Talk:Mindfuck

Welcome to the talk page for "Mindfuck"
This article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was 1) Keep 2) No Consensus. Consider the prior discussions before re-nominating.
See Also: Category:Delete

Previous Discussions
Archive 1

Defining Mindfuck

A proposed definition for Mindfuck was copied from Answers.com above. Here it is again:

“

A mindfuck is a slang term which describes a work that uses literary devices such as nonlinear storytelling and plot twists in order to present convoluted, yet not conflicting, themes. A creation is usually considered a mindfuck when a casual observer is not able to discern the true meaning of a work without making a serious attempt to unravel the themes presented or when the plot is incredibly difficult to follow. Special examples of mindfucks involve a single plot twist which completely changes the viewer's understanding of the events in a film or novel as well as the ideas it presents.

”

I'm pretty sure this was also the previous definition on Wikipedia. Shall we use this definition here on Lostpedia for this article?-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:37, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

"Mindfuck is a term used by film fans and critics to describe a work in which techniques and devices such as nonlinear storytelling, seemingly unreliable viewpoints, and radical plot twists are combined to provoke uncertainty and tension in the viewer. When a casual observer is not able to discern what is happening in a narrative without making a serious attempt to decipher the connections between parts, when narrators or main characters are unreliable, misinformed, or deliberately deceptive without the audience's being aware of it, and/or when the plot seems severely fragmented or seems to digress from the original story but ultimately forms a complex whole, one can say that a film, television series, or written story is a mindfuck. Some mindfucks involve a single plot twist or resolution of a seemingly minor subplot which completely changes the viewer's understanding of events."

It's longer, I think that's a little more precise. Dagg, if you and the other good people approve, you should use it.

BTW, if we reference the JUMP CUT piece, we also might want to reference David Church's essay "Fantastic Films, Fantastic Bodies: Speculations on the Fantastic and Disability Representation", Offscreen, Volume 10, Issue 10: "After the shattering of diegetic reality, the spectator’s resulting sense of disorientation and perceptual instability is even a sensation sometimes casually compared to (temporary) insanity and madness—hence the 'mindfuck' nickname..."

He later points out that in mindfucks, we eventually come to understand (in narrative terms) the source of the "shattering", to realize what made everything seem so odd.

Church writes for a number of film publications, most notably SENSES OF CINEMA, which is cited as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles on film directors.

BTW, I'm not opposed to merging the article with a discussion of other narrative techniques and devices. Depends on length.

Can't speak for anyone else, but Jacob struck me as a mindfuck. His appearance made sense of a lot of other things on the show (at least for me), but I still went, "What the..." And I think any explanation of his "appearance" will change what we already thought we knew about the Island/ the "rules of reality" in the show. ^.^

--PresterJohn 00:23, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Is it safe to say that the first appearance of all of the mysterious elements of the show are all mindfucks? For example,

• Adam and Eve - Right now, we don't know who they are, but when it is revealed, it will explain or change a lot of things.
• Black Rock (ship) - Right now, we don't know how it got there, but when it is finally revealed how it got there, it will explain or change a lot of things.
• Blast Door Map - Right now, we don't know a lot of things about this map, but when the meanings are revealed, it will explain or change a lot of things.
• Dave (Hurley's Friend) - Right now, we don't know if Dave is real, but when the true nature of Dave is revealed, it will explain or change a lot of things.

etc. Am I on the right track? I.e., the revelation of the true nature of a mysterious element is a mindfuck if the revelation explains or changes a lot of things.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 01:13, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

I think you are starting to understand the concept of mindfuck now. The Black Rock is definitely a mindfuck... Adam and Eve less so, because if you are just watching the show without being as intensely invested like people here are, two dead skeletons don't mean that much. A lot of the mysterious elements will apply, but its those that really make you wonder whats going on "How did that slave ship end up in land" and how did it get there... being a good example of it. How did a short range African drugs mule plane end up in the South Pacific? Its those things that everyone realises is a big change in direction, not just the obsessive fans. :)  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:28, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

The map was a clue, in a pretty traditional sense of the word; the fact that it was concealed doesn't make it anything more than a map. Certain things on the map might prove to be mindfucks, but... Adam and Eve could well prove to be a mindfuck; at present, they're a mystery. One could definitely describe the Black Rock as a mindfuck, unless I'm being absent-minded; perhaps I'm forgetting something, but I didn't expect to see it in the jungle, and I don't remember any indication that it would be in such a location. It's a similar thing with Jacob. Audiences expected to see him, or to discover that he didn't exist. The outcome-- and the implications-- mess with one's sense of "reality" in the show. Granted, the Monster is on the island, but even the Monster didn't prepare the audience for that little bit of weirdness with Jacob, I think. With Jacob's, erm, "appearance", I think we can safely say that our basic understanding of Ben, the Others, and the Island has changed in a pretty radical way. Now, what that means is another matter...

I guess I'm repeating what plkrtn said. Some things are mysterious, some things seem peculiar, some things strike us as "natural" resolutions to plots and subplots, and some things are simply there... But some things shatter your perceptions and hugely recontextualize or radically alter one's interpretations, or else disturb what you thought you knew in a profound way.--PresterJohn 01:49, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Ok, thanks guys. I am getting the impression that there is a scale of 1 to 10 for mindfucks. I.e., the end of Sixth Sense is very high on the scale, the Black Rock is pretty high, and Adam and Eve are low-to-mid scale. However, all three are still mindfucks. The first appearance of the Monster is very high on the scale in my opinion. Also, was Snuffleupagus (as referenced by Sawyer in "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead") on Sesame Street a mindfuck on all the children that watch the show?-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 02:01, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

In a sense, snuffy would be since for a long time he was portrayed as an imaginary friend of Big Bird's. Nobody else could see him. Eventually a creative decision was made to reveal him to the others on Sesame Street, but if I remember correctly this wasn't something that was planned out long in advance. TPTB for Sesame Street didn't want to show Big Bird keeping secret friends from the adults and setting teaching kids that it's ok to have that secret relationships with possibly nefarious people. Snuffy would be about a .5 on my scale of 10.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 06:51, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Can the discussion template be removed from this page yet, or is there still spiritful debate happening? --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:52, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

Well given that no decision has been reached on the deletion issue yet, it seems that the debate is still ongoing. And the definition debate still seems confused as the examples on the article page don't match the definition given there.--TechNic|talk|conts 13:59, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

Here is an easy definition of Mindfuck that everyone will understand: "A mindfuck is when something fucks with the mind." Sorry to be vulgar, but it is very obvious to me what mindfuck means. Ask yourself: what does assf*ck mean? Ask yourself: what does skullf*ck mean? Then ask yourself what does mindf*ck mean?

When Jacob comes up on the screen and you say "WTF? (what the fuck?)" That is a mindfuck. Anything that makes you say WTF is a mindfuck. Unless there are any objections, i'm going to change the current definition to this new one.--Mindfucker 23:24, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

I think the current definition works better.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 11:18, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Proposed definition, distinguishing it from 'plot twist':

I feel that there is a linguistic continuity between the word 'fuck' and the proposed terminology, and that is: Every interaction with a fellow human being has a long list of assumptions built into it, some of which are honesty, a shared sense of reality, cultural continuity, stated contract, etc. When one person 'plays' these assumptions, it can be said that they are 'fucking' the other person.

Examine the sexually crude definition - the same act, intercourse, can be described as either 'fucking' or 'making love'. This is because there is often long list of assumptions that are not discussed as two people couple. If you leave immediately after intercourse, you're fucking. If you don't reveal that you're already involved, you're fucking. If you don't care if she gets pregnant, you're fucking. If you intend to get pregnant but aren't involving him, you're fucking. Examples of non-sexual usage are abundant - in business terms, assumptions are made in every simple contract. If someone sells me a crate of rotten oranges, I'm being fucked, because I assumed that the crate was full of fresh oranges.

A mindfuck, in dramatic terms, occurs when a large ontological or dramatic-structure assumption on the audience's part has been violated. We grant a dramatic presentation (such as LOST) a certain connection to our human reality - for example, our beards grow, there are no monsters, we don't heal miraculously, and dead people don't appear before us and talk with us. When We The Audience watched as flt 815 crashed, we made these assumptions about their reality. When an author can presume the audience's assumptions, not reveal immediately how they differ from the dramatic reality, and then later reveal that dramatic reality in a mind-shifting way, they have achieved a mindfuck. A mindfuck HAS to have some sort of ontological or dramatic-structure shift to qualify as a mindfuck. Otherwise, yes, it's just a plot twist. Locke showing up at the radio tower was a plot twist. Juliet revealing her shifting loyalties was a plot twist. Jack playing football with Tom was a plot twist. However, discovering the first hatch was a mindfuck. Hurley seeing his Numbers on the side of the Swan was a mindfuck. The monster was a mindfuck. Locke seeing Cooper tied up in the box was a mindfuck. Desmond's abilities are a mindfuck. The flashforward was a mindfuck (that's an example of a 'dramatic-structure' mindfuck - the flashback is a well-established device on the show, and presumably 99.9 percent of the audience assumed the flashforward was a flashback as they started watching it). "This is another island" was a mindfuck. Subsequent hatches, monster appearances, rapid healings are now just part of the ontology of the show, and are not mindfucks. Logically, it seems like fewer and fewer mindfucks will be possible as more and more dramatic reality is canonized. --Lupaganaram 12:49, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

Links to this article

Please link to the Mindfuck article using a redirect such as Mindf*ck. This should alleviate some concerns from other users about the appearance of swear words on the site, especially in episode articles. I have updated the links on the literary techniques template but some crossrefs may remain.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 11:20, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

So if I called you a "f*ckhead" instead of the uncensored term, you suddenly would not be offended? Whatever. (I'm not calling you that, btw. Just making a point.) Jinxmchue 17:44, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• True, but it has the same effect as a bleep does on television. Everyone knows what they mean we just don't have to hear (in this case see) it. Could we just rename the entire article "Mindf*ck", or would that not solve anything? Loraxx753 04:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is tiresome

OK, here's the situation. No one here has given any reasonable explanation of why this expression should be described as a legitimate literary technique on this site. The word "mindfuck" is popping up all over the place, and people are accepting it as is! Well, it's not at all a legitimate expression. The term does not show up on Wikipedia any more, and, when it did, it was described as "slang." Is that what editors of this site want? A slang expression used instead of actually literary terms?

Instead of this crude slang expression, why not use the term "plot-twist" or "twist-ending. The latter term has a very well researched and resourced entry in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twist_ending) and pretty much explains the "mindfucks" in Lost to a tee. Lets be adults here, not snickering pre-teens who giggle when a naughty word is used. Wrecktum 18:04, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

• I think it's pretty ironic that you pick a username that sounds like rectum then complain about the word mindfuck. The fact that some Wikipedia editors removed it from their site doesn't mean it's not a legitimate term.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:35, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• I'd also like to point out that the user account Wrecktum appears to be a single-purpose account for the point of making this comment.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:38, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

1) Why do you care what my user-name is? 2) So I just logged on for the first time, big deal? 3) You seem very possessive of this unnecessary slang term. Why is that? Wrecktum 08:52, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• First off, rectum isn't a swear word, in fact quite the opposite of being slang it's a scientific term. People might find it rude, but the difference between that and a swear word is that a swear word is by its very definition and purpose offensive, and in this example the use of swearing is unjustified to describe the subject of the article. Secondly, his first post was only yesterday, so of course his account is going to look like a single-purpose account until he makes some more comments. There's nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose account if their purpose is useful, and I think he made a valid contribution. It's quite likely that he is a long-time user of the site who finally signed up for an account when he felt he had something worth contributing.Liquidcow 08:09, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Yes, exactly. The word 'mindfuck' is just a slang expression for 'surprising twist', and since this is an encyclopedia, the more encylopedic term should be used, rather than slang. As I've said before, I'm not advocating un-necessary censorship, I'm not particularly bothered by swearing in general, but in this case it is entirely unnecessary and inappropriatte, and there is a perfectly good, and more suitable phrase that can be used instead.Liquidcow 01:08, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• The fact that the term is "popping up all over the place" is what gives it legitimacy. The difference between slang and a legitimate term is simply a matter of acceptance. A friend of mine describes such situations in Lost as the writers "pulling the rug out from me, slipping it under, and then pulling it out again!". The term "plot twist" or "surprise ending" doesn't carry the same exasperation or awe of the circumstance that "mindfuck" does convey. Yes, I suppose it's a vulgar word, but it does express a unique shade of meaning that other terms fall short of. I don't consider myself immature or short on vocabulary and I've used it occasionally while discussing the show. An adult would accept the word on its own merits and not fret about potentially offending others.

Rhettoric 08:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Legitmacy comes from the natural use of a term. Trying to promote a term by putting it in people's faces is advertising. The problem with Mindfuck is that it doesn't mean anything. It has no merits as a term. Dharmatel4 15:07, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• I invite those in this discussion section to critique my recently added definition above. It's late, but I think it's tight. --Lupaganaram 13:23, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

Proposed title change

Since the term 'mindfuck' is obviously causing a lot of controversy, I propose a title change. It seems entirely gratuitous to use a swear word to define something that has nothing to do with swear words.

I propose either we change the title to 'surprising twists' (or similar), or, considering the article seems to include other forms of narrative confusion besides the 'reveal', make the simple change to 'mindgames' to reflect the idea of the show messing with our heads. It could even be expanded to include mindgames the characters play with each other (although that might intrude on 'deceptions and cons' I suppose). I just want to get rid of the ridiculous swearing in this title, so there's my proposed solution: 'Mindgames'.Liquidcow 01:18, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename To Mindgames. An excellent suggestion. This should alleviate the concerns over the language and should allow for a better defining of the term. Seeing as the majority vote for deletion was ignored and the deletion tag removed, hopefully someone can add the Rename tag to the page and we can reach a compromise.--TechNic|talk|conts 04:36, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Undecided: I agree that the new name change is a good one; however, with "Mindfuck" we are dealing with a technical term... so I'm unsure. I'll wait for others' comments and then make a decision. --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  05:09, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't Rename: This arguement is so stupid I want to shoot myself in the head. It is just a word people, let it go.--CaptainInsano 08:50, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename: Yes, it's "just a word" but the word isn't encyclopedic and there are other, better words that can be used. There's been a lot of heated typing in this discussion, but no one has explained how the term "mindfuck" is encyclopedic or an legitimate literary term. People want to use it simply because they like the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrecktum (talk • contribs) .

• Undecided: In my opinion it's a pretty stupid page. The whole show is about plot lines which are used to confuse the viewer or make them think about the connection. May as well write MINDFUCK IS LOST in the biggest font possible.--Baker1000 09:00, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't Rename: It doesn't need to be renamed. Mindfuck is a legitimate term. Read more here.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 09:12, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Inconclusive. That article calls the term "trendy." There's no indication that it's nothing more than a slang term for the current "plot twist" trend in movies and TV. Wrecktum 09:51, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't Rename: Look, I'm from the midwestern US, and therefore by nature am not as comfortable with casual use of the word in question as those from either coast. That being said, the concept of mindfuck has been around in fiction and science fiction for decades now. If you actually take the time to read Wilson's "Illuminatus Trilogy" it would be clear to you that it is not a slang term for "plot twist" and has little to do with modern trends in movies and TV. The fact that it's name is coarse in nature does not detract from its obvious relevance to LOST. Yes, we could change it to "Surprising Plot Twists" or "Fuzzy Baby Ducks", but then it would no longer refer to the known and established concept. Renaming "rape" to "non-consentual physical contact commonly involving reproductive anatomy" does not make the concept any less ugly, but it does cause confusion. It is just a word, it is a well established concept, and as much as I don't care for it, it still has relevance on this site. We're all grown-ups here. Get over it. (I did). --Doc 10:15, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• RENAME: I don't believe that the intent of Lostpedia is to offend anyone, and this page is clearly offensive to many. While I do believe it is beneficial to document the "mindgames" on the show, the actual content is now taking a distant backseat to the heated discussion over the name of the article. Renaming to "mindgames" is an excellent idea, in my opinion. It is non-offensive and still provides an excellent means of tracking these occurrences. Thanks! --Libbyjones715 14:04, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Unfortunately "mindgames" is not synonymous with "mindfuck" - I wish it were, and if you can find a term that is synonymous in the realm of literary criticism then I'll be happy to support you. Lostpedia isn't here to offend anyone, but it's also not here to play the part of "language police" and try and replace established words that are used elsewhere just because some (including me) find them distasteful or vulgar. --Doc 06:50, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

• I guess I have to agree with the RENAME. I personally couldn't care less anymore, but it is obvious that the term Mindfuck is offensive to many, and in my opinion, Mind Games is an excellent compromise to those many people who use lostpedia.--Lewis-Talk-Contribs 14:21, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
  • I wouldn't mind a rename if someone could find an appropriate term. There are lots of "literary techniques" glossaries, etc out on the web. Maybe someone could find something that is suitable and would satisfy everyone. The term mind game is already defined with a different meaning, though: "passive aggressive behaviour". I.e, Jack and Locke were seemingly working together, but they were each playing mind games.

• RENAME or DELETE When I last looked opinion was running nearly 3-1 (21-8) in favor of deleting the article already. Dharmatel4 14:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• DON'T RENAME for the hundreds of reasons I've given before, its a legit film term, its relevant. [1] the show is part of the genre, i'm an adult and the problem people have with this, is a word that we all use, and at its most base, all do else there wouldn't be 100 million viewers of this show world-wide!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:15, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

That article is a joke. Its written a nobody who wrote a few scripts for indy films in the late 1990s and has since taught intro scriptwriting classes at writers retreats and community colleges. Its not a serious article on film and the author has no credentials. On top of that, the article is badly written. It reads like a long list of films that somebody saw over a number of years and wants to ramble about. It is not taken seriously as a genre by much of anyone and its supporters have trouble even defining what it is. Dharmatel4 16:48, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• RENAME If it's a term that they would not use on the show or in their specials, then it is not a term that should be used here. Let's try to keep Lostpedia a family-friendly site. Jinxmchue 17:46, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• RENAME Not everyone who visits this site is an adult and the use of f*** is not appropriate for all ages to view. Belle42 19:43, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• DON'T RENAME I'm sick of seeing all the arguments on here which are purely based on anti-profanity. Keep it family friendly? The show itself is loaded with gore, violence and sex, and you want to see a site about it eliminate all profanity, just because the FCC is okay with seeing brainpan splatter but not the word "shit"? You think your 8 year old kid has never heard the word "fuck" on the playground, but you're okay with him seeing Sayid torture a man? In a long history of interent idiocy, this debate's moving to near the top of the pile. Dharmabum 23:34, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• It's not 'anti-profanity' and it's not 'censorship', it's about the fact that profanity is not appropriatte in this instance. In the show there are scenes of torture and violence (though not as many as you seem to be implying) because they are required to tell the story. I can guarantee you that the writers carefully consider every act of violence that goes into the script to make sure it won't be considered gratuitous. Similarly, the show is not 'loaded' with sex, it's all implied and again, I guarantee that the writers and directors put in only the necessary amount required to tell the story and keep us emotionally involved. Swearing is never used in the show because it is never required to tell the story or heighten tension. Similarly, swearing is not required in this article to make the point it's trying to make. It's not about people being 'offended', it's about the fact that the title is unnecessary and immature. It's certainly not, in my eyes, about making the site 'kid friendly' - here in Britain the show is aired at 10pm and on DVD gets a '12' or sometimes a '15' rating, at which the F-word can be used, so it's not that I would expect viewers of the show to be too young or delicate to hear swear words, it is literally a case of its appropriateness in this case.

There is no indication either that 'mindfuck' is accepted as a genre by any credible sources.Liquidcow 03:30, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

• I have no interest in the core argument that should be fought here; whether an article about "mindfuck", as a genre, belongs here. For the record, I really don't think it should be if other genres are not defined. What I have a problem with is people trying to remove it based on the opinion that it's offensive, rather than that an article about the specific genre is allowed. Whatever the rules on British television, there is no swearing on the show because the network will get fined a lot of money by the FCC if they do. The FCC apparently has no problem with (non-graphic) sex or considerably graphic violence, but the Lostpedia should not base its standards on what the FCC allows, but rather on what its readers and editors allow.

That is the ENTIRE point of my suggestion below, which you seem to think I miss the point with; that the argument over what kind of adult content should be allowed on the Lostpedia has absolutely nothing to do with the argument over whether "mindfuck" is a genre worth including in its own article, and that until any consensus debate is stripped of the people who are only interested in seeing a profanity-free website, no valid consensus about "mindfuck"'s inclusion can really be assessed. Dharmabum 05:20, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Rename - 'Plot-twist' is absolutely sufficient to describe the literary technique in question. Perhaps on the 'Plot-twist' page reference could be made to the 'mindf*ck' sub-technique, but these most assuredly are plot-twists we are talking about. Higsby 09:58, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't rename per Dharmabum and Captain Insano. --Neurophyre 02:28, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

ongoing proposal to delete

Since there is apparently a space issue in discussion, the body of the ongoing discussion of the proposal has apparently been moved to an archive. In order that nobody forget that as far as I know this proposal is still ongoing, I've listed the proposal and an edited summary of views up until today to save space. The full opinions of those on the list can be found in the archive. This is important because people casually reading the discussion header and not looking at the archive might get the impression that this proposal had been rejected. Dharmatel4 14:45, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Just to clarify, the previous deletion recommendation was closed as "no consensus". If you have new arguments for deletion then you should re-nominate after the article has been given some more time to grow. Also see my comments below to TechNic.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:07, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Proposal

Dagg & Dharmatel - I'm blanking the "votes" from archive you added here for a few reasons. 1) Keep in mind that whether or not an article is deleted isn't determined by a straight up vote. The process is to reach consensus and the opinions of contributors and reasons for them are what's taken into consideration by the sysops when the time comes to delete or not. 2) Wikipedia != Lostpedia. Just because they delete something doesn't mean we will delete it here. I see you have recycled some of your previous arguments above which is fine, but users should read the archives if they want to understand the full reason for the decision not to delete at this point in time. Also the template at the top clearly states that the outcome was "no-consensus" not "keep".    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:29, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Also I should point out that there is now a portal for literary techniques which links to other articles as well.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:35, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Two things: 1. I didn't re-add the comment above that has my signature. I am deleting it now to reduce confusion. 2. I know that the literary techniques portal exists, because I was the one who created it.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 16:23, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

OK I didn't see who created the portal, but I thought it was good to have. Also nothing is stopping anyone from creating articles on SciFi or Fantasy.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• But how can the community reach a consensus when the ballot has been taken away? I don't understand what the purpose is of votes to rename, merge or delete articles if that vote isn't how the decision is made? How is the final decision made? At what point does polling get closed and how is that decided? Do votes count or not? Sorry, but I genuinely don't understand the policy.--TechNic|talk|conts 15:46, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Keep in mind that it's not a vote and there are no ballots. There was no consensus reached for deletion. That was over a week ago and the page was getting quite long with old discussion (archive reduced by about 47k). The old discussion is still available in the archive. I realize the name of this article is controversial. I think the current discussion is about renaming above. When an article is recommended for deletion discussion takes place and after sysops see there there is consensus for deletion (or not) then the appropriate action is taken. Reasons should be given for your keep/delete opinion. If you don't say why then we have nothing to take into consideration. A few things are certain in this case: 1) It won't be deleted due to its name. 2) It won't be deleted just because the English Wikipedia deleted it. Even Wikipedia still has other articles with the word "fuck" in the title. Just look at wikipedia:fuck and wikipedia:Operation Mindfuck    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:02, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Your behavior is completely unethical. You were actively against the proposal and that you personally decided that 21-7 or 21-8 was not a consensus even though new opinions still showed up today. You then personally hide the results in an archive and did not bother to put anything in there saying that you had decided to terminate the proposal. Lostpedia is supposed to run by consensus not by your personal decisions. Dharmatel4 16:18, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Unfortunately we don't have a deletion system as fancy as Wikipedia yet so it is sometimes unclear when a discussion has been closed. I assure you closing the discussion was not a unilateral decision and the fact that I archived the old deletion discussion was not done to "hide" it but rather to decrease the size of this page since there is an active discussion regarding the renaming.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

It isn't a vote? So when the Job List says "Cast your vote on articles proposed to be merged, deleted, or renamed" are you saying that they are not actually votes? So all these decisions are made by Sysops and what the rest of the community thought were votes are actually entirely meaningless? I think it would be well worth writing somesort of guidelines or proposed policy to explain how these decisions are made, because it now appears to be far from clear-cut. The use of "consensus" is confusing because on every previous vote, there have been a mixture of opinions and the resolution has always seemed to reflect the majority 'vote', rather than waiting for every person to agree on the same outcome.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:33, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

It's not a vote. I'm sorry the job list page has added this confusion. It is not correct.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:45, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Of course its not a vote in the truest sense of the word. Unless anything is overwhelmingly clear, we don't do it. It was decided that no consensus was reached last time around. That is what we are appointed to do. There is no point doing the same process over and over again either. I have said this before and once again here goes. The article title has to reflect the contents. Mindfuck is a term applied to a certain genre of film and television in critical theory. If someone can come up with clear consensus on a replacement term, then fine, but to delete an article based on a word that some people might find offensive is absurd as long as an article is factual and complete and reflects the articles discussion as well as applying to the show, which it does.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:54, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

There is no evidence or citation to show that 'mindfuck' is an accepted term or genre definition amongst credible film or television critics and theorists. Until someone can cite a legitimate source (which isn't going to happen by the looks of it) this article should be renamed or even deleted. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liquidcow (talk • contribs) .

Hahahaha. Serious Business indeed. --Neurophyre 02:30, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

There are two debates going on here; let's separate them.

Honestly, there's two completely different debates going on here. I think this can be solved.

One is about whether Lostpedia should include profanity, to keep it "family-friendly".

The other is about whether an entire article about the mindfuck concept belongs here at all, in light of how few other genres have articles here.

A general, large-scale RfC - like the Lostbook skin, top of every page - should be run to determine whether profanity is allowed on the site, including in article headings. That will take the debate off this one little page to the community at large, where they can determine if profanity is appropriate, rather than the people who see this article and get offended and come here to bitch.

At that point, those who oppose this article on grounds other than the use of profanity can hash it out and determine whether it belongs here on its merits rather than because of profanity. If it is determined it should remain based on its merits, then it can remain - bowlderized if the RfC determines profanity-free is the way to go, as it stands if profanity remains on the site. Dharmabum 23:45, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

I don't think this debate is at all about whether Lostpedia should include profanity, I think you're missing the point. Of course if it's appropriatte then it should be allowed on Lostpedia, I don't think anyone's saying that it should be censored - i.e. if, in theory, a character were to say 'fuck' on the show, there's no reason that should be omitted from the episode transcript - but the whole point is that it rarely, if ever, is appropriatte. There's no swearing on the show, so there are no instances where swearing can or should be used to describe anything that happens on the show (e.g. you will never see 'Hurley tells Sawyer to fuck off'). There's also no debate that what the article describes is something that is true of the show; Lost undoubtedly messes with our heads. The sole debate here is that the term 'Mindfuck' is not an appropriatte title for this article. This discussion page should obviously be used to discuss this article and any debate about Lostpedia as a whole should be taken elsewhere.Liquidcow 03:14, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

I am not missing the point at all. The FCC has regulations about swearing which WE do not have, therefore, any argument based on the lack of swearing on the TV show is moot. When the debate comes up about whether an article about "mindfuck" belongs, several people have well-reasoned arguments about the difficulty of classifying what is a "mindfuck", whether "mindfuck" is a recognized genre, and other valid considerations. Along with them comes a torrent of people who don't care what "mindfuck" means, whether an article about the "mindfuck" genre belongs here, and would not complain if the article was titled "mindgames" or "mindf***"... all they care about is that there is an article with a naughty word. Their opinions don't really bear on the conversation about the article, unless there is a consensus-based policy on the entire project whether or not we are self-censoring. It just muddles the core argument.

Incidentially, your final sentence is precisely in agreement with me. This discussion page should obviously be used to discuss whether "mindfuck", the slang term and possible genre, belongs here. Instead, these debates have become about whether profanity in a title is appropriate. I'm advocating that the debate about the term as profanity be taken elsewhere; what exactly is your problem with that? Dharmabum 05:07, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

To make it clear: I wasn't saying that 'because they don't swear on Lost we shouldn't swear here', what I meant was that because there's no swearing on Lost, there's never any call to include swearing. In the same way, I might say that because there are no badgers on Lost there's never any call to talk about badgers. I don't know anything about FCC regulations because I'm in England. Our only regulation is that you can't swear before 9pm, and Lost is on at 10.

Ok let me just straighten out what I'm saying and we can see where we cross over: first of all, if there is to be a general debate about whether profanity should be allowed in general on Lostpedia, it should be taken elsewhere, end of story. I assume then, that the current rule is like that of Wikipedia where profanity is allowed if justified by context (in a direct quote, or on the page for that particular term, those are the only examples I can think of), which I agree with. Anyone objecting to this article on the sole basis of there being a swear word in the title, without considering whether or not it's appropriatte is obviously not contributing anything useful. In my opinion, and that of several others it seems, the profanity is not appropriatte in this article. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards profanity. I feel that some people who are in favour of keeping the title are using their personal feelings towards profanity rather than looking at it objectively, and arguing to keep the title on the sole basis of 'not censoring swearing', again without considering whether or not it's appropriatte, is just the same.

The wikipedia-style rule would appear, however, to use the logic that you should not use slang or swear words unless you can justify doing so. It seems that people are looking at this the wrong way round, and deciding that we can use profanity or slang until someone justifies not doing so. This is clearly warped logic.Liquidcow 06:34, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

It seems like we're arguing, but we're on the same side when you sweep most small points aside. That's exactly what I want to see - the debate about whether "mindfuck" belongs, stripped of the arguments that it doesn't because it's profanity. Note that I'm of the opinion it doesn't, as this project doesn't make a habit of writing articles about genres, and this is a difficult one to define; I wouldn't weigh in with that opinion because I'd hate to see my opinion be the one that gets it deleted when half the other arguments are "swearing is wrong!"

LOSTPEDIA != WIKIPEDIA. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME ALREADY!!! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:25, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

Let's take the profanity debate elsewhere, formulate a clear, consesus-based policy that can be pointed to rather than saying "we kinda do it like Wikipedia", and get rid of these silly proposals to change the name to something other than the correct term.

Despite the lack of profanity on the show (although some may even argue against the kind of mild profanity we do see on the show, "bitch", "goddamn", "ass", etc.) profanity may be appropriate in many cases. If cast members swear in an interview, or someone swears during a discussion panel, do we bowlderize it in transcripts? If I want to expand on what "Operation Mindfuck" was in the Illuminatus! article, do I have to bowlderize it? And so on. Dharmabum 15:10, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Is describing someone as a female dog less offensive to you than describing an act that nearly every single person in the world partakes in? -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:25, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

Opinions from the community

I'm going to abstain from voicing my opinion below, but I thought it would be useful to give people a place to be heard if they still feel strongly about this topic. I'm not even going to bother placing a {{delete}} banner at the top of the article, because the existing {{discussion}} template should be good enough.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 16:48, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

This is a straw poll to see how the Lostpedia community feels about this article. These are not votes. This is not a democracy. Lostpedia does not have a formal voting policy. The results of straw polls are really just suggestions for the Lostpedia sysops who ultimately make all deletion/renaming decisions.

Some ground rules:

• This section is for agreements or disagreements only. Discussions should go in other sections. Any discussions in this section will be moved.
• If you change your mind, feel free to change your opinion below.
• Do not say "keep this article, but rename it". Just say you want to keep it. Renaming it would be for a different discussion.
• There is no set time limit.

Delete the offensive word

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The term mindfuck" does not belong on Lostpedia, because the word is offensive"

Agree: Delete because it is offensive

• Sloths 22:02, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
• Jinxmchue 10:23, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• Lucky Day 14:40, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• We have a page for "Sex" and manage to keep that one objective and treat it as adults. If we're keeping this page, why don't we go ahead and rename the "Sex" page to any of the offensive terms for sex? Libbyjones715 17:42, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• Belle42 22:09, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• Sign your name here

Disagree: The term is not offensive and/or it doesn't matter if it is offensive

• Neurophyre 02:33, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 08:48, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• The term is not inherently offensive and that doesn't really matter. If we do have a strong language policy it can always be renamed to "Mind****" with appropriate redirects. --Jackdavinci 12:47, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• Gateboy42
• --Jambalaya 13:25, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• This is an adult show, and adults can handle strong language (whether they disapprove or not). If a kid who watches this show comes here, they are exposed to enough adult content on the show to not worry about a word they likely hear every day. Dharmabum 02:02, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
•  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:26, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
•    Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all 
• CaptainInsano
• Marik7772003 12:18, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• -Chris^[dt7] 12:30, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• Staffie 22:30, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• Aero*Zeppelin 15:05, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• El Mayor 13:17, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
• TCG 13:33, 27 May 2007 (PDT)
• --Doc 10:00, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
• --MightyRearranger 14:24, 31 May 2007 (PDT) I'd say that if you kids have seen Radzinksky's brain stain in The Swan, you've already witnessed a self-induced mindfuck :)
• Sign your name here

Delete because it is slang

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "The term mindfuck" does not belong on Lostpedia, because the term is slang and is not well-defined."

Agree: Delete because it is slang

• NigelWebb
• Mr. Crabby (Talk)
• Gateboy42
• Wrecktum 21:38, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• Weak agree While this project tends to not write its own articles about genres, as the S3 finale indicates, this one is particularily relevant. Dharmabum 02:04, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
•    Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all 
• Libbyjones715 17:42, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• Willo 13:40, 31 May 2007 (PDT); among other reasons.
• Some Person 14:09, 31 May 2007 (PDT)
• --MightyRearranger 14:24, 31 May 2007 (PDT) however, I can't think of a more educated term at the moment...
• Sign your name here

Disagree: The term is not slang and/or it doesn't matter if it is slang

• --Neurophyre 02:33, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 08:48, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
• --Jambalaya 13:26, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
•  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:27, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• CaptainInsano
• Marik7772003 12:18, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• -Chris^[dt7] 12:29, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• Aero*Zeppelin 15:07, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
• --Doc 10:00, 29 May 2007 (PDT)
• Sign your name here

Abstain

The following people do not agree or disagree with the above statements:

• This 'poll' fails to take into account the various viewpoints that people hold. My particular opinion on the matter does not fit into any of these boxes. If you want to guage how people feel about the article then read the discussion.Liquidcow 01:00, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

Moved responses

The following responses were moved from the sections above, per the ground rules:

• This comment was moved (see previous location in history for this page):
  • I disagree - the language found on this particular page is not found in the show. As for whether or not this word is heard every day, we cannot know that and frankly it doesn't matter. Let's just control what we choose to include on Lostpedia. --Libbyjones715 17:45, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

• How exactly can anyone say that the word "fuck" is not offensive? What other words can we deem non-offensive just because some people get a cheap thrill out of seeing them used on a website? Why are people so inclined to bend over backwards to avoid (and punish) the use of non-offensive words like "niggardly" when it comes to "tolerance," yet when it comes to words like "fuck," they are quick to deem the words non-offensive? Jinxmchue 14:10, 28 May 2007 (PDT)
  • +shrug+ Some people don't find words to be offensive. I've met some who say the word "fuck" at least once per sentence, whereas I've written it here more times than I've said it aloud in the last 10 years. It's all perception, culture, habituation, etc... How about "Belgium" - is that offensive? --Doc 10:10, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

• Some people also don't find racial epithets to be offensive. How long do you think a person using them would be allowed here? The admins probably would ban such people pretty quickly. So who then determines what words are and are not offensive? You? Me? How do we determine what words are offensive? A debate where people get their friends to "vote" the same way? (I've been involved on the original Wikipedia to know that goes on quite a bit and I doubt things are any different here.) I would propose that an objective determination be used. Actually, we could use two:

1. 1 - A term that would not and could not be used on the show itself should not be used on Lostpedia.
2. 2 - Lostpedia's own policies discourage use of offensive terms. Example (albeit that is for user talk pages, but I think it's only fair that the principle should extend to articles, too). One could infer that Lostpedia's "Netiquette and Basic Courtesy" guidelines apply to this, too. Jinxmchue 22:30, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

For #1... if the producers, or directors, or writers, etc said the word "mindfuck" in a podcast, a convention, etc., then it wouldn't be Lostpedia's place to censor the word. The word would definitely get added to Lostpedia's transcripts. Do you agree, or do you think the word should be censored here on Lostpedia like it would be censored by ABC ? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:51, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

To Be Added?

John's dad in a box/John's dad telling him he's dead. whoops forgot to sign Tigerlilylynn 22:15, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Being bold

I'm being bold right here; Stop being such a wussy. It's just a word. I'm sure some thinks "sex" is offensive too, let's go censor that one as well. Thanks for the attention. --Jambalaya 12:31, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

Not bold. Rude. You clearly haven't read the recent discussion. Wrecktum 21:38, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

You do realise that if this article gets removed for being offensive, I will be opening a debate on your user name, which to me, is just as "offensive". This doesn't also exclude the fact that your user name has only been used for Talk discussions, and you haven't made any worthwhile edits to the site at all. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:22, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

So you think opening revenge "debates" is mature and useful? Jinxmchue 07:27, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

You know what? You're right. Let's start using racial slurs like "nigger" and "gook" to describe characters on the show, too. After all, they're "just words." Right? Jinxmchue 14:13, 28 May 2007 (PDT)

As far as I'm concerned, whether or not the language is offensive is not the issue. As I have said before, a debate about profanity on Lostpedia belongs on another page. The reason I object to this article is that it is stupid and pointless. 'Mindfuck' is not a recognised literary term, yet someone keeps trying to claim it is by marking it as such on articles for various episodes. I just think articles like this drag the quality of the site down - and not because of the swearing.Liquidcow 03:38, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Some of us disagree with you and do consider Mindfuck to be a legitimate and recognized literary term. Just because you continue to insist otherwise does not make your position any more true either. If you want to get rid of stuff that brings the quality of this site down, there's plenty of other stuff that can fill that category. Why are you only focusing on this one article then? --Doc 10:06, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Likewise, just because some of you disagree and consider the term to be "a legitimate and recognized literary term" does not make your position true, either. Works both ways, my friend. Of course, the burden is on you to prove that the term is "a legitimate and recognized literary term." One would conclude that if that were so, it would be easy to find major backing for the term from recognized authorities. Unfortunately for you, a simple Google search doesn't bear that out. Jinxmchue 22:11, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

I tried searching the contents of Amazon's book contents, (quick warning that the first book in the search results, and several thereafter are porn) but I unfortunately wasn't able to find any books that describe the term in a literary sense. Most of the books just say that something is a mindfuck, but they don't describe what a mindfuck is. And most of these references aren't made in a literary sense (e.g., a girl named Serena is unable to pee in front of her friend, and she calls this situation a mindfuck). Funnily enough, 4 of the books are classifieds as children's books. I wish I could find one concrete definition in a real book. Has anyone else had any better luck? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:40, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Indeed. The question of whether it is a recognised literary term is not a matter of opinion. It can't be considered one until someone finds a reliable source to back it up, which hasn't happened yet. It's not even the same as something which is clearly a fact but is unsourced; by its very definition as a 'valid literary term' you need to find a valid literary source to prove it. The method here should be 'prove it, then you can claim it's true', wheras people seem to be reversing that into 'I claim it's true, until you disprove it', which will only cause chaos on a site like this. By this logic I could create any number of nonsense articles with the justification that 'I consider it to be true, despite lack of evidence, until you disprove it'.Liquidcow 03:44, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Cheapening the term to include all plot twists

I have to admit, I'm still having a hard time understanding this term. I previously added this as a mindfuck: "For unexplained reasons, Jack is seen enjoying himself playing a game of catch football with one of the Others." But now I think this was just a simple plot twist. When a literary mindfuck occurs, the astute viewer should be able to figure out what happened, and it should But in this case, it is impossible to know why Jack is playing football with the others, because the writers of the story have not given us any clues. I think this is really just a cliffhanger. Please set me straight :). -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 11:54, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

I put a couple of thoughts on this on your talk page. For the specific scene of Jack's playing football, I'm now thinking that was a simple plot twist, but that one twist was part of the larger mindfuck that is "Jack's relationship to the Others".

The show went from portraying Jack as an enemy of the Others to having him appear to have given in and become one of them. This was a setup for the end of the season where he comes out as being even more of an enemy than before. The sum of all such scenes was to change the viewer's concept of Jack in preparation to changing it again - playing games with the viewer's brains. --Doc 12:03, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Thanks, that does help some, and I went ahead and added your explanation (I hope you don't mind) to that episode article page. Anyone can obviously change it to make the explanation better if needed. Still though, I don't think all of the current listed occurrences of mindfucks are really mindfucks. Most are just plot twists. Maybe with further explanation, they could also be mindfucks, but someone is going to have to start adding those explanations, right? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 14:57, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

"Game-Changer", "Writer's Trick", or "Head/Mind Game" as alternate title?

They all suck, I know, but can we brainstorm some more refined and/or recognizable terms to use? Wikipedia has officialy deleted their page on the word, and I think that we would be wise to follow suit, for common knowledge reasons.--MightyRearranger 14:24, 31 May 2007 (PDT)