Talk:Others (Lost)

Question for clarification
This paragraph 'While the Dharma Initiative referred to a group of island natives as "hostiles" or "natives", this term (as well as Rousseau's use of "the others") actually refers to a group of people different from 'the Others' as known in the present day, having lived on the island far into the past.' Where does it say that the group from the 50s, the 70s and present day are different groups? While it is plausible that the group would not consist of the same people (since they are mortal and therefore some would have died, new ones would have been recruited) the presence of Richard Alpert throughout the times does indicate that it is indeed the same group. Whether they are called the natives, the hostiles or the others by the Dharma initiative and the Ocenaic survivors is irrelevant - they are just different names for the same thing. -78.54.166.6 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the above comments. Not only are there no references to support that the 'hostiles' and the Others are seperate groups, but the episode Dead is Dead I think has clearly established that the 'hostiles' is the same group as the Others. Unless there are any objections, I plan to remove that sentence from the article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

None from me. Now it is clear that there are different agenda's within the Other's, and that deserves to be explored. Specifically, Richard Alpert told Locke that they should have a "higher agenda" or words to that effect in season 3; whereas Ben had an agenda that certainly included protecting the Island as well as other features. In the 1970's era, it seemed Richard was no longer actually working for Widmore and Ellie- that much was confirmed but under what conditions we may never know. Whippletheduck (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary Strength, Speed, and Stealth
First off, it seems we are trying to condense things and thus anything shown on the show does not have to go into detail in the main article, that seems to be the new mantra we are trying. I could go into the many, many times that the Other's have displayed "extraordinary strength" (Ethan with one hand lifts Charlie over a foot into the air, which woudl require A LOT of strenth), Stealth (like I need to go into this one ,but taking Cindy the stewardess in less then 8 seconds without a sound with a half dozen survivors within 10 feet of her), being able to sneak up and surround Locke/Sawyer/Jack with almost 2 dozen people with torches even with thier gaurd up), getting past an intense security put up by Sawyer to kill an unnamed Survivor when Ethan demands they give Claire back). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While that's all very well and good, it is not that extraordinary. People can hide quietly in bushes and such. Lifting a man with one arm, while impressive, is not impossible nor all that unreasonable with Charlie's size. Etc, etc. Extraordinary is a subjective term, and it reads like an opinion. They're stealthy, that's all that needs to be said. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, because when you look at some of the actions that the OTHERS did thru seasons 1 and 2, they were extraordinary that was well outside the bounds of what was normal. Lifting a guy up with one arm even if you are VERY strong and victim VERY small, is NOT easy, and thus extraordinary. It did seem to me after the Hatch was imploded that these "extraordinary" feats stopped on the Other's part and they became a lot more "mortal" (with the exception of Alpert) and I don't know if that was intentional or not, but at the same time it is notable that they did these feats. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be notable if you actually described the feats, otherwise it's only a personal observation with a vague description. What you define as extraordinary is not what others will define as the same, thus it is simply your opinion which you are adding to the article. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An addendum: if Ethan's inhuman strength is really that notable to you, add it to his page, rather than fighting over a vague line here. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression, based on the last clean up, that they don't want a COMPLETE breakdown of EVERYTHING, and want it summarized. For example, I can specifically cite the "Extraordinary Strength, Speed, and Stealth" incidents there, but aren't they trying to condense things and that seems like something that can be condensed down to just what I was saying.Whippletheduck (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what you're doing isn't summarizing, it's leaving out any context whatsoever. You can also try to cite instances, but that doesn't make them extraordinary. Again, extraordinary is a matter of opinion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why were individual entries for minor characters removed?
Colleen Pickett, for example, is linked from a few other articles, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Living_(Lost)#On_Hydra_Island

I've looked through the history as far back as 5 years back, and the article seemed much more comprehensive then. Yet there's no "Colleen" heading. -- Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)