Talk:Robin Hood (Once Upon a Time)

Deceased vs. Ceased to Exist
"Deceased" means "no longer living," i.e., "dead." The character is not "dead." He is also not "no longer living." He is just gone. That was the whole point of the device that destroyed him: it was capable of destroying an entity that could not be "killed" (i.e., a god, Hades). It was made very clear in the episode that being hit with the device would not "kill" the person. It would "end" the person and cause the person to cease to exist. The character is not "dead" or "deceased." He is just gone. Q.E.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmjr05 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because a device could destroy objects that are not able to be killed does not mean that he was not killed by it. If it has that much power, he likely died before it reached the power level of killing a being that cannot be killed. Also, if it brings him to his end, that means it brought him to the end of his life, which is death. The closest real life comparison I can make is a nuclear bomb explosion. If a nuclear bomb goes off, the people directly under it are vaporized. They, by your definition, cease to exist, as there is not a body left, or any other evidence. Yet, the person is also deceased because they dead. According to Wiktionary, deceased means that the object being described is "No longer alive" with the root of the word meaning "departure". Since Robin Hood has departed from the living, deceased is the right word. --Elisfkc (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're speculating and theorizing about the object without regard for what happened on screen. This falls under "original research," which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles.  We have to rely solely on what we see and hear on screen.  Your nuclear bomb analogy is false because these vaporized persons are, in fact, killed.  In the world of OUAT, they would go to the afterlife, underworld, "someplace better," or "someplace worse."  That's what happens when people die in the OUAT multiverse.  Robin Hood, however, did not die.  He is not in the afterlife, the underworld, "someplace better," or "someplace worse."  He is just gone.  He no longer exists.  The same holds true for Hades.  If Robin Hood were in one of the afterlives, I might agree with you.  But he's not.


 * "Deceased" also means "belonging to the dead" (he's not in any of the afterlives) and "one who has died" (he didn't die; he ceased to exist). "Deceased" connotes that he has died.  He did not die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmjr05 (talk • contribs) 16:55, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am theorizing, but so are you. Unless they literally said "he is not deceased, he has ceased to exist" you are also theorizing that he is not deceased. Elisfkc (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In the episode "Last Rites," Hades states, "...this isn't going to kill you, it's going to END you. No Underworld, no moving on. One minute, you exist, and the next... you don't." The word "kill" or "die" is also deliberately not used when describing what the device does in the episode.  When Hades beckons Zelena to use the device on Regina, he specifically uses the words "END HER" rather than "kill her." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmjr05 (talk • contribs) 17:10, June 7, 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Yet, there is nothing on deceased. So, he is deceased. Elisfkc (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you come to that conclusion? You're missing a step and evidence.  I've given you plenty of evidence on why it's not "deceased."  You're pointing only to a lack of evidence on why it SHOULD be "deceased."  I win the war of logic, buddy, unless you can come up with something that specifically and technically says "dead," "killed," or "deceased" rather than "ended" or "gone."
 * I've also given you exactly the evidence you asked for. You said, "Unless they literally said "he is not deceased, he has ceased to exist" you are also theorizing that he is not deceased."  And in the episode, a character literally said he'd not dead, but he's gone from existing to not existing.  I win.  I'm reverting your change.  kthxbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmjr05 (talk • contribs) 17:31, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * first off, please sign your comments with ~ . Second, you have proved that he is not "dead" but you have not proved that he is not deceased. As I said before, deceased can mean (and should mean in this case) "No Longer Living"/"No longer alive". You have made the assumption, which is correct in the universe we live in, that no longer alive must mean dead, because there is no other option. However, as you pointed out, this is the OUAT universe we are talking about, where no longer alive may not (and seems to not) mean dead, because there is supposedly another option. Ergo, deceased is the correct term. Elisfkc (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am requesting that we have a third opinion, since we seem to not be able to come to an agreement. Please do not change it back to "ceased to exist" unless the third opinion agrees with you. Elisfkc (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You haven't proved that he's not non-existent. I've given you plenty of evidence to support the fact that he's ceased to exist.  I've given you WAY more evidence to support his non-existence than you've given me to support his deceasedness.  Unless you can prove to me that I'm wrong, you aren't going to win this one.

I disagree, but that's why I am asking for a third opinion. Elisfkc (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Time away from this discussion has let me think more about it, and lead to what I hope will make it easier for others to understand my thinking/rationale. In my opinion, ceased to exist should only be used for characters that, after an event, do not exist on the timeline of the universe (show/movie/book) anymore. Not only do they not exist in the timeline after the event, but they do not exist in the history of the universe before that event, or even in the minds of anyone. The best two examples I can give are Marty McFly's siblings temporarily ceasing to exist in Back to the Future and somewhat the opposite of Dawn Summers addition to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In BTTF, the McFlys not only do not exist in the present and future, but do not exist in the past (as in they were not born). In that universe, there is no way to pin down the date that they left the living, because in the new history, they were never in it. In BtVS, Dawn did not have a birth date, she just came into being (all of this was figured out later, and they assign her a birthday, as well as realizing that there is a history that they have where she did not exist, but that's besides the point). This did not happen to Robin in the OUAT universe. There is a date of when he left the living, he is still in the timeline, as well as the other characters' memories, which means that he is deceased and the term "ceased to exist" does not apply. I hope this helps clarify everything. Elisfkc (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Again you're speculating and you're ignoring the on-screen dialogue. Hades said, "...this isn't going to kill you, it's going to END you. No Underworld, no moving on. One minute, you exist, and the next... you don't." He hasn't died; he has ceased to exist, as proven by the on-screen dialogue.  Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. This exchange has been lengthy and tedious, and I don't have a short answer for it. I would like a quick summary to provide a quick answer. I will say that "deceased', in common use, means "dead". It doesn't mean anything fancy.  If the real issue is that a fictional timeline has been altered, then ordinary language will not necessarily suffice.  What is the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The (human) character was destroyed with a device capable of destroying a god. The aforementioned god specifically stated, "...this [the device] isn't going to kill you [the human character], it's going to END you. No Underworld, no moving on. One minute, you exist, and the next... you don't."  The character specifically stated that the target of the device would NOT die, but would cease to exist.  Since "deceased" implies death (as you mentioned), "deceased" is not the right word for what happened to the character.  The character is simply gone or has "ceased to exist." Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then I misunderstood the question, because we do agree that "deceased" means "dead".  I think that "destroyed" would be more appropriate, with an explanation of a finality that exceeds that of death.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's better. While I don't fully agree with the decision, I will respect it. --Elisfkc (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)