Lostpedia has arranged a string of interviews with characters from The Lost Experience. Follow the links to submit your questions for Speaker and Javier Grillo-Marxuach!
Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here

Talk:Mindfuck/Archive 4

From Lostpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The first two season 4 references

Does anyone else think that they're ordinary plot twists, rather than mindfucks?--Nevermore 03:37, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

  • The Charlie-one shouldn't be listed as a mindfuck. I don't think it "fucks your mind" to have Hurley seeing imaginary people. --Snoopy42 15:03, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree. Not only is it relatively common for our Losties to see visions of dead people, but Hurley is one of the prime offenders in that respect. Furthermore, the appearance of Charlie does not meet any of the three MF conditions set out at the top of the article.--TechNic|talk|conts 04:23, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

DELETE

Delete - This term is offensive and is slang. The article should be deleted. Also, the term is absolutely NO different from the term 'plot twist'. --CTS 13:41, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

Agree- The use of this word is inappropriate, and can be offensive to users. If it were to be renamed, do something like Mindtwist. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  13:48, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
Provisional agree, not because I think the word's offensive character should disqualify it as an article title (some people find any reference to sex offensive, but sex is as much a part of Lost as it is a fact of life), but because I still don't fully understand the purported distinction between a mindfuck and a plot twist. According to the article, "A mindfuck occurs when the writers go to a lot of trouble to create a certain perception in the minds of the audience, and then right when the audience is comfortable with that perception, the perception is dramatically changed in a single moment." But what is a plot twist if not a carefully constructed perception surprisingly reversed? If no cut-and-dry defining distinction can be identified--if no logical test can be applied for sorting the mindfucks from the plot twists--then what is the point of ascribing a new term to an old concept for which we have a serviceable old term that doesn't ruffle feathers? Robert K S (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
Agree. For what it's worth. Note that this discussion has happened several times before. See the archives. See here for where a large number of users wanted the same thing and also here for an interesting explanation of why our opinions don't count.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:35, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
Rename I have nothing against profanity. But a mindfuck is really just an extreme version of a plot twist. Most of the examples on this page don't even rise beyond typical plot twist into true mindfuck, and in any case there is no clear defining line to demarcate how mind boggling a plot twist must be before it becomes a true mindfuck. Rename this page to Plot twists. --Jackdavinci 17:29, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
Disagree: A plot twist is an unexpected and unusual development in the storyline but a mindfuck is different: it subverts the audience’s expectations of the narrative form rather than the story. Many mindfucks are also plot twists, but not all. For example, at the end of "Ji Yeon" we learn that Jin buying a panda was part of a flashback, rather than occurring contemporaneously with Sun giving birth as we had been led by the narrative form to expect. This is a mindfuck but not a plot twist. In the same episode, Sayid and Desmond encounter Michael on the freighter; this is a plot twist but not a mindfuck. The ending of Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is both a mindfuck and a plot twist. (The ending of The Mousetrap is a plot twist but not a mindfuck.) The reveals at the endings of Fight Club and The Sixth Sense are mindfucks but (arguably) not plot twists. To put it another way, a mindfuck is a certain type of ‘twist’ but different from a ‘plot twist’ and therefore the article Mindfuck should remain. --Kuzak 10:46, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
Thank you, that was explanatory. A few follow-up questions. Is the ending to "The Eye of the Beholder" (aka "that Twilight Zone episode with the pig masks") a mindfuck or a twist or both or neither? It's not a reversal in narrative form, but it does reverse the viewer's understanding of everything he has just seen, and forces the viewer to review all the details that have come before, inverting them in order to make sense of them. So is it a mindfuck? If it is, there's a problem: Endings to Twilight Zone episodes have always been referred to as "twists", and the ending to that episode in particular has often been called the quintessential twist. [1] [2] It seems to me that, whether for a "plot twist" or twist of some other sort, the word "twist" has been in use for what is now being called a "mindfuck" for 45+ years. And the metaphorical meanings of the words are identical: whether a story development "fucks" your mind or "screws" your mind or "twists" your mind, it's still doing the same thing: exploding a gap between expectation and result that forces a drastic re-interpretation of details. If the end of "The Eye of the Beholder" qualifies as a mindfuck, what is the impetus to replace a half-century-old term with a more offensive counterpart? Robert K S (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Eye of the Beholder, a great episode BTW, is a perfect example of what this article is proposing. The complete twist at the end, contrary to everything the writers have led you to assume (in comparison to what the viewer would know, that people look human), is a quintessential twist like the ones that should be in this article. Most that were included in this article do not fit that category. The revelation of the fast-forward would be a good example of one that does. We were used to FB, so the FF that looked like a FB was a supreme quintessential twist to the viewer when it was revealed. Simple plot twists that surprise the viewer do NOT fit this category, and indeed would include nearly every episode of Lost as Lost is one big plot twist after another, LOL. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:28, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
I think Kuzak's explanation makes NO sense at all. A 'MINDFUCK' AND A 'PLOT TWIST' ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. When we learn that Jin buying a panda was part of a flashback instead of a flashforward, that is a PLOT TWIST. The term 'mindfuck' is just a stupid, immature, and offensive form of 'plot twist', and there is virtually no difference between the two terms. This page should be deleted, and the info on this page should be transferred to the plot twist page. --CTS 16:39, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
This is the first time I have taken action in the debate over whether to delete this page or not (since I was not a member for the other few). I have looked back at the archives, reading the proposals for deletion. After doing this, I believe that assuming that this page is not deleted, a few months later, another delete debate will appear. I think this will keep on happening until it really is deleted. The reasons in the past for deletion or renaming is mainly because of the word itself, being slang and offensive (but one was because Wikipedia deleted it, and another, because it is immature and inappropriate to be on Lostpedia). I am against using this word, as I have previously said above that this should be deleted. I do agree with CTS's idea to merge with "Plot Twist". -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  17:02, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
I agree with #1 Lost Fan. This article has gone through more deletion debates than any article on Lostpedia. This term is identical to 'plot twist', and the material in this article should go to that page. This page causes way too much controversy, there is no point in having it. --CTS 18:28, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
Robert K S, although I haven’t seen the episode, I think it’s fair to call the ending of “The Eye of the Beholder” a mindfuck based on the Wikipedia synopsis. It isn’t really a plot twist because at the reveal, it is only the audience (not any of the characters) who learn the new information. Contrast that to the twist at the end of the 1968 film Planet of the Apes, where the reveal is experienced by our protagonist at the same time as by the audience: this makes it a simple plot twist rather than a true mindfuck. In Planet of the Apes we (the audience) were ‘on the same page’ as the protagonists throughout the film whereas in “The Eye of the Beholder” we were on a different page from all the characters, until the reveal.
I certainly acknowledge that a mindfuck is a type of twist; the question is, should we distinguish plot twists from twists that go deeper than the plot. Also I should note that a mindfuck does not have to be extreme or even original. Take the beginning of the flashback in the Lost episode "Exposé": we are meant at first to believe we are watching a scene set in a strip club, but then we learn that we were actually watching a scene set in a studio where they were filming a scene (of Exposé (TV series)) set in a strip club. It’s a mindfuck but there isn’t anything ‘extreme’ about it or even original: CSI: Miami used exactly the same device once (I believe in the season 4 episode “Fade Out”). There is a clear difference between that type of twist, on the one hand, and the sort of twist you see two or three times in any episode of Law & Order (for example, “Bottomless”). The plot twists in Law & Order are often creative and original, and occasionally shocking, but they never go beyond the plot itself. The Law & Order-type plot twist does not “twist your mind”, it only twists the plot.
The term itself is not as important as ensuring that we have an article on the topic. I like the term “mindfuck” but I am not opposed to using “mindf*ck” instead. If it is felt we should go with another term entirely that does not even imply the obscenity, I would propose “metatwist” (which I just coined). --Kuzak 06:36, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree these types of twists might be called mindf*cks by some people, but is it proper or slang? I (mostly) agree with what Robert said above. While we want to stay up to date, I see no reason we have to crawl in the gutters, and think profanity like this should have no place on Lostpedia. Do not delete the article because the twists are an important thing to Lost. Do rename it to mindf*ck or merge with plot twists, perhaps with a subheading that distinguishes them from normal twists vs. quintessential twist. The thing to consider is would we change other things about Lostpedia to "keep up with the times"? Do we throw away proper citation in favour of "do your own thing"? Do we allow articles to be written in the newest slang of the day? Or do we keep a higher standard? It's also a good point that this article is full of things that are need of clean-up because they are simple plot twists, not even very complicated ones, and certainly not quintessential twists. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:01, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Disagree - As already discussed, a mindf*ck (I don't care if it has a u in it or not) is very different from a plot twist. Come up with a replacement. And I am certainly not offended by a word -- if you are, you should probably not be using the internet without parental controls turned on high.--Chuck 11:17, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Delete Denied - Speedy Keep

Once again, the same old arguments being repeated yet again. Unless there is a new and compelling reason to remove it, its not going anywhere. If you get offended by rude words, I suggest you don't watch a TV series which has casual sex, violence, drug use and swearing within it on a regular basis.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:06, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Aside from this "shut if off if you don't like it" attitude, I agree that it shouldn't be deleted because it's obviously a concept that is used frequently in Lost. But I don't think it should be spilling profanity out either. I do think that a PG compliance wouldn't be a bad thing for us to maintain. The article used to be named Mindf*ck, IIRC. I don't see any reason why it can't go back to that name. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:48, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Links to the article should be using the redirect of Mindf*ck. This was agreed to in one of the previous deletion discussions.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:52, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
If the article stays, we should at least improve the definition of mindfuck given the above discussion. This would both (a) solidify the rationale for keeping the article and (b) prevent non-mindfucks from being posted as mindfucks. Since Kuzak seems to have the clearest idea about what constitutes a mindfuck (and what distinguishes it from other story devices), perhaps Kuzak can assist in improving the lead of the article to this end? Robert K S (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Despite your claims about 'the same old arguments' I don't think the mindfuck vs plot twist argument has been sufficiently considered. I reread the article, and it horribly fails to provide any information about what makes a mindfuck different than a plot twist. It seems like this whole article is just a sophomoric attempt to legitimize a new term with a controversial sounding name where a perfectly good term already exists. And it's somewhat misleading to suggest that you have considered all arguments and then just mention one. Have you actually read any of the new arguments or are you just assuming they must be the same? Your statement seems very disingenuous. While some of the content has a place and deserves to stay, the terminology is at best already covered by older terminology, probably is illegitimate, and at worst is incendiary for it's own sake. --Jackdavinci 16:22, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I agree. It seems that this article has become an outlet for seeing how many times an editor can get away with dropping the f-bomb. I'm working on using a more encyclopedic vocabulary on those occurrences to cleanup the article. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:04, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Jackdavinci makes some very good points. In fact, many users here have. The trouble is that time and time again users are raising their concerns and are repeatedly being told that the decision has already been made and that there are no new factors to consider. On one of the previous debates, we were told that this is not a democracy, that 'votes' don't count and that SysOps make the final decision based on the arguments presented and discussion amongst themselves. Clearly this problem isn't going to go away. OK, so the SysOps as a group need to resolve this by reopening that debate amongst themselves, discussing it afresh and reporting back to the community fully and openly. Personally, I'm not convinced those conversations actually ever happened in the past, although I'm happy to be proved wrong. Regardless of whatever they concluded in the past, there are 3 new SysOps now and they must also be included in this process to resolve this long-standing issue. This is simply too controversial for one or two of them to make an executive decision (despite that being entirely acceptable in the vast majority of other cases).--TechNic|talk|conts 17:48, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • So you've already admitted you can't volunteer as much time as you like... You expect SysOps to have to repeatedly go over the same discussions that have been had for longer than a year over this article? We should listen to the exact same points being raised continually??. We're not a democracy. We've said that before, and we've said it again. If it were a democracy, each person would be asked to contribute some money in order to keep the site running, but you aren't. The fact is, this has been repeatedly discussed by the SysOps, and the majority of us are still consenus that the article is valid and does not need to be removed. We certainly appreciate that the article needs a cleanup, which is why that header is applied on the site, but we all agree that there is no need to remove the article on the grounds of censorship, nor is there a need to constantly look at the same arguments repeatedly in order to satisfy one individuals personal morale crusade.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  18:59, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Again, this is not about personal editors. It's about dealing with an ongoing problem that is brought up over and over again, signifying that there is a problem. I expect this to be discussed in an open forum. You allude to censorship, but that is exactly what is happening here with comments that this has been discussed already, removal of merge/rename tags, as if editors in this current discussion have nothing to add to the conversation because you disagree with us. These points are valid and obviously should be discussed. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:03, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Plkrtn, has the word 'fuck' ever been said on LOST? No. So don't say "If you get offended by rude words, I suggest you don't watch a TV series which has casual sex, violence, drug use and swearing", because that is far from the truth. You cannot deny this delete: the reasons that are stated above to delete this article are 100% valid. --CTS 19:13, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

CTS, while this is a fair comment, it's immaterial to the discussion really. No one, especially a SysOp, should use personal attacks against an editor in any form. That's a given and shouldn't need a reminder to a SysOp. Attacking the man is a logical fallacy, one that is immaterial to the validity of the editor's comment. I may hate profanity and feel it has no place here. I may like and use profanity but STILL feel it has no place here. My preferences are immaterial to the discussion. We need to focus instead on the points and address them to concensus. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:22, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes, you should listen to the same points being raised continually. They are being raised continually because users continue to have concerns. Concerns which to this point have not been satisfactorily addressed or resolved. No, this clearly isn't a democracy, but nor is it an autocracy (and since when did democracy have anything to do with paying money?). You say this has been discussed by the SysOps, but yet we only hear the same two voices. In the spirit of openness, please can you share these discussions or ask your colleagues to add their voices on this talk page. If we can all see that their is actual consensus, then that'll really help. Your suggestion that this is "one individuals personal morale crusade" is ludicrous in the extreme given the sheer volume of discussion from so many users - By the lack of comment from other SysOps, the same accusation could easily be applied in the other direction.--TechNic|talk|conts 19:20, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Not fitting the theme of the article; cleanup needed

I don't think that these points fit with the theme of the article. I've marked the article for cleanup as a result.

  • After repeated references to "the black rock", it is revealed to be not a geographic feature but a sailing ship, the Black Rock. Furthermore, its location on the Island is unexplained. ("Exodus, Part 1")
    • Since it was never purported that the black rock was a geographic feature, this doesn't fit the article. We may stare in wonder how a ship got on the island like that, but it's not a mindf*ck.
  • also in "Exposé", Nikki and Paulo appear to be dead when the other survivors find each of them, and the survivors believe this to be true along with the audience, and prepare to bury them. However, a series of flashbacks leads to a final one where the audience has the shock realization that Nikki and Paulo are in fact only paralyzed by a spider bite and are being buried alive. What makes this mindfuck all the more dramatic is the fact that Nikki opens her eyes right before her face is covered by earth. ("Exposé")
    • Twist, and not a particularly strong one.
  • In "The Man Behind the Curtain", the audience expects Locke to meet a man, a human man, named Jacob. When Jacob is finally revealed, there is nothing visible but an empty chair, as if the man was invisible. The reality of Jacob's existence is left ambiguous, and begs the question: "Is Jacob even a human at all?" In generic terms, this type of plot twist in which a human is expected, but something else is presented, is called "species reversal".
    • This is silly. Since we don't yet know who or what Jacob is, or why he didn't appear at first in the chair, this "begging the question" falls under speculative theory.
  • In a flash-forward, after the events of the island, Hurley is arrested for reckless driving, an act caused by him seeing an unknown person or object in a convenience store, scaring him. While we are led to believe that this is someone Hurley considers an enemy, who is alive, it is actually a form of Charlie, claiming to be a ghost, presenting us with the question, "Is Charlie really dead? Was that really Charlie?" ("The Beginning of the End")
    • After seeing C.Shepard and Yemi, this could not qualify as anything more than another in a line character seeing people we know to be dead.
  • In another flashforward, Kate mentions her son. This is portrayed to be her biological son, to the extent of Diane Janssen calling him her "grandson." However, this is revealed to be Aaron, who has somehow been adopted by Kate. ("Eggtown")
    • This is plot, not even plot twist or mindf*ck, but just ordinary for Lost where things will have to be explained as they go on with the story. If things like this are to be included, then the entire scripts will need to be here, because Lost is one big twist after another, meaning only the extrodinary should qualify for this article (like a flashforward that fooled us, when we'd only been seeing flashbacks, in "Through the Looking Glass"

I've commented out these and others that I think should be disqualified as part of the article, but did not delete them until this can be discussed-- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:21, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

I agree; none of those are mindfucks. --Kuzak 14:24, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Merge, rename, or keep?

  • Merge with plot twist because that's what they are, complicated plot twists (and most that were present weren't even that complicated). Alternatively, rename less offensive mindf*ck. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:22, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • This has been discussed before and no consensus was made among the editors. Unless you have a significantly new reason or argument (other than the fact that you or another finds the word offensive), there is no need to continue the discussion.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 18:21, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I do have argument that is not primarily based in offense at the word "fuck", and it has produced discussion above. Robert K S (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • [edit conflict] Reading the above conversation would have shown you that there is a significant reason, including and besides, the language. The majority of the plot twists in the article are just that, in that they do not come close to the level of being a mindf*ck. Those that do, like the FF "Through the Looking Glass", are small in number and could be (should be) merged into a subsection of plot twist. Alternatively, as I said above, if this article is fleshed out with a bigger amount of appropriately fitting examples, then this could be (should be) renamed to mindf*ck to avoid offence, and keep with the higher standard that Lostpedia has strived to maintain for years now. Stop trying to shut down a discussion because you don't agree with the points, while pretending to ignore them, please. The number of people who feel that this article does not meet LP standards for various reasons points to an obvious need for continued discussion. I've replaced the tags until this can be sorted out. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:40, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • And I have removed them again. We've had this discussion repeatedly, and every single time it has gone nowhere. Reintroudcing the same points is futile, and pointless. You can argue the same point over and over but it won't change a single thing. Unless someone is about to produce some kind of evidence.
  • Furthermore, for a show that is rated 15 in the UK, and TV-14 in the US, one use of the word "fuck" in an article, with it censored to "f*ck" for any linking to this article across the site, for something that is considered a device used within cinema is not considered by anyone to be offensive. If you find it offensive, I suggest you shouldn't be watching shows where people swear, stab each other, shoot each other, use drugs, fight, gas each other, blow each other up with dynamite, and run people over with DHARMA vans.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  18:50, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • That word was not used ONE time in the article! I edited out multiple occurrences of the word, where this article seemed to give open forum to use the f-bomb like sniggering little school children. It is not important whether I am personally offended, so please drop the personal attacks as to what I should or shouldn't watch. We are promoting an offensive term where a better alternative exists. We have an article in place that could be successfully merged into another article as a subsection, using a proper term that has existed for a long time instead of the currently used slang. Stop trying to make this personal, and please deal with the fact that there have been coherently presented arguments for why this article needs to be merged or renamed. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:59, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • (Deep breath, diving in.) While I would find censorship more offensive than the use of indelicate terms, the burden here is really on those that feel the article should be kept. That burden is twofold. First, but less importantly, it should be evidenced that this term is in standard use that goes wider than Lostpedia, as the article claims. I've read over the previous delete discussions and it doesn't seem such evidence has ever been presented. Second, but crucially, "mindfuck" must be precisely defined to distinguish it from the older and more prevalent term "twist". Since the article and its talk page shows constant debate and disagreement, it is clear to me that the term has never had an agreed-upon definition, and a term without a definition is meaningless. If there is an agreed-upon logical sieve--if such, then mindfuck, else [something else]--no one has brought it up here yet. Robert K S (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • This is the last thing I am going to say on this.
    1. The majority of the SysOps still are on consensus that this doesn't need changing.
    2. Yes the definition of this could use a cleanup
    3. Until fresh new arguments are presented in a clear and concise manor, I will not be going over old decisions because I see no reason for my opinion to change. By all means clean up the article... but the term stays.

For more evidence of the term see the class real website  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:12, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

  • [edit conflict] Right. Let's go to wikipedia's definition, which admits it's slang, and calls it "something that intentionally destabilizes, confuses or manipulates another person's mind" (NB, they don't have a full article on it, just a disamb entry); whereas, wikipedia's entry for plot twist defines that as "a change ("twist") in the direction or expected outcome of the plot ... used to keep the interest of an audience, usually surprising them with a revelation". Plot twist under Wikipedia further states, "some "twists" are foreshadowed and can thus be predicted by many viewers, whereas others are a complete shock" (emphasis added). This points to the fact that completely shocking twists are also merely plot twists, as most of the entries in this article fit. FWIW, I have now revised my thoughts, upon examination of the definitions, that "Through the Looking Glass" (and the others still there) should also NOT be considered proper mindf*ck, but rather elaborate plot twists. A true mindf*ck appears to be, for example The Illuminatus! Trilogy. (I would also consider anything by David Lynch would also fit that category, LOL.) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:20, 1 April 2008 (PDT) Add: One unreliable source? That's evidence? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:22, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • The cited website given as evidence states "Many definitions exist for defining what makes any given movie a 'mindfuck'. At Class Real we look for movies which have the following elements and themes: Surreal atmosphere, Identity surprises, Reality surprises, Existentialism, Postmodernism, Time Travel". Which basically says there is no clear definition and it is open to interpretation. It also emphasises the wooly definition by putting the word in inverted commas each time. That site only goes to prove that it is not an established, recognised term.--TechNic|talk|conts 19:32, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
It's not a matter of the definition "needing cleanup". The term needs a definition. (What does this term mean? How is it distinct from "twist"?) Even the class real website doesn't seem to be able to offer an answer, offering a shopping list instead: "Many definitions exist for defining what makes any given movie a 'mindfuck'. At Class Real we look for movies which have the following elements and themes: Surreal atmosphere, Identity surprises, Reality surprises, Existentialism, Postmodernism, Time Travel." Robert K S (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
It also bears pointing out that for both class real and this interesting essay, "mindfuck" refers to a type of film, and not a type of storytelling device, as it appears to be used in this article. Robert K S (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Wikipedia is the only definition given via Google, which points to this being a contemporary slang with a wishy-washy definition. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:08, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

SysOps have NO right to deny the deletion of this article

Here is a section of Lostpedia:SysOps incase any sysops have forgotten:

"SysOps are not governors: While SysOps have access to functions like protection & banning to help defuse conflict, SysOps are not the regulators to break up fighting users. Mature conflict resolution is the responsibility of all editors, and SysOps should not be expected to step in and deal with, to be blunt, editors with an attitude problem."

The points stated to delete this 'offensive' article are completely valid and no sysop has the right to come in and Deny this deletion. Plkrtn cannot delete the 'deletion tag' just because it's his 'personal opinion' that "Unless there is a new and compelling reason to remove it, its not going anywhere." I think it is going somewhere, and until the debate is resolved, the deletion tag can stay up. I have presented valid reasons, and since the previous debates listed in the archives have come to an unfair consensus by bias sysops, the deletion debate should continue. Users have a right to state thier opinions on the deletion of an article, and sysops cannot 'DENY' that deletion. My reasons for deletion of the article are the same as many prior reasons, but I, among other users, have other reasons for deleting this article besides that it is profane, slang, offensive, immature, unprofessional, un-wiki-like, and controversial. This article also has very little to do with LOST, and it is almost identical to the term 'plot twist'. These are my reasons for deletion, and until the users of this wiki can come to a consensus, along with the sysops, the deletion tag will stay up. Remember, "SYSOPS ARE NOT GOVERNORS" and "SYSOPS ARE NOT THE ONLY NOTABLE USERS" --CTS 19:20, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

I can deny this delete, and I am going to because these arguments have been repeated many times without any changes, and I will not volunteer my free time to repeatedly go over the same issues again and again. If I were being paid I'd consider that but I'm not, I do this for my free time. The MAJORITY OF THE SYSOPS BELIEVE THIS IS A VALID USE OF THE WIKI. Is that so hard to understand? As to your previous assertion, the word "fuck" HAS been said in Lost, and in canon no less. It was used in the "uncensored" version of the Orchid video, if you must know. I am talking about TV-14 and 15 rated shows (which Lost is) which would allow that word, and just as offensive words on it. "Son of a bitch", "bastard" amongst the terms I have heard... If you are offended by the term fuck, then you shouldn't watch a show which by its very rating has the capability to actually use that word on it because it regularly hits the rating criteria that this word should be used under.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:31, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
The word 'f*ck' has never been said on the show itself. The Orchid film didn't have a rating, and, incase you've forgotten, ABC deleted the word 'f*ck' from the film and replaced in with 'hell' when it was released on abc.com. --CTS 16:42, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
CTS don't tell me the rules please. The SysOps are here to create a resolution when consensus cannot be reached. Thats our role and it says so in the very article you are cherry picking comments from. Consensus has never ever been reached, and we're sticking with this article being here because the majority of the SysOps believe in it. If you don't like it, don't edit. K?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:31, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Plkrtn, please stop engaging in personal attacks about what a person should or shouldn't watch. Deal with the discussion, not the person. You should know better as a SysOp. The amount of time you have to invest is irrelevant to the discussion. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:33, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
If you stop repeating the same arguments continually, which have already been addressed several times, then I won't see this as some kind of one-eyed morale crusade where some swear words are OK, but others aren't  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:38, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Please stop deleting the 'deletion tag'. Obviously, there are users on both sides of the fence here, so until a clear consensus is reached, there is no reason to delete the tag. --CTS 19:42, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes there is, because it will not be "deleted". I'm taking this to the owner of the site, who gets final say. Note this is the only time I've ever had to do this.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:43, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Plkrtn, your words above provide sufficient evidence that our points are correct in that the new evidence is being ignored. Forget for a moment that the term is offensive to some, and please continue to address the point the elaborate plot twists =/= mindf*cks. In light of the evidence that wikipedia agrees with this point by their definitions of both, I think the onus is now on those that want to keep the article to provide good evidence why it should remain (using the subsection below please). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:46, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Mindfucks are plot twists, of course they are... it says so in the article... but in itself is a plot twist that isn't just a change of direction from where you were, its a major change in the "game" if you will. Its beyond You fail to assume good faith. Once again I've asked the site owner to put his final stamp on this one.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:51, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Sorry, but assuming good faith does not mean that my brains get left at the door; repeating that same attack negates any good faith that should be assumed. Again, you should know better as a SysOp, eh? See below for my challenges to why your observations about what is a mindf*ck are erroneous. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:56, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
I am telling you the rules, Plkrtn, because you seem to forget them. Sysops are not governors, they are of equal status to the users when it comes to deletion discussion. Your opinion matters no more than mine. --CTS 20:04, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Absolute nonsense CTS. However, you seem to believe that it is worthwhile to go over the same topics continually. You haven't presented any argument that hasn't already been covered in previous discussions about this site. Once again, I am not going to repeatedly cover the same information over and over again to satisfy users desires to see a page they do not like removed. Until you present NEW arguments and reasoning for it. I have no intention of recovering old ground.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:51, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Plkrtn, I do believe that it is worthwhile to go over the same topics continually because after I read the archived discussions, it seems that some of the sysops involved in the discussion were acting completely biased. After reading the discussions taking place now, it seems that most users are in favor of deleting/merging/renaming this article. So yes, until this discussion becomes less dictatorial and more fair, I do find it very worthwhile to repeat the very valid claims to delete/merge/rename this article. --CTS 18:31, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Personally, I think this discussion has no relevance to the deletion debate. I think we should wait for anyone else's opinion, including the opinions of more SysOp (including The owner, Admin). We have yet to come to an agreement, therefore the debate continues. One person cannot make the decision, which is basically what this discussion section is about. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  20:08, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Cleanup and lack of content = no article evidence

Okay, let's look at this from a different viewpoint for a moment. The arguments presented ask for what is a real mindf*ck vs. an unexpected plot twist. I was examining the seven points left on this article, and it seems like ALL of them are on the plot twist article, showing conclusively that this article is not needed and should be deleted until such time that someone can come up with an example that actually fits the proper definition of mindf*ck. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:32, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

One example straight away, The finale of Season 3.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:34, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
That was a plot twist. --CTS 19:37, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
[edit conflict]Unexpected plot twist, sorry -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:37, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Jacob. Not neglecting the point that we acknowledge that mind fucks are by there very nature plot twists, but are also if you will "game changers"  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:39, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
How does Jacob "change the game" in your opinion? How is that any different than Ben being revealed as not being Henry Gale and Klugh not being the leader of the Others? Klugh not leader, it's Ben. Wait, not Ben, it's Jacob. Same thing. Plot twists. ~ Add: another example of this sort of plot twist is where Kate is the prisoner, not Sawyer as Sayid suggests. We are just kept hanging for less time. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:54, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
The season finale wasn't a twist to the characters on the show, they were obviously aware that they were in the future, 2006. However, the viewer did not know this, and the writers put a huge amount of effort into making sure we thought it was a flashback. This is the entire principle of what a mindfuck is. Something that has been ensured by the writers to seem obvious to the audience, then it's "fucked." -- Sam  T  C  20:09, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
It not being a twist to the characters in this example is actually a good reason why it's a plot twist, and not specifically a mindf*ck. The plot was twisted to an unexpected ending. Alternatively, The Sixth Sense twists the plot for both viewer AND main character; he doesn't know [spoiler], and neither do we. Would that be more of a mindf*ck? I think that someone just came up with a slang word for "complex plot twist" and LP editors ran away with it. I still think it's childish usage, trying to get away with using the f-bomb on LP. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:28, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Oh, you got us. That's all we are, just little kiddies at play. </sarcasm> I don't think pointing fingers and calling names is the right thing to do. however, i do believe that The Sixth Sense was a mindfuck, because they writers worked extremely hard to build up the idea that Bruce Willis' character was alive. Same for the FF. however, I will agree that somethings, like Michael on the boat, etc. are just simple plot twists, and not mindfucks. -- Sam  T  C  20:33, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I didn't point the finger at anyone (NB I said childish usage, not that editors were acting like children). The f-bomb was sprinkled through out the article, used in a unique manner with the appearance of being used just because it could be used. The FF didn't surprise the characters. That's why I think it might just be a complex plot twist, but I did include it under mindf*ck in the plot twist article because I think the wishy-washy definition doesn't make it clear enough to exclude them. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:36, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Some users did point the finger at other users. This has almost gotten to the point of personal attacks, which is proof that this discussion has escalated beyond control. The fact that everyone is arguing (and possibly shouting at their computer monitor) is complete evidence that this has not come to an agreement. It looks like it is leaning towards deletion, except for some users, who strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, based on what has been said, I would have to go with the merge with the "plot twist" page, and to have no use of the word, because it has already been defined as a slang word.-- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  20:42, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

To end the discussion once and for all

I will take the discussion in itself to the owner of the site. He has the final say. So if you seriously disagree with our group consensus, hes the last one to go to. So I will.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:42, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

If he reads all the archived discussions, including this one, he will see that there are clearly two sides of this battle, and NO clear consensus has been reached. --CTS 19:47, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
It appears that the problem is that there are two conflicting sides on this debate, those who want this deleted, and those who don't. I should note that on this debate, so far, more people have voted to delete, or at least rename it. While others have said not to change it at all, and if people find it offensive, then "too bad for you". I think there needs to be some sort of compromise somewhere, somehow. I suggest (which I believe both sides will agree on) is to rename to Mindf*ck. Also, I am going to bring up something that has NOT been mentioned yet. There used to be a page called "Magical Negro", and people, asked for it to be deleted, because it was extreme, offensive, and possibly racist to some people. It was eventually merged to the page Archetype. This was a very similar situation to this. If that eventually was changed, why not this? -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  19:48, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm just not sure what any consensus could be based in without first understanding what it is we're talking about. Nobody has yet offered a solid, agreed-upon definition of the term. I'm neither for nor against the deletion of this article, but I don't yet fully understand what the rationale is for keeping an article for a term for which there doesn't seem to be a definition. Robert K S (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
I did offer definitions from wiki above (probably lost in the conversations). If wikipedia is a reliable source, then those definitions should be used here. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:52, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
If someone can present me with an example of an article similar to [twist ending article] that includes all of the twist archetypes that are used in Lost, without it being necessarily about the "endings" then I would seriously consider a change. If people are passionate enough about removing this article then they can do that. Is That a compromise enough? Make this page redundant. But until it is redundant there is no reason to remove it  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:54, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
It is redundant, as I pointed out above. All but three (should have been two, so I moved one) were already present on plot twist. The other two should be considered and discussed, then concensus met. I think the last two belong on plot twist. I've given evidence why via the definitions from my viewpoint. I think this should be redirected to plot twist, as there is already a mindf*ck entry there, and in keeping with other things on LP of this nature that were treated in the same manner. Note that wikipedia is the only definition given via google, which points to this being a contemporary slang, and therefore consideration for proper usage should ensue. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:03, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, merging it with plot twist appears to be the obvious solution, including whatever references to the MFs are felt necessary (if we actually mange to nail down the definition). For example, just as Flashback includes the variant forms, so can plot twist.--TechNic|talk|conts 20:09, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Since only two examples were barely fitting what some editors think a mindf*ck is, I've moved them as examples under that term in the plot twist article. This article is now redundant and should be deleted. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:33, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree that this page has definitely become redundant, and should be merged with PLOT TWIST. I don't believe that it loses any of its meaning or significance. If an editor wanted to incorporate these among the "most extreme plot twists" on the plot twist page... or perhaps define the "mindf*ck" as such, that in my humble opinion should be a compromise that most can settle on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiftkid24 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-02T14:22:13.
Most of it was already on plot twist, so that only three points on this article were unique between the two. One didn't fit even closely, so I moved it to the proper place, and the other two now reside under that title on plot twist. Again, this article is now redundant. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:34, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Whooa!

I just checked this page about a day ago and was presently suprised that the article seemed to be coming together rather well. And now, one user has taken it upon himself in the span of a few hours, to delete nearly the whole thing. I think the users' changes should be reverted until some discussion can be had about each individual deletion. I'm just not bold enough and don't want a flame war, so I will be considerate and wait patiently for further discussion.--moss ryder 20:47, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Discussion is taking place and a SysOp said he would be amiable to removing the article if it were made redundant, which is it. See below for reasons, which include the fact that nearly all the "examples" were on plot twist already, and only two (questionable ones) even fit the definition as given. (P.S. It's customary for new header to be placed at the bottom.) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:51, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
But you have no authority whatsoever to remove the page like you did. So you've been served a small ban till you realise that you cannot do that... You didn't alert any sysop to any change made, and changes like page moves are to be made by SysOps. Thats the point of those things being limited to SysOp users.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:48, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
(Moved to bottom)--TechNic|talk|conts 20:54, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
Doesn't that strike you as a little hypocritical? Their page says they were banned for "completely removing pages the user doesn't like before consensus is reached". But yet every time a user has placed a delete, rename or discussion tag on this article, you have removed it.--TechNic|talk|conts 07:11, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
This user blanked the page while discussion was underway. In a highly debated case like this we want to avoid edit wars. It is not the responsibility of a single user to blank a page in this type of situation. The user community has never come to consensus on the issue and plkrtn decided to again bring the matter to the owner of the site. This will take a few days. The ban was not hypocritical, it was justified. If you do not agree with the action of a sysop, feel free to send a message to User:Admin.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 10:58, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Also, the delete/move tags were speedily removed from the article because this has been hashed and rehashed many times. Convincing reasons and consensus must be reached in a discussion page before a page becomes re-nominated.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 11:10, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Plkrtn said [3], “If people are passionate enough about removing this article then they can do that. Is That a compromise enough? Make this page redundant”. The response to that compromise was posted that this article was redundant because only three items did not already appear on plot twist [4]. One was moved to the plot twist under the correct season [5], and two were moved to the bottom section [6]. Then the rest was deleted from this article that wasn’t related to Lost, following the instructions that that Plkrtn gave to people “passionate enough about removing this article then they can do that”. Also note that Plkrtn’s complaint that page moves are to be made by Sysops and that none was notified is false, because delete notifications flag an article so a Sysop can remove it. The page wasn’t blanked; it was made redundant and marked for deletion. Then the same Sysop, who is too close to this argument, gives a block for following his directions, calling it vandalism. Phloxophilos 18:51, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Welcome to Lostpedia. I notice from your comments that this is your first and only contribution. Strangely enough, your edit also comes from Australia, where the blocked user resides. This reeks of sockpuppetry. Now to respond to your statements: I can see where the misunderstanding has come from and will lift the block, however keep in mind for the future that he did not mean that literally. What he meant was that in the where a consensus has been reached about this article, then action would be taken. A delete, page blanking, or move shouldn't be immediately taken by a single user. Consensus may take time to reach, and I don't believe we have it yet. Also, you are only allowed to have a single account on Lostpedia, so choose which one you want to keep. One will be blocked.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:11, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Sorry, love, that's not my account, even though the editor was spot on. Thank you for lifting the block. I trust that plkrtn will be more careful in the future with his wording so there is no "misunderstandings", and that he will consider how bad it looks when he blocks someone he is opposing in a discussion. Last I will say on this matter is that I was also blocked from emailing any admin through LP, something that was horribly unfair. Fortunately I had Admin's email address from another discussion and informed him of these circumstances to review. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:26, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm sorry, but my wording isn't in question in this case, though i'll admit it was sloppy, its your understanding of the rules. Knowing the rules is your responsibility. I just applied the letter of those rules. I said make this page redundant, which in my opinion you still fail to do... You then remove any content of this article from its page in order to tag the fact that it is redundant. You know, being around as long as you have, what the rules are in this case. Its beyond naivety to suggest otherwise.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:43, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
If you've edited LP for any substantial amount of time, you'll know that blanking a page is not allowed at all, and is considered vandalism. Regardless of Plkrtn's wording, you should have known better. And that did seem like a sockpuppet. -- Sam  T  C  19:29, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
It was not completely blanked, as alleged; the content was removed and it was marked for deletion after it was made redundant. Now, enough of this nonsense and on to the real discussion about the article. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:33, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Ah. Still, if you want to make the page redundant, you don't remove the redundant information. -- Sam  T  C  19:36, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
The content of the article was completely blanked, leaving only the delete template. It seems to me now that you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you made those edits in good faith, but continue on this course and that might change.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:38, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Why not remove redundant information, Sam? That doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please take this to my user talk page, because I'd really like to know why you think that's the case. And, Jabrwocky, threats like that are really unnecessary. You believe me or you don't, because I told the truth and it's obvious to others that he said what he said. Now can we please either take this to my talk page, or leave this alone (it really doesn't belong here). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:11, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Why do you continue to make this a personal issue? I have made now threats towards you, only warnings about your behavior on the site. If you aren't making good-faith edits and your blanking wasn't just a simple misunderstanding, then your ban can be re-applied.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 22:24, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
You have been an editor here long enough to know better than to remove all the content like that. My wording may not have been the greatest, but you've been here nearly as long as I have and know how things work around here. Ignorance to the rules is no excuse not to keep to them. You do not remove content completely on any article. In this case you could have simple applied a merge tag. Simple as that. Thats why you were given a ban. Other people have done exactly the same thing and had a ban placed upon them. As Jabr has said, if you are suggesting your edit wasn't in good faith above, bans can be reapplied  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:40, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Talk:Mindfuck/Archive_4"