Lostpedia

General[]

The Oceanic 6 refers to the six survivors, of Oceanic flight 815, that were rescued/taken back to the real world.--Aquakingman 18:47, 31 January 2008 (PST)

The six surviors are Kate, Jack, Hugo and three other unknown survivors of Oceanic flight 815. --Aquakingman 18:47, 31 January 2008 (PST)Aquakingman

  • Kate is not a confirmed member of the Oceanic 6. We know she is off the island, but with her past is likely in hiding and would not do favorably as a member of a celebrity group such as this. More than likely, she is part of the secret Jack asked Hurley about "telling". Suggest having categories for "possible members" and "confirmed members"--Hurley's Dad 22:30, 31 January 2008 (PST)
Kate is a confirmed member because Jack talks in terms of "we" in Looking glass with her. Any assumptions are really dangerous to make and should be made in theories. Dharmatel4 22:38, 31 January 2008 (PST)
Don't you disprove your own point there?! You're assuming that a casual use of 'we' confirms that Kate is part of the 'Oceanic Six', a very well known group. There's no proof of that- Kate may be one of "we" in terms of being one of the survivors, but that doesn't mean she is a member of the Oceanic Six.
Also, think about the circumstances under which Jack and Kate met at the end of the season... in dark, in a quiet/dead location outside the airport. It's the kind of place they'd meet if Kate was in hiding! I say remove Kate from the 'confirmed' list, given that there's been no confirmation at all!--Chocky 08:49, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Kate is one of the six. You can make up whatever weird conspiracy stuff you want to the contrary. but Jack uses "we" in ways at the end of last season that prove that she is one of the six. Dharmatel4 17:41, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Weird conspiracy stuff? Come on. It needs a weird conspiracy for her to BE one of the Oceanic Six! Jack using "we" means absolutely nothing- he could have meant "we" as "the people who left the island", not "we" as "The Oceanic Six". There's a very important difference. There are three of us that have discussed (in detail) why we think she is not- your reaction is undo our edits and basically just say "yes she is". Any chance of addressing the points raised first?!--Chocky 17:46, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Who is "our"? I reverted your edits because you removed Kate and because you started defining what Oceanic Six means beyond what was said. As far as I can tell, I've been making my case in multiple messages on this page going back to yesterday. Jack's conversation at the end of last season makes it clear whats going on with Kate. As far as I can tell, the discussion seemed to be how it was "impossible" based on an assumption about Kate off the Island. Dharmatel4 18:01, 1 February 2008 (PST)
"Jack's conversation at the end of last season makes it clear whats going on with Kate."-Dharmatel4 --- Well, let's check the transcript. In reference to leaving the island, both Jack and Kate use the first-person plural pronoun "we", which means that they consider themselves to both be in a shared group of people, those who have left the island, and that fact is obvious. In reference to the "golden ticket", the only element of the story that would directly tie someone to what we now call the Oceanic Six that occurred in their conversation, Jack uses the first-person pronoun "we", but Kate does not and, further, Jack does not use a second-person pronoun in order to suggest Kate is in the same group. This simply means that there is a group of people, that includes Jack, that received a "golden ticket". Kate's inclusion or exclusion from this group in undefined. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not speculation. It's the English language. Vegan T-Rex 20:53, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Well, so far on this page, myself, Hurley's Dad, Vegan T-Rex and HaloOfTheSun have suggested that Kate is not a member of the Oceanic Six. What exactly is the assumption made about Kate off the island? The only one I can think of is that she is still a wanted criminal, and thus would not want to be publicly revealed- I don't think that's an un-reasonable assumption?
Also, the changes I made to the page more accurately reflect what has been said about the Oceanic Six. They are NOT necessarily the only survivors, they are just a group that are known publicly, all of whom are involved in lying about what happened on the island. We do not know any more than that.--Chocky 18:05, 1 February 2008 (PST)
"who have collectively become famous as survivors of Oceanic Flight 815" You say that which is wrong and then you try to say something else after that which seems to contradict it. Why do you demand that we have to say that they "became famous as survivors"? As far as the rest, I don't care how many people you claim that you are speaking for. You and your assumptions are wrong. Dharmatel4 18:10, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Yes, I'll admit, saying that they were all survivors of 815 was incorrect. As for acknowledging that there are a number of people with differing viewpoints to yours but stating that you don't care... well, Wiki mentality is a reality I suppose. I give up- I was trying to help out, not start some weird power struggle...--Chocky 18:17, 1 February 2008 (PST)

So, just to recap: (1) the vast majority of people here acknowledge that nowhere in this week's episode of Lost was one word was said about Kate being in the Oceanic Six, meaning making her a part of that group without a degree of speculation is impossible; (2) maintaining one's freedom while on the lam and being part of a highly public rescue mission are almost certainly mutually exclusive, meaning that it would be highly unlikely even in the realm of fantasy storytelling; (3) despite this fact, a single user, with a highly speculative and expansive definition of the word "we" from a previous episode has essentially used the fact that you can freely edit the board to present his possibly (and quite likely) faulty information as fact. Even if it turns out to be correct, it is too premature to be listed beyond speculation on the wiki. Vegan T-Rex 20:30, 1 February 2008 (PST)

The other recap would be that the first episode of this season like every season resulted in a wave of new people who have it all figured out creating accounts. They talk in "we" and "us" to dismiss someone who doesn't agree with them and talk of a "vast majority" of maybe four people. They are so ignorant and so thick that they don't pick the obvious hints being dropped as to why taking a strong stand on a point may eventually look foolish. But then again as fast as they create their accounts, they are gone off to make a mess somewhere else to make a mess that will also have to be cleaned up. A similar "we" hung around for a month last spring changing articles day after day because they knew with absolute certainty that Nikki and Paluo were alive. They didn't read anything. They didn't know anything other than there was no chance they were wrong.
They now continue to display their ignorance by telling everyone how they absolutely know that Kate in the flashforwards is "on the lam". Anything else is totally impossible to even consider. And while they parse every argument against them away, lurking in the background is always their stupid assumptions about Kate off the Island. And of course the closing argument is that even if they are totally and absolutely wrong about everything and don't know what they are talking about, they were "right" somehow because this is a Wiki. Dharmatel4 22:04, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Good grief. Really? Do I have to post a similarly smarmy reply describing how self-appointed elites decide that they know everything about the show and think that their "obvious hints" should be taken as gospel... or have you heard it all already? (For the record, I've been a member since May last year). Still, thanks for not actually addressing the points Vegan T-Rex made and going off on a tangent of your own.
Just to restate yet the same stuff AGAIN... yes, we're assuming Kate is still on the lam. You're assuming that she isn't, which is in many ways a bigger assumption. Why the double standard?--Chocky 22:22, 1 February 2008 (PST)


  • Thank you for stating everything in a far more coherent manner than I did. The fact remains that no-one knows for sure if Kate is or isn't a member of the group, so as far as I should see she should be left out.--Chocky 20:36, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Heh, no problem... the discussion was getting so convoluted I thought it needed a little synopsis. ;) Vegan T-Rex 20:38, 1 February 2008 (PST)
I think what Dharmatel4 is beating around is that you've defined the Oceanic 6 as "the famous survivors." By the volume of discussion on this page, I think the one thing we all know is that we don't really know what The Oceanic 6 officially means. For example, all the police chasing Hurley didn't seem to recognize him until he yelled out that he was one of the Oceanic 6. Let's face it, Hurley is pretty easy to recognize. Just because the public knows that 6 people made it back from Oceanic 815 doesn't necessarily even mean that all 6 of those people went public with their identities. --Beardedjack 21:37, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • You're correct, of course. I admitted that I was wrong on that front (bad planning when editing on my part). But if the main point here is that we don't know anything about the Oceanic 6, then it seems wrong to assume Kate is in it, just because Jack referred to the two of them as 'we' in conversation. Much of the rest of it was me being somewhat off-topic...--Chocky 21:43, 1 February 2008 (PST)
It is a safe assumption that the Oceanic Six received a lot of public attention. Hurley references them when being captured to attempt to utilize celebrity power. Jack gets recognized in the drug store by the admirer for being a hero due to something revolving around their rescue. (This was confirmed in the enhanced version of Through the Looking Glass to be about Oceanic 815 and not about saving the woman on the bridge.) Given the groups apparent celebrity status, it also does raise questions as to how Kate can also have celebirty status when she is a wanted criminal. How has she avoided capture? When she was trying to get on Michael's raft, she took and defaced Joanna's passport in the hopes that she could assume her identity. Given all of this, I don't think it is safe to assume that when Jack said, "We" that he was referring to the "Oceanic Six", but that he was rather referring at that point to everyone who made it off the island. Be they celebrity or not.--Rodwell 07:06, 3 February 2008 (PST)
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water dude. Stop being so close-minded about the Kate situation. Kate not having to deal with her fugitive status if she now has celebrity is an unanswered question. Just because you're content with your iron-clad logic don't stop everyone else from considering the obvious.--Rodwell 23:58, 3 February 2008 (PST)

Don't know if anyone considers this to be canonical, but the latest ABC trailer refers to Jack, Kate and Hurley as three of the Oceanic 6. Make of it what you will. Personally, I've been spoiled as to the IDs of the 6 so I'm staying outta this. --Jeff 10:34, 7 February 2008 (PST)

  • A couple of things: (1) advertising material isn't canonical, and regularly holds misinformation, due to being produced separately from the show's own production and usually with little or no oversight from the show's producers (I don't know if this has been true in reference to "Lost", I'm just referring to the industry in general); (2) the point of a non-spoiler/non-predictions page on a wiki such as this is to be accurate as far as existing canonical material is concerned. The debate about Kate has nothing to do with anyone being 'right' or 'wrong' as to whether or not Kate is in the Oceanic 6 but with the page itself being accurate according to what has previously aired. So knowing spoilers shouldn't prevent anyone from being able to weigh in on the present debate. Vegan T-Rex 16:06, 7 February 2008 (PST)

As far as I can recall, the only persons who have claimed to be members of the Oceanic 6 are Hurley and Sayid. While Sun was giving birth, someone else, mentioned The Oceanic 6. Jack mentioned having passes, but did not use the magic words. Kate did not comment on passes. Aaron, of course, ain't talking!--Gaarmyvet 15:37, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

There is one fuzzy thing that occurred to me. Kate's living in a very nice house ang employs a nannie while having no apparent job. So far, there has been nothing in the story to indicate that she was independently wealthy. Did Oceanic settle some cash on the 6? Either way, does it matter?--Gaarmyvet 18:30, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Does this section require some clean-up? (The task is above my level of competence!) There are statements like 'Kate is on the lam' which were logical conclusions once but have since been disproven. It may also be a good idea to distinguish between confirmed and candidate members of the Oceanic 6--Gaarmyvet 10:44, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

The funeral[]

Can we assume that whoever died in the funeral Jack attended was also a member of the 6?

  • If the person who died was something of celebrity (as the Oceanic 6 apparently are), then their publicly announced funeral would likely be attended by curious observers. That cuts against the corpse being in the Oceanic 6. Vegan T-Rex 09:06, 1 February 2008 (PST)

Also, the mysterious "he" mentioned by Kate could be Sawyer, but we don't know for sure.

There doesn't seem to be a relationship between the six and who stayed with Jack and who went with Locke; Jack and Kate stayed, Hurley left. --Evan Prodromou 20:31, 31 January 2008 (PST)

  • Correct. Nothing can be assumed. This is a theory, nothing more. --Marik7772003 20:43, 31 January 2008 (PST)
    • Correct. At no time have we heard in script that six people got off the island. Also, the Oceanic 6 could be assumed to be people that were on Flight 815 and were rescued. Desmond, Ben, Juliet, Alex, etc. would not fit under that title.--Hurley's Dad 09:08, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • It's likely that the funeral Jack attended wasn't Jin's, since he appears to be buried in Korea. But, since Kate can't leave California, we know the airport at which she meets Jack is most likely in CA. It might be LAX, which has plenty of flights to Asia. Also, Jin's funeral, if he had one, was probably sparsely attended like the one Jack went to. Even Sun might not have gone to it. --Voo 20:34, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Kate?[]

I noticed that Kate has been re-added to the list of "confirmed" members of the Oceanic 6? There has been no confirmation of anyone beyond Jack and Hurley. As far as we know, the Oceanic 6 are publicly known figures rescued from the island, not an exclusive list of all island residents rescued. Vegan T-Rex 15:27, 1 February 2008 (PST)

  • Yes, I took Kate out earlier today, as she has not been confirmed as a member. She was re-added by Jack in the Box, who said "Added Kate", not "readded Kate", so it's possible that they're ignorant of her already being deleted! I think we're safe to remove her again- I'd do it myself, but I want to make sure I'm not just acting alone here. It also appears that my section in the Theory tab about why Kate would/would not be a member of the Oceanic Six has been deleted... any chance of an explanation as to why?!
  • I think the Kate issue comes down to this- which is more likely:
  • Kate returns from the island as a member of the Oceanic Six, is made very (world?) famous, yet is not arrested for murder despite the fact that she was on the plane as a known criminal with a detective handcuffed to her.
  • Kate returns from the island but lies low and sets herself (or is set up by whoever they bargain with) with a new life where she will not be found, and the official record stating that she died on the plane.
I think it's obvious which one makes the most sense- it even provides a reason for Jack's ongoing compliance with the cover-up- if he speaks, Kate could get found out.--Chocky 16:29, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Oceanic may have a lot of amends to make with the passengers, but I don't think an airline company would take it upon themselves to cover up the existence of a survivor because of her criminal past. Is it possible that Kate slipped away upon their return? Perhaps. But with the media sensation that something like this would cause, I would think that people would be reinvestigating all the passengers, and it would be very hard for Kate to hide out-- straight hair or not. That being said, you're right. Kate isn't declared to be a member of The Oceanic 6. But I think we all know she is. I mean, it's Kate. Furthermore, I think the secret they are covering up is much more troubling and important than Kate heading to a woman's prison (hot). Still, if this is the overwhelming agreement, take Kate off the list. But I think there's going to be a certain expectation to see her on there... --Beardedjack 16:41, 1 February 2008 (PST)
    • Just because it's expected for Kate to be one of the Oceanic 6 does not mean she is. This is Lost, after all. And the article should only provide information that is canon. As far as we know she isn't - YET.--HaloOfTheSun 16:50, 1 February 2008 (PST)
    • I wasn't really thinking that Oceanic would be the ones responsible for the cover-up... but the same argument still stands. Which is more likely: the cover-up extends all the way to the FBI, allowing them to remove Kate's criminal records and allow her to be seen in public, or that they just let her slip under the radar?
You're right, though- there will be an expectation to see Kate on the list. Maybe a "possible members" section could be made?--Chocky 17:08, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Kate is one of the coeanic six. Her conversation with Jack at the end of last season made that clear. If you want to make up theories about why that isn't true, take them to the appropriate place. Dharmatel4 17:36, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • I have taken it to the appropriate place (i.e. Theories), where people have been building on what I wrote (once I reverted your delete of it). This is definitely a point worth debate, and I can't work out why you think that a single use of "we" is evidence to stop that.--Chocky 17:49, 1 February 2008 (PST)

This is an extended response:

  • Kate returns from the island as a member of the Oceanic Six, is made very (world?) famous, yet is not arrested for murder despite the fact that she was on the plane as a known criminal with a detective handcuffed to her.
Based on false assumptions, theory and expectations. Do not assume you know what happened to Kate after she returned.
  • Kate returns from the island but lies low and sets herself (or is set up by whoever they bargain with) with a new life where she will not be found, and the official record stating that she died on the plane.
Again based on false assumptions and theory about what will happen to Kate.
I think it's obvious which one makes the most sense- it even provides a reason for Jack's ongoing compliance with the cover-up- if he speaks, Kate could get found out.--Chocky 16:29, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Again, complete theory.
You are presenting theories and making assumptions which you should not make. I would advise you to step back and think about that. Do you really know what happened to Kate before the flashforward? Dharmatel4 18:07, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Yes, that was theory, which is why I didn't include it in the main page. This is a discussion page. No, I do not know what happened to Kate before the flashforward, and neither do you. I'm saying that she is not likely to be a member of the Oceanic Six because of what we DO know about her situation (being a wanted criminal). You say that she is, because Jack said "we". But what's the point? Given that all you do is dismiss anything said against your ideas as "theory" (presumably your inference of what Jack means by "we" is fact?) there's no point trying to debate. "We" could mean "us survivors", or "we" could mean "me and the rest of the Oceanic Six". There is nothing obvious about this.--Chocky 18:11, 1 February 2008 (PST)
You start out claiming your speaking for others, then you claim I'm not making my case and now after I make it again, you say its not worth debating with me. What is known for sure is the conversation in TTLG. Nothing is known about Kate's current status and making assumptions that she "can't" be something beased on being a fugitive doesn't convince me. Dharmatel4 18:17, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Putting this in a second place just to make sure Dharmatel4 sees it tomorrow, it's kind of in the middle of things higher on the page.--- "Jack's conversation at the end of last season makes it clear whats going on with Kate."-Dharmatel4 --- Well, let's check the transcript. In reference to leaving the island, both Jack and Kate use the first-person plural pronoun "we", which means that they consider themselves to both be in a shared group of people, those who have left the island, and that fact is obvious. In reference to the "golden ticket", the only element of the story that would directly tie someone to what we now call the Oceanic Six that occurred in their conversation, Jack uses the first-person pronoun "we", but Kate does not and, further, Jack does not use a second-person pronoun in order to suggest Kate is in the same group. This simply means that there is a group of people, that includes Jack, that received a "golden ticket". Kate's inclusion or exclusion from this group in undefined. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not speculation. It's the English language. Vegan T-Rex 21:02, 1 February 2008 (PST)
When did you join Lostpedia. As of Feb 1 at 21:02, how many articles or discussions have you contributed to?
Your "facts" are not "obvious". You have decided that the shared group can only be those who have left the Island. Why is the more obvious answer that Kate is one of the six to be dismissed? In reference to the tickets, Jack says "we". You redefine

"we" to mean anyone other than Kate. Your own selective logic is what excludes Kate, not the script. When did you join Lostpedia. As of Feb 1 at 21:02, how many articles or discussions have you contributed to? Dharmatel4 22:12, 1 February 2008 (PST)

  • "As of Feb 1 at 21:02, how many articles or discussions have you contributed to?" Utterly irrelevant. Do you have any idea how much you discredit yourself by behaving like an elitist ass? It is your selective logic which is INCLUDING Kate, why can you not apply your own arguments to yourself?--Chocky 22:25, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • It's not selective logic, it's cold, unfeeling contextual analysis. The only way to disagree is to misconstrue the definitions of English language pronouns. Vegan T-Rex 22:46, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • I'm sure its always irrelivant when it goes against you. The answer by the way was "one" (this one). I've spent all day responding to you and and your "vast majority". You are wrong. No matter what the article is changed to be, you will still be wrong and eventually your mistakes will all go away. Dharmatel4 22:44, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Even if it turns out eventually Kate is in the Oceanic 6, there's no way to get from point A to point B right now without guessing. The conclusion does not equal correlation. Vegan T-Rex 22:49, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Otherwise known as the "even if I'm wrong I'm still right" Wiki argument. The scene at the end of the episodes reads a particular way. To read it any other way requires making assumptions as to why it isn't saying what it obviously says. The problem with the logic is that it leads to a point where if the obvious cannot be accepted as truth, nothing can be proven. And plus you have the documented problem here in that all the logic presented has its root back at the idea that Kate is a fugitive. That was where all this started. Dharmatel4 22:54, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Again, you're not applying your own logic (and how an episode "reads" is subjective, if you like it or not). Your documented problem is that you are presuming she is NOT a fugitive. The latest evidence provided (i.e. flashbacks) shows that she is a fugitive. The onus is to prove that this is now not the case, not prove that it still is.--Chocky 22:58, 1 February 2008 (PST)
What I've done is take the conversation in TTLG at face value and conclude that Kate is a member of the six. In doing so, I dont have to depend on anything beyond that conversation. The case for the opposite position depends on the assumption that it is impossible for Kate to be one of the six because she is a fugitive. This is a dicussion and you cannot simply say that anyone who disagrees with your "vast majority" bears the sole onus to make a case. Dharmatel4 23:05, 1 February 2008 (PST)
This is the last time I will post this. If you passed grammar school English, it proves my point regardless of her status as a fugitive. --- "Jack's conversation at the end of last season makes it clear whats going on with Kate."-Dharmatel4 --- Well, let's check the transcript. In reference to leaving the island, both Jack and Kate use the first-person plural pronoun "we", which means that they consider themselves to both be in a shared group of people, those who have left the island, and that fact is obvious. In reference to the "golden ticket", the only element of the story that would directly tie someone to what we now call the Oceanic Six that occurred in their conversation, Jack uses the first-person pronoun "we", but Kate does not and, further, Jack does not use a second-person pronoun in order to suggest Kate is in the same group. This simply means that there is a group of people, that includes Jack, that received a "golden ticket". Kate's inclusion or exclusion from this group in undefined. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not speculation. It's the English language. Vegan T-Rex 23:08, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Please read what Vegan T-Rex says and actually reply. What exact part of the TTLG proves that she is part of the 6? I've read through it, and I can't see anything that definitively states anything. The closest we get is "Yeah that golden pass that they gave us", which as T-Rex has pointed out, does not necessarily include Kate. In any case, this is getting stupid. I've made the section below with the aim of getting some kind of consensus of what to do. It may not work but it's worth a try...--Chocky 23:13, 1 February 2008 (PST)
1) You are making a false assumption by defining "WE" as meaning as meaning what it is conveniant for your own argument. You are defining what the "shared group" is to suit your own argument. To say that Kate is not a part of "we" requires an assumption on your part which is again an unnatural assumption to make given the conversation. Dharmatel4 23:18, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Pronouns are stand ins for previously defined nouns. If you jump into a conversation between two parties familiar with each other, chances are that there will be pronouns used that you lack a point of reference for, hence you don't fully understand the situation. Jack was able to use the word "we" in the context he did and be understood by Kate because she knew the group of people who the usage of that pronoun encompassed. We, the viewers, lack that point of reference, hence we have to default to the base meaning of the term. All the base meaning of the term provides is that the person making the statement (Jack) is part of a larger group that is identifiable to the listener (Kate). She could either be in the group or out of the group, but picking a side from this context is completely speculative.Vegan T-Rex 23:32, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • Today's podcast confirmed Kate is part of the Oceanic Six , but not Ben .... --PhilippeP 12:43, 19 February 2008 (PST)
Hmm that's a spoiler tho, no? <_< Congested 01:18, 20 February 2008 (PST)
No. Its a confirmation of what was already known. Dharmatel4 08:05, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I just want to point out how amusing that sentence is. Think about it. :) Vegan T-Rex 21:11, 21 February 2008 (PST)

Kate - a vote?[]

Right, this whole discussion about Kate's inclusion/exclusion from the Oceanic Six has spiralled out of control. Given the democratic nature of the wiki (until an admin steps in, anyway) can we simply vote? It just sounds too easy...--Chocky 22:32, 1 February 2008 (PST)

  • I didn't put an expiry on this. Slightly daft idea. Let's say that the vote will close after the next episode airs (on Thursday). Providing that the episode doesn't solve our argument (no mention of spoilers please folks, we're just going on what's aired), we'll go with the vote. --Chocky 17:12, 4 February 2008 (PST)
This site works by consensus. The vote will end when its decided by consensus that there is a result. Let me put it another way. You don't have any right to unlaterially change the article or decide by yourself what the results are or what the result means or decide when the vote is over. You need to ask opinions on these things and get consensus before you do anything. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the process and you better understand what consensus means.Dharmatel4 20:36, 4 February 2008 (PST)
  • Oh good lord. Given that we're having a vote, how can you describe anything done as a result as "unilateral"? Please explain to me how an open-ended vote is EVER going to result in consensus if there isn't a deadline? The entire Lostpedia community is NOT going to weigh in on this debate, nor is this a point of huge debate- what criteria are you expecting for consensus? You're not more important than anyone else here, get over yourself. The community is perfectly able to make these decisions without you trying to be an overlord.--Chocky 21:53, 4 February 2008 (PST)
  • Oh, and to clarify- I wasn't trying to appoint myself as the judge and jury of when this vote ends. I was merely putting it out there- if people disgree then let's hear it. Should I make a vote to decide when the vote is going to end? And then a vote for that one?--Chocky 21:56, 4 February 2008 (PST)
After the episode on thurs sounds reasonable to me. Passingtramp 10:48, 5 February 2008 (PST)
  • Sound reasonable to me as well, although I don't see this as a big deal. Some people are being real uptight about this and it's getting a bit ridiculous...--HaloOfTheSun 19:06, 5 February 2008 (PST)
  • Yes, I'll admit I've got uptight. I'm officially weighing out of the debate on this! It's gotten way out of hand for such a small issue...--Chocky 19:20, 5 February 2008 (PST)

I think Kate should be included[]

Put your names here...

  • I have Kate down as one of the Oceanic 6 over at Lost Wiki, and I'm keeping it that way. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  23:48, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • We saw her off the island, let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. --Beardedjack 07:27, 2 February 2008 (PST)
  • Jack says in TTLG "I've been using the golden pass that they gave US" meaning she probably got one, too. Furthermore, "he" could refer to a parole officer, if she is out of jail. Jackieboy 15:02, 2 February 2008 (PST)
  • There is no question that she is one of the six. The evidence (the conversation with Jack in TTLG) is obvious and the case against depends on making assumptions about Kate that cannot be made. Dharmatel4 16:17, 2 February 2008 (PST)
  • Per Jackieboys Golden Pass reason. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  07:48, 4 February 2008 (PST)
  • The Golden Pass decides it --Gulfwing 21:24, 4 February 2008 (PST)
  • Official Promo stating that both Kate and Jack are part of the Oceanic 6 here --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   02:57, 10 February 2008 (PST)

Of course Kate is one of the six --Eyeful Tower 13:19, 10 February 2008 (PST)

  • Podcast Confirms it so yeah she is.
  • If jack said that there were 6 survivors of the crash... theyre the oceanic six.

I do not think Kate should be included[]

Put your names here...

  • We don't have the evidence yet- needs to proved that she is, rather than that she isn't--Chocky 22:32, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • How bout we just leave her off til we get a few more flashforwards?--Gluphokquen Gunih 22:53, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • So far her inclusion is completely speculative. Vegan T-Rex 23:12, 1 February 2008 (PST)
  • I wouldn't include her yet. Hopefully, we will soon know if she needs to be included. One powerful reason is that she may be undercover since she was a fugitive; maybe she fakes her death, for example?--Ltsiros 06:11, 2 February 2008 (PST)
  • I think her secretive-ness is still a reason to leave her as a possible, but not definite, member. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  08:18, 2 February 2008 (PST)
  • I think it is certainly safe to say she is off the island; however, being part of the Oceanic 6 and being off the island are to separate issues. Until we hear it from Kate (or confirmed from anyone else), she should be left off of the official list. -- Macaddct1984 10:47, 2 February 2008 (PST)
  • I don't think it is safe to assume that when Jack said, "We" that he was referring to the "Oceanic Six", but that he was rather referring at that point to everyone who made it off the island. Kate did make it off the island. It is rather obvious that the Oceanic Six is a media tagline referring to a semi-famous group of survivors. Kate is a wanted criminal. This does not add up. I'm sure we won't have to speculate for long, as the Six will probably get confirmed in another flash-forward. Then people can rub it in.--Rodwell 07:13, 3 February 2008 (PST)
  • I don't think she should be included - I think it's most likely that she is a member, but as it hasn't been confirmed she shouldn't yet be included. Passingtramp 02:14, 4 February 2008 (PST)

No opinion[]

  • Since names were spoiled several weeks ago, I really can't take sides --Hunter61 22:33, 2 February 2008 (PST)
    • I voted to not include her, but honestly I don't care very much either way. In my opinion, when it gets to the point where we're analyzing sentence structure and English grammar, we've gone a bit too far as fans. It's mostly likely she's included and we'll likely know the answer soon anyway. So I've changed my mind - I'd rather not vote.--HaloOfTheSun 23:34, 5 February 2008 (PST)

changes[]

Nobody should be jumping in after three days and simply deciding on their own to make the changes. You wanted a vote. Give the vote a reasonable interval as per other previous votes on the site. Dharmatel4 07:19, 4 February 2008 (PST)

  • Probably partially my fault for not actually putting an expiry on the vote. I'll stick one on now...--Chocky 17:09, 4 February 2008 (PST)

This is not a vote[]

We don't vote on things on Lostpedia. The reasons for a belief one way or another are presented by each person, and then a SysOp uses people's opinions and judges them against what we've seen on the show. I'll let this run a day or two, then I'll take the reigns and confirm the decision. For now leave Kate there please. We don't even know what the Oceanic Six refers to yet. It could be a marketing thing for Oceanic, there could be six that get off the Island this season and will only feature in flash forwards and backs in the future. We don't know yet.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:11, 5 February 2008 (PST)

  • Ditto what Plkrtn said. For general guidance on the issue, WP is a good reference that we loosely follow: WP:POLLS and WP:DEMOCRACY, as well as the meta "Don't vote on everything". A hundred votes with poor rationale may be overcome by a single editor who has elucidated an opinion with better reasoning. Overall, episode facts in Lostpedia articles should be explicit, not implicit. In this case, without evaluating particulars, the very existence of a debate at all seems to point to "fan opinion" operating. In some cases we may feel some possible facts are "strongly implied" (ie "stronger" than mere inclusion in the theory tab of the article); in those cases, the content may go into the main article, however in these cases any fan-based logical reasoning (and controversy) should be openly identified. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:01, 5 February 2008 (PST)
I've just reworded some things slightly, alongside the new notes that have been added which says that whilst Jack and Kate haven't been directly identified as part of the "Oceanic Six" it is strongly implied at the moment that they are. I think for now that suffices. We can always change things afterwards if we are wrong, but for now this seems to work well.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:00, 6 February 2008 (PST)

The presentation is the problem[]

This is an either/or fallacy. People are trying to force the issue to either she is in or she is out. The real problem is with the presentation in the article - there is a big table with pictures on it, and so it's assumed that the character has either been revealed or not. The fact is, especially on a show like this, things often get suggested or implied instead of revealed or answered. The solution in these cases is to use phrases that use the construct "likely..., however...". In other words, state what is known, and for things where it is not 100% verified but probably true, state that it is likely to be true. Use language to describe the uncertainty. The concept of the Oceanic 6 has only just been revealed in the last episode; there will be plenty of time to build up the article and get confirmation of revealed characters. In the meantime, I would suggest doing some slight rewording and either taking down the table or modifying it to include a row with notes. -- Graft   talk   contributions  17:46, 5 February 2008 (PST)

  • Thank you for cutting to the heart of the matter. Vegan T-Rex 23:11, 5 February 2008 (PST)
  • Yes, it is uncertain, but even to say that it's "likely" or "probable," one would have to rely on some unconfirmed assumptions and ignore a significant unanswered question (how she's avoided jail despite being a member of a famous group of people). Jack's use of "us" is ambiguous as to whether he was including Kate, so it does not in fact imply that she is one of the six, it merely suggests that she might be. It doesn't seem like there's enough certainty about her status at this point to include her picture in the table with Jack and Hurley with just a footnote pointing out that it's unconfirmed. --Jdb 07:34, 6 February 2008 (PST)
  • Right, the page as it is currently written is still unnecessarily and improperly conclusive. It still jumps to a conclusion as to the meaning of Jack and Kate's conversation in Through the Looking Glass. Vegan T-Rex 10:49, 6 February 2008 (PST)

Desmond, Juliet, Etc...[]

If, and assuming a person who was not a passenger of Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 (Desmond, Juliet, etc...) gets off the Island, would they be considered part of the Oceanic 6? -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  16:04, 1 February 2008 (PST)

I assume that this term only refers to those on the Oceanic flight. There are 12 survivors, so 6 either stay on the island or die. So as I see it the other potential Oceanic 6 are Claire, Locke, Rose, Bernard, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Michael, and Walt. Merick 18:48, 1 February 2008 (PST)
12 Survivors? According to List of Oceanic Flight 815 survivors there's about 37 still kicking. Just because they don't have any lines doesn't mean they don't exist. The red shirts out number our guys so it wouldn't be a total shocker if one of the rescued is someone we barely know, a Frogurt or a Sullivan. It's unlikely yes, but it's Lost. --Gluphokquen Gunih 22:57, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Merick, are you referring to the number of "official" survivors, i.e. the story that Kate and Jack tell in court? Because they said that only 8 people survived the crash, and Kate helped them all ashore. ("Eggtown") --Voo 20:25, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
You are not counting Aaron there... He was in the plane too--Ltsiros 06:12, 2 February 2008 (PST)

Christian Shephard[]

Three clues for Christian possibly being one of the 6:

  • His casket was empty
  • We see him in Jacob's hut
  • In the Season 3 Finale, in one of the later Flashbacks this happens:

Jack is in the hospital looking for drugs when he is being approached by the chief of surgery. In the following conversation, the chief of surgery asks Jack: "How much did you have to drink?" to which Jack replies: "...you get my father down here. Get him down here right now. And if I am drunker than he is...". This seems to indicate his father is alive. Any ideas? Comments? Ei8th 15:25, 2 February 2008 (PST)

  • Christian Shephard is dead. The showrunners have repeated several times that when a character dies on Lost, he is actually and completely dead, there is no coming back to life. What Jack said in the flash-forward is indeed troubling, but bear in mind that he looked somewhat deranged when he said that, so I wouldn't take it too literally. In any case, I definitely don't think that Christian is alive and that he quietly went back to work at the hospital.--Oliverdevor 12:46, 18 February 2008 (PST)

What about the redshirts?[]

Background characters, redshirts, whatever you want to call them, how come none of them supposedly escape the island? It only seems that the main Losties are rescued. Obviously it wouldn't be as interesting if someone like Steve or Sullivan escaped, but it doesn't seem fair...does this mean all the other survivors get left behind on the island? A possible reason for Jack wanting to return? --SilvaStorm

  • Silva, this page is not intended as a surrogate for a thread in a discussion forum. It should largely relate to issues of article content. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:12, 5 February 2008 (PST)

Oceanic Six and the Six numbers[]

...do you think that they may related? :> and each member of Oceanic Six got assigned one of the Numbers? I got this theory on my head when i reminded one "lost fan" userbar i saw in past and six characters got six numbers on background on it. I know that this theory is too fantastic right now due of lack of arguments... but who knows it's maybe true, we still got 3 sessions ahead :p -Shadowriver 07:05, 3 February 2008 (PST)

There used to be a 6 page that dealt with all the 6's appearing in the series. Just like there is a 5 page and a page for each of the Numbers. So in terms of references to the number 6, we have:

  • Six letters in the word DHARMA
  • Six research disciplines of the DHARMA Initiative
  • Six Numbers
  • And now Oceanic Six i.e. (presumably) six people who get off the island

That's not enough for a 6 article, I guess. I'm sure there's probably more, too. - GoodRom 10:54, 8 February 2008 (PST)

This Page Looks Good[]

Kudos to the community for making this article look nice with the presentation of the Oceanic 6 at the top of the page--Turniphead Danny 12:00, 3 February 2008 (PST)


Transcript points[]

Note: this is provided as a guide to evidence. Feel free to edit as new evidence is revealed. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  23:57, 5 February 2008 (PST)

3x22 "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1"[]

General: The Oceanic Six are never mentioned, and "golden pass" is introduced

  1. JACK: Yeah that golden pass that they gave us. I, I've been using it.
    Jack's conversation with Kate possibly implies: both received Golden pass (if "us" refers to both Jack and Kate, rather than Jack and other parties excluding Kate)

4x01 "The Beginning of the End"[]

General: "Oceanic Six" introduced, but "Golden pass" is never mentioned, although it was mentioned in the Oceanic Airlines commercial broadcast by ABC after 4x01

  1. HURLEY: "Don't you know who I am? Stop, wait, don't you know who I am? I'm one of the Oceanic six! I'm one of the Oceanic six!!!"
    Note: Fact: Hurley states he is Oceanic six, and that fact has brought him some fame
    "Oceanic" implies Oceanic Airlines, specifically some connection with Flight 815. Therefore the label may mean six famous people having some connection (not necessarily passengers) with Flight 815 and the Island.
  2. DETECTIVE MIKE: "Is that why you kept shouting “hey I'm one of the Oceanic six”?
  3. MATTHEW: So, on behalf of Oceanic, I'd like to extend you an invitation for a little upgrade.
    Conversation implies: Hurley's' link with Golden pass:
  4. HURLEY: Reporters leaving you alone? / JACK: Yeah. Still have to sign some autographs when I go out for coffee.
    Conversation at basketball court shows shared fame, implies shared fame due to both being Oceanic six

Current state of knowledge[]

  • Fact: Hurley states he is part of Oceanic six
  • Implied: Jack is part of Oceanic six due to: 1) shared fame 2) shared Flight 815 passenger status 3) flashforward off-island appearance
  • Implied: The Oceanic six all received golden passes due to: 1) 3x22 Jack/Kate conversation and 2) 4x01 Matthew Abbandon's ambiguous "upgrade" comment.
  • Abaddon was clearly talking about moving Hurley to a nicer institution, not about the golden passes. He may have been hiding some ulterior motive since it was suggested that he wasn't who he claimed to be, but there was nothing ambiguous in terms of what he was offering to upgrade.--Jdb 11:02, 6 February 2008 (PST)
  • Implied: Kate is part of Oceanic six due to: 1) Possibly implied receipt of golden pass (if golden pass implies Oceanic 6 status) 2) shared Flight 815 passenger status 3) flashforward off-island appearance
  • "Possibly implied" does not equal "implied". It's basically an awkward way to say "speculation", which has no place on a topic's main page. Vegan T-Rex 10:08, 7 February 2008 (PST)

First mention of the 6[]

Can I ask you something?

When did we know of the existence of the Oceanic 6 for the first time? I mean, before season 4 started to air, their existence was already rumoured... It is no more a spoiler, can you tell me, please? Thanks Simone85 14:52, 11 February 2008 (PST)

If you are concerned with official ABC material, the first reference was a billboard that appeared in Tallahassee, Florida in January that had "Who are the Oceanic Six?" on it. Before that, there were references to "6" (not the oceanic six) in some of the promotional trailers. Dharmatel4 15:04, 11 February 2008 (PST)

Further Implications[]

Since obviously this is the right forum to discuss unsubstantiated implications (I say that in utter disgust about the argument above). That being said, the article says Ben's reference to Sayid helping his friends implies that friends refers to the Oceanic Six and protecting their secret. Ben's comment only states that Sayid is helping his friends, which could just as easily be the Oceanic Six or the survivors that didn't make it off the island. And certainly no reference is made to the secret that the Oceanic Six might be hiding. This line should adjusted to reflect the show's implications Wikistoriographer 09:49, 15 February 2008 (PST)

Sayid - perhaps not one of the 6...[]

It seems to me that there may be a little room for doubt to conclusively list Sayid as one of the Oceanic Six, even though this was specifically what he told Mr. Avellino just before shooting him on the golf course. The reason for this doubt stems from a couple of things: 1) Sayid and Desmond leave the Island on the helicopter, and their future and how they get back to civilization is uncertain - it may very well be that they end up finding a way back that is completely different from the other Oceanic Six, and 2) it seems as if there is a bit of doubt about Sayid's existence off the Island when he discusses his missions with Ben in the veteranarian's office. Sayid says that "now they know about me", and Ben then says "good". This is all to say that I think that it is well to keep the description of the Six as it is with the disclaimer that the people listed so far are "believed" to be members of the Six, rather than having it stated conclusively that they are. -- Saukkomies 14:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

The official preview for "The Economist" specifically stated that one of the Oceanic Six would be revealed in the episode. If it isn't Sayid, then who is it? Ben?--Nevermore 10:24, 17 February 2008 (PST)
Preview aside, if the character *says* they are one of the six in the episode, we should not doubt that they are without some kind of evidence. Dharmatel4 15:46, 18 February 2008 (PST)
  • There's no benefit to Sayid to lie to Mr. Avellino about his (Sayid's) being a member of the Oceanic 6 right before he kills him. I think Sayid always has a reason for what he does.--Gaarmyvet 10:13, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

other characters section[]

I removed this section for the following reasons:

- Its full of theory "It is also possible", "He appears", "it is unlikely", "This may be likely"

- None of the information seems relivant to the article. Desmond going to the freighter have any particular relivance to the oceanic six. Talking about how Richard and Ethan travel to/from the Island doesn't seem relivant either.

Dharmatel4 15:42, 18 February 2008 (PST)

Debate's over - for now[]

Thanks to the the podcast- Anyone going to question that?--Nevermore 15:25, 19 February 2008 (PST)

Just for my own clarification (since I posted it first), what I had hoped for was taking off the "confirmed member" for Kate until she mentioned something about the Oceanic 6, or a Golden Pass or something. Although disheartening (from my crackpot theory angle), TPTB have left little doubt.--Hurley's Dad 15:37, 19 February 2008 (PST)

  • Ditto- no-one was saying that she was never gonig to be a member, rather that there was no proof at the time. Now there is, so we're all sorted...--Chocky 14:47, 22 February 2008 (PST)

Aaron[]

Judging by the debate that Kate caused, I hate to bring this up but...Do we consider Aaron an Oceanic Six? I'm not quite sure how Kate was able to smuggle Aaron off the island otherwise, but then again he didn't exactly have a plane ticket. And, it's pretty safe to assume Claire's not in the "real world" during "Eggtown", as Kate is taking care of Aaron. Anyone else's thoughts? David 19:26, 21 February 2008 (PST)

  • I think it's unclear if Aaron counts at the present time, pretty much for the reasons you suggest. Vegan T-Rex 21:18, 21 February 2008 (PST)
  • I'd say no, definitely for now. I suspect that not being on the Oceanic flight (well, OK, not being a ticket holder) would stop anyone being a member of the "Oceanic Six". That's speculation of course, but hey.--Chocky 14:50, 22 February 2008 (PST)
    • I would bet the farm that Aaron is indeed one of the Oceanic 6. I will be downright shocked if he isn't. I base my belief on the end-of-episode previews for "Eggtown" and "Ji Yeon". They both specifically mention revealing members of the Oceanic Six. To date, we knew that Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid were among the 6. Then, with the airing of "Eggtown", another would be revealed, as the preview prophesized. Now, I personally don't buy the jive that this was intended to be an official reveal for Kate as a member, she was all but confirmed at Season 3's end; besides, why would they show her in the preview if she was supposed to be "revealed"? So, theoretically, that only leaves Aaron as a reveal in the episode. Subsequently, the preview for "Ji Yeon" told us that "the last" of the Six would be revealed. Granted, they didn't say that it was the last "one", but unless they are going to reveal two more Oceanic Six-ers in "Ji Yeon", then we can be certain that Aaron was number 5 so far (Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, and BLANK). Now, what I really want to know is: who was in the coffin??? Of the six, we know it wouldn't be either Jack, Kate, or Aaron, but then again, it's not really going to be restricted to just members of the six, now is it???
Same as Mindbender said- there are way too many uncertainties in that. Was Kate revealed before Eggtown? Can we trust the promos to be accurate? Given that we know the answers to none of this, I don't see how anyone can be sure.--Chocky 22:12, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

The writers are introducing the concept of time passing at different rates on the island vs the freighter, and presumably the world at large. More time passed on the freighter than on the island based on Faraday's experiment. Therefore, if the Oceanic 6 were away from the real world for, say 11 months, they could say Kate became pregnant on the island, delivered on the island, and was rescued with a two month old baby Aaron. --Coreyj77 19:37, 21 February 2008 (PST)

  • Not necessarily. They could have introduced the concept that the island is 31 minutes behind, or something like that. We don't know anything about this yet so we can't really assume.--Chocky 14:50, 22 February 2008 (PST)

In preview of "Eggtown", same as in Sayid's "The Economist" there say that we gonna meet new Oceanic 6 member, now we got problem if this is conformation of Kate being a member or its Aaron. Ehhh... another confusing topic -Shadowriver 17:04, 22 February 2008 (PST)

  • We were unsure about Kate's status because she is a wanted criminal... with that cleared up I think it's safe to say that she *is* a member of the Oceanic Six. Aaron may or may not be.--Chocky 17:14, 22 February 2008 (PST)

I'm quite sure it was said on the Podcast, that Ben and Aaron don't count. Fralfman 16:51, 7 March 2008 (PST)

I wouldn't be so sure...i think aaron is an oceanic six! when they advertised for eggtown they said we would find out who the next oceanic six was, since we already knew jack and kate were, aaron was the only actual reveal of that episode! also, in the advertisement for epsiode 7 Ji Yeon, we find out the LAST member of the oceanic six, not the remaining 2. ALSO, they defiantely did not say that aaron doesn't count in the podcast! they said we it's unsure

Considering that some people still argued that Kate might have assumed a false identity prior to the airing of "Eggtown", it's quite possible that the promo was referring to Kate. I suggest we wait until after next episode, which is supossed to answer the question conclusively.--Nevermore 14:10, 8 March 2008 (PST)
Considering the fact that we were supposed to accept Kate as a member of the Oceanic 6 in TTLG, it seems more and more likely given Ji Yeon that Aaron is a member of the 6. At this point, the season is going to veer off into explaining what Michael is doing on the freighter... I think they've shown us all of the 6 and that is that. --Beardedjack 19:46, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

After the March 13th episode airs, all six of the Oceanic Six will have been revealed. This is according to the commercial that played on that same day and is available to view at ABC.com's Lost Home page until the following Thursday (March 20). The commercial states clearly, and irrefutably, that "you will discover the last of the Oceanic Six." Personally, I felt it was pretty clear in the first place that the big reveal in Eggtown was that Aaron was the 5th, but for all you skeptics, can this finally be put to rest?--Cmonica 20:45, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

I've come to the same conclusion as many of you have after watching Ji Yeon, that Aaron is indeed the fifth of the six. --The Cartographer 20:52, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

If Aaron is one of the six, why isn't Ji Yeon? If they're saying Jin died in the plane crash, either Sun says she was already pregnant, or claims one of the six is Ji's father. But if Claire being pregnant at the crash counts, couldn't Sun being pregnant at the rescue count as well? Maybe not, and this is of course speculation. Aaron may very well be the other one, and with what we currently know, I guess that makes the most sense. Lindsaynickel 21:50, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Aaron isn't one of the Six because Clair was pregnant with him at the time of the crash, he counts because he was born on the island and was there to be rescued. Ji Yeon doesn't count because he wasn't born until after the rescue, in Korea.--Sidwood 00:38, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
The Oceanic Six are the six people who were rescued. That's Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, and a pregnant Sun. <<If Aaron is one of the six, why isn't Ji Yeon?>> Because she wasn't born until after the term "Oceanic Six" had been dubbed by the media. We KNOW this because the nurse asked or pointed out the Sun was one of the Oceanic Six on her way through the hospital before giving birth. Some have said they thought that confirming Kate was the big reveal in Eggtown, if that is the case, Kate would have made 4. Yet the fact that Sun is the last is an undebatable fact. Who would be 5 then? It IS Aaron.--Cmonica 05:58, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Official cover story[]

I think this deserves its own paragraph, to separate the facts (Oceanic Six off the island) from their official cover story regarding their whereabouts. Feel free to expand it and delete double details from other sections if appropriate.--Nevermore 05:04, 22 February 2008 (PST)

Jack and Kate not revealed as 6-ers in Through the Looking Glass[]

I want to argue against J. and K. being revealed as members of the Oceanic 6 already in TTLG. There was no mention of a "Oceanic 6" until Hurley's remark in The Beginning of the End, thus no one knew when TTLG was aired that J. and K. were members of this group. We only knew that both were survivors and off the island. Only Hurley's remark had us assume in retrospective that both characters could belong to that group. The first real evidence of J. and K. being 6-ers was in Eggtown. Before that it was only assumption at best. Roger 05:01, 24 February 2008 (PST)

You people must be really bored if you're debating such pointless things in such a pedantic manner.--Nevermore 06:11, 24 February 2008 (PST)
You must be realy bored if you reply in such a pointless and mocking manner. And I'm not the people. ;) FYI, this is of relevance because the facts have to be right, we can't run and base this site on assumptions. This is not some fan forum, it's the No.1 LOST database. Roger 06:59, 24 February 2008 (PST)
The podcast confirmed who had been revealed as members of the oceanic six before Eggtown. In the rehash of the economist they listed the four that had been revealed as of the economist. Jack and Kate were not revealed in Eggtown and that is the end of it. Dharmatel4 10:00, 24 February 2008 (PST)
Still, they have not been revealed as Oceanic 6 in TTLG! So this cannot be put below the photos as their revealing episode. By the same token you could state as a fact that Henry Gale was revealed as Benjamin Linus in One of Them because we got his real name in A Tale of Two Cities and thus could in retrospective say that Henry was Ben just like you say that J. and K. are 6-ers in TTLG because we were told 5 days after the episode in a podcast, but you don't do that because it's wrong. Roger 11:03, 24 February 2008 (PST)
  • I see where you're coming from with this. Given that no-one said "Oceanic 6" before TTLG, you can say that they can't have been revealed. People would counter and say that there was a suggestion that they are part of an un-named (at that point) group, which became the Oceanic Six. I don't know how we can call this one, to be honest.--Chocky 14:47, 24 February 2008 (PST)
True, the little word "us" refered to an unnamed group and at that time no unspoilered fan knew it would someday be the O-6.
The infos in this Wiki (as in any Wiki) have to be facts, not conjectures and hypotheses. This simple rule makes the statements below J. and K.'s pictures inapplicable. I cannot see the need to display such false facts. I will change the captions accordingly if not someone can give me a reasonable explanation as to why those "facts" should be believed to be correct. Roger 00:59, 25 February 2008 (PST)
Your arguments are not based on facts. The facts are that the producers intended the reveal of Jack and Kate to be in TTLG. They confirmed this in the first post-strike podcast when they confirmed Jack and Kate as members of the six during the rehash of Economist. To say that Jack was revealed as one of the six in Eggtown is absurd. Dharmatel4 08:38, 25 February 2008 (PST)
Tell me Dharmatel4, does "the producers intended the reveal (...) to be in TTLG" and "they confirmed Jack and Kate as members of the six during the rehash of Economist" sound to you as if the reveal did happen in TTLG? To me it does not. What else is there to say? Maybe that in the months after TTLG not a single unspoiled fan on this planet asked himself "Who else is an Oceanic 6 apart from Jack and Kate?". Maybe that only after "The Beginning of the End" people first were able to ask if maybe J. and K. could be of the 6. Maybe that ONLY in "Eggtown" both characters were first shown and revealed as members of the Oceanic 6 group of survivors! So either you keep this wrong fact on display below the pictures and willingly allow a false "fact" to be presented in this Wiki or you admit that J. and K. have not been REVEALED as Oceanic 6 until "Eggtown", no matter what was said in a podcast after TTLG.
I thought this Wiki project to be a bureaucracy, where everything has to be double checked and be based on facts. As a compromise at least replace the "TTLG" caption with "Revealed in Podcast No...". If that does not fit the episode-themed captions put "Eggtown" in there and that is the end of it. Roger 13:37, 25 February 2008 (PST)
I and others have maintained since this article was created that Jack and Kate were revealed in TTLG. That was what the show intended and what the podcast confirmed at the earliest opportunity following the strike. As far as the rest of it goes, cut back on the melodrama and understand that your opinions do not constitute "facts". Any Wiki project is going to involve differences of opinion and interpretation. The way those problems are solved is through consensus and compromise. Where we are going to end up if you continue on with this is to (again) have two interpretations in the article with appropriate footnotes representing the different points of view. And if that happens, you still will not be dictating "facts" to anyone. This subject was argued to death weeks ago. There is still nothing new to say here. Dharmatel4 14:30, 25 February 2008 (PST)
  • I think Roger is right, at least partially. It simply isn't correct to say that Jack and Kate were revealed as members of the Oceanic Six in TTLG, because the existence of the Oceanic Six was not known when the episode aired. However, I'd argue that Jack was revealed at the same time Hurley was- that episode established the "Oceanic Six", as well as Hurley and Jack's membership of it.--Chocky 14:19, 25 February 2008 (PST)

(Deleted)

What, now you even delete peoples input to a discussion on the discussion page? Since when is it called "one man's opinion only page" and since when are you the censor? That is poor, Dharmatel4! I guess I'm not allowed to edit or delete YOUR entries, am I. Roger 15:29, 26 February 2008 (PST)
I've gone back and looked at my edits. I have no idea what you are talking about. Dharmatel4 16:27, 26 February 2008 (PST)
Dharmatel4 didn't censor the discussion. Chocky revised his own comment to make it less personal. A quick glance at the history shows that. And fair play as it was the decent thing to do.--TechNic|talk|conts 17:23, 26 February 2008 (PST)
  • Yeah, I got a little carried away. There are some elements of Lostpedia that are very fustrating to deal with, but it's all about rising above it...--Chocky 13:18, 27 February 2008 (PST)
  • Replace "Oceanic 6" with "alive"; if we are told that we will find out everyone who is "alive", but a previous episode already revealed two characters were "alive", that previous show would be credited with revealing they are "alive", regardless that "alive" is later described as "O6". -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:14, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Vote: 6 or Six?[]

Now how will we proceed to call them, the "Oceanic 6" or the "Oceanic Six"? We have to agree on one version, the article is a mess. I vote for "Oceanic 6", that's how a newspaper or news outlet would exploit them. Plus it looks cooler, if that counts. Roger 14:39, 24 February 2008 (PST)

  • I think Six, but that's just personal opinion- I have no argument either way. It's worth noting however, that we can validly use both... if the name is "Oceanic 6" I think we can legitimately refer to "the six" or something like that.--Chocky 15:31, 24 February 2008 (PST)
  • I'd say go with 6 just because thats how we listed it on the spoiler page, which was written before this page, and also thats how its listed on the source sites. --Thenumbersdude 18:28, 24 February 2008 (PST)
Good point, Thenumbersdude. We should stick to that. And this makes 3:0 votes for "Oceanic 6". I'll keep this voting up until 9 CET and then I'll change the article accordingly. Roger 01:34, 25 February 2008 (PST)

I changed all mentions of "Oceanic Six" to "Oceanic 6" and all "the Six" and "the 6" to "the six". I will proceed to change other articles accordingly. Roger 13:48, 25 February 2008 (PST)

  • I should probably point out (given that I was chastised for exactly this) that Lostpedia doesn't "do" votes. However, this is a small enough issue that I doubt anyone really cares.--Chocky 14:13, 25 February 2008 (PST)
We don't do votes, but its appropriate to ask for opinions before you do something. And if nobody objects after a reasonable time, go ahead and do it. Dharmatel4 14:34, 25 February 2008 (PST)

Are there any mentions with either spelling on the ABC website or in any of their press releases? I'd say go with what they use if we can find anything. --Minderbinder 14:44, 25 February 2008 (PST)

Before the start of the season, the put up a "who are the oceanic 6" billboard in florida with that apelling. I think this was discussed a long time ago somewhere and thats why the article is named the way it is. Dharmatel4 14:48, 25 February 2008 (PST)
I like the presence of the digit; it helps to correlate the Oceanic 6 with the continued appearance of numbers as a theme of Lost.--Jwilkinson 08:09, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

Following the standard used by real-life groups, like the Chicago Seven, the Keating Five, and various other numeric epithets, I'm renaming this to Oceanic Six. This is also the way it was written in the closed caption transcript. Robert K S (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Reference to Matthew Abaddon and the "upgrade"[]

This really isn't relevant to the Oceanic Six or the golden passes. He didn't even try to hide the fact that he was lying when he claimed to work for Oceanic, and the "upgrade" was clearly in regards to the mental facility where Hurley was staying. I would suggest removing this reference.--Jdb 12:51, 27 February 2008 (PST)

I notice that this has been rephrased to specify that it was in reference to his living situation, but I still don't see how it's even the least bit relevant given that we know (unless people need every little detail spoonfed to them) that Abaddon doesn't even work for Oceanic.--Jdb 08:56, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

The other two[]

I thought it was already well known that ----------------------------. Not strictly through official sources, I guess.

  • I've renamed and removed the details from this unsigned contribution. I don't know (because I specifically avoid this stuff, damnit), but it could well be a spoiler.--Chocky 16:46, 3 March 2008 (PST)

What about Walt and Michael being #5 and 6? Assuming they both made it of the island.LostIsaac 08:45, 5 March 2008 (PST)

  • Possibly. But Jack, Hurley et. al. know that he's a murderer. But they might have to overlook that in order to maintain their cover story. Hurley pretended not to know Ana-Lucia, so if keeping that a secret is more important to them, then they can't exactly accuse Michael of killing her.--Jdb 09:18, 5 March 2008 (PST)
  • Surely one of the two is Clair? If Aaron is one of the Oceanic 6... is it not obvious Clair is the mother? She obviously had to give birth to him on the island, and she obviously had to of been alive?!

Pictures[]

I was thinking that it would be nice to use flashforward pictures of the Oceanic 6. Tormented Jack from "Through The Looking Glass," Kate on trial from "Eggtown," Hurley in the mental institution, Sayid the Assassin. I myself don't have these pictures, but I thought they would be a nice tough.

I understand that you're probably using the pictures from their character pages, and that also works.-- MFXD 10:36, 5 March 2008 (PST)

  • That is not a bad idea... very fitting. --Ohmyn0 (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2008 (PST)
I definitely agree... but the flash forward pictures aren't quite as vivid as the existing ones. HD screen caps, anybody? --Beardedjack 19:31, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I like that idea too. Definitely be a change from the usual pics we see...--JoeyBags1138 18:39, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Yes, but which flash forward? Jack bearded or Jack clean-shaven? Hurley the patient or Hurley in a suit? I don't know the answer.--Gaarmyvet 10:50, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

The two people who died according to the cover story[]

Who are the other two people who allegedly survived the crash but died on the island (according to the "official" story)?

Again, according to the podcast, this is irrelevant. Sure, one might wonder about this, but there doesn't seem to be much chance of this question ever being answered. I hereby point to this administrator's essay on what constitutes an unanswered question, and what doesn't:

Don't insist on asking questions that have been answered. If Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof specifically address an issue when responding to fan questions on the Official Lost Podcast, and give indication that the question has no hope of ever being addressed on the show, then it's no longer a valid "unanswered question", regardless of how dissatisfying may have been the response the executive producers gave. Likewise, if an "unanswered question" is addressed on the show in such a way that it may have demanded more than the usual amount of disbelief-suspension from viewers, don't perservere in re-asking the question in other forms just because you weren't completely satisfied with the logic of its explanation.

Any other opinions?--Nevermore 14:18, 7 March 2008 (PST)

Quote: This article is an essay by a Lostpedia administrator. It is not official Lostpedia policy. Rather, it is a recommendation for proper use of the encyclopedia and an explanation for one administrator's edits. this administrator's essay on what constitutes an unanswered question, and what doesn't

Another "opinion" is that the question is still valid and worth keeping even if the producers in one particular podcast suggested that is "irrelivant" during "speed questioning". We don't, for example, know that the opinions of other people associated with the show might not be different and there is still a value in that particular question even if it is never answered. The podcast is also problematical because you are interpretating a long question that provided its own answer with the direct opinions of the producers. Dharmatel4 14:32, 7 March 2008 (PST)

I think it's still a very valid question, even if it turns out not to be significant to the plot and merely interesting to the fans. And I think people are going to keep asking until the writers finally give in and give an answer at some point. --Minderbinder 14:38, 7 March 2008 (PST)
Well, in that case, I could also ask "Who were the people that died on the deck that collapsed as mentioned in "Dave""?
Think of it this way: If the producers actually gave in to fan inquiries about the "two dead survivors in the cover story", I'd be betting a lot of money that the next "unanswered question" would be "Why did they chose [X] and [Y]? Is there a particular reason behind claiming that those two people survived the crash but died later, instead of two other people? Why did they even chose two, instead of three or four?" And soon we'd require a full pseudo-flash episode solely dedicated to the fake story fabricated by the O6 because fans won't accept the answer "It's just a story they made up, the details are not really important to the plot". I could understand this question if we were actually under the assumption that this was a true story. But it's not. It's a lie. Do we demand to know more details about Ben's fabricated "Henry Gale" backstory? Or is it irrelevant to us now that we know it was a lie?--Nevermore 15:02, 7 March 2008 (PST)
The exception does not require the general case be permitted. The whole question of what story the oceanic six told is very interesting from a plot point of view because there are significant issues such as the explanation for Aaron lurking out there. Dharmatel4 15:08, 7 March 2008 (PST)

Lindelof and Cuse have been very good about terminating bunk theories and, conversely, leading fans down the important paths to insight about the direction of the show. (I can only recall one instance where it was difficult to take them at their word during a podcast with respect to an element of the show--their too on-the-nose insistence that Geronimo Jackson was a real band. We're still left wondering whether that setup will ever pay off or whether it was inserted in the show merely to tie into an ARG.) This topic is fair game on a discussion page or a theory page, but since the executive producers have addressed it directly and indicated it did not have a likelihood of being answered on the show, I don't see how the case can be made for it remaining in the UQ section, as UQs should be reserved for mysteries for which there is a reasonable expectation of solution. Robert K S (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (PST)

Well, some people seem to believe that if we just keep bugging the producers hard enough, they will eventually give in and address what they currently think is an irrelevant plot point on the show itself. And we already know how well this will probably turn out...--Nevermore 16:03, 7 March 2008 (PST)
The "question" on the podcast is "is it the oceanic six or the oceanic eight". The other part of the answer was "just the fact that it doesn't matter who the others that didn't die are". The purpose of the unanswered questions is to raise unanswered questions rather than to be led to insight about the show. The purpose of the questions should be encyclopedically ask questions that were not answered by the show in a reasonable manner. The questions should not be restricted to those that are thought to "pay off" or that are "meaningful" to the show. As the question does not have an answer, I don't see how it can reasonably be removed. The producers did not answer the question. Saying a question "doesn't matter" should not disqualify it from being listed in an encyclopedic list of questions. Dharmatel4 15:58, 7 March 2008 (PST)
Okay, in that case, I have a whole load of unanswered questions for you:
  • What did Sayid do in Basra?("One of Us")
  • Who were the people that died when the deck collapsed?("Dave")
  • Why did Thomas change his mind about raising Claire's baby with her?("Raised by Another")
  • Why did Boone tell Jack he was a life guard?("Pilot, Part 1")
  • Who was Shannon's boyfriend in Paris?("Pilot, Part 2")
  • Who was the sixteen-year-old girl Jack did his first solo producere as a surgeon on?("Pilot, Part 1")
  • Who was the girl that died because Christian operated on her under the influence?("All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues")
Inquiring minds want to know!--Nevermore 16:14, 7 March 2008 (PST)
That's the nub of the problem right there. Questions about the show's details can multiply to be as innumerable as the details themselves. If we don't limit UQs to mysteries for which we should be expecting some resolution, the lists grow unrestrainedly. An editor today added the UQ, "Why is Daniel Faraday still wearing a tie?" Okay, we get it--it's weird that he's wearing a useless accoutrement outside of a formal environment. The real answer is, "Because it's part of his costume design" (see that video podcast with the show's costumer). It's weird that the Oceanic 6's story involves these other 2 unnamed people. But Cuse put it to rest when he said it "doesn't matter"--that's his way of saying "Don't expect to learn more about it", which contrasts with his many responses of the form "You'll be learning more about [subject X] very soon." Robert K S (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (PST)
There's no question that you can come up with questions about things that are so tangential to the show that they are irrelevant. There simply isn't agreement amongst viewers whether it's worth knowing or not. The plane crash is central to the show, and even a fabricated story about it is of extreme interest to viewers - comparing it to questions like those above (or even Jack's tattoos) is just silly. I don't think fans are going to accept not getting that answer, and I think it (and all related followup questions) could probably be addressed in about a minute's worth of dialogue. Do people seriously think we'll never see a scene of either the O6 fabricating the story (or having it given to them by Puppetmasters) or a scene of one of them sitting and telling the story after rescue? I find that pretty unimaginable. --Minderbinder 08:13, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

The Sixth Member[]

Here I thought we'd learn the identity of the last of the oceanic 6 now I just don't know what the fuck is going on. Aaron? --Beardedjack 19:24, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

I still don't think we really know, it's very confusing. Did Jin's tombstone list the date of the crash? --Minderbinder 19:27, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I missed the date in the episode, but according to Jin, yes. --Gluphokquen Gunih 19:28, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
Jin's tombstone listed the date of the crash, 9/22/2004. Probably no body under there... --Beardedjack 19:30, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
But it means that is highly unlikely that he is one of the Oceanic 6. I think Cuse/Lindelof planted the list of the Oceanic 6 all over the web to f*ck with our minds. Jin is not #6--Chuck 19:33, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I've been mindfucked so hard I think I need to smoke a cigarette. --Beardedjack 19:39, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
Jin is included as one of the oceanic 6 at the bottom of the page. That needs to change.
Removed --Exodio 21:13, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

My opinion is that Aaron must be one of them, because:

  • The previews said that another member was to be revealed in Eggtown, and the last one in Ji Yeon.
    • There are two possibilities: That Kate was revealed as one of them in Through the Looking Glass, and that she was confirmed in Eggtown. I say she was already revealed in TTLG, because of the podcast before Eggtown confirmed it. So that makes it Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron and Sun.
    • If Kate is the one that's confirmed (I have to say that it's not much of a 'revelation'), then Jin would have to be the other one. Jin is probably not one of them since his death date seems to be the date of the crash: He either died or was left behind on the island so his death date was arranged as a part of the cover-up. Besides, the previews said the last member, not members.
      • I believe the previews (for Ji Yeon) simply said "the last of the Oceanic Six will be revealed." Not "the last one" or "last member(s)", so it could have been ambiguous as to whether it was singular or plural without any other knowledge. Obviously it was only one, but perhaps they meant to leave it ambiguous (despite the podcast and previews for Eggtown) so that we thought it would be Jin and Sun as #5 and #6, setting up the surprise ending.
    • Still, the previews might be wrong and one of them might not have been revealed yet.--     c      blacxthornE      t     06:45, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Jin is at the hospital while Sun is giving birth, isn't he? Doesn't that prove that he got off the island alive? Did I miss something here? --Voo 20:19, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Yes you did miss the date of death on his tombstone, it is 9/22/2004, the date of the crash. Therefore he is not one of the oceanic 6. The Flashes of Jin in this episode are actually flashbacks to another incident. AgonizingFury 20:26, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
And you missed him saying he'd only been married for two months. And how much younger he looked.--Jdb 20:45, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
Well, that means they brought his body home. So then Jin is counted among the 8 people that "officially" survived the crash (which is the story that Kate and Jack tell in court in "Eggtown")? --Voo
We don't know that his body is in that grave or even supposedly in that grave. And there would be no way of knowing whether he died during the crash or shortly after.--Jdb 20:45, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I think his name should be removed from the Oceanic 6 template. I will do so pending an argument that absolutely includes him in the Oceanic 6. --Exodio 21:12, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
It's definitely not Jin. The outside world thinks he died in the crash which we all know is false, but that still excludes him from the O6. At this point, if it's true that we now know all the O6, that means the sixth has to be Aaron. I'm confident Darlton will confirm this next podcast - I suspect they've avoided it until now to leave open speculation that Jin was O6 (hinted by the first part of the episode and widely reported as a spoiler, but turned out to be a "foiler" instead). This one's a big lesson to the spoiler hounds, it turns out ABC can keep some secrets, and "spoilers" can be wrong. --Minderbinder 05:10, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I doubt it is Aaron. Jack wants to go back to rescue Juliet and Claire. Kate will want to go back to save Claire and Sawyer. Sun will want to go back for Jin. Hurley will want to go back for his sanity, Sayid for redemption. The sixth will be another 815 survivor with a reason to go back to the Island.--Eyeful Tower 14:16, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Jin is believed by the world to have died in the crash. He cannot be one of the Oceanic 6. At this point, there is no reason for Kate's Aaron not to be Claire's Aaron.
This means that the cover story is likely that Claire was one of the seven others rescued by Kate, but that she died in childbirth.
However, Claire had family back in Australia. Why would they allow a stranger to raise Aaron?
They wouldn't. And no child-services agency would place a baby in the custody of an indicted (alleged) murderer; the public believes that Aaron is Kate's.
I agree totally. The cover story is that Aaron is Kate's child, and that may be why Jack can't go see Aaron. He knows that it's his sister's child, and he just can't look Aaron in the face and keep the lies going. Boloboffin 16:47, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Aaron must be thought to be Kate's actual child. The Oceanic 6 may end up leaving the Island far later than just a few months after the crash (thanks to the unusual properties of the Island's borders). If they ended up in the real world a year and a half later than when they left the Island, then Aaron could plausibly be seen as her child. Boloboffin 18:35, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • =I just rewatched the 7th episode. On first viewing, I must have missed that crucial 5 minutes when Jin says he's only been married 2 months and you realize he's on an errand for his boss. I blame my stupid barking dogs...I had to leave the TV room to yell at them to be quiet. Heh heh. --Voo 01:59, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Why have we discounted that one of the O6 was the one who died (where Jack went to the funeral in the flashforward, but Kate did not)? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:20, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • The death of one of the World Famous Oceanic Six would have at least gotten coverage by the celebrity-gossip media, who would've camped out to get pictures of whoever showed up. - Tvb 07:51, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

The Oceanic 6 mindf*ck[]

[I was going to put something about this on the main article page, but wanted to find some support and confirmation first --Chuck 06:52, 14 March 2008 (PDT)]

Prior to the season premier for Season 4, a widely spread rumor on the web -- and even published in the mainstream media -- was that there would be six survivors who made it off the island and would be known as the Oceanic 6. It was equally widespread (including on the spoiler page for Season 4 on Lostpedia) that the members of the Oceanic 6 were Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun and Jin. As the debate raged about the identity of the Oceanic 6, many viewers thought they knew the answer -- that is until the last five minutes of "Ji Yeon" when we learn that Jin is presumed dead by the world and that his headstone says that he died in the crash of Oceanic 815.

Is there any confirmation that this false rumor was purposefully planted by the producers of LOST? Was this just retribution for the leak about the flashforward prior to the finale of Season 3? If so, it was brilliantly played (regardless of who the actual sixth member of the group is).

--Kvanlang 10:48, 14 March 2008 (PDT)That is my idea as well : The whole Oceanic 6 concept is based on rumours. Pure quicksand. Also, I would not be surprised if the producers would eventually reveal that the Oceanic 6 actually has 7 members or something similar to the story of the three musketeers who were 4. Remember the planetwide quest for the meaning of The Numbers : that was a hype and a heap of quicksand too.

Aaron[]

I've added a question mark after Aaron in the O6 box because the Eggtown article lists the unanswered question "Is Aaron considered one of the Oceanic 6?", and it has not been confirmed that he is one of the 6 (or that he is Claire's Aaron, for that matter). One might assume both to be true, but until it's confirmed, it should be written up as unsure. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:07, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Good idea, I did that on Lost Wiki ever since "Eggtown". So keep Aaron up, for now. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  22:37, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Aaron is a member of the Oceanic 6. I don't see how anyone can question that. The only reason the staff let there be a question is to allow "Ji Yeon" to play out and be a twist ending. Boloboffin 16:53, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Well it's quite easy to question it- he's never been confirmed. Simple as that!--Chocky 17:32, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
He was on the Island and now he's with Kate. He's one of the Oceanic 6. Boloboffin 17:43, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
It's entirely plausible that Wolf Kouric and Barbara Russert (who co-coined the term) didn't think a child born after the crash "counted" as an Oceanic 815 crash survivor, so they didn't count him. It's also possible that they did. Until someone in the Lostverse refers to him (or someone else) as one of the "Oceanic 6" - or the producers step in and admit that they neglected to make it as clear as they intended and declare that so-and-so is - we can't know for sure. - Tvb 18:47, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Actually, that's not "entirely plausible" at all. We know everyone who is in the Oceanic 6 now. They have all been revealed in flashforwards. Aaron is the only candidate for the last slot. This is a pointless, hair-splitting discussion. Boloboffin 02:49, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
I was talking about what makes sense within the universe of the show. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Just because you can't reconcile it with the promo materials about the show doesn't mean it doesn't make sense within the show. And yes, it's pointless and hair-splitting, so why are you wasting so much of your time on it. :) - Tvb 06:59, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

How about the Official Audio Podcast from 02/28/07? Damon Lindelof specifically says "Well I think by the end of episode 7 it will be very clear as to who the Six are." Since E7 only revealed Sun, then the other 5 must already be known. Since Ben wasn't on the plane, the leaves only Aaron. That seems like a pretty solid confirmation to me. If the promo's claiming "the last of the O6 will be revealed" isn't acceptable because the promos aren't written by the shows writers, then I think official statements made by the shows producers (to the same effect, no less) should be considered perfectly acceptable. --LineNoiz 12:29, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Except that podcasts aren't really canon. And the writers have said more recently that they are declining to comment at this point on whether Aaron is O6 or not, and also that they don't write the promos. It seems likely that it's Aaron, but we don't have confirmation of that. In addition, Aaron being included doesn't fit with Jack's story, as discussed below. --Minderbinder 13:14, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
If the podcasts can't be used to verify information, then perhaps the article should be changed to remove the line that says "The first four members of the group were further confirmed by the producers during the Official Lost Podcast of February 19, 2008." And it fits in with Jack's story just fine if you consider that Jack is probably including Aaron as one of the 8 survivors of the crash.--LineNoiz 14:51, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

In case there's a shadow of a doubt left, the preview for the April 24th episode showed Aaron while the voiceover said "All of the Oceanic Six have been revealed." Aaron is the sixth member. Or, more appropriately, he's the 5th member. Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, Sun. Period. --Voo 19:04, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

The preview confirmed it, Arron is part of the six. Fralfman 19:04, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

We all know a preview means nothing! Only after the official release we'll know! Did you ever consider that Michael might the 6th? I say he is! Prove me wrong! You get what I'm trying to say? --DimTsi 14:28, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

The podcast confirmed it as well. Basically they said we've known all along, some viewers just invented their own excuses why Aaron wouldn't be in the O6. Now we know, it's Aaron. --Minderbinder 14:48, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Yep. It's been (double-)confirmed, so that's that, eh? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:54, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Kate in Prison[]

Article suggests Kate would return to prison. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think she's ever been incarcerated into a prison. :. She can't return somewhere if she's never been there before. ~~

Timeline[]

We also have a pretty good timeline of how soon the 6 get off the island. If Sun is 2-months pregnant in 'Ji Yeon', that means Sun and the others will be off the island within ~7 months. (Give or take; Sun could've gone into premature labor, or could've been late even. But the baby seems pretty healthy, so IMO I say 7 months is pretty accurate.) ~~

  • This is true if the Oceanic 6 experience no significant time alteration when they leave the Island. Desmond and Sayid jumped forward a day and a half. What seemed like a twenty minute ride was experienced by everyone else as a day and a half. The same thing could happen for the Oceanic 6 on a larger scale.
  • Ji Yeon's birth is going to be about 7 months after the Oceanic 6 are rescued, whenever that is in the actual timeline. It is probably the first chronological flashforward we have so far.
    • Hurley is still fine.
    • Aaron is two years old or so at the conclusion of Kate's trial.
    • Jack is fine in Kate's trial and in Hurley's flashforward.
    • Jack and Kate's meeting at the airport is the last moment we have so far.
    • Sayid's flashforward isn't discernable as far as time. Some time has elapsed, since Sayid seems to have been doing this a while. We could conceivably have the flashforwards progressing backwards, drawing closer and closer to the rescue of the 6.
  • I'd actually propose that. All the flashforwards so far are in reverse chronological order as we have seen them.Boloboffin 16:43, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • We don't know that "Hurley is still fine"; he could be recovered and released. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:35, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
    • We do. Ji Yeon is born seven months or so after the Oceanic 6 leave the island. Jack is not suffering as much in the Kate trial as he is during the Hurley episode. His emotional state is a clear timeline for those episodes. That makes Hurley's confinement after Kate's trial, well after Ji Yeon's birth. Boloboffin 06:47, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • That puts Ji Yeon's birth around July 2005, right? Three months later, in October 2005, Sayid is burying his wife. Kate's trial must be around October 2006. (They sure seem to have taken their sweet time setting it up.) Hmmm...that also means that they must've been rescued well within nine months of the crash, so Kate would have had to have been pregnant before getting on the plane for Aaron to be her natural son. Which blows some of my theories out of the water. And Hurley can't have been confined too long after Kate's trial, since Jack has a full beard seven months later. RanxeroxVox 01:35, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Current Format[]

I'm digging the current setup of this page (Confirmed/Suggested/Confirmed Not). Kudos to whoever set that up.

I want to revisit the idea above of getting new pictures of the Oceanic Six at the pictures on the top of the page. I'd love to see a picture of bearded Jack, Hurley and Sayid in suits, Kate on trial, Sun in that black and white spotted dress and...eventually...two year old Aaron. Anyone else??--JoeyBags1138 09:16, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Agreed. I like the current setup too. It makes the more sense and it's factual. And having the flashforward pics seems like a good idea. --     c      blacxthornE      t     09:27, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I figured we had to do something to clarify what was known vs. what was implied vs. what was just speculation. I was iffy about including the "suggested" section, but I figure it'll prevent people from adding them as "confirmed". And I like the idea of flashforward portraits. :) - Tvb 09:58, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed. I like VERY MUCH the current setup too. and support the idea of the POST-ISLAND pictures. It makes a lot of sense.--erikire 16:59, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

A character conrfirmation from DarkUFO[]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Season 4/spoilers#Aaron conrfirmation from DarkUFO. Information from unofficial sources (including DarkUFO) is considered spoiler and cannot be mentioned on non-spoiler pages, even on article talk pages. For more information see Lostpedia:Spoiler policy#Spoilers on Lostpedia. Kidburla 15:53, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

As I am strictly against spoilers but took part in that discussion nevertheless, I'd like to comment on this. The information in question is revealed in Ji Yeon, as confirmed by Darlton in the podcast. Yes, the DarkUFO link was redundant and it's a spoiler site so it shouldn't be here. The specific link however did only contain information that was already presented in Ji Yeon, so there was no spoiler. --MacCutcheon Talk? 16:09, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

inconsistency Jacks testimony wrt Aaron: seven survivors, not six[]

In Jack's testimony in Eggtown, he says the following: "Only eight of us survived the crash ...blabla... She tried to save the other two, but they didn't--". Aaron was not yet born when the plane crashed, so if there were eight people that survived the crash (by which I assume he means the actual act of crashing) there would be nine people in total after Aaron was born. And after 'the other two' didn't make it, that would leave seven people. So what's the deal with that? Are those seven people the Oceanic Six + Aaron? Or is Aaron part of the Oceanic Six and Jack already counted him with the initial eight 'survivors of the crash'? --DJVok 02:52, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Because he didn't die? 8 people survived the crash, one of those eight did so inside another person. So, night of the crash, seven people standing on a beach, one 8 months pregnant (I'm guessing that, according to the Survivor's Story anyway, the pregnant woman is Kate. But that is a separate discussion.), and Jack is including the almost-ready-to-be-born baby as one of the survivors. --LineNoiz 14:44, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • My theory is this: Claire (pregnant) was one of the six who survived initially. She died later, perhaps during childbirth. (According to their fictitious story, of course). That would resolve the inconsistency you point out, and it would help explain how Kate came to be (again, according to their false story) Aaron's adoptive mother. They (Jack, et. al.) wouldn't have counted Aaron before he was born, just as they didn't count him as one of the 48 in the beach camp in the early days. But even though they didn't count him then, it still makes sense to dub him an "Oceanic Six" member, since he was, in fact, (albeit in utero) on the flight.--Jdb 08:30, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm pretty convinced that Aaron is O6, but this bit doesn't fit. If six survived, and then Aaron was born, that would mean seven got off the island. For Aaron to count, eight would have to have survived the crash and three died later, or seven initial with two deaths later. I wonder if this will be explained, or if it will turn out to be a plot hole. And they were certainly wrong when they said it would be clear who is O6 after this last episode - it's as confusing as ever. --Minderbinder 13:22, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm not sure if you were responding to my post or not. But I said, if Claire later died, perhaps during childbirth (entirely plausible on a deserted island with no medical facilities), then it fits perfectly. I'm not saying it's the only possibility, but it fits. It makes the math work, and it explains Kate becoming his mother (essentially a de facto adoption), as well as where the baby came from, since there wasn't one on board when they left, and what happened to Claire, since she obviously didn't make it back.--Jdb 06:33, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
I don't see how that works. Eight survive the crash. Aaron is born, making nine. Two die, making seven. Whether Claire is one of those two deaths or not, including Aaron still makes a total of seven. There's either some other explanation that the show will give us later, or it's just a plot hole. --Minderbinder 10:19, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
I think I've been clear from the beginning, but I'll rephrase my theory just in case. Eight survived the crash intially. Kate was able to save all but two. That leaves six, and I'm suggesting that Claire was one of them, and that she died later, perhaps during childbirth, keeping the number at six (or if it wasn't during childbirth, it could have been seven with Aaron for some unspecified length of time, then back down to six).--Jdb 12:49, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
Another explanation could be the fact that Jack could not finish his story. Perhaps he was going to say that two died almost immediately after the crash, despite Kate's help. And that a month later or so Claire died in childbirth. --DJVok 11:10, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
I'd put money on this!--Jdb 12:49, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
That's true - we're really making assumptions about what we thought Jack was starting to say: "Only eight of us survived the crash. We landed in the water. I was hurt, pretty badly. In fact, if it weren't for her, I would have never made it to the shore. She took care of me. She took care of all of us. She--she gave us first aid, water, found food, made shelter. She tried to save the other two, but they didn't..." --Minderbinder 12:08, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
I think the only assumption being made is that the six who were left from the original eight were the same six who came back and became the "Oceanic Six." I don't know what else he could have said later other than something to the effect that the two she tried to save died.--Jdb 12:49, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
  • A pregnant woman is said to be eating for two, so it's no stretch of reasoning that the 8 that survived includes Aaron in the count. The means that the O6 as we know it, plus two more, survived the crash according to the fake story. The two died, leaving the O6. Suspending disbelief for a moment that a woman as pregnant as Claire would be allowed to fly internationally, it would be recorded somewhere that she was very pregnant. There's no getting around that fact. [Why Kate was allowed to keep Aaron as a known fugitive (at the time), an illegal international adoption (Claire is Australian), when there is still family about (Aunt Lindsey), is also beyond understanding, but not part of this discussion.] So we have the O6 plus Claire, plus one more. So it's a reasonable UA question who the two are, but not why Aaron would be counted as part of the 6 for being 'unborn' at the time of the crash; he is a survivor of the crash because Claire didn't miscarry him and he didn't die. If he's counted as part of the O6, he has to be counted as part of the 8. Simple as that. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:03, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I don't think it's simple as that. You are assuming the world thinks Aaron is Claire's baby. But evidence is to the contrary as Aaron himself thinks Kate is his mother (End of Eggtown he calls her Mommy). I think its unlikely but not impossible that the off-island, 2-year-old Aaron is Kate's actual child with Sawyer - more likely is that it's the Aaron we've come to know and love, IMO. So it could be that the O6 is telling the world Kate was pregnant at the time of the crash, in which case Jack's testimony doesn't really make sense if he's referring to Kate's unborn child (it still could be but I don't think it fits), so Aaron must have been concieved on island. Keep in mind we don't know about the time dilation. The world may think the O6 have been away for a long time, much longer than they actually were. My point is, as of the information we have now, Jack's story doesn't add up and Aaron is not counted in the 8 original survivors. Any other way doesn't make sense but we have to wait for the show to fill in the blanks.--Sentient nebula 19:02, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
      • It's not Sawyer and Kate's baby. It has been confirmed in 2 podcasts and a preview that Aaron is Aaron. I wasn't going to be dogmatic about it either until it was official; it is now official. There aren't any blanks to be filled in, except for those who don't want to take what has been confirmed at face value, looking for more mystery than is present. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:30, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
        • OK, I wasn't aware that it had been confirmed. How can you say there are no blanks? I'm not looking for mystery, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what's going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sentient nebula (talkcontribs) 2008-03-25T10:49:32.
It's ambiguous; DJVok's description above, with Aaron's birth offsetting a later third death, is consistent with what little we have heard of the cover story. So is Aaron being counted among the initial eight. We don't need to decide between them, just to make sure that the article doesn't make assumptions either way and sticks to reporting what is revealed in the show.--Hylas 22:43, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

The Order Of The Six on the Page[]

Technically, Aaron was the fifth member revealed, not the sixth, and as such, I think his picture should be fifth, not sixth. (Currently, Sun is positioned fifth, when she was the last to be revealed.) I think this would make the page more accurate. --Voo 19:08, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

The preview for the upcoming episodes also made Aaron the 5th member. I like the change now.--JoeyBags1138 19:53, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

All these numbered points[]

Now that ABC has confirmed the 6, do we really need those numbered points underneath the pictures... they're not really conveying any information, they just seem to be there to quiet down dissent on this discussion page. Maybe we can clean the O6 page up a little..? --Beardedjack 19:57, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

I like the numbered points, if anything to tell the history of each character's revelation. I'm a nitpicker like that though...--JoeyBags1138 20:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
We can get rid of the numbered points if everyone agrees to drop the issue of what episode which character was shown to be a member of the oceanic six in. I would like to see it go, but its best remembered that we have many of those numbered points because of lack of agreement. Dharmatel4 20:52, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
I think it's useful to keep them in for reference. (This is a reference site, after all.) I'm a bit surprised by Dharmatel4's re-introduction of controversy into the article. I haven't seen any defenses since tonight's preview demolished the plausibility of any other candidate but Aaron. Robert K S (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm for keeping it as well. It wouldn't work to have it noted when and how the writers revealed information about the Six. If anything, these can be considered literary techniques (only a little analyzed) and are note-worthy. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:54, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

It has also been confirmed on the podcast as well. --Minderbinder 12:24, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

My concern was in terms of considering previews as authoritative sources of information. The podcast has however closed the issue. Dharmatel4 16:41, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Have the previews ever lied to us? :-) Robert K S (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
The one for "Stranger In A Strange Land" did--Phil (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Refresh my memory? Robert K S (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
The preview promised "three mysteries will be solved" and didn't deliver in the opinion of many people at the time. If you listen to the podcast, they as much as say they signed off on the oceanic six preview but did not plan the preview or intend it. Previews are generally right, but they are still not tightly controlled by the production. Dharmatel4 17:52, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Until plot holes get fixed there's no going for coffee[]

I tend to agree with the comments that the previews are not controlled by the scriptwriters, and wonder if, after the strike, they are even the same scriptwriters as before. There is a sense of the plot "changing the rules in the middle of the game" as might happen in an ageing bureaucracy where the organization becomes so big or disoriented (by strikes/crises) that policies drift into inconsistent viewpoints in various departments. I followed the leads hinting that Kate had to leave the island, even facing certain prosecution, because she was...pregnant with someone's child. Add to that, she replies to Jack about the boy (after the trial): I understand why you wouldn't want to see him, but until you do, There's no "me and you going for coffee". Is there a second "him" (other than Aaron), like in another bedroom, also in Kate's home in the Hills? As for Aaron's guardian, if everyone in the Oceanic 6 gets a settlement from the airlines, you know some actual blood relatives would claim Aaron. Then there's the airliner "black box" to be retrieved by deep-sea robot.... Also, Michael's son Walt, via relatives, would certainly be capable of receiving settlement from the airline, etc. In any group of relatives, someone will speak up to get $millions. At this point, the so-called "USA" where they return is even more bizarre than The Island (the sequel appears to be "More Lost When Found"). No wonder the scriptwriters went on strike! -Lostmetoo 04:54, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Kate is passing Aaron off as her biological son; there's no way a woman facing murder charges would be given guardianship of another woman's child, no matter how close they were. Michael is keeping the island a secret and has told Walt to do the same, out of shame and guilt for the Libby/Ana murders. And you're right, they're actually not the same screenwriters -- "Lost" and "Ugly Betty" swapped writing staff for 2 years as part of a drunken bet. Froglars 07:14, 27 March 2008 (PDT)
There may end up being some plot holes, but the stuff you mentioned can potentially still be explained properly. The show made it clear that Kate wasn't pregnant. She probably lied when she was saved and said the kid was hers. Michael and Walt could have tried to get a claim, but it looks like Michael changed his identity since he didn't want people to find out that he murdered two people on the island. I'm not sure what you mean about the black box - one was brought up, but it had to have been faked. The one big worry about a potential plot hole I have is that Jack's story about 8 survived, two died later, six saved, doesn't add up once you include Aaron. --Minderbinder 09:38, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Aaron's surname[]

Aa a member of the Oceanic Six would Aaron be called 'Aaron Littleton' or 'Aaron Austen'? -considering it seems the world believes Kate is his mother.--4 09:45, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

Officially to the audience its Aaron Littleton, however, even though it hasnt even been revealed on the show, he may be under an alias of Austen. Therefore, do not change to Austen at all. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 10:30, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
Real time is still Island time on the show. He's not yet in Kate's care. --     c      blacxthornE      t     11:43, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

The other three survivors (Deleted Scene 4x12)[]

From a deleted scene from 4x12, it is revealed that the three survivors that died later before rescue are Charlie, Boone, and Libby. - Comedy240 15:59, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Source? Robert K S (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
http://www.hawaiiup.com/lost/2008/05/17/trans-2008-05-18-theres-no-place-like-home/ Comedy240 21:20, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
Very interesting if it is true...but we need a source. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:29, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
Wasn't there a spoiler that said Jack would mention some other survivors who died in earlier seasons? Those three fit, but it's still not canon if its from a deleted scene. It's interesting, tho - why those three? --Thenumbersdude 07:29, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
I don't have time to listen to it right now, but - wouldn't this mean they mentioned Libby's last name? --Pyramidhead 12:26, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
Someone should drop a line to Darlton to confirm the trueness of this. And to get Libby's last name. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:28, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
According to the podcast, a reporter notes that the total of 8 survivors wouldn't include Aaron and asks Jack who the other 3 were. 'Thinking on his feet', Jack gives the names of the other three survivors and says that they never found out Libby's last name because she'd had a bang on the head and couldn't remember anything. There was also apparently a bit cut with Mr & Mrs Paik looking surprised at Sun speaking English, and a reference suggesting that Kate's legal difficulties were already being handled by Oceanic. The podcasters are keen to point out that these deleted scenes are not cannon and were possibly cut because the writers changed their minds or wanted the option to change their minds.--TechNic|talk|conts 13:21, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
Interesting stuff. I wonder if Darlton will address this in the podcast now that this has leaked out, and if we'll ever see that deleted scene on DVD. --Minderbinder 13:47, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
Of course, it could all be nonsense. It comes from "an unnamed source", so we have no idea how reliable it is. As you say, the podcast or DVD may eventually let us know.--TechNic|talk|conts 14:08, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
I think the parents reaction to her speaking english should have been kept. Very dramatic. Season one drama all over again. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:25, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Rumor has it that the finale will be preceded by part 1 of the finale with deleted scenes added, including this one. I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks. --Minderbinder 15:08, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah. I don't understand why they weren't included in the first airing, unless they wanted people to watch the episode again. Which raises the question: how will the added scenes be integrated into the article...? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:10, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree it probably doesn't matter who the three are - what's interesting though, is that now that we know that the O6 includes Aaron, who was not born until they arrived on the island according to the story - Jack's testimony on the stand in Eggtown has him contradicting the official story. If 8 survived the crash, at least five of them we know - Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun. That means there were three others who survived, all three of whom must have died as part of the story. But during his testimony, Jack says "She tried to save the other two-" at which point Kate says "Stop." perhaps this is her trying to stop the testimony before Jack digs himself further into a hole. --LOSTinDC 13:17, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

I think it's fairly easy to reconcile. Jack is specifically referring to Kate's heroics during the period when they were in the water and after they first reached shore. In that context, "the other two" could quite naturally refer to two people who died of their injuries soon after reaching the island despite Kate's care, without ruling out a third death some time later. By this time Jack has apparently told the story many times, so presumably he has any major kinks worked out.--Hylas 13:55, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
Maybe. But maybe not - I think its a little strange that he would mention the 8 survivors of the crash and then say "she tried to save the other two" - it seems like that would explain how the six remained - but we know that three died - why would he split it up like that? Either that or it could be a production blooper. --LOSTinDC 04:43, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
It was probably a retcon due to the decision that Aaron was born on the Island. The first explanation was probably before that decision. As I've been saying forever, this is too trivial even to think about. It was a made-up story that the writers themselves didn't care much about. They included these questions in the show obviously because so many fans insisted on asking them, and they thought "let's just answer them and be done with it" because it took so much attention away from the actual story. But Jack's court scene was written well enough to avoid being a blooper. It was interrupted, so why he split the count or even whether he miscounted does not matter, it's not a blooper.--     c      blacxthornE      t     05:02, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
Fair enough - I personally agree that the identities of the three have been acknowledged to be immaterial. I do think its interesting to the extent (if at all) that members of the Oceanic 6 do not hold to the official story in public. I viewed the testimony in Eggtown as a possible example of where Jack may have slipped publicly. But, you're probably right - the producers probably deliberately said "two" to keep us in the dark about the identities of the Oceanic Six for as long as possible (which they succeeded in doing). --LOSTinDC 06:19, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Removed unanswered questions again[]

  • Why, in the deleted scene, did they mention Charlie, Boone, and Libby as the other survivors, rather than other people?
  • If the other survivors not canon, then who are the other survivors that died after the crash?

Really, is that point really that important? Damon and Carlton said it didn't matter when the issue first came up, they stated that it was just a made-up story anyways and thus doesn't matter. Now we're presented with a few names and of course some people want to get an explanation for that too. Soooo predictable. Really, what does it matter? Seriously, I wish Damon and Carlton would give us a whole episode dedicated to the people that died according to the official O6 story, as amazing as the episode about Jack's tattoos, just to give you people an answer to your burnign questions.--Nevermore 00:17, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Please people, if you really insist on having this as unanswered questions, please at least show the courtesy of discussing it on the talk page.--Nevermore 03:11, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
These were just deleted for not being canon. We'll have to see what happens if the rerun - if they put the scene back in then it should be fair game. --Minderbinder 06:54, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
If the deleted scenes are re-added in the rerun, it still won't matter. It's a made-up story that has no significance to the plot. Let's not insist that something is significant while the writers themselves say that it's not.--     c      blacxthornE      t     08:09, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
An unanswered question is an unanswered question - Lostpedia's UQ policy doesn't insist that UQ's be "significant". I don't get why people get so obsessed over comments made in the podcast - do the producers really get to tell the audience what they are allowed to wonder about? --Minderbinder 08:35, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes. They're the makers of the show, and they get to decide what's significant to the show. The show is telling us a story, so it's only common sense to ask questions related to the story, and not ones that are just there to fill in details. Otherwise there would be questions like "Is Kate really a blonde, or a brunette?", "Did she really like that guy she used to break into the safety deposit box or was she just using him?", "How often does Jack shave?", among others that do not matter. The show does not have to give you details to death about every little thing. Some things are there just as minor details and you shouldn't expect more about them, because that's not what they're actually telling us. The show is really not about who these other people were, if you think about it. The policy not insisting on that is not really an excuse for insignificant UQs, it just calls for ammendment.--     c      blacxthornE      t     09:37, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Even the issue at hand could result in an infinite chain of pointless follow-up questions. If we theoretically assume that Jack will explain the reasons for chosing those three names, someone will likely ask "Is he really telling the truth, or what other reasons could he have?" And so on. It's really pointless.--Nevermore 09:50, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
They can decide whatever they want, but they don't get to dictate what the audience is interested in. Again, the UQ policy doesn't say anything about UQ's can't be included if the producers say something isn't important. What's so horrible about leaving a question about this in? --Minderbinder 11:07, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Well "interest" is a curious thing. It's not so horrible, but it focuses on something that is not important at all. The writers said that they fabricated some story and in that story, some more people initially survived the crash but died later. For all we know that is the extent of the writers' knowledge. That was probably what they wrote: "More people". Not him and him and her, just nameless people. This piece of information is so irrelevant that they did not even bother to write it. It's exactly the same as asking "What (other) stories did Christian tell Jack when he was a kid?" because Jack said his father was a good storyteller. It has nothing to do with what Lost is trying to tell the audience. Leaving this question in, would call for leaving all these other questions I gave as examples. It's not that horrible, but it's horribly unnecessary. Actually that is exactly why it was proposed that the Unanswered Questions sections would be changed to Mysteries. It's a can of worms.--     c      blacxthornE      t     13:07, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Of greater concern at the moment is that we state throughout the article that we know who the other three are. Either the unofficial source is wrong, in which case the information should be removed as inaccurate, or it accurately describes a scene that may be included in an upcoming airing, in which case it should be removed as a spoiler.--Hylas 08:25, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Took out the mention (there was only one) in the article. The non-canon section seems fine. --Minderbinder 08:35, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
But if it is going to be aired in an extended version of the episode next week, isn't it currently a spoiler? --Hylas 08:49, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Well, it's an episode that already aired. Do you consider deleted scenes from episodes that already aired spoilers until they are released on DVD?--Nevermore 09:47, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes. According to the spoiler policy, they would be until the DVD is released.--Hylas 10:11, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
But I assume when a deleted scene is either aired or released in an other way, like putting it up on the ABC website, that would be an exception, right? --Minderbinder 11:07, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes, being released in almost any official capacity would make them fair game, according to the policy.--Hylas 12:05, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
I'm somewhat in the middle ground here, I think. Given the high amount of uncertainty around all aspects of the O6 story, I think the identity of the other three survivors did form a natural and significant part of that mystery. We didn't know for certain, for example, whether Aaron was claimed to be Kate's natural child or if Claire was one of the three, or whether Sun claimed that Jin survived and fathered her child on the island. Having the main details of the story now filled in, and those two specific people addressed, I think the issue is now of no great importance.
The only related question that I think might be suitable for inclusion is "Why claim that Jin died in the crash, rather than on the island, to account for Sun's date of conception?"--Hylas 13:40, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Okay, but do you agree that asking follow-up questions for Jack's reasons behind certain details of a made-up cover story which the producers have already confirmed are totally irrelevant is pointless? Otherwise, we could ask "Why did Kate call herself 'Annie' in "Tabula Rasa" and not 'Maggie' or 'Jessica'?", "Why did she claim she was Canadian?", "Why did she call herself 'Monica' in "I Do"?", "Why did Anthony Cooper call himself 'Adam Seward'?", "Why did the Others choose the alias 'Kevin Johnson' for Michael?", Why did Anthony Cooper pick Sawyer's parents and not someone else?" and so on...--Nevermore 10:20, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
Naturally, unless something in the show clearly implies a significance to the choice. The Jin question I suggested above might meet that test, but it's rather borderline in terms of being too leading.--Hylas 11:17, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
It's funny to still hear people insisting that the other identities are irrelevant when it looks like the writers HAVE decided to give those identities. And people also insisted that we'd never find out those other names, which looks like it will turn out to be wrong. Really, if many viewers are asking a particular question, is it so terrible to list it under the UQ section? This is a perfect example of people getting obsessed with podcast comments to the point of pushing aside the actual content of the show. --Minderbinder 11:52, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
They gave those names out because fans insisted on finding out about them. That doesn't make it any less irrelevant. Fans insisted on finding out about Jack's tattoos, so they dedicated a whole episode to them, which is widely considered one of the worst episodes of the entire show. That's what happens when fans obsess over things the writers consider irrelevant.--Nevermore 13:31, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that early on the producers hinted that there was an interesting story behind the tattoos and that they'd get to it someday. Plus, the show itself hinted that there was a story behind them. In that case, the audience only wanted the story because an interesting one was teased. And while I totally agree that the origin of a tattoo is just trivia, would anyone seriously expect that if you tell the audience there were three people mentioned in a cover story as supposedly SURVIVING THE CRASH, the audience would just shrug and not care what those three names were, even knowing the story is bogus? Especially when the question can be answered in a line or two of dialogue (which is how they should have explained the tattoos). --Minderbinder 13:46, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
Well, the story could as well have been that the ones that died were so badly injured that they couldn't even tell their names. Or were lying about it or somesuch. It just doesn't change a thing.--Nevermore 16:17, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
So now the names have been confirmed in an official airing, and some people still insist on further inquiry about the motivations behind those choices. I'm telling you, this is getting nowhere. If the show ever addresses the motivations, some people will still insist on deeper motives, and so on.--Nevermore 16:59, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, they're almost as obsessive as you are in complaining about them. - Tvb 18:47, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
You're completely right, Nevermore, when I saw those questions all I could think was "OH MY GOD!". But I decided I can't get into this. Obviously some people want a spin-off show about the fake story of those other initial survivors. And Tvb, this is a discussion; please be respectful to the participants.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:58, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
Pot. Kettle. Black. - Tvb 19:48, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

They can't hide the truth[]

I've been meaning to mention this since TNPLH1 but never got around to it. I've never heard anyone discuss it so I thought I'd mention here. Remember when Charlie and Claire attached a letter to the bird telling people about the island and large amount of survivors living on it? Well maybe somebody found that letter and stuff happens. Hopefully it will have some importance because I believe most people thought it was pointless. Just thought I'd mention. MeatyDoughnut 16:51, 5 June 2008 (PDT)

  • erm, I just checked and the message doesn't contradict with the offical cover story. Looks like they can hide after all, hopfeully :S MeatyDoughnut 11:08, 8 June 2008 (PDT)

People off-Island section[]

Kudos to whoever set this up, looks good, but I can't help but wonder why the 'How they got off' column contains the section of the plane most of them sat in. Also, can someone add Ben, Des, and Locke? --Thenumbersdude 11:21, 8 June 2008 (PDT)

I don't know about Locke. Until we know which time period Season 5 will be in, we should probably consider him to still be on the island. Lostpedia-wide, it's generally considered that the flashbacks are referred to as "the future" and the island storyline is "the present." Scarecrow 11:41, 8 June 2008 (PDT)
I hesitated to mention Locke for that very reason, but I wasn't sure because last I heard, the jury was still out on how to treat flashforwards. --Thenumbersdude 13:46, 8 June 2008 (PDT)
Also, since the whole page is based on flashforwards, including the character's current status in this section, I figured Locke would be fair game. --Thenumbersdude 13:48, 8 June 2008 (PDT)
What about Frank? He only showed up about a week before they all escaped the island, so I wouldn't really classify him as a castaway who "escaped." He was never really stranded. Scarecrow 01:32, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

Nice addition, but why list "prominent" or "semiprominent" for each character? I'm not exactly sure what that distinction is supposed to mean or what it adds. --Minderbinder 07:11, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, let's nix that bit. Robert K S (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Should Penny be in the "People off Island" section? It's true that she was never on the Island, but she is related to the Oceanic Six rescue and is discusssed, along with Desmond, as a potential security leak on the Theories page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:19, 30 October 2008 (PDT)

Going back[]

I'm kind of curious as to why, for more than two years, none of the Oceanic 6 seemed concerned with getting back to the island to rescue those left behind. Hurley was concerned about Claire, Kate would be concerned about Sawyer, and Jack was concerned about pretty much everyone. They know Widmore has something to do with the island from Frank, so they could start with him. Well, I guess Sun does do that. I don't know. It just seemed weird that Jack was so vehement about I'M GOING TO SAVE YOU ALL, I AM A SAVIOUR HERO and then spent two years living his life without trying to get back to save those left behind. Scarecrow 11:41, 8 June 2008 (PDT)

They may eventually tell us, but I don't think the scientist in Jack lets him believe anything other than he failed and everyone is dead. After all, the Kahana exploded, the Island sank, and the Zodiac is gone. There are only six people left from the whole experience. Then, one day, Locke shows up on his doorstep....--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:19, 3 July 2008 (PDT)

Michael[]

Do you think Michael should be included in the (deceased) off-island characters section? After he escaped he never quite returned. --DL 17:48, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

Jena Six[]

I would like to point out that the way this name was coined by the press and the number seems very similar to the Jena Six. Any thoughts? --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   15:26, 3 July 2008 (PDT)

I think it's coincidental. There have been a lot of groups designated with a place or event name and a number. The Chicago Seven come to mind.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:24, 30 October 2008 (PDT)

Going Back to the Island[]

There might be a possible chance that the Oceanic 6 will go back to the island by joining the Dharma Initiative, due to a hint by the producers that Dharma will play a really important part. This also means that the Dharma Initiative Recruiting Project may also be related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharma22 (talkcontribs) .

Removing "People off-Island"[]

I'm sorry, but what does it have to do with the actual topic of this page, the Oceanic Six? I mean, sure, the members of O6 are survivors of flight 815 and they are off the island, but this section has nothing to do with it. Walt isn't a member of the O6, neither are Desmond or Frank.  ODK Talk   Sandbox 17:46, 30 November 2008 (PST)

Getting rid of the last of the UQs[]

I noticed that most of the UQs were removed after they were answered in "316". I think we can do away with the last two as well:

  1. Why do several characters feel it is imperative that they return to the Island?
  2. Why will the Island only let them return if they come together?

The first one, we've known for a long time--Jeremy Bentham told them that bad things happened on the Island, and more bad things would continue to happen if they didn't come back. (We've now seen what some of those bad things were--actually, we've seen everything Bentham saw.) As for the second one, I think this has been explained about as well as it ever will be. In order to increase their probability of getting to the Island above the requisite threshold, they have to recreate the circumstances of their original crash, which appears to have included in some cases the use of proxies. The "Island letting them" seems to be a poetic way of describing the narrowing of the probability function. Robert K S (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Five[]

I created a REDIRECT called "Oceanic Five" that links to the Oceanic Six page. There is a lot going on in Season 5 that involves only the adults from the Six.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic 6 vs. Oceanic Six[]

  • Since the recap is "Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6" not "Lost: The Story of the Oceanic Six", we may want to consider changing the article's name to Oceanic 6. Even though the closed captions refer to it as the Oceanic Six not Oceanic 6, we know that they have been wrong before.--Orhan94 08:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I was taught years ago that numbers ten and under are to be spelled. I think the pages look more professional when we use words. I try to remember to type "Oceanic Six" whenever I'm editing. Putting the "real title" in the lead-in text and creating a redirect works for me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this up here. The numeral usage is nothing new by the ABC folks; they've used "Oceanic 6" consistently in the Enhanced episodes. Still, I favor the "Six" version, following the standard used by real-life groups, like the Chicago Seven, the Keating Five, and various other numeric epithets.  Robert K S   tell me  05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Main Image Change[]

I thought that the main image showing the press conference made it too difficult to see the main people involved so I changed it to a picture that was already in the article, showing all 6 members at sea. I think this is better because you can see them more clearly. But I left the press conference image in the article itself.

I know because I am new here, someone will just revert back the changes, give me a moderate scolding perhaps, etc., and a vote won't even be opened.... But I still think the page looks better this way, and it would be nice if someone agreed.

Thank you.

Sheryl

--Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 01:35, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

6?[]

Why the heck does the number 6 redirect here? Daniel990/TALK/My Contributions

Would you rather it redirect to Jensen (candidate)? --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
It would be better if numbers just redirected to the candidates if their current redirects make little sense, like 5 redirects to "Count to five" and 7 redirects to nothing. Daniel990/TALK/My Contributions 17:48, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
I more imagine articles stating "The six then discussed..." than "candidate 6 enjoys eating..." I also more imagine people entering "6" in the search box will look for the Oceanic 6 than candidate 6. I find redirects to candidates a little silly in general. --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
What about 5 and 7? Daniel990/TALK/My Contributions 18:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
5=count to 5? Sure. Many of these numbers lack candidate redirects though because we learned their candidates later, through Lost Auction material. --- Balk Of Fametalk 18:07, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But the number 7 is meaningless. Daniel990/TALK/My Contributions 18:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

So? --- Balk Of Fametalk 18:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
It could redirect to Enright. Daniel990/TALK/My Contributions 18:26, September 29, 2010 (UTC)