- ...if you remember correctly from what source? I have absolutely no idea where you're getting your information from, but whatever they were "supposed" to be, they are not Arctic Terns, they are Silver Gulls - two VERY different species. For reference, view Wikipedia articles and Google images to reference and compare them to the episode's screenshots shown in this article. Terns are terns (subfamily Sterninae) and seagulls/gulls are seagulls/gulls (subfamily Larinae). The birds are called seagulls/gulls in the show, and IMO wouldn't be referred to as such if they were meant to be terns. In ADDITION, Silver Gulls are found in the South Pacific. WHY would the Lost crew and creators go through the trouble of using a bird specifically within (or close enough to) the geographical parameters of the show if they were being ridiculously scientifically inaccurate to begin with?--Overworkedirish 18:48, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
- Until we are told (as part of canon) the species, we keep those opinions in trivia, eh? :) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:50, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
- I understand and respectfully disagree with your perspective. I went into the article and clarified the wording, but I will leave it as trivia (...for now...). However, you need to understand that this is not an opinion. It is a fact. Desmond and Claire handled a Silver Gull. You have to understand, most people hear "seagull" and see a "seagull." ...that's not how it works. As we birders/birdwatchers/students-of-ornithology are aware, there are over 50 gull species (Larids) worldwide. Most species - including the Silver Gull - can be positively IDed 100% beyond any doubt by observing distinct and definitive size, shape, plumage, other physical features, and geographical range. The bird was seen in canon, it IS a Silver Gull, and I feel that unless we are told otherwise, it should stay as a main part of the article. Sure, if we are at some point in the future told in canon that the bird was INTENDED to represent another species (for kicks I'll say Arctic Tern), then we amend the article, and we add to "Errors/Bloopers" that they actually used a Silver Gull in the show. But for now, we go on what knowledge we have. We saw the bird that was handled, and it can be definitively IDed as a Silver Gull. Perhaps not by you, but that's because you don't know anything about ornithology, while I for one do. Let me try and draw you a parallel:
- If you see a shark on the show, you do not need to wait to be told definitively "THIS IS A SHARK" to know it is a shark. You know because you know what a shark is. You know what a shark looks like. For anyone to say "wait for confirmation on what it REALLY is would seem ridiculous, right? ...I'll keep going with this.
- If you see an orangutan on the show, you do not need to wait to be told definitively "THIS IS AN ORANGUTAN" to know it is an orangutan. You know because you know what an orangutan is. You know what an orangutan looks like.
- If you see a human on the show, you do not need to wait to be told definitively "THIS IS A HUMAN" to know it is a human. You know because you know what a human is. You know what a human looks like.
- For me, as a student of ornithology, it's the same for bird species. If I see a Silver Gull on the show, I do not need to wait to be told definitively "THIS IS A SILVER GULL" to know it is a Silver Gull. I know because I know what a Silver Gull is. I know what a Silver Gull looks like. It may be difficult to get this across to those outside the birding world, and it may seem nitpicky, but it is not trivia, it is definitive visual confirmation within canon. Best, --Overworkedirish 23:25, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
- It's being retained because it's (probably) true; no one is disputing so far that it's a silver gull. However, Claire didn't say she wanted to catch a silver gull (IMO, this should have been named "birds" and list all the birds in one article). Therefore, the species becomes a trivia point. If she said she saw an orangutan, saying it was an orangutan would be correct; saying it was Pongo pygmaeus morio would be trivia. If she said she saw a shark, saying it was a shark would be correct; saying it was a hammerhead would be trivia. If she spoke to a human, saying the person "hailed from Boston (based on his distinctive accent)" would be trivia. Placing something in trivia does not trivalise the point the editor is making, but rather states it is trivia as far as the show is concerned. See the difference? (and please don't spout assumptions like "that's because you don't know anything about ornithology, while I for one do"; it sounds pretentious and it's insulting to the person to whom you are addressing) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:49, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- I am not disputing those are Silver Gulls either, but I had a conversation at a cocktail party with Jordan Rosenberg, and it was a while back, but I believe he told me the original plan was for Arctic Terns. They obviously ended up with something else, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove or argue with anyone, I just thought it is a useful factoid because the migration patterns of Arctic Terns are presumably not the same as the migration patterns of another species. Didn't mean to stir anything up, just wanted to provide some miscellaneous info. Obviously, the canon of the show is Silver Gulls if they used Silver Gulls, but who knows...maybe they aren't big birders. And I could be remembering it completely wrong anyway. Clover 21:10, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- Hey guys - I'm sorry if I came off as haughty or arrogant - admittedly I got a little carried away in my above rant. I guess we'll wait and see what the show calls them! I'm sure you're right Clover, they're probably not big birders, I just would like to know what they DID mean to use, ya know? Most birders are very used to Hollywood's ornithological ambiguities and errors. Check out this site compiling ridiculous bird goofs: http://www.webspawner.com/users/v389/ --Overworkedirish 01:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Interestingly, the message does not contradict the official cover story of the Oceanic Six. Neither does it give a number of survivors (Six? Eight? Fourty?), nor does it state how many actually died, not anything else. The only possibly contradictory part would be the "heading back to Fiji" bit, but then, the Sunda Trench discovery is bizarre to begin with. Any chance the message might still pop up somewhere?--Nevermore 15:23, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
- The point about "heading back to Fiji" being a contradiction should be changed. The Pilot told Jack, Kate, and Charlie that he turned the plane around to land in Fiji.
The above comment was added to the article page, but really should have been brought up here. And I don't think the poster read the whole paragraph he was refering to- the contradiction mentioned involved the O6's story, not the actual facts. Iburnedthemuffins 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)