Talk:Mikhail Bakunin

Rename (resolved)

• This article will need a rename, if only to take out the "the". While we're at it, though, I'm not sure what's the best name. He wears an eyepatch, but he may not be one-eyed. -- Cheers 19:09, 1 November 2006 (PST)
• "Pirate Man" might be good, but my personal favorite is "Freaky Eyepatch Dude". Creeped me out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClownX (talk • contribs) .
• ? --NSHS07 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2006 (PST)
• Or how about "Patches"? --DaveDaveDave 19:24, 1 November 2006 (PST)
• Hey guys... I just moved it to Eyepatch man for the time being, since like Cheers said, we needed to get rid of "The" and he may not have one eye (likely does though, because of glass eye). Either way, no one is going to argue that he doesn't wear an eyepatch. :) I suspect this article will be moved again, as we get a better idea of who he is. --PandoraX 19:24, 1 November 2006 (PST)

Theories

I said its possible that the Glass eye found in the arrow belonged to him.--User:Surfonaguitar

It could be possible that the man is one of the Others. Also, he probably has cameras set up everywhere as to know the location of Eko and other people. Its obvious that Eko has been seeing the Monster instead of the whole time, and not his brother. And I think a good name would be "Eyepatched Man" or something of that sort. -- Romulan248

Not so far-fetched, in my POV. Makes sense... Though Locke seemed to know where he is. Maybe he knows something that we don't? -- ClownX

Did he look like Ron Perlman to anyone else? --Brother 19:22, 1 November 2006 (PST)

• Nevermind, Andrew Divoff sounds good to me. --Brother 19:31, 1 November 2006 (PST)
  • I thought he kind of looked like Hugh Laurie (Dr. House) in the still picture used in this section...but, obviously, it's not.--Frankie Viturello 09:05, 8 November 2006 (PST)

Oh well, I guess he's not an alien then :). One would think that if the producers could figure out a way to scientifically explain a black cloud that beats the s%!t out of people at will, they'd be able to cover anything....--MightyRearranger 19:27, 1 November 2006 (PST)

He looked a lot like Hughes. Remember how Ben said to Hughes "Why aren't you wearing that?" and pointed to his fake beard. Perhaps Hughes is their like, disguise person. The man looked a lot like Hughes. And is the Blast Door Map really that accurate? It doesn't show anything about two islands. -- Romulan248

Anyone else getting tired of seeing the so-called theory "He is Him" getting automatically added to every character article? Isn't it just meaningless? -- Cheers 21:56, 1 November 2006 (PST)

I think Cheers is "Him". -- TerminalEchoes

Maybe Damon Lindelof is "Him". At the end of the series, he's going to give us a half-hour monologue that everything we're seeing is fiction he wrote in his den, like Roseanne. JoelVanAtta

I looked up Andrew Divoff's page on IMDB and its interesting that apparently he has in the past played mostly "bad guys". -AgentSkelly

Where did everyone get that he's played by Andrew Divoff? -- JoserKyind 01:16, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Does anyone else notice how dark his right eye is? From the lighting in the back, it would seem that you would be able to see something as white as a human eye. Yet, in the HD picture, his eye is very dark. It could be a lighting thing, but the rest of that photo shows bright objects. And did anyone catch what station he is using? -- Romulan248

Does the eyepatch dude look like Mike, the leader of the marijuna commune that Locke joins? http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Mike

If Desmond really did create the mural in the Swan (as it claims on the Swan page) does that mean he knows who the eyepatch man is (since there is a one eyed man in the mural)? Or that he had prophetic visions even before the implosion, in which he saw the eyepatch man? Maybe someone can turn this thought into a credible theory. --Skoochie 19:24, 2 November 2006 (PST)

it is possible that the black smoke is controlled by patchy.

when patchy looked into the camera then turned it off he could of then made the black smoke to go get eko because he knew they were there. also i reckon he was in the monitoring hatch just before locke eko and the other people went in because when they tuned the camera in so it was lookin at him he was staring at the camera straight away as if he knew it was about to come on.

i think he is probably pushing a button somewhere and thinks dharma is still doing whatever they were doing.

oh yeah and by the way where could he of got an eyepatch? It doesnt look like he made it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luvmojo (talk • contribs) .

Is it a spoiler?

Do you guys think what Gregg Nations said is a true spoiler? I am kind of wondering now, because it's more that a character *isn't* someone, and not a big spoiler at all. I put up the spoiler tag just in case, but maybe we should just leave it in trivia w/o tagging... what do you guys think? --PandoraX 20:29, 1 November 2006 (PST)

No spoiler - it's a clarificaton. Remove the tag & the theory that it's Radinsky (as that's not a theory anymore). --Jajasoon 20:59, 1 November 2006 (PST)

Thanks for clarifying, Jajasoon. --PandoraX 21:10, 1 November 2006 (PST)

Lookalikes

Does the eyepatch dude look like Mike, the leader of the marijuna commune that Locke joins? http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Mike

Not the same guy; check the page you just linked, it has the actor credit. --PandoraX 19:39, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Verification?

Opening credits show Andrew Divoff in The Cost of Living.

Just curious as to where it has been verified that Andrew Divoff is this character?--scocub

Ron Pearlman was my first impression on viewing.. but maybe not now.. i think it was the "City of Lost Children" feel of the scene that made me think of it. --MRNasher

Without verification then Andrew Divoff has to be removed from the artical as a Fact :( How did h get listed as a fact in the first place ? Joesoap 13:56, 3 November 2006 (PST)

I asked the same question on the Andrew Divoff page. --Ghtx 14:37, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Would this count as verification? http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2180/normalcostoflivingcap10nt2.jpg --Inman 14:01, 6 November 2006
  • Yes that is perfect. I have uploaded a cropped version of that picture to the site. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 06:32, 6 November 2006 (PST)
  • Great, glad I could help. --Inman 19:49 GMT, 6 November 2006
  • This isn't verification. Cast members are given credit on the show without appearing in episodes. Rodrigo Santoro and Kiele Sanchez are credited in the first two episodes for example, but they don't appear. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:53, 6 November 2006 (PST)
    • Looks like verification to me. Only the main cast members are listed in every episode, including ones they don't appear in, and this guy definitely isn't one of them. --Minderbinder 12:26, 6 November 2006 (PST)

Official Confirmation

We no longer have to guess. Gregg Nations, script coordinator for Lost has confirmed that the character is portrayed by Andrew Divoff and that they are calling him "Patchy" for now.^[1] --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:10, 6 November 2006 (PST)

• That's good enough for me! Patchy it is! --Amberjet11 14:24, 6 November 2006 (PST)

• Thanks, Jabr. Cute new 'official' nickname, but I hope they do not wait a whole season to give us his real name or identity, as they did with Benry :) --PandoraX 20:50, 7 November 2006 (PST)

HD version screen

Added HDTV screen of this dude Boogie51

Is he on the island?

All the location theories assume he is, but I never thought of the possibility that he isn't. Anything for/against it?

Well, as I recall, Sayid says it's a closed circuit system, and using 1970's technology would it be difficult to have a system like that running on its own for a decade or so if it had to cross the ocean? --Skoochie 19:27, 2 November 2006 (PST)

It could be transmitted via satellite or microwave relay but I don't think so, because even believing the fact the DHARMA Initiative was shut down in 1987, coaxial cable connected to that dish of whatever medium would be long past its service life as well as the fact the dish would be long gone as well. Plus the fact the picture quality reminds me of an old twisted-pair wire security camera system, which got similar interference on some occasions. --AgentSkelly

Yes, I'd say he's on the island. He looked to be in a Sawn-Style room, a compact room at that, so it is likely another station. Kitsune

patchy

i found out that when ana lucia and her group crashed on the island, remember that hatch they found? well, when they opened that box in their, inside was a glass eye! Possiblys patchy's.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adambob46 (talk • contribs) .

Presumed alive?

EH HEM! The producers sayed he would be an prominant chariter after the break. so he is still alive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle John Locke (talk • contribs) .

Candle/Wickmund is a prominent character, too. We don't know if he's alive nonetheless. But I think he's alive, too. --Pewee 12:43, 18 December 2006 (PST)

Candle/Wickmund is not a prmoninet charcater; he's barely even a character.C.m. 06:27, 8 March 2007 (PST)

Rainer or Ranier

There's a line in the trivia section stating a crewmember named Patchy as Rainer or Ranier. Can anybody back that up with a citation? -BearDog 14:18, 8 January 2007 (PST)

• This bothers me too, and I put the "citation needed" tag on it. We're not here to start unfounded rumors on LP, so if no one gets the exact quote or source, then I will delete this next week. --PandoraX 16:10, 19 January 2007 (PST)

Resembles Michael Ironside??

I removed it from the Trivia section, as it's not based on any factual info, and a "likeness" even if measurable, isn't really "trivia" per se.

-- Frankie Viturello

Patchy Herding Cows???

I found a picture from the promo for Flashes Before Your Eyes. It looks like a milking station. But a man is walking around with the cows. And He's Wearing an EYE-PATCH!!!!!

• But how can you be sure its him. what are the chances of there being

another person on the island with an eye patch dude. PROJECTX23

Oh please.C.m. 06:27, 8 March 2007 (PST)

The Producers confirmed it was him yesterday on ABC website. User:WestSider444

You know a website. i envy you. im ganna call you riley. PROJECTX23

• Heh? What your source on this? --Gateboy42 14:52, 16 February 2007 (PST)
• he dosent have any because he sucks. --Project X 13:14, 28 February 2007 (PST)

Yes its Mikhail, as you will see in new sneekpeeks for Enter 77.

How did you find this again? --Gateboy42 15:21, 2 March 2007 (PST)

"Mikhail Bakunin"

Could we please get a link to the ABC press release confirming his name has "Mikhail Bakunin" into this article? Would appreciate it, --Gateboy42 14:50, 16 February 2007 (PST)

• ABC Medianet Press Release

This is a spoiler, and is highly discouraged on the main pages...let alone a title. Suggestion to revert to "Patchy" asap. --Divinetorture 20:25, 23 February 2007 (PST)

No, Lostpedia information runs on Lost episodes in the US as well as ABC MediaNet information. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 02:25, 24 February 2007 (PST)

I strongly agree with those who consider this piece of information a spoiler...actually, the episode hasn't aired yet. I suggest to change back to "Patchy". --Shitoby 24 February 2007

I also have to agree. I may be new but I think that even though you may use the MediaNet information, I think preventing spoilers from episodes that have not yet aired anywhere should come before that. I was just browsing around some other articles and then I saw a link to this page, with this name, and since I'd never heard the name before and I had no idea who it was, I clicked it. I would have liked not to have Patchy's name ruined for me, and even though it's too late for me now I think we should prevent it from happening to others. Jokesnsmokes 10:58, 25 February 2007 (PST)

Absolutely agree. This needs to be changed back, it is a definite spoiler and should not be changed to Mikhail until the episode has aired. It spoiled it for 3 reasons: 1. We know his name now. 2. We can assume that he is Russian. 3. We now know that he will be named and most likely visited in an upcoming episode. We need someone to support leaving this as is, or it will be changed back to prevent further spoilage for other users. --Divinetorture 01:14, 27 February 2007 (PST)

This is from the main page, I don't care about the ABC MediaNet rule.

1. Spoilers about LOST episodes before their US airing dates are highly discouraged.
2. If you wish to submit spoilers please post them on the Season 3 Spoiler Page.
3. Do not create pages about future episodes, cast, characters or crew.

--Divinetorture 01:17, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Thanks santa, I still wish his name would be removed but a spoiler alert is a happy medium. --Divinetorture 22:16, 27 February 2007 (PST)

"Lostpedia is updated to US aired episodes (shown above) and official releases." The release of his name was an official ABCMedianet press release. ShadowUltra 18:17, 1 March 2007 (PST)

I am with Divine on this one. Just because it has been released by an official source does not stop it being a spoiler. Can his name just be Patcy until the episode? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Princess Dharma (banned)

The front page says official sources, now the only reason the name would be changed is if the policy of lostpedia was changed. There is no reason to change his name as it complies with LP policy. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 12:39, 2 March 2007 (PST)

It is a big spoiler though and people not wanting to be spoiled could easily be mislead into entering this article from a menu not knowing who Mikhail is. Can you at least rename it to Mikhail Bakuin (spoiler)? Princess Dharma (banned)

Is it really a huge spoiler though? Its not like we are learning anything about the mythology of the show, we are just learning the name of the guy with the eyepatch that we saw in "The Cost of Living". Even if it is, it still complies with LP policy.--Lewis-Talk-Contribs 12:45, 2 March 2007 (PST)

Well I guess so. ^_^ I don't really care I love spoilers. FUN! Princess Dharma (banned)

I was spoiled and I don't like being spoiled. Best to return the name to patchy until the episode is aired.--Peephole 03:22, 5 March 2007 (PST)

This is same thing like Roger workman was deleted and protected - http://lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Roger&diff=215885&oldid=212023 , but his pictures was released before air by official source. So I think better revert it --Znch 05:42, 5 March 2007 (PST)

Its a big spoiler, please unspoiler it ZEKE?(>

The Roger page was deleted because it was speculation. We had nothing to go on other than a picture. On the other hand, this is an established character who's name was revealed by ABC. Lostpedia's main page, as I put before, says that the site is updated to official releases. ShadowUltra 07:09, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Video

Can I remove this, it seems rather unneccessary and messy? If anyone has a compelling reason to keep it, I'll just leave it alone. littlemisssunshine 21:19, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Okay I have OCD so I removed it, but I'll put it right here for now just in case I'm wrong. littlemisssunshine 21:21, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Details of Mikhail Bakunin's story

I'm going to write down the details of everything he said about himself and then try to analyize some of the results.

• He grew up in Kiev
• He joined the soviet army
• He served at some point in Afghanistan
• He was stationed at a listening post in Vladevostok
• Some time around 1990, his unit was decommissioned
• He claims that after years of unplesant action in the service of the soviet union, he wanted to do something good.
• He replied to a newspaper advertisment "would you like to save the world"
• He came to the island 11 years previous (1994)

• 2004-11=1993 doesn't it? --Jackdavinci 07:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)

• He wanted a job where he worked alone like a lighthouse keeper
• He was brought to the island by Submarine
• He says the hostiles have control of the Submarine
• All members of the Dharma Initiative are dead
• The Dharma Iniative initiated a war against the hostiles
• The war was called a purge
• The hostiles were on the island a very long time before the Dharma Initiative
• He pretends to be the last survivor of the Dharma Initiative. He constantly dresses in a uniform of the Dharma Initiative to maintain the illusion. He dressed in the uniform when seen on video from the pearl. It seems that he maintained the illusion for reasons unrelated to the crash survivors.

At the end, he makes two clarifications:

• He was never a member of the DHARMA INITIATIVE
• He moved into the station after the purge
• The purge happened before or during 1994.

The information raises the following issues

• The details of his military service are not consistant. He talks about serving at a listening post but he also talks as if he had been a special forces officer on active service.
• Who recruited him is not clear. Was he recruited by the Dharma Iniative on the outside? Does his statement that he was never a member of the initiative refer to the island or before/during his time on the island. If he was not recruited by the Dharma Initiative, that suggests the existance of another organization supporting the hostiles.
• His information about the purge probably came from the hostiles so his point of view on the subject isn't necessarly trustworthy.

The bigger issues regards the nature of the others/hostiles:

• The hostiles seem to pre-date the Dharma Initiative on the island
• The hostiles seem to have completely commandeered all aspects of the Dharma Initiative on the Island.
• But its not clear if those supporting the Dharma Initiative in the outside world know that the hostiles are running things. The impersionation at the Flame seems to indicate a need to keep up appearances.
• There are now clearly two groups of "hostiles". There are the hostiles who have been on the island a very long time and there are the hostiles/others who have either been recruited to the island as late as three years ago (Julette) or have been recruited from people who land by chance on the island.

Dharmatel4 22:07, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Great list, Dharmatel. You should put some of the bullets up to "The information raises some.." into a ==Facts== section on the main article if youa re sure. --PandoraX 22:12, 7 March 2007 (PST)

I'm going to work on incorporating everything (minus most speculation) into the article probably tomorrow. Dharmatel4 23:08, 7 March 2007 (PST)

I'm not sure that the word "groups" for the different kinds of others quite fits. Juliette is obviously intended to be on the same team as our well-known Hostiles, even though she goes against them. I think it's more that there are two Types of others.--Ex-Pope Cardinal Richard Corey 22:48, 7 March 2007 (PST)

I agree that groups isn't a good term to use. I've tried to raise the issue of types in the discussion for the others article. The other thing that I added there is that "Bea"'s behavior seems totally at odds with any of the Others seen so far. In all the others, even Ben, there are normal human emotions and drives present. But Bea never shows even a hint of normal behavior. The bit with demanding to be shot dead when they were in a good negotiating position seemed at odds with all examples of Others shown so far. Ben is careless with the lives of others, but he values his own life highly. Dharmatel4 23:08, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Original

An evil Russian? Boy that's original. Are we not in danger of stereotyping Russians as evil maniacs??? Princess Dharma (banned)

Next we'll see a doctor playing golf....oh, wait. --Blueeagleislander 00:47, 8 March 2007 (PST)

answers to some questions on the unanswered list

• What was written on the typewritten sheet?

See Mikhail's_document.

• What did he and Klugh plan to do with Sayid, Kate and Locke had Sayid not sussed him out?

It seems clear that his intention was for them to leave and be convinced that the Flame was in good hands.

Why was he willing to give away so many answers?

Because his primary duty was to protect the flame and every answer he gave was consistant with his cover story of being a member of the initiative. If you listen carefully, he never gave away any more details than were needed to establish his cover story. He could not claim to be a member of the initiative and then claim not to know what happened to them.

Dharmatel4 10:14, 8 March 2007 (PST)

This should probably be moved to the Mikhail's theories page. littlemisssunshine 10:15, 8 March 2007 (PST)

I dont think that its worth it. None of these questions IMO are of any particular value either as questions or as theories. The first one is answered. The second doesn't seem valid in that nobody at the Flame had any time to come up with a plan anyway. The third question contains the false assumption that he was giving away "answers". My purpose in putting these up was to solicit feedback if someone else thought that these questions were valid. Dharmatel4 10:40, 8 March 2007 (PST)

Oh ok, I see, I thought they were your questions... nevermind then. littlemisssunshine 11:09, 9 March 2007 (PST)

Removed?

So, now that we know who he is ... why is this character article not categorized under any of the character pages? (i.e. Main Characters, Supporting Characters, The Others, etc.) Frankie Viturello 22:33, 8 March 2007 (PST)

You can do it, if you see something missing just go for it! littlemisssunshine 11:08, 9 March 2007 (PST)

Doubts about his origin

Moved from main article to discussion, before considering adding parts to main article. Commentworthy? --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:57, 12 March 2007 (PDT) There are moments that may be interpreted as producer's errors or hints that Mikhail is not a real Russian, but pretender (exactly like Ben claimed to be Henry Gale).

• Mikhail and Bea Klugh both speak Russian with terrible accent, even not recognizable by native speakers.
• Mikhail says something like "After the Cold War, which we lost". This is very politically incorrect, real Russian (especially former soviet soldier) would never say so.
• Only one bottle of vodka with Dharma logo on the table, and it's even not open - incredible! And having a lot of vodka, alone, Mikhail drinks just a cold tea. Very unusual for Russian.
• There were claims about previous series where his eyepatch was on different eye. (not confirmed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olejka (talk • contribs) .
  • I don't think any of these raise significant doubts. They all seem to be based on stereotypes. The actor's got a 20-year career of playing Russian characters, as well as a Russian wife for most of that time. Seems unlikely his accent could be that bad, and I'm reminded of people criticizing actors in Babylon 5 for their "fake-sounding" accents when the actors in question (Mira Furlan, for example) were speaking with their normal voices. I've worked with 2 former Russian soldiers who would say that Russia lost the Cold War. Bakunin's dialog sounded like he was quite weary of the whole thing and jingoism is arguably one of the worst elements.--Bastion 08:40, 15 March 2007 (PDT)

Believe me, his accent was just terrible, you can clearly see how difficult it is for him to speak russian and dialog with Klug I didn't get at all. However I think it is just normal thing on TV, proves nothing. (Comment about vodka is very funny, it's a great misconception). --Pasha 14:21, 4 April 2007 (PDT)

• • On the Third point. Cold Tea is exactly what he would serve to dangerous enemies. Its very symbolic of the situation and the sort of needlessly dramatic gesture one might expect. Dharmatel4 23:29, 18 March 2007 (PDT)

Death

Sorry, but I'm not precisely sure what caused him to bleed. Was it his temples, his ears, or his jugular vein? Sam McPherson 20:26, 14 March 2007 (PDT)

There was blood shooting out of his ears. That should answer your question. -Mr.Leaf 20:27, 14 March 2007 (PDT)

Thank you. That was what I thought, but some of my friends saw it differently. Sam McPherson 20:32, 14 March 2007 (PDT)

Heh, I KNEW they would do this. Introduce a character chock full of information we want to hear, and have him die! Bellemichelle 06:00, 15 March 2007 (PDT)

Although I am quite sure it was a goof, Mikhail was breating when they shot from the ground with him in the foreground and Kate in the background. There was blood, yet no visible wounds. You never know when some implausible twist comes around. --Joffeloff 07:55, 15 March 2007 (PDT)

Hi this is my first contribution to Lostpedia. I notice that this page refers to Bakunin being "murdered" by Locke. Is this true? For it to be murder wouldn't Locke have had to know that pushing him past the barrier would kill him. I have not seen any proof of this. From what we know so far, surely we can only attribute his death to a tragic accident, manslaughter at the very most?? --Roger workman 06:28, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

Strictly speaking we don't know Locke's intent. I certainly had the impression that Locke didn't particularly believe Mikhail, and willfully exposed him to something believed to be potentially very dangerous. --Bastion 06:48, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

Personally I think he did not know it would kill or harm him but my point is that we cannot categorically say on way or the other. I think, to use legal precedent, we should assume Locke innocent until he is proven guilty and the article should be edited to the effect "...was killed (intentionally or not is unknown) when Locke pushed him through the barrier." or something similar. To accuse Locke of murder at this stage could be considered libellous were they real people!--Roger workman 07:08, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

No evidence suggesting Locke intended to kill Bakunin; HOWEVER, what tantalizes me a bit is that Bakunin was just about to reveal that Locke had been paralyzed. He said "you were para-" and was then cut off (I forget by what). I suspect Locke suspected the fence was lethal and decided to send his secret along with Mikhail to the grave. But, it would also make sense that if Locke suspected the fence was lethal, he'd kill Bakunin because Bakunin might try to knock whoever was climbing over the fence into the path of the sensors and fry em.C.m. 11:05, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

Interesting theories and thanks for the input. I hadn't considered some of these ideas myself. I still think the wiki should refrain from using the word "murder" until we know for sure. If noone has any objections, I think I will edit it as described above.--Roger workman 00:42, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Locke deliberately pushed him into the fence and he died. That is murder. It doesn't matter what his intent was. Its murder for the same reasons Michael shooting Libby in the chest is murder. It doesn't matter if the thought the fence was harmful or not. By making the choice to push him into the fence and killing him as a result, its murder. There is no self-defense claim possible. Because he pushed him deliberately in the direction of the fence, he cannot claim his actions were accidental. Using another human to "test" a dangerous situation resulting in death is murder. If you reject the word murder, you need to provide a plausable reasoning by which under laws and the normal definition of the term that what he did was not murder. Nobody has bothered to do that. Saying that we don't know what his motive was doesn't make it not murder. Dharmatel4 02:00, 15 April 2007 (PDT)

"That is murder. It doesn't matter what his intent was." Actually, from a legal standpoint, intent is exactly what separates murder from other forms of caused death. --Bastion 12:22, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

Not true. When the person commits an act that shows depraved indifference to human life, that can substitute for intent. That would include for example deliberately pushing someone off a building or throwing someone at a security fence. A person who commits a particular reckless act cannot escape the standard for murder by claiming ignorance of the true consequences of their action. Dharmatel4 18:34, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

Sirs. My initial thoughts on this were based on my views as a Brit. According to English Law, Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, under the Queens Peace, with "malice aforethought". I get the impression that this definition may differ around the globe from Dharmatel's comments above so must needs rethink my position... As Lost is an American show, we need to use a definition from US Law but which State? As ABC is a Californian company can we assume CA Law would apply? You have two degrees of murder first and second being pre-meditated or non premeditated respectively (your second degree murder is effectively our manslaughter i.e. an unintentional killing). In order to prosecute someone for either act though, you would have to prove that it was a result of recklessness or criminal negligence (wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation). For example dropping a brick off a bridge, which lands on a person's head, killing him. The intent to kill the victim (mens rea) required for (first degree) murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. Can we attribute this extent of recklessness to Lockes's actions at the sonic barrier? In my opinion, no. There was no suggestion or suspicion that passing through the barrier would cause physical harm or fatality. When we first encountered the sonic barrier, it was just posts in the ground with empty space between them. If Mikhail had resisted (knowing more about the fence's properties and fearing physical harm or death) then that could be construed as reasonable suspicion and made Locke's actions reckless by this definition. If we could show that Locke had knowledge unbeknownst to us that would give him reasonable suspicion that passing the posts would endanger human life, again I could accept that. If the discussion between the party when reaching the fence implied a fear that passing between the posts would cause a person harm then I am unsure how this would be construed but could certainly be a convincing argument. From my memory of watching the show however (unfortunately the transcripts are not up yet and I do not have a copy to re-watch) it was only implied that passing through the posts would set off an alarm, making the Others aware of their approach. I think peoples opinions here are being overshadowed by Lockes prior and subsequent actions at The Flame and with the Galaga respectively, both of which were undeniably reckless and, most certainly, had anyone been killed in either explosion then it would be at least second degree murder (manslaughter) as it is reasonable to assume that anyone (without the plea of diminshed responsibility) would know that an explosion had a good chance of causing injury or death, possibly even first degree as causing an explosion could be classified as a sufficiently "dangerous felony" (I know these definitions differ by State so cannot say for certain in this case - I would be grateful if someone could clarify). To label his actions at the time of Mikhail's death as reckless to the same degree is not reasonable. One final point, "If you reject the word murder, you need to provide a plausable reasoning...that what he did was not murder". I may be reading too much into your statement but I do not agree with it in principle. To accuse someone of a crime, you need to prove it as the Accusor. The Accusee has no requirement to prove their innocence. This is a fundamental right and is laid down in your constitution (whilst not cited explicitly, widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments) and our English Law (as well as EU and Universal human rights declarations). Sorry for long winded post and thanks for reading--Roger workman 03:08, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

I cannot agree with your opinion. It starts with supposition that none of those involved knew of the existance of the barrier. But that is clearly not true from the dialog surrounding the scene. They approach the barrier. They stop. They talk about the barrier and then Locke pushes Mikhail into the barrier. There is shock and there is a reaction asking Locke what he has done. Lcoke does not approach the barrier himself. He pushes another human being into the barrier. That is a reckless act by definition and blaming the victim of his actions for not sufficiently resisting makes little sense to me. By your definition a person who pushes another person into a roadway where they are struck by an unforseen car would not be guilty of murder. Locke cannot claim ignorance of the barrier and since he took direct action in throwning another human being into that barrier, he cannot claim "ignorance" to excuse his actions. The stupidity or ignorance of the person who commits a reckless act which endangers or takes human life is not an excuse for the crime. A person dropping bricks on specific people (Locke's action cannot be said to be random as in your example in that he pushed a specific person) cannot claims afterwards that their act was not reckless based on ignorance that his actions might have fatal effect. I think some peoples opinions are based on the idea that he is a hero character on a television program and therefore his actions by definition are justified and correct. I've heard similar excuses with regard to Kate Austin and her murder of her father. With regard to what I was asking you, I was stating that since Locke's actions are clearly reckless, it would be necessary to demonstrate in some way that his quite intentional action of throwing another person into the barrier was something other than him throwing another person into the barrier. As I understand your arguments now, you suggest blaming the victim for not sufficnetly resisting and excusing Locke based on his incomplete knowledge of the barrier when he threw Mikhail into it. I dont find much compelling in either argument. As far as the US constitition, there is no particular right that prevents accusations in a public space with regard to a particular action. What I was trying to do was to suggest that it would be necessary as a part of any defense of this particular person and action to explain his behavior because few American juries would have sympathy with a man who pushes another man deliberately into something that kills. Ignorance of the barrier might win the day if his action could be said to be accidental, but his actions speak for themselves. I would strongly contend that what is heard and seen of the incident would create such a bad impression in a courtroom that a successful defense would be very difficult. I do appreciate the thought that you put into your reply even though I dont agree with it. Dharmatel4 07:20, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Quite frankly, I would have to agree that the term "murder" does not truly apply to this situation. There are two reasons for this. First, while Locke may very well have expected that the barrier was functional, none of them (except Mikhail, who lied about it) had any way of knowing for sure without testing them. For me, this is more akin to someone being forced to eat food they had poisoned with the intention of killing someone else, which I don't really think qualifies as murder. Secondly, all the evidence with regard to the upcoming episode, D.O.C. indicates that Mikhail is, in fact, alive. It is not possible to have murdered someone who is not even dead. -- JoserKyind 07:46, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

First, we are not supposed to be discussing or giving away potential spoilers here. If you want to discuss things that are two episodes in advance, there are places to do that. But not here. Second, most legal systems do not accept the notion of using humans as unwilling test subjects. Forcing someone to knowingly eat poisoned food even if they are a criminal who planned a murder is itself murder. And if you know that there is a fence there and throw someone deliberatly into the fence, thats murder. Its possible to invent any number of moral justiifications or battlefield/law of the jungle reasoning to explain away the situation, but its still murder for all the lengthy reasons already outlined. Dharmatel4 10:26, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Arrival on the Island

In Par Avion Mikhail claims that he had been recruited when he was 24. This contradicts two facts which are listed in the page devoted to him: the age OR the year of arrival, because if we assume that he is 43 (DOB 1961), he must have arrived on the island in 1985 (which is also the year in which the supposed AH/MDG incident has occurred -- the purge?). That statement also disregards his claim to have responded to a newspaper advertisement. I believe that changes have to be done accordingly. --Stan 11:46, 15 March 2007 (PDT)

The First date he gave could've easily been a lie, since it was when he was giving his cover story. I'd say we go to with the second story since he's already telling the truth (mostly) by that time.--Sauron18 22:07, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

When someone says they share a birthday, they mean the month and the date. There is no reason to believe that he meant that he was born in the same year. I disagree strongly with accepting this theory because its inconsistant with almost every other fact. In other words, based on guessing that he was born in the same year as Nadia, we have to say that he was lying about being on the island for 11 years, lying about the newspaper ad, lying about being let go by the soviet army at the end of the cold war and on it goes. Its too many things to throw away based on a theory with not much to support it.

The second problem is even if the birth year of 1961 were accepted, there is no reason to assume that the year he was recruited was the year he arrived on the island. Without more factual support, the year of his arrival on the island should not be changed. It should not be back-dated to 1985 and presented as if its an established fact. Even more, it should not be connected to the AH/MDG incident without a whole lot more evidence.

As far as his age, he is a minimum of 35 years old (the latest he could have been 24 and recruited was the year he arrived on the island (24+11=35)). If its true that he was decommissioned from the soviet army at the end of the cold war, he can't be more than 38. Dharmatel4 23:11, 18 March 2007 (PDT)

Is he really dead?

As we all know, Mikhail appeared to be breathing when he died. In the lastest podcast, Carlton Cuse repeatedly hinted that Mikhail may not be dead. Should this be mentioned in the article? ShadowUltra 13:52, 21 March 2007 (PDT)

• A lot of people thought that the dead-Ethan was still breathing too. My theory is, "actors, being human beings, still need to breathe even if they are meant to appear dead, and some are better at it than others." Give it a try, it can be trickier than it looks. :) So I'd say he's really dead, unless we see him walking around in a future episode. --Shodan1138 14:21, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
• As far as we know in the show, he's dead. Vague hints from the writers and the actor being listed in an episode are tantalizing info, but they are 1) speculative and 2) if true are spoilers. Let's leave him as dead until he shows up alive in the show. If there's some major hint in an episode that he could be alive, it's worth mentioning in trivia, but we shouldn't change his status until it's confirmed.

Fan Question

"Which parts of his story were true?" <-- This has been answered in the podcast as well.  —Thinker  

Mikhail in One of Us

The article currently states that Mikhail appears in One of Us in a flashback. While this is most likely true, Carlton did repeatedly hint that he may not be dead, and his breathing in Par Avion was very clear (unlike Ethan's). Perhaps we should leave it ambiguous? ShadowUltra 15:47, 26 March 2007 (PDT)

I don't know...I think they made it pretty clear that he was dead. I mean, what would be the point of that whole scene if it didn't actually kill him? --Quint

Dead people also sometimes show up as the smoke monster, or dreams or visions, not just flashbacks. --Jackdavinci 14:52, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

lol...is there any dead character on this show who hasn't been speculated to be "not really dead?" And, is there any character who actually HAS returned from the grave? Puh-leeze. That fence, I think, is lethal. It made Bakunin bleed from his ears. The man is toast.C.m. 10:58, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

Here's evidence that patchy is still alive. Its from a promo vid that aired after One of Us.

Evidence from episodes after One of Us should not be used to change this article anymore than many known spoilers about whats going to happen in season 3. You can put up theories that he is alive in theories, you can suggest he is alive in the right place for spoilers, but whats in this article should strictly be based on the episodes that have been broadcast. If the article needs to be changed, its going to be changed within a few hours of him appearing alive again. There is no value in rushing it in now. Dharmatel4

bad theories about age

This is been corrected sevearal times, but it seems to keep coming back up.

When someone says they share a birthday with someone else, they invariably mean the month and the day. They rarely if ever mean the year. Pushing Mikhail's birthday to be the same year as "Nadia" is wrong. It makes a mess of all sorts of other things. It pushes back his recruitment date into the Others from a post-cold war/post afghanistan date that makes sense, to a time where it makes no sense at all. And that leads to more theories that invalidate more and more of what Mikhail said.

He is a minimum of 35 years old (the latest he could have been 24 and recruited was the year he arrived on the island (24+11=35)). If its true that he was decommissioned from the soviet army at the end of the cold war, he can't be more than 38. Dharmatel4 15:06, 31 March 2007 (PDT)

He looks a hell of a lot older than 38 to me.C.m. 11:06, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

Where's His Body?

• Since I highly doubt that the search party would have taken the time to bury Mikhail, and judging by Ben's confrontation with him in One Of Us, he was probably left in his place of demise by the Others, who were likely moving through a different part of the fence anyways. This leads me to believe that Mikhail is either alive or had his corpse moved. Seeing as he's set to appear soon, I'm thinking that he will be a manifestation of the monster and connect with Desmond somehow. However, this would probably require a past connection with Desmond (through two separate military organizations too). Perhaps Mikhail had contact with Kelvin and is willing to befriend Des, having heard about him somehow. I think a side mission between these two would be pretty cool, but it's kind of a stretch. What are everyone else's thoughts?--MightyRearranger 08:13, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Mikhail is in the promo for Catch-22 (technically, scenes from D.O.C.)

In this picture you can see someone wearing the same shirt as Mikhail in the promo for "Catch-22", although this is probably an example of a promo that show scenes from multiple upcoming episodes, therefore the scene is probably from "D.O.C.". I think we should definitely ambiguate Mikhail's death in this article. I did a few days ago, but it was reverted. Instead of an edit war I say we figure this out. There's no harm in saying he's "apparently" dead. ShadowUltra 15:23, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Its generally better to list what the show has revealed so far rather than trying to guess whats going to happen. I'm really concerned about changing the article based on promo spoilers as well. If he is alive, its easy enough to change the article when its revealed. What does it accomplish to make the changes now? Dharmatel4 01:12, 15 April 2007 (PDT)

reminder about spoilers

This article is supposed to only contain information based on episodes that have been broadcast in the US. In other words, people should not be adding information they know about upcoming episodes here. That includes rewrites to "hint" at spoilers as well. If something does happen, its not like the article is not going to be updated at the right time or its going to be forgotten. Dharmatel4 10:14, 19 April 2007 (PDT)

Presumed Deceased is not a Spoiler

The fact is that he was still alive, if just barely, the last time the camera shows him. Therefore, while, given the circumstances in Par Avion, it certainly seems highly likely that he is dead, whe cannot say for an absolute fact that he died. Even before apparent spoilers came out, there was still enough lack of concensus among the editors that to insist on a definite label of "deceased" seems a bit arbitrary. To say that he is presumed deceased is not the same thing as saying he is alive. All it means is that, he is believed to be dead, but there is a small chance that he may actually be alive, which is a stance that can be supported within the context of Par Avion without bringing in spoilers. Why not just let the Presumed Deceased label stand for now, until a future episode solidifies his status, one way or the other? JoserKyind 11:08, 19 April 2007 (PDT)