Captain Locke

Captain Locke serving aboard the USS Enterprise.

In one of MIB's attempts to get off the island, he disguised himself as a starfleet officer! This is a joke, not vandalism!

Premature Birth

I wonder if Locke fighting off all those infections and surviving a premature birth was because the island wasn't done with him, similar to Michael? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  08:42, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

  • Agree, but more. The Island wasn't done and hadn't even begun with him.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree with your point, the island "began" with Locke in 1954.-----Dominick 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)kcinimod200

Life Experiences

First the link between Desmond and Locke, here, can be made between any of them. They are all destined to be there and play some significant part. Second, I offer Jack:

Kate: Daddy issues, death of [presumed] father, mom sticking up for dad I Sawyer: Daddy issues (Locke's Dad being a sort of surrogate for Sawyer as Sawyer did make him in Conner's image, thus both striving to live up to their fathers' image), conning (the lie about the Oceanic 6 is a con and was Jack's doing)

Hurley: More daddy issues (abandoned by Daddy, literally or emotionally), visitations by dead Christian (visits from the dead, I'm pretty sure, well qualify as unique life experiences!)

Sayid: The loss of and struggle to retain the love of a woman

Charlie: Both destined to save the lives of the Losties, both do so.

Jin: embarrased by their parentage but still, both, striving to honor their fathers

Sun: manipulated by their fathers

Claire: Umm, yeah, same daddy. Pretty sure that half of what it takes for a person to even exist counts as a major contribution to one's life experience.

Shanon and Boone: Jack had to choose who should die and their [step]Daddy was the one whom he chose.

Michael: Destined to save the lives of the Losties, estranged from parents

Walt: Both estranged from fathers and reconnected with them

Rose: Her belief counters his skepticism. Of all these connections this really matters. Locke's belief counters Jacks but in a crazy way. Rose's stability, logic, and calm give Jack more pause than Locke can ever hope to.

Bernard: Both saved lives of loved ones. Jack saved Sarah through surgery, Bernard saved Rose by bringing her to Australia and putting her on 815.

Nikki and Paulo: Seriously? Who cares? They simply don't count. They were added to make up for characters that died and killed off because they added nothing to the story and the fans hated them. Mucho gracias to the writers for listening to us.

Eko: Monster, drugs, reluctance to accept anything spiritual

Ana Lucia: Both on the Island because of Christian.

Desmond: Constantly fighting to prove they are good enough, resistant to accept their responsibility to The Island et alia

Ben: Ummm, yeah, entrusted with the responsibility of leadership and awareness of the hardships and sacrifices that entails

Juliet: Doctors, save lives of people, feel intensely responsible for deaths they could not have prevented, promised off the island only to have that hope exploded

Oh, yes, and Locke: Daddy issues, thrust into leadership roles, believe they are responsible for saving everyone

The point is that this link can be made between any and all individuals on the island if you want to see that link. They are all there because they all share something in common with each other besides just being there. This is, in no way, something unique to Locke.

  • Agreed. Tis a silly section.--Chesebrgr 08:21, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
If the sections stays, the Claire: abandoned by fathers who wanted no part in raising them, is wrong because Christian did want to be involved, Carole wouldn't allow him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deyve (talkcontribs) 2009-05-10T23:04:42.
    • From the comments above it looks like this section hasn't been edited since 2009, I have a few points of contention still with some of the common life experiences we are claiming he has with everyone, eg...
  • Bernard: unable to establish lasting relationships deep into their lives

Bernard and Rose have one of the only lasting relationships on the show. (someone has pointed this out already!)

  • Paulo: frequently smokes cigarettes but quits at the behest of his girlfriend (eh? what has this got to do with Locke?)
  • Eko: had lengthy encounters with the smoke monster; involved with illegal drug trade (yes to smoke monster, when was Locke involved in illegal drug trade?)
  • Juliet: actively recruited under false pretences by Richard Alpert for Mittelos to do work in "Portland" (Richard attempted to recruit John quite a few times then gave up!)
  • Frank: Returned to the Island on Flight 316, but did not buy a ticket for the flight (Locke was dead, Frank was the pilot).
  • Charlie: got rid of their demons on the island (very general, can be said of most characters)

Please correct me if I've forgotten bits of the show where John chain smokes and smuggles drugs! There are some other fairly sketchy connections, how about instead of starting the section off with saying he has a connection to virtually everyone we could say "It can be noted that Locke shares similar life experiences with a large number of chracters..." then we can cut some of the ones that don't make sense!--Lizziejj 13:29, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

The future is now the present

Okay. I believe that the last scene was a catching up point was a catchup between the future and the present. We have the important details of the events between the last real time scene and the last future scene. There is no way flash-forwards could continue with Locke not being dead. Therefore, he is dead IN THE PRESENT, as well as Nadia, Mr. Avellino, Elsa, Ishmael Bakir, etc. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  23:16, 29 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree, his status should be changed to deceased. --Mapleleaf50 10:33, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

We don't really know how the show will handle time in the future, whether island is "past" and off island "present", or island is "present" and off "future". What about something like alive in 2005/deceased in 2007? --Minderbinder 11:11, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
While that certainly is possible, we don't know for sure how the writers will proceed. I see no harm in doing something like what Minderbinder suggests for the time being. --Compossible 11:18, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
Putting the date of death and leaving the status as alive seems to look good. Good idea, Compossible. --Connor401 13:36, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
This should say dead. the timeline is now filled in and we know for a full fact john locke is dead in the present --Hostile108 15:06, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
I entirely disagree with the statement that the future is now the present and that Locke is dead now. The present right now is the time where the O6 made it off the island. Locke dies 3 years ahead. So, with regard to the present, Locke's dead is in the future. In the present, John Locke is alive and on the island. I vote for keeping his status alive, because he is STILL alive.--Salvora 06:29, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
I vote for changing the status. Here's the issue: to the viewers of the show (who read LP), he's dead. To the island inhabitants in the past (since they have shown us into the "future" on the show), he's alive, but to the 06 off-the island, he's also dead. The question is, which time period is right, since we don't even know where/when the island is. As LP is a gathering source for information on all of this, I would vote for the wiki entry to be altered to reflect this issue. The only people he's alive to are the non-06 people left on the island, and we don't even know where/when they are, to be honest. AlaskaDave 16:15, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
I vote for a change of status. He was shown dead, and even if that changes, he is dead until season 5 starts in my mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Dawg (talkcontribs) 2008-06-05T20:22:40.
Aren't Bakir and Nadia considered dead on the wiki? Are we just considereding life status based on the view of the non-06, on-island people? I mean, we don't even know where/when the island even is, or what the status of the island is. AlaskaDave 19:30, 5 June 2008 (PDT)
The last we saw of "present" time, it was January 7, 2005. Unless the "bad things" happened within a week and John killed himself immediately thereafter, we can assume he is still alive at the moment the O6 landed on Sumba. So he is alive, and his date of death is April 2007. --Pyramidhead 10:45, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
I don't remember having the discussion and arriving at the decision that the "dead" vs. "alive" distinction relied on 2004 being counted as "the present". I do remember making various arguments that it is silly to call flashforwards "the future" based on actual chronology (2007 is the past for us) and based on the remarks of the producers (the show is "a mosaic" and past, present, and future are all one timeline). Is Mr. Avellino alive? Robert K S (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (PDT)

Bentham reference

Besides being the founding father of utilitarianism, the real-life Jeremy Bentham is known for his stuffed carcass (auto-icon) on display at Oxford University. Though I don't think it's significant to the plotline of the show, I do think the writers were clever enough to name one "famous" cadaver (the mystery coffin) after another (the real Bentham.)

Oh, and here's a pic of the real Jeremy Bentham. Lovelac7 13:28, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

I'm not sure where else to ask as I'm new to all this, but does anyone have a source for the historical John Locke's father working for Bentham? So, I take it he was from the Island? A relative of Richard's perhaps? Look at the dates. --Sarahwolf 17:08, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

Change A.K.A. to "Alias"

I'm not really sure how to do this as I haven't done a lot of wiki work, but I suggest that "A.K.A." for the Bentham name be change to "Alias" as it better describes the situation. Bentham is an alias and not his actual name after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poke4christ (talkcontribs) 2008-06-01T08:08:24.

Where'd he die?

Was it LA or New York? Decboy 10:30, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

its doesnt have to be either --kalebv 17:47, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

It could be New York, and maybe his death tied in with Cloverfield! (unlikely, but between the two cities this would make NY more likely)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peatymasta (talkcontribs) .

If he died in New York, how did the body end up in California?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:14, 8 September 2008 (PDT)

It's most likely he died in California considering that the last person he visited was Jack.--Lostawayfromtheuk111 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm still unclear as to how flashforward-revealed deaths are being handled on this Wiki, but perhaps someone could explain... Why is Locke's "status" still listed as "Alive"? Clearly, he's dead at some point in the show's timeline... Has there been some consensus about this? -Jslost 18:16, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

It appears to be the best option, as of right now, to just list the date of death. Statuses are based on current island time. --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   18:23, 18 June 2008 (PDT)
Fair enough, but it appears that the next season will be a combination of time on the island immediately after the Oceanic Six (and others) left, and flashforwards to three years later, after the future events of season 4, and after Locke is revealed as the man in the coffin. It would be prudent to reach a consensus regarding this issue, as it's likely the "current island time" will be a less and less solid concept as the show goes on. -Jslost 16:14, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
I agree, We should change it to Deceased. Him being shown in the coffin dead is canon so we should change it. --JPB. T. C. E.
String disagree.Every single character in Lost (probably minus Richard) is deceased in the future, because everybody dies sometime so if list Locke as deceased then we should list Jack, Kate, Juliet and everybody else deceased in the future because as I stated everybody has to die sometime in the future.Plus he's deceased in the FUTURE not the Island PRESENT which is the current timeline on Lost (not flashbacks, not the flashforwards, the Island timeline).--Orhan94 10:07, 22 June 2008 (PDT)
That logic is kind of silly. We've seen Locke dead in the course of the storyline, and that's what should matter. I think we should make some kind of notation that Locke is presently alive, but that he is deceased in the future.--   AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   08:22, 24 June 2008 (PDT)
Just because we saw a body in a caskik that the O6 think looks like Locke that doesn't mean that it is (I know we did to). This isn't a theory but if it was Locke you would think authorities would have found out his real name from fingerprints, dental records, and blood type. Besides we know nothing about his true status at this time. Also, a flashforward wouldn't really be his current status, at this time all we know is that Locke was alive on the Island before they moved it.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:05, 15 December 2008 (PST)

Date of Death???

I understand where you get the date of death from, but there's some inconsistancies. When Kate yells at Jack at the beginning of There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3 she says she's been trying to forget what happened for 3 years, that would put the events of that flashforward to early 2008/late 2007. Since the conversation with Kate happened a few days after Locke's death, the death would have occurred somewhere between September 2007-March 2008.

  • This article references John's date of death as "one month" following his conversation with Jack in the hospital (following Locke's car crash). How do we know that John's death occurred one month after that conversation? --Mbtoole 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Where is the birth date referenced? It should be noted that Buddy Holly's "Everyday" was not released until late 1957... perhaps it's a production error. Optimusprime 22:35, 12 July 2008 (PDT)

  • The birth date is referenced in the section on paperwork. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 07:35, 13 July 2008 (PDT)


Do we have a reason, other than the application for a firearms permit, to refer to Locke as "Johnathan Locke, more commonly known as John" in the article? As far as I can remember he has never been called Johnathan by anyone in Lost, including himself. The application is referenced on the John Locke page as being displayed on the "Further Instructions" page, but it's not there. (I think it once was.) It's the same application that had Locke's date of birth off by ten years and may have been another gift of the prop department. As the baby Locke was being carried away at his birth, his mother yelled, "His name is John." She did not say, "Johnathan."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:01, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

(Added) It's also important to note that:

  • The firearms permit is also the document that contains the incorrect date of birth and is associated with Locke's activities while growing marijuana at the commune.
  • The ZIP Codes on the drivers license (which may actually be Terry O'Quinn's) and the application don't match.
  • When Locke is applying for disability benefits, he tells the social worker that his name is "John."
  • "John" is not a nickname for "Johnathan" as "Jim" is for "James."

Of the above pieces of evidence, there are some serious logical errors. First, it does not matter that you believe "John" is not a nickname for "Johnathan" because (1) you are only thinking of the common name "Jonathan" for which, true, the nickname is almost always "Jon" and (2) the Lost writers can make his name and nickname any names they want. If "Johnathan" were a common name, its nickname would probably be spelled "John." Second, he may have still owned a home while living on the commune (which might explain the numerous ZIP codes) and was using his home ZIP code to steer the police away from the illicit activities of the commune; also, perhaps he has lived at many places in his adult life with different ZIP codes. Third, if he were trying to throw off the police with the alias "Johnathan Locke", why would he choose a name so close to what you believe is his actual one, "John Locke"? It seems more likely that he was simply giving his real name. I won't even go into detail about other suggestionss, for example, that he may have changed his name during his life or prefers it shortened in order to remind him of the philosopher of the same name. I am not arguing that it is or is not his name; I am simply debating your logic to demonstrate that we do not have enough information to say whether his real name is "John" or "Johnathan," and that your evidence does not really disprove the possibility of it being "Johnathan." Wolfdog: Narnia Wiki administrator 22:15, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

"Johnathan" belongs in the footnotes.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:38, 6 August 2008 (PDT)

The "Johnathan" question has reared it's ugly head again. The cited authority for the last change is the appearance to the name "Johnathan" in an LP template. I did not think that our own work could be cited as canon. I think we need a concensus on the use or non-use of Johnathan.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:17, 24 November 2008 (PST)

Off the subject, that's how I spell my name and I have never met anyone personly that spells it that way, it's always Johnathon.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:11, 15 December 2008 (PST)

There are now two valid sources of information that confirm that John's full name is Johnathan Locke. One, of course, is where it is first seen: Further Instructions. As for the episode in which John says that his name is "John Locke" to a receptionist, we can know that he is speaking casually because in that exact same episode in the exact same moment, on the paper in the receptionist's hands is written out his full name "Johnathan Locke." So: these are two undeniable pieces of evidence from the most credible source: the show itself. I will change his name on the article page...please help support me in defending this decision. Wolfdog: Narnia Wiki administrator 04:30, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not to disprove but to prove.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:23, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems obvious that all I have done is to support with evidence the name "Johnathan." I'm wondering why people are still using the "it's an unusual spelling of the name" argument. That does not matter; the writers of the show can spell the name however they want. There is no right or wrong spelling to a name that is given to a person. Please do not change the name unless valid arguments are brought up on this discussion as to leave him as "John." The idea of "proving not disproving" is silly to say when opposition to the name "Johnathan" has neither disproved its validity nor proved that "John" is absolutely his complete first name. When canon sources give the name "Johnathan," that is what is called "proof." Wolfdog 02:15, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


I think it should be renamed to John "Jeremy" Locke--DF3 my talk page my edits my identity 17:28, 25 August 2008 (PDT)

No. He's known almost exclusively as Locke. We don't name the Ben article Ben "Dean" Linus. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:38, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
No. There is nothing in the track record to suggest that he ever used "Jeremy" or any middle name until he was seeking an alias.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:45, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
No, John Locke is his name, and as Sam said, he's almost always known as Locke. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 17:54, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
No, Are you serious. "" means nickname he mostly goes by. If anything it would be "Locke" in those parenthesis. Until the latest episode, he has not gone by Jeremy. In fact his first name is never said alone, but Bentham is.
No, It's just an alias, imagine if we'd rename Sawyer's article...--Eruyauve|talk|contributions 01:25, 26 August 2008 (PDT)
Alternative solution. I agree that we shouldn't rename the article, but I liked it when the infobox on the right said "aka Jeremy Bentham" the same way Michael page said "aka Kevin Johnson".--Lauridsen77 12:38, 26 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Possible use of the aka, but only if we ever see "JB" interacting with someone who doesn't know his real name.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:55, 26 August 2008 (PDT)
Nope, When they start listing "Jeremy B.." in the credits or "John 'Jeremy' Locke" in the casting notes -- then maybe. The character is still J-Lo in all of his Present and FB appearances. In FF appearances, we only have one reference to 'J.B.'. Think CHANG, WICK..., CAND.., ...WAX. Then think of "duplicate" bodies running around the story arc. Maybe JeremyB and JLocke ARE separate entities.
No as noted above, not unless they list the character as such. --Sarahwolf 00:23, 28 August 2008 (PDT)
No It should always remain as John Locke. It is stupid in my opinion to rename the article to Jermey, which was only referenced basically once in 2 seperate episodes. We haven't even seen Locke (alive) as Jermey yet. --Frink 00:20, 31 August 2008 (PDT)
No: --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   02:03, 31 August 2008 (PDT)
Consensus: No Rename --Blueeagleislander 02:22, 31 August 2008 (PDT)


Is the latest lead-in picture of John Locke or of Terry O'Quinn? There's a subtle difference.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:01, 1 September 2008 (PDT)

Jeremy Bentham- should it be moved to the "philosophers" article?

There is a whole section (http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/John_Locke#Name_reference_to_philosopher_Jeremy_Bentham) which could easily fit on the Philosophers article. It seems odd that it is not included on there as Bentham was a philosopher himself. Thanks! --Jonty 12:16, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

  • I agree, although I fought and lost this battle earlier. Including Bentham on the Locke page makes the page bigger. I can't think of a benefit.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:41, 26 September 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree, Sections entitled references to Locke as philosopher and Bentham should be moved to philosophers section. We could easily just write "see references in philosophers page for more information on name meaning" which would also act as a way to increase traffic to those pages. Many people may go to the John Locke page but ignore that page, this will incrase its traffic. Although I'm not privy to how many hits each page gets or if that really is even relevant.Mister vijay 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Traffic management isn't a consideration when deciding content issues. That said, we should minimize duplication of detail across pages, so if you want to have a brief summary about the philosopher here and a link to the philosopher article, it seems reasonable.  Robert K S   tell me  01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Petrelli

Spoilers for this weeks episode of Heroes: So in this episode, the main character, Peter Petrelli, is pushed out of the window of a building by a family member, falls eight stories, and miraculously survives. Anyone else think this is a reference to Locke? Should it be put under the trivia section?--Ark 19:00, 27 October 2008 (PDT)

New Photo

Should his photo be changed to this one?


Two People

What indications are there that Locke and Bentham are two different people?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox on the right

Where it shows the seasons the character has appeared in, all of them are crossed out for Locke indicating he's never been in the show. :) I would fix it but I looked and have no idea how. --HaloOfTheSun 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Locke dead?

What physical proof do we have that locke is indeed dead he could possibly in a dead like state. Yojimbo and diagoro 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, he's been in that coffin a long time. If "the authorities" were involved as referenced by Ms. Hawking, he was probably declared dead by competent medical authority. Funeral homes usually embalm their "clients." Of course, all those things were equally true of Christian Shephard.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

From 'The life and death of Jeremy Bentham' he was indeed dead then landed on the island and became alive again we all know of the islands curative properties but reviving a dead man is a bit of a stretch dont you think?Yojimbo and diagoro 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, Locke is the only person (that we know of) to have been revived by the Island, so it's probably a combination of the Island's healing properties and Locke being "special." Managerpants 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to beleive that we are really talking about this...Locke is dead, dead is dead. Not only is he dead and dead a pretty long time - he is buried. There cannot be a ressurection of this Locke, there can possibly alt. timeline Locke coming back, but this locke is d-e-a-d, and buried!
  • Also even Jacob cannot bring back people from the dead, or at least he couldn't or would not bring back Isabella, but he said, he can't do that and "that wasn't your wife". I beleive we can assume, dead is dead except for the case of Sayid, that was hours not days/weeks, and he was revived in the pool, and we still don't know if he is actually alive ore some sort of manifestation. Locke died off island, I dont beleive he would have been able to be killed on island, but he died off-island. We have to apply some constants.
  • I don't believe that Christian Shephard is alive. Managerpants 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time Locke has died and been revived. Ben shot him previously. Yes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarenaty (talkcontribs) 2009-02-27T16:50:20.

  • No. Locke never died, when left in the mass grave, he considered suicide by taking a gun off a body. But then appeared Taller Ghost Walt and saved him. 5x07 is the first time ever a character is said to be "resurrected". With all, I believe John still has to figure he is really dead, and begin using his powers a la Christian Shepard. --Comfortably.Floyd 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont believe Christian Shepard is alive as he never physically touches anything like when locke broke his leg falling down the well locke asked him to help him but he said 'sorry i cant do that' suggesting he has no physical prescence if he did, he would help locke up so as to help him get the O6 back Yojimbo and diagoro 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Christian held Aaron outside of Jacob's Cabin, so we do have evidence that he is capable of touching and holding things. However, at the Donkey Wheel, he may have been a vision, and there, not able to touch/help John. Bookhouse88 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • He did, however, ignite and carry a lantern.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • He also picked up the 1977 photo to show Sun and Lapidus in Namaste. The not helping Locke may well have been partially a red herring to make us forget he held Aaron and such and partially just that Locke had to do it himself as part of his task. --Sarahwolf 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Rename

I think, and maybe some might say it's not appropriate yet without further information, but I think we should rename the "back on the island" section of this article "Resurrection," as this article is very specific to Locke's character and this is a major event in his life and in the show. --Desmondia! 17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Resurrection is critical to Christianity and -- no criticism here -- those who are extremely religious may take exception.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No opinion on the rename, but the above remark is nonsensical. Christianity doesn't have a priority claim on the concept of resurrection.  Robert K S   tell me  20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • But the producers have stated Locke's reappearance has to do with resurrection and I agree with above, it is nonsensical. Why don't we rename and if someone does actually have a problem with it, we can continue to talk about it. --Desmondia! 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that I did not say that I would be offended, but that others might be. I don't call that nonsensical; I call it politeness.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't get what you're saying. Shoes are integral to my mode of walking. I am extremely fond of walking. Therefore, no one else should be able to use shoes, or say the word "shoes"? How is politeness a factor here? Even if the concept of resurrection didn't predate Christianity by a longer amount of time than Christianity has existed--which it does--I don't see how that would entitle a Christian, no matter how devout, to umbrage at other uses of the term. Certainly, we need to be sensitive to material that offends others on this site. But let's deal with hypothetical offenses only once they're more than hypothetical.  Robert K S   tell me  17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree and it has nothing to do w/ religion. But resurrection would be refering to when he ressurected. Everything points to locke staying on the island for a while so should everything he does from here on out be listed under resurection. If he does something 5 yrs later it should be on island not ressurectionm. These lines usually deal w/ location so we should just leave as is. --Czygan84 18:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You have a valid point, but we could still call it "After Resurrection" --Desmondia! 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


When the time wash shifting all the time and everybody started bleeding out of their nose, I cant remember if Locke ever did that? can someone remember it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiftyshan (talkcontribs) 2009-04-30T12:18:43.

  • Strangely enough, it occured to everyone, except him. Weird. Marko14126 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah technically Locke should have gotten nosbleeds before both Jin and Sawyer, Jin was in the water for several (at least two days) meanwhile in S3 Sawyer was on the Hydra Island for quite a while. Now maybee as long as your in the radius of the island it doesnt matter but then Locke jin and Sawyer should have expreienced similar symptoms. Maybee its because Lockes special. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Alright so where do we go from here? Is he dead alive?

  • Locke in this timeline is dead - AND BURIED!There is no doubt about this and even Jacob said he can resurrect from the dead, he told Richard he could NOT do that. If Locke comes back, it might be from the alt. timeline, the alt. Locke but it cannot be this Locke who was dead several days, in coffin, in a funeral home, and now in the ground!
  • Id say unknown because I really have no clue, I doubt they would go a whole season without the most popular character but at the same time we saw his corpse and the fony Locke and Jacob clearly knew each other. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should move everything after Locke's death to another article. We should probably have a short summary of everything the Un-Locke did in Jacob's enemy, but should leave that content in this article as well, with an addition to the end saying that it was revealed to not have been Locke at all, but an impostor. Also, I don't think it's true that Jacob's enemy was Locke ever since Locke was pushed out of the window. If Locke truly died then and there (which is arguable), then it was Jacob himself who resurrected him, and it doesn't make sense that Jacob himself would open up this "loophole" for the man who was trying to kill him. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I think "imposter" is wrong.. he acted exactly like Locke for the most part, and had all his memories. --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New term for "Locke"

May I propose a new term (just for the purposes of the relevant articles) for this fake Locke: the Un-Locke? It's a literary reference, a play off Lewis' "Un-Man" from Perelandra, which, as I pointed out in the article on Jacob's enemy, bears a lot of resemblance with this new/fake Locke. Quoting:

The actions of this individual closely resemble those of the "Un-Man", the demonic spirit controlling Professor Edward Weston in C.S. Lewis' planetary romance Perelandra. In the novel, the Un-Man entered an island planet by taking possession of a dead man, and did not take direct action, but rather worked through trying to persuade another to commit an evil act. This persuasion involved questioning the motivations of a being who had until then been considered an undisputed spiritual authority.

Opinions? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

  • It's alright with me. Locke's Doppelgänger could also be a candidate.Gakhandal 06:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought "Anti-Locke" would just be funny (as in anti lock brakes) but then I read on Locke's main page about the real Jeremy Bentham and his anti-icon; rather weird. I will say that Un-Locke is probably better because it simply implies someone who is not Locke rather than Anti-Locke, implying someone who is the opposite of Locke. Iburnedthemuffins 14:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode count

Since it was not technically Locke who appeared from "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" until The Incident, should we change the episode count to reflect this? QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 08:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd say no, it was still Locke's body. Whoever he now is didn't appear as themselves, but as Locke. --LeoChris 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Id go with no also i suggested this on the character appearances page but the fact that locke appears as a manifestation should still count (little side note the only eps it would affect would be 5x11 and 5x12 as the other episode either contained his corpse a fb or time traveling locke. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham, we were still seeing the real John Locke. His persona was not taken over until after he died and his body returned to the Island. Iburnedthemuffins 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Info removed?

Ok well I noticed a lot of the info on this page has been moved to Jacob's enemy page.. I just think is this a few editors acting alone or is this general consensus? I think really we should leave all the info on Locke's page. My reasoning is, the character seemed to act exactly like Locke, have all of his memories, I think imposter is just a narrow way of looking at it.. I'd like to hear your guy's opinions on whether we should keep all the stuff performed by Terry O Quinn on screen on this page, my vote is YES --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, we don't know how Jacob's enemy got locke's memory, its just that as of the crash of 316, what we thought was locke, was not realy locke. This is him, not locke. My vote is no.--Soupnazifan24 "You're through Soup Nazi. Pack it up. No more soup for you! NEXT!" -Elaine to Soup Nazi 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a little bit, I've actually gone a 180, and I agree the information should be moved. He may have acted like Locke and had his memories, but we clearly see Locke's corpse - so fact is, Locke is dead. --Integrated (User / Talk) 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but for another reason... and it gets a bit metaphysical.. but basically what's to say that Locke's "soul" didn't in part pass on into some other form. What's to say a part of Locke didn't stay on the island, and got passed into this new being? Either way it's not as simple as being an "impostor" in my personal opinion. I feel that a part of Locke is in this new entity, and I think Locke's page should reflect as many post-316 experiences of Locke as the Jacob's enemy page. I also feel this is a classic case of what Darlton talked about in their Lostpedia interview.... That there are assumptions being made without really knowing the full story. Congested 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • agree that as much material from post 316 experiences of the Terry OQuinn character should remain.Mister vijay 14:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add more details in "As Jeremy Bentham" section

I think the section explaining the time period between Locke awakening to confront Widmore and the point when we see him in the hotel room could be revised to include more details from the episode. Mister vijay 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's Enemy and John Locke

I've posted objections to the talk page of the entry Jacob's Enemy to the assertion that it's been "confirmed" and "obvious" that 1. Titus Welliver's character is Jacob's Enemy 2. This character can change his shape 3. This character has changed his shape into John Locke and stolen all his memories 4. Jacob recognizes Locke as his Enemy the same character who he knew over 100 years before.

I feel like there's no debate on this issue. Everywhere I go no one is seriously questioning the logic behind these assertions based either the contents of the episode or the progression of the narrative and characters. If someone can logically use evidence from the show to back up these claims I would appreciate a good response to my objections that uses complete sentences and thoughts and does not use the word "obvious". ThanksMister vijay 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is still probably too early to actually make the connections between F-Locke and the character at the beginning of the episode. It is quite clear that the two have some type of connection/friendship/prior knowledge of each other/the entity either are. However, us stating that Jacob and the Man #2 are enemies is a bit of a leap of faith...haha sorry had to...But I think we need to take it for what it is...we were introduced to a character with obvious previous knowleged of Jacob, his powers, and the Island...and we know that someone is posing as Locke...The direct connection is nothing but assumption by people.Aerieformyhead 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ability to talk to Jacob

  • "although they share several traits including the ability to commune with Jacob." I don't know if this sentance makes sense anymore. When did the real John Locke talk to Jacob? I think he's only spoken to people who claim to represent Jacob. The only time Ben has actually spoken to Jacob was just before he killed him, the other times he has admitted to faking it. Timb0h 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It was pretty much stated by Darlton up until "The Incident" we hadn't actually seen Jacob. In my opnion, I believe he is alluding to the fact that Christian, Claire, and the "Brown-eyed Man" even allied with Jacob. At the time, of course, we were ignorant to the fact that the cabin was not directly associated with Jacob, or hadn't been "in a long time"Aerieformyhead 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lockes Body

Am I the only one who wonders why his body hasnt started to decompose somehwat? Think about it even thought off island his body was probably well kept it was around for seven days after his death, now add in 5 more days on an island in the south pacific where it could be a little hot inside of a box. Youd think his body would start to take a toll and smell maybee decompose but he looks exactly the same as the day he died. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the funeral parlor would have gone through the embalming process, which would delay decomposition for a little while, as well as the fact that he spent several days in a freezer, plus itd be a little bit gruesome for a high rated network tv show to have one of its main characters decomposing, wouldnt it? InflatableBombshelter 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode Count

I was just wondering if the episode count for Locke was the one that included his appearances by Nehemiah, that isn't Locke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kcinimod200 (talkcontribs) 2009-07-13T17:07:54.

  • Uh... Nehemiah? Don't you mean the Man in Black? Anyway, I believe that Locke's episode count does include Terry O'Quinn's appearances as the Man in Black.Ummagumma108 04:33, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he does mean the Man in Black and yes his episode count is 101 including his appearances as MIB. Th3MatrixHasY0u 11:52, September 11, 2010

Locke's last name

Locke got his last name from his real mother( Cabin Fever). Do foster children usually get their last name from their foster parents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natto63 (talkcontribs) 2009-10-07T13:03:43.

January 18, 2008?

Where did this date come from for Locke's death? --Crash815 Talk 20:26, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

  • The newspaper clipping from which Jack learned of Locke's death. Ummagumma108 04:37, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Name reference to philosopher John Locke sub - article appropriation to main article commitee

In (1695) The real life philospoher John Locke wrote The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures as an argument for the rationalness of the christian religion. In contrast to the philosopher the character John Locke insists on taking non rational "leaps of faith". Contradictory to his namesake. --Kantarky 04:53, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Readded 6x01

For the same reasons as here. --Golden Monkey 15:40, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Except he is dead... No, seriously, how can can LA X be centered on him if he's dead and appears only as a corpse? The flash-sideways Locke, maybe, but this one, no way. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 14:52, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't need to be alive to have flashes ... See Naomi in 4x02 or Locke himself in The Incident. --LeoChris 23:17, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Man in Black

  • Why are we saying that John Locke appeared in episodes such as "Dr. Linus", when John Locke did not appear at all. I understand counting his corpse as an appearance, but counting every appearance by Terry O'Quinn as a John Locke appaearance doesn't make any sense at all. Like, in Dr. Linus, O'Quinn only appeared as the Man in Black ... not as John. --SethFlight815 00:23, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, if we count corpse appearances then these should count. The MIB is using John's body. If a corpse (which is just a body, no thoughts or anyhting but meat) counts then the fact that not only Johns body but his memories, thoughts, and his voice are being used should count. It seems to me like people are forgetting the MIB is still occupying not his body but johns. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:43, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree completely. The new character is The MIB and I don't believe that it should be counted as an appearance by John Locke. We see both MIB and Locke's bodies at different points. 01lander 06:18, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Please counter my arguments. you cant-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:56, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Count

I am personally against all the MiB's appearances being counted as Locke's also. They are two SEPARATE characters, and they need to be acknowledged as such. If not, the MiB as Locke should be added as a part of Locke's profile. Does anyone agree with me on this? Vote? 01lander 04:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed 100 times with the same result give it up. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:08, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I agree with 01lander, we've now seen a good few characters point out 'That man is not John Locke'. I know it would take a bit more work as we would have to back track and change appearances in episodes where we thought he was still Locke (or we weren't sure!) But I think it makes the episode count of the main section confusing if we say The MiB's appearances also count as Locke. I see you feel strongly about this Czygan84 but now we know for a fact, and most of the characters know for a fact that he is not Locke, would it not make more sense for us to differentiate? --Lizziejj 13:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what people are saying! The character of John Locke was last seen in Ben's flashsideways in Dr. Linus. Locke's REAL body was burried earlier in the season and hasn't been seen since. Terry O'Quinn has only played Locke as his corpse and in the flashsideways this year... it shouldn't count! If another actor happened to play another character would you count that as another apperance? No you would not. The character of John Locke is dead and The Man in Black despite using his body is not in the slightest bit Locke. Therefore it's not his character! --Sam10123 21:43, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Your opinions need to be discussed at the Character appearances pg where this was discussed after S5. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sideways Locke comes to the island

I agree the Oceanic 815 John Locke is dead but I also believe the "sideways" Locke will come to the island and become Jacob's replacement leaving us to believe Locke was Jacob's choice all along. --Loveislost87 10:33, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

This page is intended for discussing changes to the article. You can however post your theories at John Locke/Theories or John Locke (flash-sideways timeline)/Theories. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:18, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I'm kinda new to this. --Loveislost87 09:57, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Locke's ride

Locke drove a red Volkswagen Beetle (ep 1.19, 3.13.) Is this notable enough to be included in trivia?Michaelprocton 08:45, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


In "The End", with Ben outside the church, I thought I saw the scar under John's eye, which ought not to be there in Alterworld — though with the final revelation of the nature of Alterworld it's not as shocking. (I didn't back up to confirm.) Was it there? Is there a Sideways alternate explanation for it? —Tamfang 11:33, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

JL as acronymic or initialic for justice League

John Locke and justice League share the same initials. Flash and Green lantern of Green Lantern and Flash: Faster Friends Part One.[[1]] In walk about[2], John calls his coworker "GL 12" this could be a reference to the green lantern.

--Kantarky 22:41, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Locke Worked for DHARMA (trivia)?

"Locke has technically worked for the DHARMA Initiative, since for a point in time he pressed the button in the Swan Station. This means that only two main characters alive during Season 5 have yet to work for the DHARMA Initiative. Those characters are Sun and Sayid."

Isn't that kind of a stupid piece of trivia? He was never formally hired by DHARMA -- and by this logic -- didn't Sayid work for DHARMA too because he fixed the terminal when it broke? Also it's weirdly specific, "two main characters alive during Season 5".

--David1890 (talk) 01:17, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, remove at will.--Baker1000 (talk) 12:06, April 2, 2014 (UTC)