Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here

Talk:Mindfuck/Archive 3

From Lostpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

ongoing proposal to delete

Since there is apparently a space issue in discussion, the body of the ongoing discussion of the proposal has apparently been moved to an archive. In order that nobody forget that as far as I know this proposal is still ongoing, I've listed the proposal and an edited summary of views up until today to save space. The full opinions of those on the list can be found in the archive. This is important because people casually reading the discussion header and not looking at the archive might get the impression that this proposal had been rejected. Dharmatel4 14:45, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Just to clarify, the previous deletion recommendation was closed as "no consensus". If you have new arguments for deletion then you should re-nominate after the article has been given some more time to grow. Also see my comments below to TechNic.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:07, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Proposal

Dagg & Dharmatel - I'm blanking the "votes" from archive you added here for a few reasons. 1) Keep in mind that whether or not an article is deleted isn't determined by a straight up vote. The process is to reach consensus and the opinions of contributors and reasons for them are what's taken into consideration by the sysops when the time comes to delete or not. 2) Wikipedia != Lostpedia. Just because they delete something doesn't mean we will delete it here. I see you have recycled some of your previous arguments above which is fine, but users should read the archives if they want to understand the full reason for the decision not to delete at this point in time. Also the template at the top clearly states that the outcome was "no-consensus" not "keep".    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:29, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Also I should point out that there is now a portal for literary techniques which links to other articles as well.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:35, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
Two things: 1. I didn't re-add the comment above that has my signature. I am deleting it now to reduce confusion. 2. I know that the literary techniques portal exists, because I was the one who created it.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 16:23, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
OK I didn't see who created the portal, but I thought it was good to have. Also nothing is stopping anyone from creating articles on SciFi or Fantasy.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
  • But how can the community reach a consensus when the ballot has been taken away? I don't understand what the purpose is of votes to rename, merge or delete articles if that vote isn't how the decision is made? How is the final decision made? At what point does polling get closed and how is that decided? Do votes count or not? Sorry, but I genuinely don't understand the policy.--TechNic|talk|conts 15:46, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
Keep in mind that it's not a vote and there are no ballots. There was no consensus reached for deletion. That was over a week ago and the page was getting quite long with old discussion (archive reduced by about 47k). The old discussion is still available in the archive. I realize the name of this article is controversial. I think the current discussion is about renaming above. When an article is recommended for deletion discussion takes place and after sysops see there there is consensus for deletion (or not) then the appropriate action is taken. Reasons should be given for your keep/delete opinion. If you don't say why then we have nothing to take into consideration. A few things are certain in this case: 1) It won't be deleted due to its name. 2) It won't be deleted just because the English Wikipedia deleted it. Even Wikipedia still has other articles with the word "fuck" in the title. Just look at wikipedia:fuck and wikipedia:Operation Mindfuck    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:02, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
Your behavior is completely unethical. You were actively against the proposal and that you personally decided that 21-7 or 21-8 was not a consensus even though new opinions still showed up today. You then personally hide the results in an archive and did not bother to put anything in there saying that you had decided to terminate the proposal. Lostpedia is supposed to run by consensus not by your personal decisions. Dharmatel4 16:18, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
Unfortunately we don't have a deletion system as fancy as Wikipedia yet so it is sometimes unclear when a discussion has been closed. I assure you closing the discussion was not a unilateral decision and the fact that I archived the old deletion discussion was not done to "hide" it but rather to decrease the size of this page since there is an active discussion regarding the renaming.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
It isn't a vote? So when the Job List says "Cast your vote on articles proposed to be merged, deleted, or renamed" are you saying that they are not actually votes? So all these decisions are made by Sysops and what the rest of the community thought were votes are actually entirely meaningless? I think it would be well worth writing somesort of guidelines or proposed policy to explain how these decisions are made, because it now appears to be far from clear-cut. The use of "consensus" is confusing because on every previous vote, there have been a mixture of opinions and the resolution has always seemed to reflect the majority 'vote', rather than waiting for every person to agree on the same outcome.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:33, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
It's not a vote. I'm sorry the job list page has added this confusion. It is not correct.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:45, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
Of course its not a vote in the truest sense of the word. Unless anything is overwhelmingly clear, we don't do it. It was decided that no consensus was reached last time around. That is what we are appointed to do. There is no point doing the same process over and over again either. I have said this before and once again here goes. The article title has to reflect the contents. Mindfuck is a term applied to a certain genre of film and television in critical theory. If someone can come up with clear consensus on a replacement term, then fine, but to delete an article based on a word that some people might find offensive is absurd as long as an article is factual and complete and reflects the articles discussion as well as applying to the show, which it does.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:54, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
There is no evidence or citation to show that 'mindfuck' is an accepted term or genre definition amongst credible film or television critics and theorists. Until someone can cite a legitimate source (which isn't going to happen by the looks of it) this article should be renamed or even deleted. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liquidcow (talk • contribs) .
Hahahaha. Serious Business indeed. --Neurophyre 02:30, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

There are two debates going on here; let's separate them.

Honestly, there's two completely different debates going on here. I think this can be solved.

One is about whether Lostpedia should include profanity, to keep it "family-friendly".

The other is about whether an entire article about the mindfuck concept belongs here at all, in light of how few other genres have articles here.

A general, large-scale RfC - like the Lostbook skin, top of every page - should be run to determine whether profanity is allowed on the site, including in article headings. That will take the debate off this one little page to the community at large, where they can determine if profanity is appropriate, rather than the people who see this article and get offended and come here to bitch.

At that point, those who oppose this article on grounds other than the use of profanity can hash it out and determine whether it belongs here on its merits rather than because of profanity. If it is determined it should remain based on its merits, then it can remain - bowlderized if the RfC determines profanity-free is the way to go, as it stands if profanity remains on the site. Dharmabum 23:45, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

I don't think this debate is at all about whether Lostpedia should include profanity, I think you're missing the point. Of course if it's appropriatte then it should be allowed on Lostpedia, I don't think anyone's saying that it should be censored - i.e. if, in theory, a character were to say 'fuck' on the show, there's no reason that should be omitted from the episode transcript - but the whole point is that it rarely, if ever, is appropriatte. There's no swearing on the show, so there are no instances where swearing can or should be used to describe anything that happens on the show (e.g. you will never see 'Hurley tells Sawyer to fuck off'). There's also no debate that what the article describes is something that is true of the show; Lost undoubtedly messes with our heads. The sole debate here is that the term 'Mindfuck' is not an appropriatte title for this article. This discussion page should obviously be used to discuss this article and any debate about Lostpedia as a whole should be taken elsewhere.Liquidcow 03:14, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
I am not missing the point at all. The FCC has regulations about swearing which WE do not have, therefore, any argument based on the lack of swearing on the TV show is moot. When the debate comes up about whether an article about "mindfuck" belongs, several people have well-reasoned arguments about the difficulty of classifying what is a "mindfuck", whether "mindfuck" is a recognized genre, and other valid considerations. Along with them comes a torrent of people who don't care what "mindfuck" means, whether an article about the "mindfuck" genre belongs here, and would not complain if the article was titled "mindgames" or "mindf***"... all they care about is that there is an article with a naughty word. Their opinions don't really bear on the conversation about the article, unless there is a consensus-based policy on the entire project whether or not we are self-censoring. It just muddles the core argument.
Incidentially, your final sentence is precisely in agreement with me. This discussion page should obviously be used to discuss whether "mindfuck", the slang term and possible genre, belongs here. Instead, these debates have become about whether profanity in a title is appropriate. I'm advocating that the debate about the term as profanity be taken elsewhere; what exactly is your problem with that? Dharmabum 05:07, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
To make it clear: I wasn't saying that 'because they don't swear on Lost we shouldn't swear here', what I meant was that because there's no swearing on Lost, there's never any call to include swearing. In the same way, I might say that because there are no badgers on Lost there's never any call to talk about badgers. I don't know anything about FCC regulations because I'm in England. Our only regulation is that you can't swear before 9pm, and Lost is on at 10.
Ok let me just straighten out what I'm saying and we can see where we cross over: first of all, if there is to be a general debate about whether profanity should be allowed in general on Lostpedia, it should be taken elsewhere, end of story. I assume then, that the current rule is like that of Wikipedia where profanity is allowed if justified by context (in a direct quote, or on the page for that particular term, those are the only examples I can think of), which I agree with. Anyone objecting to this article on the sole basis of there being a swear word in the title, without considering whether or not it's appropriatte is obviously not contributing anything useful. In my opinion, and that of several others it seems, the profanity is not appropriatte in this article. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards profanity. I feel that some people who are in favour of keeping the title are using their personal feelings towards profanity rather than looking at it objectively, and arguing to keep the title on the sole basis of 'not censoring swearing', again without considering whether or not it's appropriatte, is just the same.
The wikipedia-style rule would appear, however, to use the logic that you should not use slang or swear words unless you can justify doing so. It seems that people are looking at this the wrong way round, and deciding that we can use profanity or slang until someone justifies not doing so. This is clearly warped logic.Liquidcow 06:34, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
It seems like we're arguing, but we're on the same side when you sweep most small points aside. That's exactly what I want to see - the debate about whether "mindfuck" belongs, stripped of the arguments that it doesn't because it's profanity. Note that I'm of the opinion it doesn't, as this project doesn't make a habit of writing articles about genres, and this is a difficult one to define; I wouldn't weigh in with that opinion because I'd hate to see my opinion be the one that gets it deleted when half the other arguments are "swearing is wrong!"
Let's take the profanity debate elsewhere, formulate a clear, consesus-based policy that can be pointed to rather than saying "we kinda do it like Wikipedia", and get rid of these silly proposals to change the name to something other than the correct term.
Despite the lack of profanity on the show (although some may even argue against the kind of mild profanity we do see on the show, "bitch", "goddamn", "ass", etc.) profanity may be appropriate in many cases. If cast members swear in an interview, or someone swears during a discussion panel, do we bowlderize it in transcripts? If I want to expand on what "Operation Mindfuck" was in the Illuminatus! article, do I have to bowlderize it? And so on. Dharmabum 15:10, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
LOSTPEDIA != WIKIPEDIA. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME ALREADY!!! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:25, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
Is describing someone as a female dog less offensive to you than describing an act that nearly every single person in the world partakes in? -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:25, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

Opinions from the community

I'm going to abstain from voicing my opinion below, but I thought it would be useful to give people a place to be heard if they still feel strongly about this topic. I'm not even going to bother placing a {{delete}} banner at the top of the article, because the existing {{discussion}} template should be good enough.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 16:48, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

This is a straw poll to see how the Lostpedia community feels about this article. These are not votes. This is not a democracy. Lostpedia does not have a formal voting policy. The results of straw polls are really just suggestions for the Lostpedia sysops who ultimately make all deletion/renaming decisions.

Some ground rules:

  • This section is for agreements or disagreements only. Discussions should go in other sections. Any discussions in this section will be moved.
  • If you change your mind, feel free to change your opinion below.
  • Do not say "keep this article, but rename it". Just say you want to keep it. Renaming it would be for a different discussion.
  • There is no set time limit.

Delete the offensive word

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The term mindfuck" does not belong on Lostpedia, because the word is offensive" CONSENSUS: Do not delete. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:11, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

Agree: Delete because it is offensive

  • Sloths 22:02, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Jinxmchue 10:23, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Lucky Day 14:40, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • We have a page for "Sex" and manage to keep that one objective and treat it as adults. If we're keeping this page, why don't we go ahead and rename the "Sex" page to any of the offensive terms for sex? Libbyjones715 17:42, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Belle42 22:09, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Sign your name here

Disagree: The term is not offensive and/or it doesn't matter if it is offensive

  • Neurophyre 02:33, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
  • >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 08:48, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
  • The term is not inherently offensive and that doesn't really matter. If we do have a strong language policy it can always be renamed to "Mind****" with appropriate redirects. --Jackdavinci 12:47, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Gateboy42
  • --Jambalaya 13:25, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
  • This is an adult show, and adults can handle strong language (whether they disapprove or not). If a kid who watches this show comes here, they are exposed to enough adult content on the show to not worry about a word they likely hear every day. Dharmabum 02:02, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  •  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:26, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  •    Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all 
  • CaptainInsano
  • Marik7772003 12:18, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • -Chris[dt7] 12:30, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Staffie 22:30, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Aero*Zeppelin 15:05, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • El Mayor 13:17, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
  • TCG 13:33, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
  • --Doc 10:00, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
  • --MightyRearranger 14:24, 31 May 2007 (PDT) I'd say that if you kids have seen Radzinksky's brain stain in The Swan, you've already witnessed a self-induced mindfuck :)
  • --Countdown 13:12, 12 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Sign your name here

Delete because it is slang

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The term mindfuck" does not belong on Lostpedia, because the term is slang and is not well-defined." CONSENSUS: None. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:12, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

Agree: Delete because it is slang

Disagree: The term is not slang and/or it doesn't matter if it is slang

Abstain

The following people do not agree or disagree with the above statements:

  • This 'poll' fails to take into account the various viewpoints that people hold. My particular opinion on the matter does not fit into any of these boxes. If you want to guage how people feel about the article then read the discussion.Liquidcow 01:00, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

Moved responses

The following responses were moved from the sections above, per the ground rules:

  • This comment was moved (see previous location in history for this page):
    • I disagree - the language found on this particular page is not found in the show. As for whether or not this word is heard every day, we cannot know that and frankly it doesn't matter. Let's just control what we choose to include on Lostpedia. --Libbyjones715 17:45, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
  • How exactly can anyone say that the word "fuck" is not offensive? What other words can we deem non-offensive just because some people get a cheap thrill out of seeing them used on a website? Why are people so inclined to bend over backwards to avoid (and punish) the use of non-offensive words like "niggardly" when it comes to "tolerance," yet when it comes to words like "fuck," they are quick to deem the words non-offensive? Jinxmchue 14:10, 28 May 2007 (PDT)
    • +shrug+ Some people don't find words to be offensive. I've met some who say the word "fuck" at least once per sentence, whereas I've written it here more times than I've said it aloud in the last 10 years. It's all perception, culture, habituation, etc... How about "Belgium" - is that offensive? --Doc 10:10, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Some people also don't find racial epithets to be offensive. How long do you think a person using them would be allowed here? The admins probably would ban such people pretty quickly. So who then determines what words are and are not offensive? You? Me? How do we determine what words are offensive? A debate where people get their friends to "vote" the same way? (I've been involved on the original Wikipedia to know that goes on quite a bit and I doubt things are any different here.) I would propose that an objective determination be used. Actually, we could use two:
  1. 1 - A term that would not and could not be used on the show itself should not be used on Lostpedia.
  2. 2 - Lostpedia's own policies discourage use of offensive terms. Example (albeit that is for user talk pages, but I think it's only fair that the principle should extend to articles, too). One could infer that Lostpedia's "Netiquette and Basic Courtesy" guidelines apply to this, too. Jinxmchue 22:30, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
For #1... if the producers, or directors, or writers, etc said the word "mindfuck" in a podcast, a convention, etc., then it wouldn't be Lostpedia's place to censor the word. The word would definitely get added to Lostpedia's transcripts. Do you agree, or do you think the word should be censored here on Lostpedia like it would be censored by ABC ? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:51, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

To Be Added?

John's dad in a box/John's dad telling him he's dead. whoops forgot to sign Tigerlilylynn 22:15, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Being bold

I'm being bold right here; Stop being such a wussy. It's just a word. I'm sure some thinks "sex" is offensive too, let's go censor that one as well. Thanks for the attention. --Jambalaya 12:31, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

Not bold. Rude. You clearly haven't read the recent discussion. Wrecktum 21:38, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
You do realise that if this article gets removed for being offensive, I will be opening a debate on your user name, which to me, is just as "offensive". This doesn't also exclude the fact that your user name has only been used for Talk discussions, and you haven't made any worthwhile edits to the site at all. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:22, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
Go ahead. I picked this name at random, so I don't care if I'm forced to change it. You're threat is certainly immaterial to the dabate, is it not? Wrecktum 17:15, 14 June 2007 (PDT)
So you think opening revenge "debates" is mature and useful? Jinxmchue 07:27, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
You know what? You're right. Let's start using racial slurs like "nigger" and "gook" to describe characters on the show, too. After all, they're "just words." Right? Jinxmchue 14:13, 28 May 2007 (PDT)
As far as I'm concerned, whether or not the language is offensive is not the issue. As I have said before, a debate about profanity on Lostpedia belongs on another page. The reason I object to this article is that it is stupid and pointless. 'Mindfuck' is not a recognised literary term, yet someone keeps trying to claim it is by marking it as such on articles for various episodes. I just think articles like this drag the quality of the site down - and not because of the swearing.Liquidcow 03:38, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
Some of us disagree with you and do consider Mindfuck to be a legitimate and recognized literary term. Just because you continue to insist otherwise does not make your position any more true either. If you want to get rid of stuff that brings the quality of this site down, there's plenty of other stuff that can fill that category. Why are you only focusing on this one article then? --Doc 10:06, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
Likewise, just because some of you disagree and consider the term to be "a legitimate and recognized literary term" does not make your position true, either. Works both ways, my friend. Of course, the burden is on you to prove that the term is "a legitimate and recognized literary term." One would conclude that if that were so, it would be easy to find major backing for the term from recognized authorities. Unfortunately for you, a simple Google search doesn't bear that out. Jinxmchue 22:11, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
I tried searching the contents of Amazon's book contents, (quick warning that the first book in the search results, and several thereafter are porn) but I unfortunately wasn't able to find any books that describe the term in a literary sense. Most of the books just say that something is a mindfuck, but they don't describe what a mindfuck is. And most of these references aren't made in a literary sense (e.g., a girl named Serena is unable to pee in front of her friend, and she calls this situation a mindfuck). Funnily enough, 4 of the books are classifieds as children's books. I wish I could find one concrete definition in a real book. Has anyone else had any better luck? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:40, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
Indeed. The question of whether it is a recognised literary term is not a matter of opinion. It can't be considered one until someone finds a reliable source to back it up, which hasn't happened yet. It's not even the same as something which is clearly a fact but is unsourced; by its very definition as a 'valid literary term' you need to find a valid literary source to prove it. The method here should be 'prove it, then you can claim it's true', wheras people seem to be reversing that into 'I claim it's true, until you disprove it', which will only cause chaos on a site like this. By this logic I could create any number of nonsense articles with the justification that 'I consider it to be true, despite lack of evidence, until you disprove it'.Liquidcow 03:44, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Cheapening the term to include all plot twists

I have to admit, I'm still having a hard time understanding this term. I previously added this as a mindfuck: "For unexplained reasons, Jack is seen enjoying himself playing a game of catch football with one of the Others." But now I think this was just a simple plot twist. When a literary mindfuck occurs, the astute viewer should be able to figure out what happened, and it should But in this case, it is impossible to know why Jack is playing football with the others, because the writers of the story have not given us any clues. I think this is really just a cliffhanger. Please set me straight :). -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 11:54, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

I put a couple of thoughts on this on your talk page. For the specific scene of Jack's playing football, I'm now thinking that was a simple plot twist, but that one twist was part of the larger mindfuck that is "Jack's relationship to the Others".

The show went from portraying Jack as an enemy of the Others to having him appear to have given in and become one of them. This was a setup for the end of the season where he comes out as being even more of an enemy than before. The sum of all such scenes was to change the viewer's concept of Jack in preparation to changing it again - playing games with the viewer's brains. --Doc 12:03, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Thanks, that does help some, and I went ahead and added your explanation (I hope you don't mind) to that episode article page. Anyone can obviously change it to make the explanation better if needed. Still though, I don't think all of the current listed occurrences of mindfucks are really mindfucks. Most are just plot twists. Maybe with further explanation, they could also be mindfucks, but someone is going to have to start adding those explanations, right? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 14:57, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Dead people

I propose we delete the section that says this "The appearance of several dead, missing or off-island characters on the Island are considered mindfucks." In my opinion, these are not mindfucks. Specifically for the list of dead people: the appearance of dead people is not unusual in the Lost universe. It was established all the way back at the beginning of the first season that dead people somehow interact with the survivors, so their appearance is not unusual, and is not by itself a mindfuck. Thoughts? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 14:43, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Early in the series

I would argue that anything that happens during the first half of the first season is not and cannot be a mindfuck. During that time, the writers are still creating how the audience perceives the Lost universe. I.e., monsters are normal on the Island; it is normal for dead people to show up, etc. A mindfuck occurs when the writers create a certain perception in the minds of the audience, and then right when the audience is comfortable with that perception, the rug is pulled out, and the viewer lands on his or her head. I don't think this type of "rug pulling out" can happen so early in the series. Thoughts? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 14:43, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

"Game-Changer", "Writer's Trick", or "Head/Mind Game" as alternate title?

They all suck, I know, but can we brainstorm some more refined and/or recognizable terms to use? Wikipedia has officialy deleted their page on the word, and I think that we would be wise to follow suit, for common knowledge reasons.--MightyRearranger 14:24, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Rename to "What the hell? moments"

Rename this article to "What the hell? moments". 'Mindfuck lost finale' only has 33,100 hits: [1] '"What the hell" lost finale" has 1,370,000 hits: [2] . "What the hell" wins, but mindfucking rules. I watched the show with my mom and my sister, and we were so completely mindfucked, we couldn't walk straight or talk afterwards. --Mindfucker 21:57, 31 May 2007 (PDT)


Third Votes

They came out as a strong do not delete, and a no conesus on deleting because its slang. This is the third time that its survived a delete/rename vote. The article will not be renamed or changed for now, and any immediate attempts to get it deleted and renamed will be swiftly removed, as there is very little point in continuing this debate when the general consensus is to keep it, and a minority want it removed. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:16, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

  • I don't mind it staying up because I don't at all find it offensive, but I'm just wondering if we're even getting a fair and democratic vote when a large amount of people browse through Lostpedia without ever seeing this page anyways. If there's a way to offer a brainstorming session to anyone viewing the Main Page, I think that we would get some agreeable resultsand a more scholarly name for mindfucking.--MightyRearranger 13:20, 2 June 2007 (PDT)
  • See, this is why Wikipedia doesn't consider people comments for or against deletion as "votes." In fact, while it is unlikely, there could easily be 100 comments to keep an article there that get beat out by just a single well-written comment for deletion. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case here, and LP will suffer for it. Mob rule never works for long. That being said, I say goodbye to LP. The inclusion of R-rated material means that this is no longer a website I can enjoy with my family. Jinxmchue 21:17, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Lostpedia operates in the same way, the balance of the vote person to person comes second to the reason of logic. However, one article with the word fuck in it, used in a reasoned and legitimate way discussing film techiques, allied with the fact that we censor the use of the word when linking to the article, added to the fact that the show in itself is a TV-14 in the US and a 15 in the UK, means in my mind, and that of many others, that this content is acceptable for the audience who watch the show. Its PG-13/15 material. Lost itself has used swear words on many occasions, like "bitch". None of it in context, unlike this article. In this case the term is used within film, television and media and is legitimate. The Parents Television Council [3], one of the more conservative groups out there, use a traffic light system in order to rate TV shows. They rate Lost as a red light show, and say "Due to its violent and sexual content, Lost is not recommended for children under 14." [4]. So basically, it isn't a family show, and children of 14 and over are very much aware of the swear word fuck. I would go as far as suggesting that children of that age use it as many times a day as they say sentences, its that prolifically in use with youth. If your view point is so conservative over the use of the word fuck, or are offended by the terms definition of "to have sexual intercourse" then that is your own concern, but please do not suggest that its out of context R-Rated material, thats just failed rhetoric. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:50, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Y'know, I'd feel really bad about Jinxmchue leaving, but when I checked his contribs I saw that he'd only modified 3 pages and that 12 of his 16 mods were on this page. Either way, I agree with plkrtn. The voilent conetent in this program is just as unsuitable to young viewers as the word "fuck" - perhaps even more so. Then again, this show is a product of American television, where you can't show a naked female breast but you can show someone being brutally murdered. I'd much rather have my sons see a depiction of two people having loving sex than an equally graphic depiction of murder. --Doc 14:10, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
  • This is probably been said before, but I say if they say it on the show, only then can you put it on LP. Meaning you could put "shit" and "bitch" on the wiki, but not "fuck". But, if in 401 someone says "Oh, fuck" or something, let all this discussion go away. I'm really hoping someone says it now. --Blueeagleislander 02:00, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
Again, I think people are missing the point as to why some of us think this article needs to go. Obviously there are people like Jinxmchue who are actually offended because of the swearing, but I think people are getting them confused with those of us who just think it's a bad article. While I don't agree with the vast over-simplification that 'most 14 years olds know the word fuck and probably most of them use it all the time' as a justification, it's not really the issue. It is quite simply down to the fact that it's not an accepted literary term. All the articles in which it is shown to be used are either blogs by the general public (hence obviously not at all averse to slang) or magazine articles which have a conversational tone and don't need to bother with filmic terminology. There's nothing wrong with ordinary people using slang, but on a website like this, which is supposed to be encyclopedic, it's stupid. Statements like "Mindfuck is a contentious term...[partly] because it is new as a critical concept for film and television and its exact definition is still being debated" are laughable. Nowhere will you find serious film critics or theorists debating the exact definition of a Mindfuck. The various ideas and plot elements that the article describes are all covered by other long-established terms. The bullet-point definition basically describes any kind of mystery plot, right back to detective stories that have been around for over a century. The article then even goes on to discuss so-called 'WTF' or 'WTH' moments, as if they are also filmic terms!
I would also point out that the collection of alleged occurences of 'Mindfucks' throughout the show's run is pitifully small and entirely comprised of things that are just plot twists, which begs the question of whether this article is of any use at all. I've also discussed elsewhere why the show doesn't actually feature an Unreliable Narrator.Liquidcow 03:39, 12 June 2007 (PDT)
I don't use obscenities or profanities much at all during daily life, but I can tolerate this term in the given context. I am amazed that some of the apparently educated people here can be so incredibly uptight about a word that is in common (almost unavoidable) usage in much of the US and UK. Yes, I agree that "Mindfuck" may have been misapplied in places on this site - discuss it, correct it (or not if the discussion doesn't go your way), and move on. On the other hand, the concept of "Mindfuck" most certainly applies to the show's overall content. If you want to dumb-down this site to a 6th grade reading level and remove any analysis that might challenge a small mind, fine. Let's remove about 80% of the site and use pointless euphemisms like SH*T and F*CK and WTF (because you're not really swearing if you leave out a letter - the missing letter keeps it from being a BAD WORD, oh and writing G_D isn't taking the lord's name in vain), and then we can go on to demand the TV networks blur out the nipples on nude women for late night television (because if they're blurred then you can't tell they're breasts). --Doc 13:50, 12 June 2007 (PDT)
It's a shame that Liquidcow wrote such a smart, inciteful argument describing why "mindfuck" is an illegitimate encyclopedic term, and the only response is yet another in a long line of poorly researched "it's just a word" posts. As Liquidcow stated, the burden is on "mindfuck" supporters to explain (sourced, in detail) why this non-encylopedic slang expression is appropriate for this site. Wrecktum 17:15, 14 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Good descision plkrtn. I recently joined Lostpedia and I am glad to see sysops that are just and not corrupt. On the term Mindfuck, I agree with you completely. If people cannot handle one page with a bad word in it, then I am at a loss of words. If they hate it that much, then they do not need to visit this page.--Countdown 13:24, 12 June 2007 (PDT)
  • If there's not a problem then why does this keep coming up? Why not just change it and end the controversy. Any merit to the subject wouldn't be lost in changing the title.--Lucky Day 18:48, 14 June 2007 (PDT)
  • I'm just not going to keep repeating myself. If you pander to everyone who has a problem with something because they are very conservative, then nothing gets achieved.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:57, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
I'm going to repeat myself until people actually start listening to what I'm trying to say: It's not about the swearing, or 'being conservative'. I'm not conservative in the least. The problem with this article is that it is not useful and not a valid filmic/literary term. All the specific instances it gives as examples are examples of 'plot twists', which is a recognised term that we already have an article for. This article cannot back itself up because there are no legitimate sources that back it up. Please see my post above, and Wrecktum's just below it; it should be up to the people who want to keep this page to find decent sources to back it up (which they won't because there aren't any), otherwise the page should be removed.Liquidcow 08:16, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Talk:Mindfuck/Archive_3"