Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Whomp (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 10 May 2006 (→Adjusting the Purpose of the station part). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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". —Leflyman 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. —Leflyman 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.—Leflyman 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 Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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. —Leflyman 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 Misplaced Pages. Thanks —Leflyman 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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.—Leflyman 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)

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)

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 <ref> along with the templates {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. 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#Indent_style. —Leflyman 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)