Talk: Him

this article is very confusing. at first, I thought it is a test of some sort. I think it needs more explaining --aurora glacialis 04:50, 26 March 2006 (PST)

The member of the others that's referred by zeke or mr. friendly ("You know what he's going to think") in maternity leave, the basis for this was the new category of the known others and the only person that was missing was the unknown one. I guess other titles for the article could be The Unknown Other, or The Other Above Zeke or Mr. Friendly in The Other Hierarchy. Personally I think 'He' is better than any of those, but feel free to edit. --skks 07:14, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Jack's Father[]

I don't think that he was Jack's Father, someone who was drunk half of his life won't be able to be "HIM", so dead or alive, I really don't think so.Ethan3aw 22:12, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

I guess dead people are possibilities now?

As a long time fan of comic books I know that if the body is missing, "dead" is only a theory.--Tricksterson 07:46, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

Well, he was pronounced dead by the coroner in Sydney. Unless resurrection is a part of this theory, he would remain dead. --skks 09:16, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

Don't forget, we have seen that the island does have miraculous healing propertries. Koolaidman 11:34, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

If that were true, however, then Shannon/Boone/Ana Lucia/Libby/et.al. would also be up and walking around. I think this is a bad theory. LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:47, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

What is this isald only wanted Christian to come back? I'm sounding a bit like Locke , i know.

talk contribs 20:03, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

AFAIK, this was just an April fool's joke by the production team. --skks 21:53, 19 May 2006 (PDT

sorry I don't follow... what?

talk contribs 07:36, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

The Monster[]

'Him' could be the monster, created when something went wrong with one of the research projects.

Wouldn't that more likely be referred to as "It"?--Tricksterson 07:44, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

A great and brilliant man, but not a forgiving man. Words used by the imprisoned Henry Gale to describe "the man in charge" --

MRNasher

"Are they gonna say he was a kind man?" Henry Gale sounds kind of like Dennis Hopper describing Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.

Thomas Mittelwerk[]

I think he cant be "him" , because thehansofoundation.org is part of The Lost Experience , which has no real connection to the show--Cool Man 0912 07:14, 6 May 2006 (PDT)

says who, the site clearly makes allusions to the show - (Mikey 15:42, 15 May 2006 (PDT))

The lost experience is being played in countries where they haven't gotten through season 2 yet, it's clear that whatever is found out in it can't be a spoiler. Even after that, i'm guessing 30% tops of the lost fans that watch the show are 'playing the game'. It wouldn't make much sense to bring in something from the game to the show as more than half of the people watching wouldn't know who this person is. --skks 03:49, 16 May 2006 (PDT)

More than ever, I think He is Mittelwerk. Now we have the details of the Lost Experience, we know Mittlewerk would need a group of people on the Island to try and handle situations occurring there... -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 05:50, 28 September 2006 (PDT)

The Lost Experience takes place in 2006, while the TV series takes place (or at least starts) in 2004. Unless Mittelwerk has returned from the island at some point during the future of the TV show, it seems unlikely that he is Him. Also, Mittelwerk was apparently running the Hanso Foundation for many years, making it even less likely for him to be able to be on the island. --FishBiscuits 16:40, 16 October 2006 (PDT)

He's a he and he's not Zeke[]

I removed the theories about Mr. Friendly or Ms. Klugh being "him". The first definite of mention of "him" was in Maternity Leave where Mr. Friendly was talking to Ethan about "him" being higher than either of them in The Others' hierarchy. It's very much illogical that Zeke would try to confuse Ethan by talking about "him" if it's a her, and they both were in consensus that neither of them had the ultimate decision about anything.

As far as faux Henry Gale goes, he doesn't know that anyone knows that Mr. Friendly doesn't have a beard. He wouldn't have any reason to imply that the beard is fake and 99% of what he has ever said has had a hidden agenda on it. Whatever he's saying probably isn't the best bet to base theories on. --skks 00:51, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Peter Coyote[]

I'm leaning towards the explanation that Him is a character which has not yet been introduced, and I have added my theory about who is going to portray this character when he is. I have a feeling that it's going to be Peter Coyote, whos voice you hear throughout the two clips shows, narrating. The actor also appears in two ongoing series, Commander in Chief and The 4400. Wouldn't it kind of make sense that the leader of the Others has been watching everything that we have, perhaps via remote viewing? -TDK 06:28, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

Henry Gale[]

I haven't seen it discussed here since the finale, but was it meant to be implied that Gale was 'Him'? He seemed to be in charge, and definately above Tom Friendly. Gale's actions in the hatch where he appeared to be afraid of a mysterious Him could've been attempts to deceive.

check out talk: Henry Gale

talk contribs 13:06, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

I assumed this was the case, and that, while held captive, the faux Henry referred to 'Him' when speaking with the losties to make himself seem unimportant, or capable of being punished (and thus pitiable). The term isn't used when Henry is with the others. It would also add to the mystique, the fear of the unknown behind the term. --Moo 06:46, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

Why would fake henry talk about "him", when they havent asked about "him" specifically. If he wanted to confuse them, he could of said her or an actual name. Maybe. --HaroO 07:21, 6 September 2006 (PDT)

Are you Him?[]

   *  In Adrift when Locke first entered the hatch Desmond asks 'Are you Him?'

   Desmond is likely asking if Locke is his replacement. Based on the orientation film and Kelvin's information, Desmond would 
   be expecting someone to show up to relieve him.

   * In Live Together, Die Alone when Desmond first wakes up after being taken into the hatch by Kelvin, he asks 'Are you Him?'

Him is obviously refering to the replacement. Desmond literally said it himself.

That's a different "him." Come on people, "him" is a personal pronoun used in common speech all the time. I don't think every time the word "him" is uttered, it refers to the same person. Why on Earth would Desmond and ben have the same reference point? When Desomnd asked "are you him?" he was asking Locke if he was the replacement, whereas when Ben (then known as Henry) said it, he was obviously talking about someone else, who may or may not have been Ben himself but at any rate was a high-ranking Other, almost certainly the Others' leader. C.m. 10:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Moitio 04:37, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

However, we don't know how much Desmond knows. The way he said it and the joke he asked presumes he wasn't just talking about a new partner (he also could've lied when he explained himself so as to not arouse suspicion). That, and his replacement could always have been a 'her.' --Moo 06:51, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

Yes, but when you're asking a man if they're your replacement, "are you him?" is a more likely question than "are you her?". Maybe if Desmond had been a woman, Kelvin would have asked that instead... --Wintermute 12:38, 25 July 2006 (PDT)

Asking "Are you him?" strikes me as awkward wording. Wouldn't you ask something like "Are you my/the replacement?" or be a bit more specific? Although, it could be part of a coded response in conjunction with the snowman joke... --Tinman 17:36, 9 February 2007 (BST)

Fenry can't be "him"?[]

Or was he talking about himself in third person while held captive in The Hatch? --Jambalaya 14:05, 28 May 2006 (PDT)

Well, he said many other things that weren't true, such as he wasn't an Other. Talking about himself as "him" could be deliberate —D muk § 14:12, 28 May 2006 (PDT)

So is it certain enough to say that 301 told us for sure that Ben is Him? Seems more and more likely, but do we know 100%? --Minderbinder 13:37, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

Walt???[]

Come on. This theory is absurd. If he were controlling the others, then they probably would've infiltrated camp and taken him right away. Come on. I've heard absurd theories before, but Walt??? --marik7772003 09:15, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

Agreed...I doubt Fenry would talk about him one minute and Walt the next, he'd at least keep a consistant name.

--Chris 12:13, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

A lot of the Him theories are absurd, such as Him is "no-one, nothing" - taken completely out of context and reading so far into the script that your eyes hurt --Nickb123 (Talk) 12:15, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

I did just edit a few of the ridiculous ones out, but got an edit conflict and wasn't sure what the other person was up to. I'll have a skim through and remove some of the poor theories later. I also think we should remove anyone who's just there without reason. If you're going to put someone on the list, at least have some reasoning behind it. We've got as much evidence that Isaac is him as we have that Aaron is him.

---Chris 12:19, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

Leave plausible ones though like Alvar and the DeGroots etc --Nickb123 (Talk) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

I've done some cleaning, deleted a few 'out there' theories and re-arranged the page a bit.

--Chris 12:35, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

Alvar Hanso can´t be[]

Alvar Hanso can´t be because is the final video of the lost experience is see it and for that he can be on the island and in conclusion he can´t be. --AvArO CrAsH 18:34, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

That makes no sense what so ever.--Captain Insano 18:54, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you trying to say that it can't be Alvar Hanso because of what we've seen from the Lost Experience?? What terrible, terrible English! -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 05:52, 28 September 2006 (PDT)

Broken english ftw, eh? Chaos pudding 15:00, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

Richard Malkin[]

This idea came into my head. Counldn't the psychic Richard Malkin be him? In ?, he told Eko he was a fraud to avoid investigation. But he told Claire that she had to board 815, not any other flight. Perhaps he worked on the Valenzetti Equation and knew the plane would crash. I'm just throwing it out there because at the beginning of summer on Lostpedia, it was posted that 'he' would be someone we've seen on the show before. --Dow lord 17:32, 29 September 2006 (PDT)

Ben (Deletion Nomination)[]

“

In A Tale of Two Cities, Kate is told she is being taken to "him", and is then taken to see Ben.

”

So basically... Ben is "him". I think this article should be deleted and set to redirect to him. After all, it was only Ben who really referred to a "him" as a leader of the others, and that was just so that the survivors didn't know they had captured the leader, presumably. All the other references are vague and really, pretty pointless. -Chris^[dt7] 00:20, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

I think that's possible... --Marik7772003 00:25, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

I think it's definitely possible, even likely. But I don't think we know 100% for sure. Maybe change the page to say that it's probably Ben, leave the other theories at the bottom, but Don't delete. At least not yet. --Minderbinder 05:41, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

Strong keep: We do not know for sure at all, and there's been so many hints - I see keep definitely as is --Nickb123 (Talk) 15:10, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

There is no reason to delete. "Him" is strill a mistery od Lost. We cannot say that Ben is Him so far --Claytonbs 22:30, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

Keep for a couple episodes Paladine 08:17, 7 October 2006 (PDT)

Strong Keep: No strong proof that Ben is Him yet. Ben also referred to he. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 20:40, 7 October 2006 (PDT)

Keep for right now any way, maybe Tom said Him as the grammer thing not the person they call him--Add ude 22:49, 7 October 2006 (PDT)

Not Strong Keep Personaly, I think Ben is him. But no one is 100% sure. So you can keep the page if you want. --J a m e s W. 16:26, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

Keep--Captain Insano 16:27, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

Keep. It is a factual statement after all and lets the reader decide what it means, if anything. We don't yet know anything for sure and this could swing another way later on. Magnoliasouth 02:47, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Strong Delete - Face it people, Ben is "Him", as much as "He" ever existed. Ben was clearly playing games with the survivors, so all of his "Him" quotes are meaningless. Without those quotes, the article falls apart. There's no evidence that the others go around calling anybody "Him". When speaking to each other, they have no problem using real names. Tom is the only other Other to use "Him" that way, but common sense says that he simply didn't want to give away anyone's real name, supported by his annoyance at the revealing of his own name in Live Together, Die Alone. This article is just a haven for old theories that don't make any sense as of Season 3. -Anþony 05:19, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

Delete - I think it's fair to say that everything in the episodes before and after the s2 finale points heavily to Ben being "him". --Sauron18 18:30, 14 October 2006 (PDT)

Delete - The writers have gone out of their way to associate Ben and Him in every episode so far this season. While it's possible they could throw someone above Ben just for the hell of it, every early reference to Him (including Ben's own comments in the armory) is now resolved as a reference to Ben. --Tapin 06:30, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

Personally ambivalent either way as I think it's either Ben or a character/entity which would require a new page anyway ... but the producers were somewhat coy about this topic during the last podcast. --GunsmithCat 15:26, 22 October 2006 (PDT)

Strong Delete - As I see it, the presence of a certain "him" in the series is something made up by us fans from soem very suggestive phrases, used in the series. Just as anyone can be an "other", depending on who you are referring to, anyone (male) can be a "him" - without it meaning something more than that. And if this article refers to some mysterious, hitherto unknown leader of the Others (which it does, right?), it should at least be degraded to some sort of general theory about the hierarchy of the Others, and not be presented as a page about someone who might not even exist at all. --Noseman 2006 19:55, 5 November 2006 (CET)

Proof that "He" is Ben[]

I just remembered that in the episode "He" was first seen, "Maternity Leave", Tom is talking about Ben. Tom says that "He" won't be happy because Ethan didn't finish the lists, and since we now know it was Ben who told Ethan to make the lists then this is obviousley...him.

It's still possible that the "Him" Ben refers to while being a prisoner is a different person, but at least the ones referred by Tom are certainly Ben.

I know we basically already know Ben is him, but we should begin accepting that nothing else is going to come in all probability. --Sauron18 18:30, 14 October 2006 (PDT)

Enzo Valenzetti[]

"His single-engine plane crashed during a trans-European flight, maybe it crashed on the island."

Note, trans-European flight. That means a flight from one part of Europe to another. Last time I checked, the island isn't in Europe. --FishBiscuits 16:41, 16 October 2006 (PDT)

To be fair, the island doesn't appear to be in Africa either, but a small plane somehow found it's way from there. Not that I'm endorsing any speculations. Maybe the island is actually Shenendoah, and it moves! ;) -Beardog4314 14:49, 7 November 2006 (PST)

Anthony Cooper[]

In the section of this article pertaining Locke's father, Helen is asking Anthony "Are you him?" in reference to: is he Locke's father, not is he "Him" - as in the leader of the others. Can this be deleted? --Liz

Well, that is the literal interpretation, but I think there is an ongoing theory that her saying this has a double meaning, and that's why that mention is in place. The same goes for mentions of "good people" in the Good Family article. There are at times references which are believed to be double entendres. --Pandora X 14:56, 22 October 2006 (PDT)

Thanks for pointing this out to me! :) --Liz

Nice reformatting![]

It's MUCH easier now to read through all the theories. Thank you! --Amberjet11 13:40, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Silly connection[]

I was just watching an episode of The Simpson's, and I noticed this silly connection from The Simpson's to Lost :) :

Lost has a supposed character named "Him".
--> President Johnson had a pet dog named "Him"
--> In an episode of The Simpson's called "Dog of Death", the dog "Him" was depicted in a brainwashing video, as a direct reference to A Clockwork Orange.
--> Lost made a direct reference to A Clockwork Orange in "Not in Portland".

Just being silly, -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 20:21, 9 February 2007 (PST)

'Incidental' reference theory[]

I see my 'incidental reference' theory was removed. Fine. Now, somebody PROVE to me that the "him" Tom mentioned in "Maternity Leave" and the "him" Ben refers to as "a great man" are the same "him" at all. Prove it.

My theory was as valid as anyone's, but it was removed just for not following the conventional wisdom. There is *not* a shred of evidence--- yet--- that there is one and only one mastermind antecedent for all mentions of the word "he" or "him".

This is a show where you have to question 'conventional wisdom' and not make assumptions. The two "him"/"he" references almost seem like obvious, transparent misdirections to get all of us thinking "mastermind."

If anything, it refers to hierarchy, not mastermind. Tom refers to his boss "Ben," Ben refers to his boss "him." Everyone has a boss. Did you ever think that maybe THAT is the point?

I've added a theory that suggests that there are more than one "Him"s. You can add anything you think is pertinent to that theory.

"May or May Not Exist"?[]

I think Mikhail's recent comments, that allude him to being Jacob, sort of confirm that he does exist, seeing how he brough "outside" Others to the island, and I strongly doubt Mikhail was lying at this point. It's possible, true, but I think we should assume it's more possible that he exists. --Sauron18 15:23, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

Mikhail had absolutely no reason to lie at that point.

Merge with Jacob[]

It is my understanding that as of the March 20th podcast the creators have officially stated that "He/Him" is Jacob. If this can be confirmed, I nominate for a merge with Jacob They talk about it in the new podcast, Jacob is Him. Hooper talk contribs email 23:13, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

Yes, i'm for it -- User:Jakovexc0
Yes, both Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse confirmed it in the podcast from

“

March 20, 2007. Conversation occurs at 24:23 of the podcast:
Carlton Cuse: "I think it would be fair to say that the 'Him' that Brady Hardin is referring to would be Jacob."

Damon Lindelof: "So when Ben says, back when he was Henry Gale, in the hatch last year, 'Oh, I'm not the leader of The Others. The guy that is the leader of The Others...he's a magnificent man...he's a vengeful man'...or whatever the hell it is he says, he's talking about Jacob?"

Carlton Cuse: "Well...assuming he was being honest..."

Damon Lindelof: "Okay...interesting."

Carlton Cuse: "Yeah...Yeah"

”

--User:jlaureano

Yes most def merge it, and for extra ammo, try and get Damon/Carlton's quote saying that they are, in fact, one and the same. --Castor Troy 09:45, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

Yes, is there really anything to debate? --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 13:00, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

No Leave as is, until it is established on the show. After reading the above quotes, that is not a definative as it should be for a merge. My opinion on the matter of Jacob is that he is not a real person. He is a made up leader of the Others created by Ben, to create another level of control over the group. --Samhain99 12:22, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

Yes, confirmed. -- Dee4leeds talk contribs all 13:02, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes Merge this, I'm really happy we got confirmation! Shadow Ultra 13:11, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes If confirmed by the producers, then it is real. What the producers say goes. --Berethor222 13:43, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
No The producers have on occasion been known to provide false information or joke around with topics on the podcast. I think without real confirmation from the show itself, these two pages should stay separate. A small section can be added to each article noting what the producers said as a reference until a definite answer is reached. However for the mean time i believe it best that the two pages remain separate until we learn the truth of this information in the show. It is also the safer method if in fact Jacob isn't him, or him doesn't exist, etc.-Mr.Leaf 13:48, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
No - I agree with what Mr. Leaf said. The producers frequently toy with us. I'd like to see something on the show before we make it official that Jacob is "Him". Jabberwock talk contribs email - 13:50, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
No - Him is probably Jacob, BUT it is still unconfirmed. Its like spoilerfix episode titles - usually correct but not official. --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:03, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Not yet - Let's wait for the show itself to give us a clear answer as to yes or no. I don't trust what the producers say, personally, and that podcast transcript is actually kind of vague: "assuming Ben was being honest", and all. I'd trust Ben about as far as I can throw him. :) --Shodan1138 14:13, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Not yet - wait until after he is revealed on-screen. I think that merging this now would be a spoiler, to some degree. Also, as Mr.Leaf states, the producers might just be joking... We'll just have to wait and see; --Gateboy42 14:31, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes, it has been officially confirmed and that's as much as we'll get. --Sauron18 14:41, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
No Gateboy42 is right we should wait until after he is revealed on-screen.--S A G E18 14:43, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Not yet No merge until after the info is revealed on the show, doing it now would be a big spoiler and just confuse readers. --Minderbinder 16:02, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes, if they give a straight answer like this on the podcast, it's true. You can tell when they're being roundabout in their answers, and when they're being honest. Jacob is Him. Daveman424 20:36, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
No Agree with the other no votes. Producers have joked around with us in the past, so why should this occasion be different?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marik7772003 (talk • contribs) .
Yes Just make sure Him redirects to Jacob. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 07:29, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
Wait I have little doubt that we'll be doing this merge soon enough, but pages should reflect canon as established in the show, not speculation from podcasts. If the show had presented a semi-clear signal about something and the podcast clarified, then podcast becomes canon. But no harm in waiting until we see it on screen. --Jajasoon 09:28, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
Wait The podcast confirms that Brady Hardin is talking about Jacob but nothing else. If they had confirmed that Ben was talking about Jacob, I would say yes. But without that, its not enough. Dharmatel4 10:47, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes I agree that Him should be redirected to Jacob. TheAma1 12:47, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes It's clear in the podcasts which things Damon and Carlton are confirming and which things they joke around about, or call into question. In this instance they are definitely confirming that "Jacob" and "Him" are one and the same, but they are calling into question whether the things Ben said about Jacob/Him were all true or not. Since Ben never said the name "Jacob", pointing out that Ben isn't always honest could have no bearing on the fact that Jacob is Him. It could only have bearing on what Ben said about the nature of Him. --Jackdavinci 19:38, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes The tone of voice and nature of the producers' answers in the podcast is more than enough to tell whether they are joking around or not. They are clearly being serious in this instance. Merging the two will put a definitive end to the "is Jacob Him" discussions which is what the producers had in mind. --Paulus2 07:28, 23 March 2007 (GMT)
Not yet More proof needed in my opinion --Blueeagle islander 00:40, 23 March 2007 (PDT)
No The 'confirmation' is still too vague. --Doc 10:16, 23 March 2007 (PDT)
Wait I am skeptical about the confirmation, it was almost too easy to get that information out of them. Mr Vain talk contribs email 13:07, 23 March 2007 (PDT)

I would like to point out a similar discussion at Talk:Mikhail Bakunin, in which it was debated over whether we should change Patchy to Mikhail Bakunin before Enter 77 aired. Shadow Ultra 15:25, 23 March 2007 (PDT)

YES I feel that my question was answered and Jocab is indeed "Him". Don't be too skeptical of the producers. --Brady 12:13, 24 March 2007 (PDT)User:Brady Hardin

Well, now the count is 14 No/Wait to 14 Yes, so unless we get a definitive vote in either direction, let's wait out the merge until it's made clearer and keep the podcast note. --Castor Troy 13:39, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

YES the very "merge" template indicates anyone reading that the two are the same, thus voting no just to prevent spoiling is pointless.--Gonzalo84 18:25, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

That is not why we are disagreeing, we are disagreeing becuase the producers are not always truthful and the info they provided was very sketchy and isn't necessarily true. It is therefore better than we wait until real confirmation from the show that indicates Jacob as him. Tom is a him, Ben is a him, I am a him, Jacob is a him, whether Jacob is the him that numerous others have referred to is unknown. That is one way the producers could be sneaking this one in. Better safe than sorry. Because of that I am saying that I will leave the merge template up but this debate is far too close to pick a winner, so this page will stay. Unless an overwhelming consensus emerges in the next couple days. -Mr.Leaf 18:37, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

Actually, the producers are very clear about what "him" they are talking about, so the issue here is not whether Jacob is "Him", because it is confirmed without a doubt if you listen to the podcast. What I thought was the disagreement was whether we should present this information, because it could be considered spoilery. --Sauron18 06:02, 26 March 2007 (PDT)

Definitately Not - They did not confirm that "He" was Jacob, they only made the possibility clear. .--User:IslandX
- IslandX, please explain your opinion because I do not understand your stance. Also, several people have accused Damon and Carlton of lying or misleading in podcasts. Does anyone have any good examples of when this may have happened? They gave a straight-forward answer, but many of you are doubting it. Why?--Brady 20:45, 27 March 2007 (PDT)
- To quote them - "Do you think there is a Job"; "I believe in Jacob"; "I would think there is...".
  - Well that's not all they said, as said above, they gave a pretty normal answer. They couldn't have been more clear. --Sauron18 05:48, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes Well, if it's a confirmed information, these articles should be merged.--Kemot from Poland 03:18, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes, It should be merged because even though the podcast crew usually joke/lie about future events, I doubt they would lie about this, and they did seem pretty sincere about the fact that He was Jacob they just seemed to toy with us about seeing Jacob this season.
Yes - It's been confirmed, it should definitely be merged.--Mapleleaf50 20:48, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
Yes most definitely Carlton and Damon actually said that Jacob was him, what more do we need? Dr Giggles 09:43, 29 March 2007 (PDT)
How come some things the producers say are considered canon (It's not purgatory, the Monster isn't nanobots) but some things aren't (Jacob is Him) even when they came from the same person? Shadow Ultra 22:36, 31 March 2007 (PDT)
- Some people are confused because in the podcast they were discussing two different issues at the same time. 1) Are the "Jacob" that was mentioned several times and the "Him" that was mentioned the same person? To this they give a pretty definitive yes. Unfortunately they also discuss a second, related issue, at the same time, which for some reason has confused people: 2) Is Ben talking about the same "Him" in the Swan Hatch? Answer: basically, they imply that he is talking about the same Him, *but* we might or might not believe that he agrees with the characteristics of "Him" i.e. "He is a great man, a brilliant man...he will kill me if I fail my mission". Maybe he really is in line with the Others dogma about him, or maybe he has his own agenda and is just pretending to be a loyal Otherling. *Note that* the part of the podcast that confuses people, where they bring up that Ben is a liar, could have *no* relevance whatsoever to the issue of whether Jacob is "Him" or not, since Ben has never mentioned the name "Jacob" and certainly never connected "Jacob" to "Him". Therefore the only thing that Ben lying could have bearing on is what he did say about "Him" which was either that he was great and brilliant, or that he would kill Ben for failing his mission (which probably was a lie since this mission seems to have been planned by Ben to save Ben's life). Jacob looks like a Him. Jacob quacks like a Him. The producers took us on a tour of the Him farm with a thousand quacking Jacobs. Jacob is Him --Jackdavinci 23:20, 31 March 2007 (PDT)
  - Okay I'm changing my vote to Wait lol. While the producers have confirmed that the "Him" the Others talk about *is* "Jacob, and this article (and Jacob) should reflect that, they did not yet confirm that the "Him" that Inman and Desmond refer to is Jacob. --Jackdavinci 09:12, 2 April 2007 (PDT)
Don't Merge There is still plenty of reason to keep them apart. Lets wait, and if it comes to fruition, we can merge them. [--pom5msu] [--talk] 20:43, 2 April 2007 (PDT)
No, (despite Jacob being Him) - "One of us" has now 100% confirmed that Jacob is significantly more important than Ben, almost certainly making Jacob "Him". However, they should remain separate articals since Jacob does carry other connotations.

What happened?[]

What happened to the page? -- User:Jakovexc0

just a vandal attack, dont worry though, a sysop will come along soon and revert it all. --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 05:37, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

is there a way to revert it all at once? that would be great --Maith 05:39, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

Nnot for common folk like us im afraid lol, just the sysops have that power. --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 05:40, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

And I was just trying to write that executive producers Damon and Carlton have said Jacob is Him in the newest podcast.-- User:Jakovexc0

They are just wasting their time. Nothing is being affected by it in the long run. --Samhain99 05:48, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

Yes you can. Go into the history and edit a previous revision. It's called "reverting".

References to "Him" (Swan)[]

When Desmond first wakes up in Inman's care, Inman asks him, "Are you him?" and as a test asks him "What did one snowman say to the other?" in "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1".
In "Adrift" Desmond asks Locke "Are you him? Are you him?". Locke pretends that he is and Desmond with great relief says "I can't believe it. You're finally here." But when he asks him the snowman question Locke doesn't know and Desmond realizes Locke is not indeed "Him."

The above was deleted with the reasoning that this article is specifically about the Other's him. but!... 1) These were other references to a mysterious "Him" figure of impoartance, and we don't actually know that it isn't the same him. 2) The "Him" link on the Inman page links to *this* article. If it really shouldn't be in this article, we should make it into it's own article and change the "him" links that just refer to the "Swan him. So what do people think? - A) keep Swan him as section on this article. B) Make a new article for "Him (Swan)" and change the relevant "Him" links or C) Just ignore the existance of the Sawn Him altogether? --Jackdavinci 23:03, 7 April 2007 (PDT)

Merging[]

Jacob & Him are almost the same people, they are are unvisible, they can't be see, It should be merged withe the article Jacob. Maybe Jacob and Him are the same person, or maybe not.

--Wilbraham Williams 09:55, 8 April 2007 (PDT)

Can you repeat that? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Thanks. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 09:57, 8 April 2007 (PDT)

Jacob and "him" are the same person. Ben basically said it tonight in "One of Us"

Basically, he wants another vote on merging the "Jacob" and "Him" articles. Looks like the vote kind of fizzled out last time, so I suppose we might as well start this up again...

Weak Yes: Considering the way Ben talked about Jacob tonight, it's almost certain that he's in a position higher than Ben. Combined with the producers' "confirmation" in the podcast, I think it's safe to merge now. -PsychoYoshi 23:51, 11 April 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes: Though the confirmation was only known to some, this episode made it very clear to the general public, meaning the info is no longer spoilery. Hell, even CC italicized "Him" when Ben said it. I'd say we should do it. --Sauron18 00:30, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes Ben said to Juliet in One of Us: " Jacob said he would take care of it himself. Unless, of course you don't have faith in Him." Given the statement in the podcast, I'm not sure they are going to give us much stronger proof than that. --NSHS07 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Weak No: there have been alot of times that people here have been 90% sure only to be wrong so I say! "wait for comfirmation" till we actual see "him" or jacob.--Hit and miss 06:38, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes: There are no other credible options, and D&C have confirmed it. Skeejay 08:58, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Yes: Same as above. TheAma1 09:57, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Yes: As above. it's been confirmed now by the podcast and Ben in One of Us. They're definitely the same.--TechNic|talk|conts 15:31, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes: I thought the merge should've happened right after the aforementioned podcast, and the most recent episode only made it more obvious--Timmythegreek 21:19, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes: This merge should have been done after the podcast. Jacob and Him are clearly the same person. If they turn out not to be through some plot twist, we can always change it back. Shadow Ultra 08:44, 13 April 2007 (PDT)
Wait "Him" (Others) is confirmed Jacob but "Him" (Swan) is not yet confirmed to be Jacob! --Jackdavinci 09:45, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

This page is not about the DHARMA replacement, it's about the leader of the Others. --Sauron18 12:38, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

The title says "Him". Not "Others" leader". Not even "Him (Others)". No, it's about "Him", whoever he or they might be. We don't know if the Swan "Him" was a replacement or someone else. They could potentially be the same him. The Swan "Him" also links to this article. If you want to make a seperate article go ahead as long as you include a disambiguation here. --Jackdavinci 15:56, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

If you notice the discussions earlier on this page, we had already decided to delete the Swan Him. This page is stricly for the Other, notice the categories and tables. The merge vote is concerning the leader of the Others. --Sauron18 18:43, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

The point is, you can merge the Him (Others) info onto the Jacob page, but you'll still need a "Him" page for the Swan Him. I say we move all the Jacob stuff to the Jacob page, and convert this page to just be about the Swan Him, with a disambig sentence pointing to Jacob for those looking for that Him. If you don't merge the Jacob info, then either this page has to include both Hims, or you need to make a seperate Him page for the Swan Him. --Jackdavinci 22:11, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Sure, that would be perfect, I was just saying that the vote is mainly that we merge, whether literally or not, Jacob with Him, the leader of the Others. We can just move the information to Jacob's page and change the name in this page. But that still requires someone with "higher powers" if I recall correctly. --Sauron18 22:13, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I agree with this. At least, until all instances of "Him" are properly coalesced into one ;-) --Massa 02:57, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

Strong Yes I believe 100% Jacob is Him and Him is Jacob.-- Dr Giggles 13:02, 16 April 2007 (PDT)
Strong Yes Either merge the pages or remove the "Him" page from the Others section.

Merged The articles have already been merged. Move along.... --Jackdavinci 21:04, 19 April 2007 (PDT)

Then why is "Him" still listed under the prominent Others section?--Catalanowned 21:06, 19 April 2007 (PDT)
- Which page? This merge vote is only about the original "Him" page and has no special powers over any article besides Him and the Others. If it's on some other page, either no one has noticed that it didn't get changed, in which case, go ahead and make the change yourself - or it's a protected page and we have to make a note on the discussion page of *that* article (not this one) to alert a sysop to change it since only sysops can modify protected pages. --Jackdavinci 21:33, 19 April 2007 (PDT)