think it's too speculative. On the other hand, if you can find the same theory as an external reference, it might be appropriate to have an "Other theories" section.  B. Mearns * , KSC 12:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to put up your opinion on the matter. You explained clearly the flaws in my method of organization, and I'm glad you were specific about it, based on that, I'll begin editing the page again with your comments in mind. I'll reword the subtitles and possibly a few sentences to make it sound less like I'm assuming the character believes something that we don't know for sure. Thank you again for making it clear and for giving me suggestions on how to improve it. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article begins with spoilers in the introduction, and has a lot of OR speculation. Cleanup is needed agapetos_angel 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And thank you for trimming out such cruft.— LeflymanTalk 06:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was intending to edit it right away, but got called away from the computer. I've cleaned it up a bit now, but there is still more work to be done.  Suggestions?  agapetos_angel 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

i thought this was supposed to be about the ultraviolet map, but it seems that's just a small subsection of this page. should this page just be deleted and any new info moved to somewhere on the rest of the Lost pages? i just don't see the point in having a new section devoted to the map if it's just going to mostly list the things we already know about completely different stuff than the map... EDIT: nevermind this, the main article title has been changed

Film footage
We have to be careful not to assume that the film that Mr Eko found was part of the Station 3 film just because Locke spliced it into that film. agapetos_angel 06:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You do have a point, but you can say that there is some connection because the first thing you see in the screens was The Swan, I think it's wierd that they only got the feed from one station (the swan), if this station (the pearl) is an observation station then it's connected to all the stations (the arrow, swan, flame ... etc) -- muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two points, both based on the Orientations:
 * It's not really an assumption that the found section is part of the original film. While in reality, the production by the Lost creators may have occured later (which might account for the slight lighting differences between the two parts)-- it's obvious they are intended to be a continuous narration. In re-viewing the original film, it clearly leads into the snipped portion. The narrator gets cut-off in mid-sentence, "And do not attempt to use the computer for anyth..." Which the snipped section continues... "...ing else, other than the entry of the code. This is it's only function..."Further, as Locke is splicing the films, he says to Eko, "Somebody made this film...and someone else cut this piece out... now here's the missing piece right back where it belongs." [emphasis mine] So to the characters in the story, the pieces are considered part of the same film-- and we as viewers must go on that, rather than theorising that they might be somehow different films.
 * The Pearl's video states that "your duty is to observe team members in another station on the Island." Thus, it was set up to observe only a single DHARMA "psychological experimenent in progress" (at the time of the orientation). Whether it can monitor other stations is unknown and would be speculative to make such a claim. We only know that it is still receiving a feed from a camera inside The Swan.— LeflymanTalk 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, did you notice that the orientation film that was found in The Pearl (the U-matic tape) could have a part cut off, I don't know if it's as easy as with a film reel like the Swan's but I guess it can be done, I mean when "Dr. Wickman" is finished the part with notebook being put in the tubes and it will go to them directly, well it seems that the part was cut off and the guy in the film says "on behalf of the DeGroots, Alvar Hanso, and all of us at the DHARMA..." too sudden as there could be a last note that was taken off.. what do you think? -- muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
Leflyman, you said in edit summary: please stop changing the formatting of the reference tag; it's there as an example. What are you on about? Why do you feel it necessary to have lengthy formatting 'as an example'? Articles disseminate information, not indicate examples of formatting. That is why there are HELP articles. agapetos_angel 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agapetos: the reference "formatting" is invisible to readers. I put the code in easy-to-read structure to demonstrate to those editing the article how to use the reference tag   along with the templates <tt>  or  </tt> . Most editors are not familiar with adding reference tags or use of templates. Note that the same format is likewise demonstrated at  Template:Cite_web. It's always good practice to make any code— be it a program, HTML or wiki— user-readable and where appropriate, commented. See, for example, Programming_style. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk  08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Flame and the Others?
When Michael returned from the Other's Camp, he said they had a hatch that was guarded 24/7. Since on the list of stations, The flame is the only station not looked at yet, could the Flame be the station the Others are in control of? Should we put this under The Flame,or would this be speculation? {{unsigned|Foxo103|18:04, 14 May 2006}


 * Speculation. Making such an inference, which hasn't been explicitly stated either on the series or in a verifiable source would be Original Research. We don't know, for instance, that Michael's claims are true— a reasonable supposition, based on his behavior, would be that he's being deceitful, but this opinion is likewise non-encyclopaedic. Further, we don't know if there aren't actually more stations/facilities than are suggested by "the map"— which itself is a questionable "source." Thus, it would be inappropriate to suggest any connection between an unknown location and the claims of an unreliable character. Thanks for asking. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah I agree with <font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> Leflyman, I'm sure that there are stations we don't even know about, if you want to read more stuff about this go to this site, its called The TV IV, I get lots of stuff from there, but be careful because there are lots of speculation and theories in that site, so just read it and don't copy stuff from there to here unless it's not confirmed or it's known (such as info from a previous episode) -- muhaidib--  (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

One, two, three...
There should be a paragraph saying how many stations there are. However, I'm not sure if it's possible to add it based on what we know already. The orientation films for Swan and Pearl Stations claim they are, respectively, "3" and "5 of 6." On the other hand, Pearl Station has enough TVs to study eight stations (including, oddly, itself), and the ultraviolet map shows eight shapes (though one has been sketched out). If there's a coherent paragraph to be wrung from that information, I confess I couldn't do it without forecasting... we'll probably have to wait for more input. -Litefantastic 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Props and Perservation
Just a shout out to the person/persons resbonsible for adding all the information on this article. I had tried to before but it was just deleted by who knows who. So it should also be mentioned that no one should just deleted all this well done work and it should be perserved. So please, if you disagree then discuss it before just throwing away and deleting it as occur with me in a previous moment.

Thanks


 * don't worry, if someone deletes some stuff for no good reason we will revert it -- muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Door
I don't know if any one else saw this, but at the Lostpedia and various other lost related site, ther has been several confirmed pictures of a station's doors in the side of a small rock formation, this is a prop for lost, and it was photographed by hawaii locals, there are also several tents near it. I don't know if this should be considered something to be put up if it counts a speculation.


 * I don't know for sure, but it sounds like the Others's fake station.

--Rroepke 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's the Others' station: see here and here for the original rumours (also, the tents sound like the Others' camp). They were certainly right about the station being "the door". Sdalmonte 08:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Split
I just wanted to say again that I think the split was the wrong thing for this article at this point. A majority was not achieved - it was a minority vote (especially when you take that the HANSO Foundation was never merged). This article is great, however the other has been left very incomplete and unattended. This article is a much more complete picture of the entire DHARMA initiative. The other article is still focused on the video in station 3. There is really only about two paragraphs in the other article that fit. Why is this not just the "background" for the initiative with all the stations below it? The stations are a major part of the Initiative so it is still on topic. The split was premature. Morphh 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

anachronism
This page states that the printer in "the Pearl" was made in 1985, while the film was copyrighted in 1980. That doesn't mean the DHARMA people did not come back in 1985 and update the equipment (then eventually forgot about it).- JustPhil 13:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that the printer is visible in the video does mean that it is supposed to have been there in 1980. This is either an indication of the film being fake in the Lost universe (one of several open ends on the story of the Pearl station) or just a prop error. Either way it's an anachronism. Arru 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Leflyman deleted this under the pretext of being original research. Which it is not. Citing WP:OR:
 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
 * One source: wikipedia's article on Apple ImageWriter II and its corresponding sources, the other the Lost TV series (as is all other content in this article) Arru 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not "source-based research"; it's theory generation. I'm not sure how much clearer it can be stated: if one is making a claim that an object on a television show is a specific brand from a specific year, and basing a theory about the show and its history on such a claim, it's Original Research. Wikipedia articles themselves can not be used as "sources"; and the television episode itself should only be used in a descriptive way (i.e. describing in neutral terms the events presented on the screen, but not drawing conclusions outside the actual visual representation.) To be included, one would need to find an external reliable source that states the theory you wish to inject. Otherwise, save it for a less-rigid fansite, such as Lostpedia or the Lost Wikia --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk  03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But you are talking about the theory, right? So just noting that the printer is manufactured in 1985 (which is relevant to the article because the film is supposed to have been made in 1980) is all right? Also, I said "wikipedia's article on Apple ImageWriter II and its corresponding sources". You are using a very strict interpretation of the OR, which if accurate is applicable to the follwing points in this article where objects are identified by their apperance (not mention) onscreen as well:
 * "Acoustic Imaging 5200 Ultrasound machine"
 * "Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifles"
 * "U-matic tape"
 * "M14 rifles"
 * It needs to be said right away that the ImageWriter II has a very characteristic design, not at all like the box-shape of a "generic" dot-matrix printer of the time. If the statement you disapprove of is the anachronism part, why not delete just that? Arru 10:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your Original Research is in stating that because the printer on the show appears to be an ImageWriter-- which in the real world was produced in 1985-- that this somehow has any relation to the fictional world of Lost. It does not. You have no source to say that the printer used in the show is, in fact, intended to be an actual Apple Imagewriter II, or that there's any connection between the production of the Orientation video/films and the items in the stations. Remember, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." Further, It's mere fancruft to point out the supposed brand of a product used on a TV show. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. This is the exact same discussion that was made about that the computer in the station being an Apple II. The specific brand identification of items not explicit in the presentation of the story should be removed. In your examples above, it could be possible to include the U-matic player, which is a description for a format, not a brand. AK-47s might likewise be considered descriptive as the generic term for the style of rifle, which was duplicated all over the world, while stating they were actual Kalashnikovs would not be.--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The items above were picked by me since none of them are mentioned explicitly either. Apple II is a brand name, but also a type since it had its own format and, in fact, clones were manufactured. There is no reason to, unlike the computer equipment, assume that the guns were chosen to portray the particular type - that is the view of a Militaria fan. I support a more inclusive notion of notability, but the article has to be consistent either way. And how about someone else's opinions? Arru 18:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see that we've reached some kind of consesus on this. Arru 20:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning against absolute truth
I find it very strange to read this article and see the things that were 'revealed' in the most recent episode written up as though they were the absolute truth. If anyone has been watching this series at all they must realise that today's 'absolute truth' is generally open to question in a few episodes' time. The whole article needs to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism. Some of the things written here are going to look very stupid in a few months time. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. However, if only a few episodes were in a few weeks, not months...*sigh* Anway, I agree. The skepticism needs to be there. --Rroepke 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete the "Others' Station" section?"
It seems that the article shouldn't mention this at all, since it's not really a Dharma Initiative station (in fact, it's not a station at all), and this is an article about Dharma Initiative stations. Is there support for deleting this section entirely? --Kahlfin 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, because there will be ridiculous edit wars on what to call the section, what should be included in it, etc.; while in reality all that will be added to is is mere speculation -Whomp 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of whether or not it really is a station, it still looks like a station, and Wikipedia readers looking for information on it will come here to look for information on it.  --Elonka 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, completely. --Rroepke 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing about Wikipedia is that while we can't condone speculation, we aren't entitled to shut it out, either. For all we know, there could be a trap door in the bottom of the little room Sayid found that leads to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, or something as equally blindsiding. We aren't entitled to take it off because we don't know enough about it. -Litefantastic 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While that's technically true, I think at this point to argue that we don't know if it's a station or not is ridiculous. That's like saying "We should add The Rotunda from ALIAS to this page, because for all we know, it could be owned by the Dharma Initiative (even though it's a branch of the CIA).  I mean, after all, no one said that The Rotunda isn't a station, right?"  I think it was made pretty clear that "The Others' Station" is nothing but two doors in front of a rock. --Kahlfin 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nick 8 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it just me who thinks the clearly best solution is to keep it but make it clear that it is not a station. After all, readers looking for this "door" are most certainly the same as those reading about other, true, stations. While it is not a DHARMA station with blinkenlights and all, it could very well turn out to have been made by the DHARMA initiative anyway. Whether to add it to the station count is another question, I say nay. Arru 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we had better just keep it until we are absolutely sure that it is not a station. Perhaps we could say in the article that it is still unknown whether it is a station yet. Once we know if it's real, or based on a real one, we can add more detail or remove it.

Purpose
In the Swan, we find: "The original purpose of The Swan was to be a sort of laboratory for DHARMA's research on electromagnetism." That's a very definite statement considering that there are definitely differing views, both among the Lost characters and audience, about whether the 'original purpose' was a fake or not. We should say "according to...". However I can't remember what the in-programme source is for stating that the original purpose was electromagnetic research. Was it in the orientation film? DJ Clayworth 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the discussion of the station's purpose, since it revolves around the question of whether anything will happen if the button is not pushed (which we now know). There are still important unanswered questions about the station, just new ones. The deleted text is found below. Arru 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Product idents
The following products are specifically mentioned in this article:
 * "Acoustic Imaging 5200 Ultrasound machine"
 * "Apple II computer"
 * "M14 rifles"
 * "U-matic tape"

All these are classes of their respective kind, except the Ultrasound machine. In response to previous comments, the Apple II is a type of computer, and it isn't a "regular computer" any more than an M14 is a "regular automatic rifle". Then there is the Acoustic Imaging 5200 Ultrasound machine with no citation, no info on Wikipedia, no nothing. The person(s) involved in removing certain of these product identifications seem to have a very biased view on what is notable and which kinds of references are required. My view is that any reliable information of this kind is of interest, and these references are still much too few to be any problem in bloating the article. If citations are necessary, so be it, but the only cited of these is the Apple II, which, interestingly enough, is also the only one that has been repeatedly removed. Arru 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop trying to justify inclusion of Original research into the article. As has been pointed out consistently, making a claim that a prop displayed on a fictional television programme is a particular brand of product, not explicitely presented in the content of the show, is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Such claims are tantamount to fancruft which should be saved for fansites. The additional of a "citation" for the Apple II based on blog does not qualify as a Reliable source: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." The particular blog entry in fact makes a contrary statement to that in the article, that "the button-pressing mystery — which has shackled Locke's destiny to an Apple IIE..." The Apple IIe and the Apple II are not the same machine. But most importantly, the machine in Lost IS NOT an Apple II (or any brand of Apple) within the context of the story. It is a DHARMA microcomputer terminal, with a DHARMA logo and specific function. --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk  20:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We may just be trying too hard, with the computer as a case in point. The DHARMA Initiative appears to be producing its own weird line of merchendise en masse, and the idea that it could build and design a small fleet of computers to fit its needs isn't so hard to believe. On the other hand, the u-matic tapes and guns were probably all designed by "outside" sources, like Sony or the USSR. I suppose my only question to throw into this fray is whether a close examination of the Lost episodes for information is original research or not. -Litefantastic 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good question, the article is to 95% (appr.) composed of editor-made transcriptions of events in various episodes, interpretations that necessarily involve a varying degree of original research. This applies to most fictional universes, some (such as Star Trek) are covered in (printed) writing to the detail level that allows articles to be properly cited. Most are not. When calling original research for a claim here, the only reasonable meaning is "too much original research", which is a matter of opinion in the end. Applying wikipedia rules strictly would make this article about a paragraph long. Arru 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And, there is an answer: both WP:RS and the more specific Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone.  Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies. Therefore, when a substantial body of material is available — e.g., that shown by a google search for 'bisexual "James Dean"' — the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. Arru 08:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop labeling anything disapproved of as original research or fancruft! It's certainly true that the computer (that is Apple II family, which includes the Apple IIe) is labeled with a DHARMA sticker. Going through the tedious and unnecessary process of building a custom microcomputer in the late 1970s, why would the DHARMA initiative not make their own guns and videotapes as well? How would one ever know? While neither the alleged M14 guns or the U-matic tape are discussed in the show, the computer is, particularly in Adrift where Locke says he hasn't used "one of these" in 20 years (wikiquote), so in the context of the story the computer is what it looks like - an Apple II/e/plus. These items (with possible exception of the M14) provide a time sense of the (intended) age of the station (U-matic: 1969-mid 1980s, Apple II family with the design shown: 1977-1984), that's why they deserve mention. I do not at all understand the point of criticizing the EW blog, yes, it's a blog but while it is not on paper it's written by EW staff which as WP:RS states: Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.


 * It is not fancruft, the item is specifically mentioned onscreen.
 * it is not original research - backed up by reputable source (Entertainment Weekly) - making it rock steady compared to the vast majority of statements in this article. Arru 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please save the theorization for Lostpedia or Lost. Comparing a blog run by an entertainment website with The New York Times is well, not exactly a strong argument. Hanging a theory about the age of the station based on a casual mention in a single blog entry is likewise kinda weak. In short, this discussion is going in circles. So far the only verifiable thing that's been added is that Locke referred to the computer thus: "I haven't seen one of those in 20 years." That's the most that can be said about it. I have no more to add to this particular topic, other than to state that I will continue to remove Original Research when I see it, so that this (and other articles) follows Wikipedia policy.--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand by the points above. Entertainment Weekly is, besides a magazine, widely regarded as one of the top entertainment sites online. The author is named, it is not self-publicized but instead by a major US entertainment publication. Furthermore, in accordance with the WP source guidelines for popular culture discussed above, there is a substantial body of material. You have clearly failed to prove that the identification of the swan computer would be original research. Arru 08:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought: The best evidence we have (from the show itself) that the computer is an Apple II is Locke saying "I haven't seen one of those in twenty years." I think our initial assumptions that this is therefore a confirmation of identifiability are wrong. The world of Lost contains fictional companies, like Oceanic Airlines, and although Locke recognizes the computer we have no reason to draw from this an assumption that said computer exists on this side of the fourth wall. That's not to say it doesn't - I, personally, wouldn't know an Apple II from a RadaRange - but this particular quote can't be used as evidence. -Litefantastic 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I am still not convinced in relation to the applicable wikipedia rules (though I think the parent expresses its view well). However, too much energy has already gone into the edit war fought in parallel with this discussion. I'm stepping down on this one. Arru 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)