Contents 1 Please Give SPECIFIC examples 2 Deleted 3 pedantry does not cost a penny 4 Woah! Let's break this down... 5 Deletion Review

Please Give SPECIFIC examples Edit

Please provide specific examples of when any character used the term "Afterlife" within the series of LOST. As an Encyclopedia of LOST, our job is to represent the series as it was presented. IMO, If you want a page of this nature, it should be represented as a term used "outside" of the series by viewers as their interpretation of the story.
--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 13:21, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that people are even arguing about this discrepancy. If you want to do the BEST possible job of representing the series as it was presented, then you will want to keep the title of this article as it is. Obviously, no one ever referred to it as "the afterlife." Similarly, none of the characters ever referred to it as "flash sideways universe" or "alternate universe" or "Jack's Near-Death Experience" or "All In Jack's Head World." The only time it was explicitly identified as something was when Christian called it "The Place They All Made Together" which could also be interpreted as the church itself and not necessarily the ENTIRE life-after-death that they were experiencing. This would also be an obnoxiously long name for an article that already has an appropriately short alternative. Read on to find out what I'm talking about...

If you want to abide by the logic of needing to give it a name which was also used in the show, then the title of the article should be "[N/A]." Seriously.

Now, if you actually want to be logical about this, you can forget about trying to find a specific term that was ever mentioned in the show...because it never happened. What you can do is derive/deduce an identifier/name for this article based on what other characters said. For example: Jack states that he's dead and Christian agrees with him. Jack asks if all of those other people are dead too; Christian responds by saying that they are all dead. What logical and reasonable conclusion can we arrive at with this information? That they are LIVING after they have DIED. What's a very convenient term that we can use to refer to this (preferably one word)? Hmm....HMMMMM...........HMMMMMMMMMMMM! This is a BRAIN TEASER, my friends. Quite confusing indeed...WAIT A SECOND! I'VE GOT IT! How about...THE AFTERLIFE! Because...because they're ALIVE...AFTER they already DIED. Which is basically what Christian told Jack...at the very end of the show!!!

Phew, that was difficult! Time to move on...

--Pags 01:04, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide specific examples of characters using the terms "economics", "apocalypse", "imprisonment", "salvation", "resurrection", "isolation", "deception" or "premonitions"? No? Yes? It doesn't matter either way. Because Lost included those themes regardless of whether the characters used the words.--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 13:41, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples to oranges. "Lost's characters and story frequently referenced the afterlife." This statement is totally inaccurate, as no character within the story of LOST used this terminology. The creators and writers of LOST never used this terminology within the story of LOST. The only place we have heard this terminology associated with LOST is "outside" of the series as a viewer interpretation. "Afterlife" is a specific religious term, the creators/writers of LOST specifically left it out of the series, so viewers could come to their own interpretations. Our job on Lostpedia is to maintain the integrity of the show and this page, contradicts the intentions of the creators, in my opinion. Therefore, I strongly feel it should not be represented within Lostpedia as a term referenced by the characters of LOST, as they did not reference this term at any point within the series.

--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 13:53, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

But Lost's characters and story DID frequently reference the afterlife. We have characters believing they're in heaven or hell. We have characters talking about having died. Then we have characters who actually DO die and who experience different sorts of afterlife. The show need no more include the exact term "afterlife" to reference the afterlife than it need include the exact term "redemption" to reference redemption.

Also, "afterlife" is not a specific religious term. Quite the opposite. It is an umbrella term that covers dozens of beliefs, many of which contradict one another. Heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, reincarnation, Plato's true world, the Greek underworld, Valhalla, the Resurrection of the Dead, becoming a portrait in Dumbledore's study - they're all examples of afterlife. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:03, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The fact, that it is a term used by "dozens of beliefs, many of which 'contradict' one another." is precisely the reason it should not be used on Lostpedia and especially as a "term" referenced by the characters. There are many different interpretations of what "afterlife" represents. The "interpretation" presented is only ONE interpretation of this term used by many differing religions. IMO, this is precisely why the creators and writers of LOST avoided using this terminology within the series. Again, this page directly contradicts their intentions and should not be represented on Lostpedia as it inaccurately represents "their" story and limits viewer individual interpretations. The creators/writers created the term "flash sideways," precisely to avoid using a specific terminology. As Lostpedians, we have an obligation to respect their intentions and follow their example. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:16, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

This article does not present just "ONE" interpretation of the afterlife. It provides at least TEN. Other interpretations exist as well, but they don't matter to us because Lost does not feature them.

Let's go back to the redemption example. Religions disagree on how you can redeem yourself. Some believe that the only way to do so is to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Others believe that you must atone for your sins. Still others believe that you must perform good works. This beliefs are of paramount importance to those who hold them. But Lostpedia doesn't care about any of them.

Lostpedia does care that "redemption" has a general dictionary definition on which we all agree. It means to restore yourself for the better, to free yourself from bad things you've done. We disagree on further specifics, but the definition covers those religious interpretations, and, more importantly, it covers various Lost interpretations, from succeeding at an endeavor to win back your honor to responding differently to an old situation to show you've evolved. Our redemption article ought cover every instance of redemption in Lost. And if someone personally feels that bathing in a bikini isn't the correct way to redeem yourself... we don't care! Within the context of the show, Sun doing so shows her shedding the yoke of her old life and discovering freedom.

Apply that to afterlife - except far less ambiguously. Because though we can argue about whether specific examples constitute redemption, the definition of "afterlife" is far more clear. Afterlife is the consciousness's existence after death. Maybe you believe that means going to heaven. Maybe I don't believe in the afterlife at all. Neither of our opinions matter. We instead record the afterlife we see in Lost. If ghosts walk around - that's the afterlife! If characters hug in the church - that's afterlife! If people merely discuss what happens after dying - that's afterlife! No one's saying this reflects life and death outside Lost. We're instead recording exactly what Lost portrays.

When we last discussed this, we talked about using the creator's terminology to describe the flash sideways. That argument had merits (and flaws that I'll now ignore) because the writers invented the flash sideways. They did not invent the concept of the afterlife, so no reason exists to eschew an accurate, external name. We can apply the unspoken word "afterlife" just as we apply any of the unspoken names for themes I mentioned above. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:45, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Then why didn't the creators and writers of LOST specifically use this terminology? They specifically avoided using any religious terminology to avoid using any specific religious term for this part of "their" story. You can give example after example of interpretations, but they remain interpretations. Interpretations are not what an encyclopedia of LOST represents. Therefore, this specific term should not be presented within Lostpedia as part of the creators and writers story of LOST. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:52, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

They didn't use the word "afterlife" for the same reason as they didn't use the word "isolation". It's an academic term that few use in everyday conversation. Characters did use the words "heaven" and "hell", which are specific religious concepts. Claire could have asked Eko, "Will Aaron and I be together in the afterlife?" It would have sounded more awkward than using the term "heaven". But it wouldn't have ventured into religiously controversial territory. Far from it - it's a less specific term than "heaven".

As for interpretations: "Ghosts exist in the real world" may be an interpretation of the general "afterlife" concept. "The concept of ghosts is an afterlife belief" is not an interpretation - it's definitionally true. "Ghosts exist on Lost" isn't an interpretation either. It's a fact. "People refer to the afterlife on Lost" is also a fact. Unless you say heaven and hell aren't examples of the afterlife? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 15:06, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. Isolation and afterlife are more than academic terms, in addition to being apples and oranges. They both represent an emotion. One term, Afterlife is a religious term, representing various religions with contradictory interpretations and beliefs. Within one's belief, (which is an individual interpretation of what is presented by religious writings), there are various points of view representation an individual belief/interpretation. This is why, it is not appropriate to use with the Encyclopedia of LOST. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 16:16, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Isolation and afterlife "both" represent an emotion. Why then can we use one word that never appeared in the series but not the other? Because religions care about the afterlife? But religions also care about redemption. As I stated above, our description of characters' redemption contradicts some moral views, but we document them because they still occur on Lost. Yes, no religion believes in flash sideways. But that doesn't change that 1) they exist on Lost, and 2) they are an example of an afterlife. Few religions believe in ghosts, but again, 1) they exist on Lost, and 2) they are an example of an afterlife. Several religions believe in heaven, and 1) People discuss it on Lost, and 2) it is an example of an afterlife. Few religions believe in agelessness, but 1) It exists on Lost, an 2) it is an example of a supernatural ability.

As you and I have already agreed, "afterlife" is a religious term with a variety of interpretations, some contradictory to other religions. What you give as examples are appropriate for the blogs as your examples of afterlife. Others may not agree with your examples of afterlife and we can discuss our thoughts on the blogs. However, creating an article with examples of what you believe to be afterlife is not appropriate and it contradicts what I believe is the intention of the creators/writers, which is to allow us the respect of our personal interpretations of what they have presented. What if I don't believe in ghosts, heaven or hell, or that the flash sideways is an example of afterlife? What if I don't believe there is an afterlife? As a LOST viewer, I find an article telling me that these are examples of afterlife to be offensive. This is a very controversial religious term that should not be an article here. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 04:53, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

We agree that afterlife is a term that religions interpret differently. But that doesn't give organized religion a monopoly over the word. Lost includes the afterlife just as it includes redemption, miracles and other religious concepts without commenting on actual religion. We then write articles on these concepts because that's what we do.

This article is not appropriate for blogs because it lacks my personal interpretations. In some places, I could have added them (e.g. "ghosts are characters after they've moved on from the flash sideways") but I did not. This article simply states facts. Ghosts exist. Some people who die stay and whisper. Some people even resurrect. I would HOPE you don't believe in these things in the real world. But they DO exist in Lost - just like Hurley, who also doesn't exist in the real world. If you believe that when Michael died, he did not stay on the island whispering, you are wrong. You have the right to believe it, just as you can believe Earth has no moon, but Lostpedia will not cater to that belief. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 05:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

People have thousands of beliefs about the world, many of them religious beliefs. Lost contradicts lots of them. The source of all life, death and rebirth is a light on an island on the physical world? That contradicts all religions! If you said that existed in the real world, I wouldn't just be offended, I'd think you were mad! But it DOES exist on Lost. So we document it. Same with whispers, ghosts and flash sideways. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 01:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Lostpedia can present the various religions and ideologies as they are specifically presented by the specific religions and ideologies. However, it is not appropriate to present one, ten or even a hundred different, points of view representing each persons interpretation/belief of those religions and ideologies. If you offer even one or ten interpretations, as you have with this page, you must open the same opportunity to the thousands of other users that may disagree with the beliefs/interpretations presented. Lostpedia is about presenting what the creators/writers presented in their story. Lostpedia is not about users providing their interpretations of what the creators and writers gave us in their story of LOST. The blogs allow us to do this, not the encyclopedia. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 16:16, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read this article? I did not list possible interpretations of the afterlife in the real world. I did not list possible afterlives that I theorize may exist on Lost. I listed examples of the afterlife that DO exist on Lost and actual references to heaven and hell from conversation. I may even have left some out. But is there a single sentence on the article that you can refute or dismiss as subjective interpretation? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 01:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the single sentence is "Lost's characters and story frequently referenced the afterlife." You have yet to give one single example of any character on LOST that references "afterlife" anywhere in the series of LOST. Afterlife is not referenced in the series at any point in time. I've already explained why.

--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 02:44, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The article lists MANY examples of characters AND the story referencing the afterlife. Examples of characters referencing the concept:

• Jack mentions having metaphorically died. ("Tabula Rasa")
• Claire wonders about her and Aaron getting into heaven. ("One of Them")
• Cooper thinks he's in hell. ("The Brig")
• Hurley thinks they're in heaven. ("Something Nice Back Home")
• Richard says they're all dead and in hell. We later see the Man in Black tell him this. ("Ab Aeterno")

Examples of the afterlife actually appearing:

• We hear whispers. We will later learn they are people who have died. ("Solitary")
• Charlotte Malkin comes back to life. ("?")
• Charlie's ghost visits Hurley - the first of several ghosts to visit him. ("The Beginning of the End")
• Sayid comes back to life. ("LA X, Part 2")
• Jacob after death returns as a boy. ("The Substitute")
• Jacob rises from his ashes. ("Across the Sea")
• The characters meet and interact after they died. (All of the flash sideways) --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 02:54, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Balk, this is ridiculous. Not one of these examples tells me there are references to "afterlife. These are references to metaphorically dying, heaven and hell, death, whispers, coming back to life, ghosts, rising from ashes, meeting and interacting after dying. The only point you are reaffirming is that this term was NEVER used by the writers and creators of LOST. How many times are you going to keep proving my point? There is a reason, the term was not specifically used within the series. We have absolutely no right to ignore the intentions of the creators and writers of this story. This ariticle specifically contradicts what was presented and should be deleted.

--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 03:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

No character uses the word "afterlife". Nor does the article say they do. Why would it? This isn't a list of recurring phrases. This is an article identifying a theme that existed thousands of years before Lost, whose Lost presence we're recording. We don't need to use the writers' terms because we're identifying an external, universal concept. Like economics! And isolation! And deception! Again, how does this article, which identifies a theme Lost included but did not name, differ from any of those others? Heaven and hell, death, whispers, coming back to life, ghosts, rising from ashes and meeting and interacting after dying are all examples of afterlife! Which of them would you argue isn't? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 03:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing two sides of this discussion. Below you tell me the article is describing "afterlife" on Lost. Here you say the article is identifying a theme that existed thousands of years before 'Lost'. Yes, we do need to use the writers' terms when we are presenting their story. Again, you say which identifies an external, universal concept. A concept that is not economics, and it is not a theme. It's a religious term with many differing interpretations. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 04:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing the same thing but phrasing it differently depending on from what I'm distinguishing it. This article identifies in Lost a universal concept. It does NOT:

1. Describe the universal concept. It does not say "when actual people die, they go to Hades." We couldn't verify that, and that would have nothing to do with Lost.
2. Describe a concept that the writers invented. It does not say "when Jack died, he went to a special place that he called the Afterlife." That names a realm rather than saying what is objectively is

We don't need to use the writer's terms. Stories rarely identify their themes (or "motifs" if you want to get technical). And we use our own words to describe recurring elements all the time! Must I run down that list of examples again? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:32, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't agree with it then, I'm not going to suddenly agree it by repeating it. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 04:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

You didn't agree with it, but you also didn't refute it. Lostpedia identifies motifs that the show does not mention by name. It does so A LOT. Therefore Lostpedia at large disagrees with your claim that "we must use only the creators' terminology when describing their work". --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 05:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel it's up to you or anyone else to tell me what "afterlife" is and is not. This is true outside of LOST and within the story of LOST. The creators/writers understand this point and respected my ability to come to my own conclusions and interpretations about any religious aspect of the show. Lostpedia does not provide interpretations to any other religious term that can be interpreted differently by different points of view, religious and non-religious. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 04:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

You speak a language where words mean things. "Afterlife" means "your existence after you die". The word's presence does not limit you from believing whatever you want about the afterlife or from disbelieving in it altogether. If just calls that belief, if you have it, an example of - the afterlife. And specific examples of the afterlife that appear on Lost also do not limit your personal belief about the afterlife. Ghosts exist on Lost. That is a fact. Ghosts don't exist in real life, probably. Jack doesn't exists in real life, definitely. But they exist on Lost. The show's fictional depiction of characters' afterlife no more infringes on your beliefs than its fictional depiction of the source of all life.

What exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that ghosts do not appear on Lost? Are you arguing that we do not see the characters after they die? Are you arguing that no one mentions being in hell? Or are you arguing that these aren't instances of afterlife despite how dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:32, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Silly me, yes I live in a world where words do mean things. I'm arguing the term "afterlife" IS a religious term, whether you want to admit it or not. You can call it a universal concept, you can dress it up to be anything to suit your point of view. It does NOT change the fact, that "afterlife" is a religious specific term and has many different interpretations within the religious world. It is not up to anyone on Lostpedia to tell me what is and is not afterlife. And yes, an article on "afterlife" with all of your examples, is offensive to me and I do not believe the characters or the story LOST frequently reference "afterlife". This is an inappropriate religious term for the record of the LOST story as it was presented. Why is this article necessary? It's not. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 05:33, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Look up "afterlife" in a dictionary. It does not say "afterlife means different things to different people so really it's not a word at all." It doesn't say "an exclusively religious concept; interpret it at will." It says "an existence after death". You can believe any number of possible existences, but if you continue to exist after you have died, you are experiencing an afterlife. And people on Lost do exist after death. Thus, they experience an afterlife.

I still don't understand why this article offends you (though your offense alone isn't reason to delete it). Does the existence of ghosts on Lost offend you? Do the flash sideways offend you? Does saying "these occur after the characters die" offend you? What part is offensive?

As for whether we need this article - no we don't need it, but we also don't need Lostpedia or Lost. If we do analyze Lost we should document concepts such as this that recur so often. I think the article's contents prove just how much Lost concentrated on life after death. More specifically, this is a topic that can confuse people who don't watch the show closely. I read on a forum someone complaining about characters both becoming ghosts and entering the flash sideways, and they added a further complaint about Sayid's mysterious death. By compiling all instances of life after death, we better understand them, more easily spot contradictions and can resolve contradictions that needn't exist. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 05:48, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Balk, we all know the dictionary definition of “afterlife.” I would not expect a dictionary to say it means “different things to different people” or any of your other silly references to this point. What do you mean, “…so really it’s not a word at all?” It is a word. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:12, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

My point is that afterlife means "existance after death". You, however, said it has some other specific religious meaning. What specific religious meaning? You haven't said. I say we should ignore these "religious meanings," rather than Lost's afterlives, as irrlevant subjective interpretations. A word's various associated beliefs do not undermine its objective definition. So no matter how many religions have afterlife interpretations, its objective, universal meaning - "existance after death" - remains. We ought use the word freely. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Unlike “Redemption” which is specifically referenced by the creators as a major theme of the show, “afterlife” is not referenced as such by the creators.

“ Your show traffics in a lot of big themes — fate versus free will, good versus evil, faith versus reason, how often Sawyer should be shirtless. Ultimately, what were the most important themes for you in this series? Damon Lindelof: If there’s one word that we keep coming back to, it’s redemption. It is that idea of everybody has something to be redeemed for and the idea that that redemption doesn’t necessarily come from anywhere else other than internally. But in order to redeem yourself, you can only do it through a community. So the redemption theme started to kind of connect into “live together, die alone,” which is that these people were all lone wolves who were complete strangers on an aircraft, even the ones who were flying together like Sun and Jin. Then let’s bring them together and through their experiences together allow themselves to be redeemed. When the show is firing on all pistons, that’s the kind of storytelling that we’re doing. ” --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:12, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that without interviews mentioning redemption, we wouldn't note it as a theme? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the term was specifically not used by the creators when they created the term “flash sideways.” This would be a prime example of their opportunity to use the term “afterlife” and they blatantly did not take advantage of this opportunity. While it’s true they did not want to reveal the true nature of existence for the LOST characters during season 6, it’s also a fact no one has stepped forward to say this realm is anything other than a flash sideways. Your article reflects the flash sideways as “afterlife.” Therefore, the term “afterlife” does contradict their intentions as presented in “their” story. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:12, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The flash sideways most definitely did not give Lost a chance to use the word "afterlife". As you point out, doing so would have revealed their nature, which the creators did the best to hide. Unless you're referring to the final church scene? No. "This is the afterlife" would have made terrible dialogue. But the flash sideways did show the afterlife. It showed the characters' existence after death. That's the definition of afterlife that you just said "we all know". --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The offense to me is using terminology specifically and blatantly not used within the show of LOST. -Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:12, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But we agree 1) that we often name motifs using words the show doesn't use, and, today, 2) the objective definiton of "afterlife" is "existance after death". So where's the offense? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

“The Island as Afterlife” is a disproven “theory.” Neither, the characters nor the story frequently referenced the “afterlife.” Again, in reality, this term was avoided and was never used by either the characters or the creators of LOST in their storytelling – even when presented with the opportunity to do so.

The concepts you reference are already documented within Lostpedia. The section referenced, “The Island as Afterlife,” is a theory. Using the methodology of presenting articles, it’s a direct violation to offer a theory as an entire section within an article. This is a disproven theory at that. And even though you say so in the article, it’s not appropriate as a section. Of the remaining sections, only three are not already represented on Lostpedia. Why not create pages for those three sections, instead of creating a page with most of the sections already duly recorded. It’s redundant and unnecessary. Therefore, this page should be deleted. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:12, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we reference the concepts elsewhere. But articles that summarize others' content and provide links help us relate them. See, for instance, death and supernatural abilities.

And the "Island as afterlife" section? The first paragraph is not a theory. Characters did refer to having (figuratively!) died and starting over on the island. I don't see our mentioning this anywhere else, other than as evidence for the debunked Purgatory theory. It deserves a mention of its own. The second paragraph is also not a theory. The third paragraph does reference a debunked theory. I thought it relevant and even necessary in a section already called "The Island as afterlife", but you may be right, and we might delete it.

I don't think though that we can just create new pages for the sections that lack their own. The "moving on" page would have hardly any content at all (and would make us rename the current Moving On page). "Reanimation" also seems too weak on its own - it groups a few of several afterlife options, the'd mean more with the rest close by. If we try making a "heaven and hell" page, someone will (rightly) suggest we merge it with religions, or with Christianity, which has a hell section - one that's better suited here. Hurley's heaven line though belongs in neither of those articles. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

_________

There are many people who would disagree with your premise, "Ghosts exist in the real world." Therefore, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion. Again, you are providing various interpretations. They are not strong arguments regarding use of terminology and intention of the creators/writers of the story of LOST. Along with everyone else, you are entitled to your interpretations and beliefs, but they should not be presented as part of the story of LOST...period.

--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 16:16, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

"Ghosts exist in the real world" is an example of an interpretation that some people believe and some people don't. It is an example of something we CANNOT put on Lostpedia (or even wikipedia!). "Ghosts exist on Lost", however, is not an interpretation. It is a fact. What in the article is not a fact? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 01:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Afterlife does exist in lost, but its not named afterlife, so please, rename it or DELETE it Metroid101 01:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Economics exist on Lost, but no one calls it "economics". Prisoner and hostage situations exist on Lost, but no one calls them "prisoner and hostage situations". Deception exists on Lost, but no one calls it "deception". --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 02:01, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But it's different. No one ever said the flash-sideways was an afterlife. Economics is a theme. The Flash-sideways is something that appears in Lost, and Lost alone. The Others page is a better example. Ocie14 talk contributions 02:04, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But the flash sideways world IS an afterlife. Canon says so ("I died"). The article says so. Do you disagree? The flash sideways aren't, however, the only afterlife Lost presents, so we oughtn't rename that article to "afterlife". "Afterlife" is a significant theme on its own, which encompasses, among other things, the flash sideways.

Yes, Balk, I disagree. Afterlife is NOT canon. It is not a term used by the creators of this story.

--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 02:44, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Jack learns that he has been walking and talking after dying. That fact is absolutely canon. If not, your battle extends far beyond this page! --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your "Others" example. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 02:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically, The Others, are just people on the island. So why isn't that the name of the page? Ocie14 talk contributions 02:15, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we call their article "People on the island"? Because they're not the only people on that island - and we all know it! Because the article "people on the island" would have to cover everyone on the island. Because we actually HAVE a separate, broader article for all people on the island. And because the show itself provided us with an accurate, more specific name. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 02:22, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, what about The Natives of the Island? Ocie14 talk contributions 02:46, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

That's an option. An imperfect one, since most of them weren't actually native to the island. Besides, the show gives us a more specific alternative, one that even one of the group uses - "Others". Does the show provide any such alternative for the afterlife? And if you are looking for a literal description like "natives" rather than some less universal term, wouldn't that argue for naming the article "afterlife"?--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 03:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

No. My argument is that The Others is a term used in Lost, like the Flash Sideways. But the Others really are natives of the Island. But since Lost never refers to them as that, we call them The Others. The Flash Sideways is an afterlife, but it is called the Flash Sideways in Lost. Ocie14 talk contributions 11:36, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article. No one's talking here about renaming the flash sideways to "afterlife". --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 11:56, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

DeletedEdit

This page was deleted, now it's made again. It should being deleted.--Station7 14:36, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

This page should be deleted for the reasons explained in the section above. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:37, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the article contained before we deleted it, but I'm sure the page is vastly different now. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:46, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

You know me when it goes to religion ;) Metroid101 01:44, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. Please explain your view. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 01:46, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm bisexual, and most times I go to church, they yell "Listen to god and be straight, do you want to go to heaven??" I always answer yes, and then they answer "why do you like men if you listen to god??" ... -___- ... Ever since then, I decided to follow Lady Gaga in Alejandro and just leave and believe in what I think, not what someone else interpretted. Metroid101 01:50, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with what religions preach. It has to do with the afterlife on Lost. Regardless of whether any religion is true, people die and experience afterlife on Lost. Just as people experience mediumship, premonitions, shapeshifting and various other phenomena that some religions believe and some don't. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 01:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

They yell that at your church?? That's awful! Like, what religion? Ocie14 talk contributions 01:59, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I was part of the religious groups of christianity... Now, onto Balk, If its called Flash Sideways, I'm okay with it even if it says afterlife in the article, mainly because Afterlife isn't the official name. Metroid101 02:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

We will not rename this article to "flash sideways". This article is not about the flash sideways. It mentions the flash sideways, and assigns them no proper name, and it also mentions ghosts, whispers, moving on, hell and various other instances of Lost's recurring "afterlife" theme. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 02:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

An article that describes the "afterlife" has no place on the Encyclopedia of LOST. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 02:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Good thing then that this article doesn't describe the afterlife. It describes the afterlife on Lost. Just as the economics article doesn't describe basic economic theory; it describes the competing economic philosophies that Jack, Sawyer and Locke espoused. "Religions" doesn't describe religion; it describes the appearances of those religions on the show. "Dreams" doesn't describe what dreams are; it describes what characters dreamed. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 03:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Balk, we have evidence the creators and writers of LOST never intended for "afterlife" to be terminology used within their story. They never used the term, when there are opportunities for them to do so. What is your evidence that "afterlife" should be described on Lost? Why am I counting on you to tell me what "afterlife" is and is not? Frankly, I don't really think it's up to anyone to tell any of us what "afterlife" is and is not. As you and I have both pointed out, "afterlife" has many differing interpretations. Interpretations belong in the blogs not the encyclopedia. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 03:22, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The creators featured the afterlife, regardless of whether they used the term. What difference does their using the term make? We're not discussing naming their creation. We're discussing a preexisting theme that appeared in their creation repeatedly.

The creators did not feature "afterlife." They avoided providing interpretations for us because they understand that we have varying points of view. They provided a story for us to interpret based on our personal beliefs. "Afterlife" is not a theme, it is a religious term. This is precisely why the term was not used within the story of LOST and should not be an article in Lostpedia. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 04:24, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The season 6 flashes showed characters continuing after they died. That's "afterlife"! It's not the only afterlife - it's not even the only afterlife on Lost; hence this article - but it is the afterlife. You're not disagreeing with me... you're disagreeing with English. Or you should just as well take offense to a book that says "The Egyptians thought that their ka went to the afterlife where they worked in the fields." You should say "How offensive! That may not be what the afterlife is at all!" But your objections would be silly because the sentence describes the afterlife of the EGYPTIANS. This article describes the afterlife in LOST. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Suppose the writers avoided using the term isolation. Would that change how often characters isolated themselves, acted isolated or discussed isolation? No. It wouldn't. We couldn't name Hydra Island "isolation island" or name the whispers "Isolation". But we can describe the many times isolation occurs on the show.

You are not counting on me to tell you what the term "afterlife" means. You are counting on the collective speakers of the English language, who over millennia created a term which means "continued existence after death". You are not counting on me to tell you what the afterlife is. I don't care what actually happens to you and me after death, and neither does Lostpedia. You are not counting on me to tell you what happened to characters after they died on Lost. Lost told you that. I am documenting it. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 03:33, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out to you, comparing "isolation" and "afterlife" is comparing apples with oranges. I have not changed my point of view since the last time you used this comparison. "Afterlife" is a religious term, "Isolation" is not open to religious connotations. Religious terminology that the creators and writers avoided should not be represented as an article within Lostpedia. I vehemently disagree with the creation of this article. For all the reasons, I've already stated. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 04:18, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what difference religion makes. Lost is just a story. Lost's afterlife does not affect, reflect or attack your beliefs. And we've had no trouble documenting other religious concepts. What about miracles? The dictionary would define them as supernatural events that some greater force produces. Many religions would define them more specifically. God produces miracles, and if supernatural healing occurs that's not God's work - well, that's the devil. We have an article on miracles. We don't attribute them to God, but that oughtn't offend readers. If it does, we don't care.

Of course "miracles" is also a recurring phrase. What about resurrection? Religions view it as a specific concept that they attribute to God. Some also believe in the Resurrection of the Dead at the end of the world. Lost never actually mentions the word "resurrection". But the word exists, and resurrections occur, so we note them in an article. We don't care about how a woman's real-life resurrection would affect religions. We're documenting fiction.

Granted, the creators left "moving on" ambiguous to cater to personal beliefs. That doesn't change their including various more defined instances of afterlife. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 05:26, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Balk, I hear your argument, I understand where you are coming from with your examples about other religious terms that are documented. The point, I believe you are ignoring, is that there is a strong controversial conflict with using this specific term as part of the documentation of LOST. Just because you tell me the article does not attack my beliefs does not make it so. This article does infringe on my personal beliefs regarding the use of the term "afterlife" in reflecting the LOST story. "Afterlife" does have religious specific connotations, that were specifically avoided in telling the story of LOST and thus should not be used here. Again, I ask - Why is this article necessary? Much of this article can be included in other pages or already is included.

--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 05:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I answer why this article's necessary above, right before the coded-off line.

Yes, we had an epic argument before about using the term "afterlife". This article sought to rise above that controversy. "What's that? You believe in an afterlife other than the flash sideways? Well, good news! So does Lost! Here are various appearances and mentions of the afterlife from within the show!"

I can sympathize a little with "Don't limit the afterlife. Let me keep my beliefs." But "Don't document any of these actual Lost afterlives; several contradict personal views"? Something wrong there.--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

pedantry does not cost a penny Edit

The fellow in the taxi was not Jacob. It was Faraday, the character that could be Transcendent (e.g. God): outside of time-space, beyond the material universe, present before the alpha and after the omega.

Or he may be immanent: separate from creation. Mary is immanent because she has no stain of original sin and did not sin in her life. In LOST, FARADAY, WALT, HUGO, DESMOND are likely immanent. I know of nobody who plays chess with the dead. No soul I've met has survived a giant electromanetic toaster.

AS for demons, Mother, Jacob, MiB are third rate. Walt could just slammed MiB against a windshield over and over again. Walt may be transcendent. Only gods create; that's what he did at least once. Then he destroyed his creation.

Among the humans, the two polar opposites of virtue: Rose and Ben. Rose is the perfect example of "Thy will be done". Ben has all the same virtues; his motto is "My will be done".

No it is not the afterlife, it is this life we are speaking of. --Past recaptured 18:02, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Woah! Let's break this down... Edit

Okay, so I read the(extensive)argument going on between my two closest(sorry everyone, being truthful here)Lostpedia friends. I listened to everything EVERYONE had to say, then I read the article. I originally thought, "No, Afterlife is not the terminology for the FS." But reading the article, its not solely about the FS, in fact that's a small portion of it. It's about all(some)references to different After-lives. I considered the term "Post-death," but many of the scenes/conversations are about a form of Afterlife. So, I guess I'm with Balk on this one. If we were changing the term "FS" to "Afterlife" that's one thing...but describing instances where life after death is mentioned and gathering them together under the term "Afterlife" is different. So, that's my stance I guess. I feel like a child witnessing my parents on the brink of divorce! I hope this can be resolved peacefully. Lets remember the article isn't religion specific, we shouldn't be either. As a Christian myself, I know its hard to remove that part of your thinking from a situation, but this article is all inclusive, so was LOST. I hope I've made sense, its late!  ;-)HorribleEyes 05:37, September 29, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 05:37, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I only debate with friends. Enemies aren't smart enough for a good argument ;-)

I see two arguments from Just for deletion.

1. We must only use the creators' terminology. Just admitted this isn't true (e.e.g isolation, premonitions) but then said religion deserves special exception.
2. We must respect individual beliefs. I don't see how documenting a fantasy show's fictional elements infringes on real beliefs. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the difference Balk in "Isolation" and "Premonitions" is that they are not religious specific terms that connotate different things to different people. "Afterlife" is a religious specific term and does connotate different things to different people. It is also a term specifically avoided by the creators of this story. Yes, it's a fictional story as told by the storytellers. I believe they specifically avoided this terminology because it has more than one connotation. Besides, I said I see your point, I didn't say I agree with it. I still feel you are comparing apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges are still fruits. It's those morning people who see something so significant in their oranges.

"Redemption" surely connotes different things for different people, especially to people of different religions. Yet it appears in Lost, and we dutifully note it. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance you would change the name of this article to "Existence After Death"? And then use this instead of the term "afterlife" in the first sentence? And change the section "The Island as Afterlife" to "Existence After Death on the Island." This avoids the issues with the various connotations of the term "afterlife". --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 06:16, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

If that's your only objection to the article, we've simplified this discussion a lot.

Renaming it replaces the title with a wordier one. We could. "Existence After Death on the Island" adds needless ambiguity, and I don't see how referencing a theory as false offends you. And why use a phrase when a common, single word has the exact same meaning? "Existence after death" surely connotes heaven if you believe in heaven strongly enough. And if not, "afterlife" needn't offend you either.

Yet people taking offense doesn't justify a change. The taking offense itself must be justified. A's actions offend B. Maybe A's a racist, and B doesn't like that. Or maybe B's a racist and doesn't like A. We have to look objectively at whether A's actions ought cause offense. You haven't proven that this article attacks your beliefs.

We also needn't twist objective truth because of subjective connotations. "Afterlife" may connote Valhalla (and even then, only to some people!) but it means existence after death. What about sex? Ooh, so many connotations there! Some imagine loving relationships. Some imagine pain. Some imagine revenge. Some interpret the word as meaning as sex appeal rather than the act. Should we rename the article "sexual intercourse" to rob the title of its various connotations. No. We needn't. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Balk I'm trying to come up with a compromise solution. It's not one I'm really happy about either. But arguing back and forth is accomplishing nothing. But if you insist on "afterlife", I will continue to argue my point and push for deletion of the article. Do you have any other suggestions for compromise that are less wordy? --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 06:53, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But you've not convinced me that a compromise will help the article. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:56, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Nor have you convinced me the article is even necessary. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 06:58, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

What do you say to my points above about the need? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 07:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

STALEMATE! Mommy? Daddy? Whaddaya say we sleep on it, and talk more in the morning with fresh brains? If you get a divorce, who gets me!?!;-)HorribleEyes 07:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 07:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'll sleep for now, but don't forget: I'm the parent who owns his owns a third of a candy store...--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 07:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously need to sleep on this as I had a moment lacking clarity, possessing me to offer an unwarranted compromise. Ahhh, you own a third of a candy story Balk? Nice. So you are now known as the CandyMan :-) --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 07:27, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think all of our points have been presented. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 14:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Except for one. You say that, independent of accurately describing Lost, this article attacks (your?) personal beliefs. Which beliefts specifically? This isn't a rhetorical question - I really want to know. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 15:01, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review Edit

• I want to start out by saying that I have not read each and every edit on this discussion page since it appears to be mainly a couple of users that are bickering about the existence of this page. Here's my two cents on the issue:

1. I take no issue with the name of this page. Merriam-Webster defines "Afterlife" as "an existence after death" MW.
2. This article, along with any article on the wiki should stick to the facts presented on the show. In-depth analysis of themes could be presented here, but not as theory or opinion. The place for that would be a user blog.
3. The existence of this article does not imply a religious afterlife (heaven, nirvana, etc).
4. The point above does not mean religion should not be discussed in the context of Lost. Religion is certainly a theme within the show.
5. This page was never deleted, but it was redirected to Flash sideways for a while.
6. The existence of this article does not mean we are renaming the Flash sideways article.

In closing, I ask that you work out your difference and improve the article. There are several sections here that have great merit on the wiki, and others that could be removed or revised. I think the Lostpedia community can work to a consensus on that. Please don't start edit wars. Use the talk page to work out your differences.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 20:31, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for taking the time to review and provide your input. I think we can work it out from here. Thanks Again. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 22:22, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 23:07, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

• I'll put my two cents in. I too have no issue with an article discussing the afterlife as a concept within Lost. It is certainly there, and religion is certainly a theme within Lost. The Flash sideways are after all presented as a realm that the characters enter after their death, which is certainly "after life". However I would have issue in presenting the Flash-Sideways as a religiously held "Afterlife" within articles, or naming the flash sideways "afterlife" primarily because this would be directly against the wishes of the production. From what I can see this article does not directly contravene that. Like previously stated, the article within itself does have some merit, but we should certainly review the content of this article based on its merit, and we shouldn't let the terminology of "afterlife" or the religious concept of it leak into other articles about the flash-sideways. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:26, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for your added comments. I agree with your assessment. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 08:45, November 1, 2010 (UTC)