Lostpedia has arranged an interview with TLE blogger Speaker for this Friday. Submit your questions here!
Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here

From Lostpedia

More than one group of Others

In the article it states: "It has been confirmed by Damon Lindelof that there is more than one faction within the Others." Where has this been comfirmed?

He might have said something like this in one of the podcasts, but there's a big difference between "faction" and "group". By faction he just meant, for example, the power struggle between Juliet and Ben. He didn't mean that there were more than one large group of people on the island kidnapping people. --Jackdavinci 10:14, 10 April 2007 (PDT)

• He said in this podcast that there is more than one faction. --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  10:31, 10 April 2007 (PDT)

Add in section?

• Anyone think we should add in a section about the Others' contact with the outside world? --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  09:39, 10 April 2007 (PDT)

NPOV (Neutral Point of View) Dispute

I think I now know how Jack felt when Tom drew the line in the sand: "This isn't your island. This is our island and the only reason you're living on it is because we let you."

Only in my case, replace "island" with "article" and "living on it" to "contributing to it." :)

A couple of days ago I tried to add two new sections to the article: "Murders" and "Torture/Brainwashing"

Here is what each section contained:

"MURDERS The Others appear to be responsible for the murder/attempted murder of a number of Flight 815 survivors.

Charlie was hanged and left for dead when Ethan kidnapped Claire. Charlie was- for all intents and purposes- dead but for Jack's persistent resuscitation efforts.

Scott was found murdered on the beach the day after Ethan threatened to kill a castaway if Claire was not returned to him. The attacker(s) apparently came from the sea. Scott's neck was broken.

Goodwin killed Nathan in cold blood by snapping his neck.

Ben tried to strangle Ana Lucia when he was being held prisoner in the Swan.

TORTURE/BRAINWASHING It was implied that the Others tortured the real Henry Gale before he died.*

Karl was seen undergoing an Others' brainwashing session in Room 23.

Sawyer was subjected to psychological torture when Ben led him to believe he had a bomb implanted in his chest."

(*In retrospect, "interrogated" would be better than "tortured" since this is the word Sayid used in the scene.)

The next time I logged on, I found that the two articles had been removed by Dharmatel4. Some of the information I added was moved to different sections. Some information was removed altogether. One of the reasons Dharmatel4 cited was that my articles were poorly written.

I then initiated a "talk" session with Dharmatel4:

ME: When you removed my "Murders" subsection from "The Others" article, you commented that it was poorly written. I realize the history pages don't allow much room for specifics but I like to learn from my mistakes so that I can better contribute in the future. In your opinion, why was it poorly written (I tried to keep it short and sweet)? Thanks, in advance, for the feedback.--Puddin Tame 08:13, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

DHARMATEL4: The problem I had with your edits is that they too short and too disconnected. Your "murders" section was a bunch of disconnected sentances. You also duplicated information already in the article in a couple different places through your edits. I tried to put all he information you had in your edits back into the article. There were some exceptions. The sawyer thing about the pacemaker doesn't fit well into the current article. Karl fits into sections dealing with how he Others community works, but I can only put Sawyer in by expanding a section I don't really want to expand. The broken neck thing you inserted into three places seemed like a theory to me. Scott didn't just have a broken neck. He had bones broken all over his body. Unless there is factual information, articles should not be used to advance theories.

In certain places, I tried to keep the explainations simple. The problem with adding certain details is that invite other details to be added and sections start getting bigger. Dharmatel4 09:38, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

ME:My "Murders" section may have appeared disconnected because I gave each sentence a line of its own in order to let other users expand upon each as they saw fit. The first line of the section, however, provided what I thought was a connection to the examples that followed, "A number of murders/attempted murders have been attributed to the Others." I suppose I could have placed all the sentences together but I thought that would make for a rather dense paragraph dealing with too many topics. As for duplicating information already in the article, this may be true but might not a section dealing with the specific crime of murder (in the same spirit as the section on "Kidnappings") be the more appropriate place for such information? Regarding the use of psychological torture on Sawyer: I believe this speaks to the Others' modus operandi. If "The Others" is not an appropriate article to discuss this in, what is? As for Scott's broken neck being a theory as to how he died, I disagree. Look at the dialogue from the episode: Episode 15 , season 1 -- Homecoming

HURLEY: I thought those guys had a full on perimeter set up.

KATE: Locke said it didn't matter -- he came in from the water.

HURLEY: You sure it wasn't an accident? I mean, maybe the guy just drowned or something.

KATE: His neck was broken, his arms, all the bones in his fingers.

HURLEY: Yeah, okay. Got it.

SAWYER [entering]: Guess old Steve drew the short straw.

HURLEY: Dude, that was Scott. [Shot of a burial mound.]

It is heavily implied here that Scott died of a broken neck. It is clearly the most serious injury. Broken arms and broken fingers usually don't result in death. Aside from a death certificate signed by Jack listing the cause of death, I really don't think they could make it clearer. Calling this a theory would establish a very high standard for establishing cause of death on the show. You also seem to have removed the sentence regarding Ben's attempt to strangle Ana Lucia. Why? You're not the Others' press agent are you? j/k--Puddin Tame 15:22, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

I haven't gotten a reply from Dharmatel yet but in the emantime I went back to the page and, without recreating these two new articles, added some information regarding Henry Gale's death in the "Unverified Accusations" section:

"Under interrogation in the Swan, Ben was caught in many deceptions regarding the circumstances surrounding Gale's death. Ben claimed Gale was found with a broken neck. Ben neither confirmed nor denied that the information he used to impersonate Gale was gained through interrogation and denied killing him."

The next time I logged on I found that this had been removed by Dharmatel4, citing it all as "theory."

It is difficult for me not to conclude, at this point, that Dharmatel4 is policing this page and is methodically eliminating any facts which he/she feels presents the Others in a negative light.

I respectfully request that the article and its recent changes be reviewed to determine whether Dharmatel4's alterations appear to be legitimate or stem from some type of bias.

Thanks--Puddin Tame 08:48, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

I'm really at a loss here. If anyone wants to examine my edits of the past few days, I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to incorporate almost all of the changes that "Puddin Tame"'s original edits included.

• You're really at a loss? Even after all that explanation? Okay, here's the story: I tried to contribute to "The Others" article by adding two sections I felt are as legitimate as the "Kidnappings" section. The next time I log on, I find one section gone, the other butchered beyond recognition, and the majority of my contributions buried in other sections of the article. And all of this done with very little explantion on the history page. I have tried to make subsequent sontributions to this page and they have ALL been altered by you. I have never had this experience in any other article I've contributed to. --Puddin Tame 14:33, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

For example, there is now a "murders" section in the article. There is also a section on imprisonments that was written to create a proper place in the article for mentioning Sawyer's psychological torture as well as other mistreatments in captivity.

• Yes, there is now a murders section. But it's been reduced to a reference to the only "verified" murder! LOL You argue against "theories" but you don't practice what you preach. By mentioning only Goodwin's murder of Nathan you could be implying that this is an isolated incident and is not indicative of the Others' methods. However, this taken together with: Charlie's hanging, Scott's murder, the attempted murder on the raft, and Ana Lucia's near strangulation paints a more complete picture!--Puddin Tame 08:21, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

There are a few items that are not so easy to deal with. I don't think is appropriate to put "Ben tried to strangle Ana Lucia when he was being held prisoner in the Swan." in a section called "murders". I struggled with it because putting it in would require a description of a very long list of other incidents including all the beatings Sawyer took at the Hydra.

• My opening sentence read: "The Others appear to be responsible for the murder/attempted murder of a number of Flight 815 survivors." so I don't see why it would be inappropriate to mention Ben's strangling Ana Lucia. --Puddin Tame 08:26, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

• One of the big questions on the island is what motivates the Others actions and their classification of people into a "good" or "bad" category. Examples of their methods are therefore instructive. I dispute the claim that adding a line about Sawyer's beating would result in a list of unwieldy proportions. The attempt by the Others to kill Jin, Michael, and Sawyer on the raft should also be added. I don't see what your qualm with a long list would be since your initial complaint was that my contribution was too short. --Puddin Tame 08:11, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

With regard to Scott, "Puddin TIme" seems to insist that his death be described as only "broken neck" as he wishes the deaths of Nathan and Henry Gale to be described. In Scott's case, his arms and finger bones were broken. Leaving out that detail and the tone of the original wording in all three deaths leaves the false impression that there is some sort of pattern involving "broken necks". This makes for a nice theory, but main articles should not be written to advance theories by selectively keeping information out or (in the case of Henry Gale) adding information.

• I never insited that Scott's death be described as only a broken neck. If you want to add the details about his broken fingers feel free. No need to remove what I wrote. I also don't feel it's reasonable to label a sentence "Scott's neck as broken" as a theory just because it leads you to contemplate a pattern of broken necks. "Scott's neck was broken: is an objective fact. I think you should alow other people who read this cite to come away with their own conclusions as opposed to withholding information from them.--Puddin Tame 08:11, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

I dont really understand any of this. I went out of my way to add his content back into the article. In discussion with him, when he pointed out Sawyer's psychological abuse, I figured out a way to include that in the article.

The only information from his original edits not in the article now is Ben choking Ana-Lucia. That doesn't seem like it rises to the level of a big dispute or backs up the accusations he is making. Dharmatel4 10:15, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

• You also removed information regarding the death of Henry Gale, i.e. "Ben denied killing him." This is another fact. This is not theory.--Puddin Tame 08:11, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

What I did was to cut down the amount of information on Henry Gale. I cut it down to three sentences which seemed more than enough. Why should an article on the Others have more detailed information about Henry Gale than the Henry Gale article has? Dharmatel4 08:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

• You also removed the reference to the psychological torture/brainwashing tactics of the Others. I think these methods could prove instructive for those trying to sort out the nature of the Others and their methods.--Puddin Tame 08:16, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

This is not true. From the current article:

"The Others appear to use psychological methods of punishment similar to brainwashing. Karl was seen undergoing this process in Room 23 at the Hydra."

"After attempts at escape, Sawyer was psychologically tortured by being told he had been implanted with a device that would lead to heart failure if his pulse was above a certain rate. The story was false and there was no implant. Jack was subjected to various forms of psychological manipulation during his captivity." Dharmatel4 08:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

• Couldn't we just make a note of that the main article is Crimes of the Islanders?--Jackdavinci 14:36, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

It was already noted there. One of the reasons I changed the original edits is that I don't think its a good idea to start lists of crimes in different places. Dharmatel4 14:47, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

• As for there being another "Crimes" article, I think it's important to remember that casual fans (not just fanatics like us) may consult this site to get up to speed on the show. I don't think it's reasonable to expect these people to hunt down another article when all they want is know about is "The Others."--Puddin Tame 08:11, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

The only problem I have with the article is that the "Scorecard and Analysis" section includes crimes prior to the crash of Flight 815 with those after. We know a great deal more about the history of the Lostaways (Juliet is the only Other for whom we've seen a back story) than of the Others for story telling purposes. If we're going to judge the relative "morality" of the Others and the Lostaways it would seem best to do it within the context of what has transpired since they came into contact with each other. The benevolent way in which the Others reached out to help the traumatized crash victims, for instance, tells us alot about them.:-)--Eyeful Tower 09:31, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

It would be better to make that comment in the discussion for the "crimes" article. I dont know that articles should try to judge relative morality of groups. The criteria is always going to be subjective and we are always operating on incomplete information. Dharmatel4 17:22, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

I'll go ahead and post it over there. One clarification: I agree that judging the relative morality of the groups will always be a tricky thing while maintaining a NPOV. It seems to me that the "Scorecard and Analysis" section is making those kinds of judgements. My suggestion was aimed at making that analysis less biased, and hence more neutral.

• I made no statements regarding the morality of the Others. I stated only neutral facts. If you come away with it with an opinion of the Others, that is your right. You should also alow other fans who reference this site to come away with their own conclusions and not assume they will draw the same ones you did.--Puddin Tame 08:29, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

That comment was on a different subject dealing with a different aticle. It has nothing to do with anything you said. Dharmatel4 08:41, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

problems with introduction

"They have been antagonistic to the survivors, employing methods such as kidnapping, murder and torture."

This change was a problem and its been removed. Its been reduced to "They have been antagonistic to the survivors". Introductions should not be used to make loaded statements. For example, character page intros should not consist of a list of crimes each character is guilty of. For example, Kate does not list in the intro that she murdered her father as part of an insurance scheme. It says that she is a fugitive and then presents the detail later. The other problem with these edits is that in fairness to NPOV, it would require that a similar statement be made with regard to the losties in their intros. Dharmatel4 10:54, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

• A problem? For whom? It seems every contribution I try to make to this article is picked apart by Dharmatel4. Before my change, the into talked about Jack, Sawyer, and Kate's kidnapping. Why was specific detail fine for the intro buyt a general statement on the Others' methods isn't? I dispute the notion thag a similar statement would be necessary in the into page of other characters in that the Others have distinguished themselves as being the antagonists of the piece.--Puddin Tame 14:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

• My addition regarding Sawyer, Michael and Jin beign left to the mercy of the sea and the Dharma shark was also removed without any explanation. At least when I make a change, I try to explain as much as space allows on the history page why, out of respect to other contributors.--Puddin Tame 14:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

You have hightlighted the problem with these edits. This is an article about the others. It should describe the others in a neutral manner. No article in Lostpedia should be written from a specific point of view because characters are considered the "antagonists of the piece." There are not "good guy" articles with one set of rules and "bad guy" articles with another set of rules. I could live with what was there before your change and I could live with the original text again. But I decided to settle the issue by removing all the specific detail.

• That murder, kidnapping, and torture are methods employd by the Others is a fact and is therefore, by definition, "neutral." I never called them "bad guys." This is an article on the Others and should discuss their methods.

As far as your other addition, the mention of the shark is unnecessary and pointless. The text says that the raft was destroyed and they were stranded out at sea. Going beyond that to describe the shark adds nothing to what has already been said.

• It emphasized the fact that the Others intended to kill Sawyer, Jin, and Michael. Your version seems sanitized.

As far as "respect", I will point out to you that I added this very section describing the changes I was making to the discussion page. I will also point out again that I have gone out of my way to meet you halfway on any number of occasions. I didn't mention the shark thing because I didn't think it was meaningful enough for a discussion. The text still says the same thing minus mentions of sharks and melodramic language. Dharmatel4 14:59, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Cindy, Zack and Emma

Should these three be added to the members tables? They were seen in "The Brig", and were seen as friendly with the group, and they had a tent. --Phil (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2007 (PDT)

Rename

User:Simon tagged this article for renaming to Hostiles.

• Keep. I dont think this should even be considered until after the merge discussion in Hostiles is finished. Beyond that, now that we have a person who can clearly be identified as a hostile (Richard Alpert), I think its worth tracking that group seperately. The dividing line would be at the Purge. Everything later than that gets covered in Others. Dharmatel4 08:20, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename. It's more specific than "Others" -- as Locke pointed out in "One of Them", "To Rousseau, we're all Others. I guess it's all relative, huh?" --Amberjet11 08:23, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename, but NOT to Hostiles. "Hostiles" is really no more specific than "Others". Something like "Original Inhabitants" would be more appropriate. "The Others" should then have a disamb page with links to both this page and to the "Dharma Initiative Personnel" (or whatever). --Doc 10:18, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Keep. I say we keep The Others untill they give us a definate name that they call thier "group" or untill we find out more about the 2nd faction of others. --Magnet 11:06, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Keep. It's what everyone calls them. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 12:17, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Keep. Since "The Man Behind the Curtain" it's fair to say we know that "The Others" as a group are neither DHARMA nor "Hostiles", but rather a mix of the two. Noseman 2006 22:25 10 May 2007 (CET)

• Keep The Others don't refer to themselves as Others or Hostiles, so why should we change it? Let hostiles redirect to the Others, and the first sentence should be like "The Others, also known as the Hostiles to the DHARMA Initiative, are...."

• Keep To the castaways and no doubt most of the viewers the word "others" will always be referring to The Others. I think both The Others article and the Hostiles article should both remain because technically they are two different groups. "The Others" are afterall a hybrid group which not only contains surviving "Hostiles" but also Ben and those people recruited after The Purge. Can those people really be considered part of the hostile group? I don't consider Ben to have become one of the Hostiles. Age 14:34, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Keep. Like said above, the survivors and Rousseau refer to the Others as such, so the name of the group after the Purge should be "the Others." This allows for three separate articles over the Others' history: one for Dharma, one for the Hostiles, and one for the combination group after the Purge.--Randnotell 16:49, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• Keep because hostiles are the "pure" natives. Others are the "next" generation of off island people.

• Keep because the phrase "The Others" alone means to LOST what the phrase "The Klingons" means to Star Trek, "The Visitors" means to V, and "The Daleks" means to Dr. Who. Popular culture has embraced this single term for the primary antagonists of LOST.

• SPEEDY KEEP - Suffice to say, we aren't going to remove the Others. The Hostiles and the DHARMA Initiative were seperate entities. Once Ben switched sides (and whose to say he was the only one), joined with the Hostiles, and brought people like Mikhail and Juliet to work with them, they are the Others!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:49, 11 May 2007 (PDT)

RELEVANCY: Who are these people? TPTB said they, including immigrants but not including DHARMA or the Losties, are the "People of the Island." To call them "Hostiles" or "Others" is approximately the same to referring to Native Americans as "Renegades" or "Redskins." (I'm not a Native American, BTW<smile>.) Lost has matured and our knowledge of the Inhabitants has matured. Which one of us, when asked about his or her ethnicity, nationality, culture, or tribal affilation, would puff out his or her chest and announce, "I'm an Other!"?--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 08:53, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

Official definition

Let's get a community definition going here.

There's been a lot of talk in the past about the similarities/differences between the Others and the Hostiles. The information revealed in "The Man Behind the Curtain" changes all of those discussions. So, in order to finalize those discussions, it's my opinion that we need a group consensus on the definitions of the two groups. This will bring to a conclusion the discussions and, when listed in the main articles, provide a precedent for future talk on the topic.

In my opinion, as per the events in "The Man Behind the Curtain:" The Hostiles is the name used by the DHARMA Initiative to refer to the natives of this island. This name was still used by the members of the Initiative that survived the Purge, as evidenced by Desmond's use of the term, which he likely learned from Inman.

The Others is the term that refers to the merger of the Hostiles with surviving members of the Dharma Initiative after the purge. This is the group active on the Island after the crash.

Thanks guys.--Randnotell 17:09, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

• I agree. It should also be pointed out that by this definition, there are at least three different categories of Others: 1) the original Hostiles (e.g. Richard Alpert), 2) defectors from the Dharma Initiative who joined them after the purge (Ben and possibly more) and 3) people recruited, post-purge, from the outside world (Juliet and possibly more). Clearing this up will make the article much better. Get rid of that ridiculous first subsection on "names." --Ghtx 13:26, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

• While that is true, they are the same group and consider themeselves the same group, regardless of where they come from. Ben has been the only one to show any sort of discrimination based on origins, the others (no pun) don't happen to care. So while some they have different origins, it's the same group, we don't want to make it seem like they divide themeselves into "Hostiles", "Dharma", and "Outsiders", since those are not classifications of their own. --Sauron18 13:29, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

New Image

I think we need a new image for The Others. The one heading this article is a bit out-dated, considering two of the people on there are now dead, and everyone's dressed in their "undercover" clothing. If anyone spots any good ones in promotional media, show them here. -Chris^[dt7] 04:02, 13 May 2007 (PDT)

Well, while that is the best image that illustrates "the Others", I do agree that we might consider searching for alternatives, seeing how 3 of those are dead, 1 has defected, and the other one is captured. Still, if no good alternatives are found, I'd suggest we leave that one. --Sauron18 17:02, 28 May 2007 (PDT)

Death Count

So we know 10 Others died in the assault (plus the 3 in the Looking Glass). Some of them we knew, some of them we'd only heard of, so I propose we look at caps to see who was in the group, and therefore died. From what I can see, and what we know, these people were in the group and are, therefore, dead:

• Tom
• Pryce
• Jason
• Ivan
• Diane
• Matthew
• Luke

Matthew and Luke were the only unnamed I could identify, some of the others were previousley unnamed ones, but I'm pretty sure Luke and Matthew were there also. --Sauron18 23:43, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Hm, i don't know if we have 10 or more Others there... At the first explosion, at least 3 people are blown up and the second one seems to kill at least 3 more... Then, 5 Others are left, 2 of them are shot and Tom, Pryce and Jason survive until Hurley, Sawyer and Juliet kill them. Seems like we hav 11 or 12 Others there, which makes sense when we think of how Pryce that that he will need "10 of the best men" or something. --Soul Provider 05:00, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

Well, they said 7 had died in the explosions, and after that only Tom, Jason and Pryce were left, so overall that's 10, which also fits with what Pryce had said before (he included himself). I think we have it as accurate as we can, certainly a lot of Others died on the episode, of the ones that had been on the background for most of the season. How many Others have died since 815 crashed? About 22? 22 of around 40 people....--Sauron18 16:58, 28 May 2007 (PDT)

• • No, look. First, Sayid blew up three people. Bernard blew up two guys. Ivan and Diane died in the explosions. Jin shot Matthew and Luke. That's seven. I'm going to go ahead and assume that Aldo died in the explosions as well. It can't be proven, but Damon Lindelof did say that if the actor of Aldo had been available, they would've brought him in to blow up. I seriously doubt we're ever going to see him again, so in MY book, the man is dead. Anyhoo, 10 Others died at the beach. That is KNOWN.

• • • You can't chuck Aldo in the death count just because he was Damon wanted him to be in the explosion. I'm doubting we'll ever see him again either, but he's not dead. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 06:54, 17 June 2007 (PDT)

This guy died in the explosions. He sure looks like Aldo. I think this is meant to be him, just an actor who isn't the original.--Phil (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2007 (PDT)

Naw, dude. That's Thomas Hannsz. -- Sam  T  C  13:46, 20 July 2008 (PDT)

Hey maybe we shouldn't be so quick to pronounce Mikhail deceased. He seems to be a pretty persistent guy when it comes to surviving apparent death. What do you guys think? Archaeoptryx 23:30, 20 September 2007 (PDT)

Never mind, I read about the announcement at Comic-con that he was dead. Sorry. Archaeoptryx 23:39, 20 September 2007 (PDT)

Isabel's Status

Ok she's been in one episode so far. I think that's pretty "minor" to me. Heck, Zack, Emma, and Cindy have shown up more than her. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 07:54, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

However, her status in the Other's hierarchy is pretty high. She's up there with Richard. --Sauron18 16:59, 28 May 2007 (PDT)

Population Size of the Others

I believe that in "Lost: The Answers" Damon Lindelof said that the Others were a group of about 30 to 40 people. So, although not a definitive number, I think it's definietly worth mentioning that there are approximately about 40 Others...---Sauron18

Usage of Surnames vs. First names

I have made a sometimes true observation that when referring to the Losties among themselves, the Others almost exclusively refer to them by their last names only. What, I wonder could the significance of this usage represent? Like, even when Juliet checks in with Ben on the tapes, she refers to Kate and Sun as Austen and Kwon, and there are MANY other instances of this too. --Frenkmelk 22:25, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

Obviously, the Others don't realize they are in a television show, where no two people have the same first name and surname disambiguation is unnecessary. :-) I think it's just to emphasize the "other"-ness, the unfamiliarity. Calling the survivors by their first names would be a friendly gesture, and that's only necessary when the Others want something out of them. Robert K S 00:16, 3 June 2007 (PDT)

I assumed it was just a reflection of how their list of survivors and information was probably alphatebically organized, and as such they memorized last names before first names. --Sauron18 09:58, 11 June 2007 (PDT)

--Good call, I just wonder if something else is going on in the grander scheme of things, I suppose whichever way, we will hafta WAIT!!! --Frenkmelk 13:21, 11 June 2007 (PDT)

Henrietta

• Should Henrietta go in the list on this page, or is she too minor? Robert K S (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (PST)
  • Since she was only briefly mentioned by Juliet, I think that she shouldn't be listed on the Others page. Maybe there can be a brief annotation mentioning her. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 17:54, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

UA

"Why exactly did they leave this place?" [the barracks]—This seems to me to have an obvious answer. Their security was compromised when Kate, Sayid, and Locke rescued Jack (blew up the sub, held Alex at gunpoint, etc.). Does there have to be a better answer than that? Or can we remove that question? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:16, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

Yeah. I would say that question has been answered. --CTS 11:32, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't agree. Ben's reasoning for abandoning the barracks and leading them toward the temple have not yet been explained. Camping in tents in the jungle would not seem to increase security. Kate, Sayid, and Locke did NOT rescue Jack. They all got caught and if security were the issue, the Others could have executed or imprisoned every one of them. Dharmatel4 14:57, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

However, they came to the barracks, indicating other survivors might know about the location. Executing that group would lead to other rescue parties, and probably other attacks now centred on revenge. Up to and just after this point, Ben has seen some need to keep members of Team Rescue alive. It's only when Locke proves himself to be "more special" by hearing Jacob on top of being out of the wheelchair when Ben's tumour wouldn't heal by itself, and when Juliet, the woman he is obsessed with, betrays him, he goes off the rails with the "kill anyone who gets in your way" mentality. Remember the Others always had the upper hand by staging surprise attacks outside their comfort zone of the barracks. They were safe there (Danielle said she avoided them). Now the safety net has been removed. They know the survivors can circumvent the security system by climbing over it. Locke held a gun to Alex's head. NB Ben states they do not have a code for someone's in the closet holding a gun to his daughter's head, but they should have had one. They didn't think they needed one, because they've obviously not been challenged in their safe zone before this occurrence. Furthermore, they took Locke, the tracker, with them with a large headstart, and Juliet had been coached to persuade the party back to the beach and start the process there with the white rock markings. There'd be no reason to fear camping out for a night on the way to the Temple. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:25, 10 April 2008 (PDT) Add: I think this safety net mentatlity is also enforced by the fact that they used the other island to hold Jack, Kate, and Sawyer, rather than the barracks, protecting "home" from the chance they might escape and know the location of the barracks.

The way Ben made it seem at the time, he agreed to leave the Barracks for his personal health (he wasn't healing as fast as he should). But now we know that he was on alert for the possible invasion of the Island from the freighter. I'm leaning towards this being a valid UQ. We still don't know clearly all the details about what was going on for the Others in this time period. Why they left the Barracks seems deeply tied to the mysteries of what the Temple is and how Anthony Cooper got to the Island. Robert K S (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

Okay, then. I'll go along since it's not just a simple case of "oh, I missed that". :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:56, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

I sort of thought it was because he knew of the Freighter's impending arrival, after all in Season 4 we did see him talking with Michael via his hidden room in his home. When they left they were always on course for an "old place", even before Mikhail showed up reporting Naomi's arrival, and in the Season 3 finale, Ben told Richard to "continue" to the Temple, meaning it had always been the intention to go there. That's what I think anyway.--[User:Benjamin Linus is Not a Horse]]

There's an episode (I forget which one) where Locke tells Ben that "[Ben] is cheating" by having refridgerators and electricity and chicken. IE: He's no longer respecting the Island and is treating it like his own little suburbia. It's right after John says this that Ben decides to leave. There's even a podcast where Darlton says that John's words will have an impact on Ben: pretty clearly this is what they mean. John then seals the point by telling Ben that he (John) knows better than Ben because "Ben's in a wheelchair and John's not".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  11:44, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

You're talking about "The Man from Tallahassee". But everything we've learned since then in Season 3 and Season 4 indicates that Ben had other things on his mind besides getting out of a wheelchair. He was anticipating an invasion of the Island and preparing for it. He recruited Michael to become spy/saboteur Kevin Johnson. He ordered Bonnie and Greta to ensure that all communications off the Island were jammed. He was going to get his people to a more secure refuge whether Locke came along or not. Getting out of the Barracks may indeed have brought Ben into "closer communion" with the Island and helped him to heal. But there's plenty of reason to believe that Ben wasn't simply taking Locke's advice to go camping. We don't know yet all the reasons why they left the Barracks. Robert K S (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

Sure they're might be other reasons, but the way the Unanswered Questions seem to work on other pages is that once we have an answer for the question it gets taken down. Otherwise no questions would ever get removed because we could just keep asking "What else?" That's my thought anyways. I don't really feel that strongly about this particular question, so if people really want it up, I won't fight it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:20, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

Clothes (TNPLH Part I)

Does anyone know why in "There's No Place Like Home, Part 1" the Others were wearing the clothes they wore for the facade in "Live Together, Die Alone"? --CTS 14:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

No, and I wondered that myself. Seeing Richard in those clothes (after getting used to his suit and tie) sure raises questions. There's definitely something to it, but I guess in the end it'll be something that was implemented just because the writers wanted to bring more explanation for the costumes, suggesting that they disguise like that in certain occasions or something. I still believe that they were intially intended to be like that but the idea was dropped later, so they wrote that whole facade stuff.--     c      blacxthornE      t     15:25, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Members

From the members list; "Harper Stanhope ...Ben used her to trick Juliet into killing Daniel and Charlotte." That seems incorrect? --Veryslickpaul 19:22, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Good catch, fixed. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 19:46, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Renaming to Jacob's People

The group commonly referred to as "The Others" received that designation from outside the group. I can't think of anyone else calling them that except the survivors. It's an shortening of "The Other Inhabitants." The core of same group was known as "The Hostiles" by DHARMAites. That sounds like the US Cavalry on the western plains. Ben Linus said that his group is "the good guys," but that's descriptive. The group almost certainly has some name it calls itself. We do not know that name, but Ben seeks, or at least goes through the pretense of seeking, guidance from Jacob.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 17:08, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

So you want to rename from an arbitrary name supported by the show to an arbitrary name unsupported by the show? Robert K S (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Seriously? I can assure you that this article is not going to be renamed to Jacob's People. They've been called Others since Season One. --CTS 17:45, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Disagree. First of all, we don't know what Jacob really is to those people yet. Second of all, since "we do not know that name" that they call themselves, why should we assign one? We also do not know that the group certainly has some name it calls itself. Do the survivors have a name for themselves? Why should they? It's always "us" and "the others". Our naming convention is to use the real name, then the official nickname if the real name is not available to us, then the unofficial nickname. In this case, "Jacob's People" would be an unofficial nickname, while "The Others" is official, since not only it's what they're called in the show, but it's also what Damon & Carlton call them.--     c      blacxthornE      t     17:51, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't think they are "Jacob's people" anymore. It looks like Jacob has given up on Ben. Anyway, STRONG DISAGREE. I have NEVER heard them called that anywhere until just then. Never seen it on a fansite, official site, Lost episode, or expanded media. The Others is the best name for it. Even people who don't watch Lost will probably know what you're talking about when you say "the Others". --Blueeagleislander 18:05, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Okay, I yield! (Of course, I hope to eventually be proven right.) Somebody, anybody, blow away the rename flag<grin>.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 18:26, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Deals.

I am starting to think this whole thing about making and keeping "Deals" is an important trait of the 'Others'.

At the ferry we learn that Ben seemed to place a great importance on the deal that was made with Michael... or at least when told what Deal was made with with others (Ben possibly not being an other as such.. more an elected leader from off island) he complied without question and suppiled additional course information to allow Michael to be sucessful in his leaving.

And now we have Ben again asking what deal Kate made with the others and going along with it.

Are these deals a trait of the others that cannot be broken (without loss of face as the leader) what if Ben was seen to backtrack on such a deal.

Now we have Locke as an off-island leader.. does he know about this Deal system or will he learn it.. Ben gave him very little lead-in to the position.--Nasher 14:13, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

Ben told Locke the Others would tell him what he needed to know. Locke isn't necessarily an off-Island leader; he may have had to travel on some mission and was trapped and executed.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 14:25, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered questions

• How many total Others are there on the Island? This is redundant with the question "How many of them were on the Island when the Purge occurred, and how many have since been brought to the Island?"
• Why exactly did they leave [the Barracks]? Because John told Ben that they "were cheating" and violating what the Island was meant to be." ("The Man from Tallahassee")
• Why are the Others so unwilling to explain themselves openly to the Losties? Because not all the Losties are on Jacob's list as being desirable in the community.
• Why do they almost universally refer to the Losties by their surnames rather than their first names? They don't. Ben calls Locke "John", Sawyer "James", and a number of other characters by their first names as well.
• Why do they disguise themselves as DHARMA personnel? Only Mikhail did this. Changed to a question about the "hillbilly" outfits.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:12, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

There's an extensive discussion above about the second question on your list. We don't know exactly why they left the Barracks. Robert K S (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

Bea Klugh

The below caption under the first photo is incorrect:

"Others prominent during Season 2 and Season 3. From Left: Benjamin Linus, Bea Klugh, Tom, Alex and Danny Pickett. Ben is the only one still alive."

Bea Klugh is visible in a pan shot of the Others in the Season 4 finale when Locke goes to meet them to take up his leadership role.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FeverDog (talk • contribs) .

• Do you have a screencap to show this?--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  02:04, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

• Ah, never mind. I just read on Bea Klugh's page about her being shot by Mikhail. I had forgotten about that. I changed the caption back. Still, I could swear I saw her in that pan shot.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FeverDog (talk • contribs) .
  • I'm pretty sure that was Nancy in the pan shot --CurlyHairedGuy 04:54, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

Hmmm... Maybe someone should check it out. I just read this in the Damon and Carlton answer fan questions section of the Official Lost Podcast/March 26, 2007 page:

"Why do they kill off interesting characters such as Ms. Klugh and Mikhail so quickly after their introduction? (Also mentioned Jacob for some reason)" "In a upcoming episode, one of those characters might actually show up again."FeverDog 10:07, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

• They were reffering to Mikhail, that podcast happend after Par Avion (Mikhail's "first death") and before D.O.C (Mikhail's reapperance) aired. They never meant Beatrice.--O r h a n 9 4 10:11, 24 June 2008 (PDT)
• I would like to see this screen cap, I doubt it's Bea Klugh, it could be Nancy or "Ms. Dreadlocks" but if anyone has a screencap, please link it.--Mistertrouble189 11:41, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

Cleanup?

• This article has been nominated for a cleanup since May, but what exactly about it needs to be changed/corrected/cleaned?--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  02:05, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

Goals and purpose

I've added a section on the goals and purposes of the Others, since I think that's probably the most important thing about them; it's arguably the most vital mystery of the show. I know there are several details I've forgotten... I'm pretty sure that at some point, Ben says to a character (or vice versa) that solving the pregnancy issue isn't their major purpose and they're getting too sidetracked with it.Scarecrow 09:04, 2 July 2008 (PDT)

Neat idea. Following a short discussion with Hmundahl, I started a page called The Island's motives. I think the two are related and that considering one in the absence of the other is an error.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 12:12, 2 July 2008 (PDT)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the whole page in light of the need for a cleanup. Check it out at User:Nickb123/sandbox3, and tell me what you think. I mostly rewrote the history to be much clearer, and also simplified the crimes sections as they were way too unncecessarily long and are covered elsewhere. I've had good IRC feedback, and if there are no major objections I will put revise the article soon in line with the new layout. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (PDT)

• Wow it's like night and day. I'm for this huge change. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 12:15, 20 July 2008 (PDT)
• Nicely done. At the risk of being nit-picky:
  • I would replace "originally led by Ben" with "most recently led by Ben" because the Others had some leadership structure before Ben arrived.
  • I would qualify the concept that the submarine is used in transport to the outside world because we have never seen it anywhere but at or near the Island.

--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 12:19, 20 July 2008 (PDT)

Well the article can be edited when its in lol. I'm more interested in layout and the removal and condensing I've done. --Nickb123 (Talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (PDT)

I like the new format, although it needs a list of Dharma stations and how they're related to the Others. Other than that it looks great. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 12:46, 20 July 2008 (PDT)

I dunno, isn't that just redundant? --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (PDT)