Members of Team Jack

Are the red shirt members of Team Jack confirmed? (unsigned)

I think that more redshirts went with Locke too. As far as I could remember it seemed like Locke had a larger group then Jack. (unsigned)
I counted three redshirts with Locke. We should be able to confirm the number this thursday. When I created the table, I assigned every redshirt other than the three with Locke as being with Jack. None of the past named redshirts went with Locke as far as I could tell. Locke's group seemed larger than it was because they didn't represent every potential unnamed survivor with a background extra in the scene. Dharmatel4 09:17, 4 February 2008 (PST)
The following redshirts went with Locke: Doug, Jerome, Steve Jenkins, Blonde Casualty and Red-haired Casualty whom all are dead/MIA.--Mistertrouble189 19:36, 13 June 2008 (PDT)

Group names

hey, I can't think of better names for the two groups but I think you'll agree "Team Jack" and "Team Locke" doesn't really roll on your tongue. please post suggestions here --CharlieReborn 13:53, 1 February 2008 (PST)

Team Locke and Team Jack seem to be the fan consensus on what these groups are called. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by pennyj (talkcontribs) .
Seem to be, but a lot of that has to do with what they are called in this article; kind of a chicken/egg scenario. I would suggest "Jack's group" and "Locke's group"; a simple and neutral term that doesn't imply competition. Using "teams" just seems a little bit too much... like they're on the show Survivor. -- Graft   talk   contributions  17:12, 2 February 2008 (PST)
The team stuff was around on many sites long before the episode even aired. They didn't originate here. Dharmatel4 18:43, 2 February 2008 (PST)
Ok, well I still think it's not necessary to go with what fans tend to call it on various sites. I think "Jack's group" and "Locke's group" are better names for this site. -- Graft   talk   contributions  18:54, 2 February 2008 (PST)
I think that it should stay as "Team Locke" and "Team Jack". CTS
How come? -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:59, 5 February 2008 (PST)
I agree. I think people are trying to invoke Team Pam and Team Karen from season 2 of The Office. --Beardedjack 09:13, 3 February 2008 (PST)
That's not a good reason to use the terms in this article, though. The problem is, there is a false premise here: we shouldn't be making up names for the groups in the first place. That's why I suggest "Jack's group" and "Locke's group"; they are just simple, descriptive, neutral terms that are of an encyclopedic tone (as should be used on a wiki). "Team Jack" and "Team Locke" are proper names that receive capitalization; we need justification from the standpoint of the story to call something by a name like that; otherwise generic terms are what to use. -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:59, 5 February 2008 (PST)

Maybe Team Science (Jack) and Team Faith (Locke) ? From the episode, it's the only thing I can think of really. But ti doesn't really flow on the tongue unless it's The Scientists and the Faith :S I don't know!

I think you mean Team of Science, Team of Faith. I think the team names are fine. Fans of the show are smart enough to realize that these are just shorthand/nicknames, like Mr. Friendly, the tailies, etc. --Beardedjack 06:43, 6 February 2008 (PST)
Jack's Group and Locke's Group seem the best to me. Team Jack and Team Locke just seem corny and annoying rather than usefully descriptive. They aren't teams.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:02, 6 February 2008 (PST)
I agree. though I like the idea of Team of Science Team of Faith! it's cool. anyways, are we up for a change to group instead of team? --CharlieReborn 11:19, 10 February 2008 (PST)
Just had a thought - the reason they split up is the Freighties, so the thing that defines them as a group is being "Anti-Freighter" and "Pro-Freighter". when you think about it, Locke's group join all joined him because they wanted to get away from the Freighties, not because they want Locke as their leader. --CharlieReborn 11:40, 10 February 2008 (PST)

The fan boards I'm on are calling them "Jack's Pack" and "Locke's Flock" (or The Jack Pack and The Locke Flock) I suppose because they rhyme and because "pack" is more straight forward and "flock" has religious connotations...--Jackdavinci 18:25, 11 February 2008 (PST)


What's up with the table at the bottom? It makes it appear that Locke is on Team Jack. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  20:25, 1 February 2008 (PST)

Never mind :) -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  20:26, 1 February 2008 (PST)
All the major characters are sorted out now but most of the minor ones are on both lists right now. I want to look at the video again and see which of the minor ones on Team Locke I can identify. Anyone not shown on Team Locke last night is assumed to be on Team Jack. Dharmatel4 20:45, 1 February 2008 (PST)
I just wanted to note that I like your motivation for Aaron. Also, I think that the bottom of the 'Team Jack' section is unclear. There are 3 "unknowns" in the table, and it is mentioned that there are 8 other "unknowns". I think we should have all the unknowns in or all the unknowns out. It makes more sense to leave them out. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  08:26, 2 February 2008 (PST)
The table was created from one of the passenger tables. The three unknowns had slightly more information there that I removed because it was irrelivant to this table. I've removed the three nameless unknowns and added them to the unknown count at the bottom. I dont want to put lots of blanks in the table. I could actually put up photos for the nameless members of Team Locke, but I'm waiting to make sure that they are not interchangeable background cast. Dharmatel4 16:45, 2 February 2008 (PST)


Trying to combat capitalizationitis. -- Graft   talk   contributions  01:33, 2 February 2008 (PST)

Sawyer's Motivations

" He feels a connection between them after killing Anthony Cooper."

Does he? Is there anything that suggests this?--Chocky 17:29, 2 February 2008 (PST)

  • Probably not... I don't think Sawyer and Locke will be exchanging Christmas cards this year. --Beardedjack 21:55, 2 February 2008 (PST)

Vincent's Motivations

Snausages? --Beardedjack 21:55, 2 February 2008 (PST)

Team Locke

Jerome is one of the redshirts going with Locke, he's seen several times in Confirmed Dead. E.g. the scene where Locke tells Sawyer that they are going to "a cabin" (aprox. 8 minutes into the episode). In addition to Jerome, there are three more redshirts - one man and two women (see overview of Locke's followers at aprox. 7 minutes). Pierre80 05:34, 8 February 2008 (PST)

Addition: Jerome is also seen in a closeup (together with the other male redshirt), standing behind Ben at aprox. 11:30 into the episode. Pierre80 05:38, 8 February 2008 (PST)

I've moved him from Jack's group to Locke's group. I'll also update the count to 14 for Locke's group. Dharmatel4 13:14, 8 February 2008 (PST)
4x02 Team Locke redshirts

Claire with the two females and Jerome

I've gathered pictures of the 4 redshirts in Team Locke, --Hunter61 00:17, 10 February 2008 (PST) (pictures follow)

4x02 redshirt Female 1


4x02 redshirt Female 1b


4x02 redshirt Female 2

Juliette Goodell

4x02 redshirt Male 1

Sean Douglas Hoban

4x02 redshirt Male 1b

Sean Douglas Hoban

4x02 redshirt Jerome


The extras don't really count. They don't really have character names. They're extras. Just because someone randomly shouts names at a group of extras standing around doesn't mean they are actually playing a part greater than "man standing there." Let's apply logic and eliminate them from the count entirely and only count the definitives: The main cast and 5 guest stars that make up the main divide between the two factions. --Jeff 18:11, 18 February 2008 (PST)
I disagree with Jeff. The extras should be counted, and the discrepancies that will inevitably appear between episodes should be chronicled. I believe it should be well documented that noncanonical characters (novels, ARGs, fanon, etc.) will not be dealt with properly by the PTB. The math is so not gonna add up, and here is where we either capture that or drop the ball. - ZachsMind 07:31, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Walt in Locke's group

Should Walt be listed in Locke's group? Dharmatel4 13:19, 8 February 2008 (PST)

  • These groupings should be as far as possible from fan constructions. IMO let's keep it to what we see, in other words, specifically the people who followed either Jack or Locke when they parted ways. Otherwise, we'd have Walt, the Cabin, Jacob, and Christian Shephard on Team Locke.-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  16:05, 10 February 2008 (PST)

Background extras

  • I have some difficulty with some of the background cast, at first glance some of the ones in Jack's group. For example Dale Radomski is a stunt actor and has never recurred in any other episode as a survivor, much less in 4x01-4x02. Also, the actor for "Richard" has moved to LA, and is not filming in Hawaii, so I doubt we would see him in 4x01-4x02. We should either: 1) remove background extras that do not appear, or 2) keep, but put a footnote stating rationale for each one that has been assigned to "Team J" or "Team L" by deduction or logic only w/out visual confirmation. Please fix, or we'll simply remove them shortly. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  16:04, 10 February 2008 (PST)
    • I agree - only characters confirmed to have joined any faction should be included. Pierre80 19:12, 10 February 2008 (PST)
The list was created from the Middle Section Survivors table. I assumed it was authoritative in terms of who wasn't considered background cast. I don't care much about the entires, but they should be removed in both places.
The logic on Jack's group is that everyone who is not considered background cast (as per middle section survivors article) and has not been visually identified as part of Locke's group is by default part of Jack's group. Dharmatel4 19:26, 10 February 2008 (PST)
  • That logic is flawed, because the pool of background extras who have ever worked for Lost number over fifty individuals (see background cast to count yourself). Therefore if we begin by choosing 4 extras that went with Locke, that leaves 46+ extras that would "by logic" be in Jack's party, a patently ridiculous figure, at least when compared to the screencaps from that episode (there are not that many people in the entire scene). However on the other hand if we choose the ~5 or 6 that stayed with Jack, that would give about 54-55 people that would "by logic" be in Locke's party, which is similarly nonsensical and at odds with the figure obtained the other way. We can't have it both ways, and besides either way would be nonsense. Let's pare it down to what we can screencap from the episode, in full knowledge that due to casting irregularities of extras, the exact individuals depicted in Locke's or Jack's parties may change in future episodes, much like the individuals depicted on the beach have changed through the seasons across episodes. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  01:51, 12 February 2008 (PST)
  • Ok I've removed those individuals. We may add additional ones as they are explicitly depicted or introduced in the future, by screencap, much as we have done for new extras on the beach, and new speaking characters such as Nikki, Paulo, Arzt, Sullivan, etc. As a compromise, I'll also list the ones that should still logically be among the survivors in a separate section. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  01:55, 12 February 2008 (PST)
  • Just as another comment, in case this is really controversial: it doesn't matter. The membership of the normal (speaking) cast in either Jack or Locke's group is definitely for a reason by the writers; however that cannot be said of the extras, so their memberships will likely be irrelevant to the upcoming storyline, therefore the current approach should be the most neutral and encyclopedic: Noting what we actually see depicted in the episode, then in a separate section noting that some fans have inferred absences for various reasons X, Y, and Z, and tossing those into the "unidentified" category.-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  02:36, 12 February 2008 (PST)
  • Note re: Dharmatel's comment about the table: the Middle Section Survivors table, as this one, is fundamentally flawed if it attempts to exhaustively list background extra survivors without explanation. As stated above, the pool of extras for the survivors constantly has changed, and the total number who have ever appeared number >50. That is the problem with any exhaustive table that lists recurring extras; I would leave them out. By reference to the storyline, it would be more accurate to note below the table the number of survivors who by logic should number among the background, once the speaking cast and known survivor deaths have been subtracted, and as a subnote should link to the background cast article for faces. The same might be done for Survivor factions as the pool of extras shown in Jack's group is very likely to change. We may even see the 4 in Locke's group change (or become absent), and we might even see extras switch illogically between groups. With that huge caveat, for now I'll add the faces known from 4x01 to be in Jack's group. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  16:54, 15 February 2008 (PST)
  • OK I added all the extras I could see in the episode and promo stills for 4x01 as part of Jack's group (in other words, not one of the four extras in Locke's group). I've noted these as specific to 4x01, and their composition may change. If you can identify any other extras than the twelve I've identified, please add them. If others are identified in episiodes other than 4x01, please note the episode in which they appear. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  17:20, 15 February 2008 (PST)
    • The background extras shouldn't be in the photo table by any sane logic. Only the main cast and five guest stars that make up the divide should be included in the photo table because we know definitivly who they are. And listing one of them as "Jerome" is even more ridiculous. Why, because he was one of three dudes standing in a circle when Bernard randomly said three names and they happend to look up? Let's be resonable here, we're headin back into "Sleve" territory. The names of other nonessential castaways may be canonical but randomly assigning names to the background actors isn't. Simplify, my friends, simplfy. --Jeff 18:02, 18 February 2008 (PST)

new members fell from the sky?

Locke's group has Charlotte, Jack has the pilot and the other two. it doesn't seem like any of them are going anywhere without the leaders say-so. so basically they joined the groups, and should be added. agreed? --CharlieReborn 08:37, 11 February 2008 (PST)

I don't think they joined the groups because they are their own group. While its clear that Charlotte is being held against her will, with the other three its not as clear. They were disarmed but Jack has not prevented them moving around yet. If you absolutely want to add them, color their boxes differently and explain their exact status as captives/allies/whatever. Dharmatel4 11:57, 11 February 2008 (PST)

changing allegiances

I'm also wondering what we do about changing allegiances - this week Vincent "changed sides" so to speak. We know from Hurley's flashforward that he's likely to be changing teams, and others may follow...--Jackdavinci 18:28, 11 February 2008 (PST)
I wold propose listing them in both groups but in a different color and with a different placement. Dharmatel4 19:03, 11 February 2008 (PST)
That seems to be a good idea, to me --Hunter61 22:31, 11 February 2008 (PST)

Splitting The A-mission article in two?

Now that the Losties have splitted in two groups, I don't think the concept of A-mission and A-team is still appropriate. Team Locke and Team Jack will conduct different missions with different and perhaps even opposite objectives. Maybe J-missions and L-missions articles should be created.--Oliverdevor 07:44, 17 February 2008 (PST)


Can Vincent REALLY be on one side or another? He's dog for crying out loud. Can there maybe be a "free agent box" that lists the freighters as one entity and Vincent as another and maybe -- if you're picky -- the remaining Others as a third? I really doubt Vincent has the rational thought capacity to allign himself with a team, and i certainly don't think Locke sending him over to Jack constitutes "switching" sides. Or, even better than my "free agent" idea,why don't we simply not include him? Again: HE'S A DOG! Thanks :) --Jeff 18:08, 18 February 2008 (PST)

You seem to be making this a whole lot more complicated than whats in the article. When the groups split, Vincent was taken by Lccke's group. He is listed for the same reason that the baby is listed. He is not listed as switching groups. I would not want to invent a notion of "free agent" for vincent and I don't understand why we would want to list non-survivor factions with their own articles (the freighters and the others have their own articles) into this article. Dharmatel4 19:43, 18 February 2008 (PST)
  • I disagree. I suggest removing Vincent, Aaron, and Ben. Rationale: The article is about factions, a social construction with motivations. Vincent lacks this completely; it really is as simple as: "He's a DOG." Aaron is a gray area, and a decision could be made whether or not to make his case consistent with, or different than, Vincent's treatment. At any rate IMO Vincent, and optionally Aaron, should be left out of the tables, and treated in text copy as a footnote below, much like how the background cast are treated. I find it hard to be convinced otherwise, given the entire premise (describing a "faction") behind this article. Similarly, prisoners such as Ben and Charlotte are not part of the faction, much like Kate Sawyer and Jack in the S3 opener were prisoners of the Island faction known as "Others", but not members of the Others. Any counterarguments should address these issues of the definition of the article name, "Factions", and the implicit choice of social alignment. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  20:38, 20 February 2008 (PST)
  • Note: Ben did have limited "choice" in being a prisoner (yet still a prisoner) of one faction or the other, so an argument could be made for his "membership"; for now I've separated the background cast (as was done with Jack's group) as well as Vincent, but left Ben in the table. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  20:49, 20 February 2008 (PST)

Sayid and Desmond

I don't think Sayid and Desmond can be considered part of team Jack anymore. They are on their own now --Hunter61 20:59, 20 February 2008 (PST)

The way I attempted to handle this (before your comment) was to put notes under each entry saying that they left the Island. One possibility to make it clearer is to reposition the entires in the table and perhaps shaded a different color to highlight the difference better. I think the proliferation of tables within the article is a really bad idea though. Dharmatel4 22:07, 20 February 2008 (PST)

The End of Steve?

Locke, Ben, Hurley, Claire, Aaron, and Sawyer are seen leaving the destruction of the compound. But not Steve. He seems to be the only member of Team Locke which is unacounted fFor. I don't want to ignominiously say "yes, he is dead. Reamy's men shot him." but ... it does kinda seem that way. Perhaps he ran away in the middle of the night, unnoticed. Perhaps he was off to the loo when Reamy's men stormed the compound. Or perhaps he was caught in all the heavy crossfire. Sawyer (the spontaneous humanitarian) doesn't seem concerned about Steve when they leave, suggesting his whereabouts are at least vaguely known to sawyer. Any thoughts? Scott 09:56, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Just before the attacks start, two redshirts are seen walking around the Barracks grounds (middle of the 9th minute). [1] [2] The second one is clearly Jerome (same pink shirt as the one he gets shot in moments later), but the first one is unaccounted for. We don't hear any shots before Doug is murdered, so it seems fairly unlikely that he/she was killed. Although he/she may have been killed in subsequent gunfire. This redshirt is only seen very briefly, and the image is so blurred that I can't even be sure whether it's a man or a woman. It's clearly not Doug, though (different clothing). Could it be Steve? Also, the red-haired member of Team Locke is unaccounted for. If we assume that "random redshirt" glimpsed just before the attack is not Steve, there may be three members of Team Locke still alive at the Barracks. I don't know why Locke & Co. would just abandon them, though. As you pointed out, Sawyer seems to be a newborn humanitarian, and I can't imagine Claire just leaving without checking on them. (By the way, are we 100% sure that Doug, Blonde Casualty & Jerome are dead, and not just injured?) Aridd 06:46, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

That background character that walked by,the first one, is the other female background member of team Locke. So far we have seen four background members on team locke. Jerome, Doug, Blonde Casualty, and the unnamed one. Steve was also said to be on Team Locke, but we have never seen him. My guess is that Steve and the unnamed female were killed in the attack, but thats just my opinion. Hopefull the producers will clear this little mess up for us. User:LostCloverfield42

Hm. I say Doug's for sure dead, and possibly the woman. However, Jerome's death seemed a little, well, glancing. He ust kind of flips, with no apparent wound. As for Steve, that's an uncertain. His death isn't seen, so we don't count it. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:19, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
What I mean by this is, there's no evidence either way. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:20, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
In the podcast, TPTB said that Steve was the second (male) redshirt killed. --Gluphokquen Gunih 19:29, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Well if the producers say Steve is dead and we haven't seen him anymore, chances are he's dead and gone. Nothing more we can do except keep an eye out for him in S5 and 6 episodes as well as the rest of S4 episodes after the episode where he "died".--Mistertrouble189 12:49, 14 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Ok I might take back what I said, someone has a picture of him alive and well on the S4 finale? He was seen on the 2nd Zodiac trip?--Mistertrouble189 15:14, 16 June 2008 (PDT)

Steve never seen with Team Locke

I've done a few screencaps of Team Locke on their way to the Barracks in "Confirmed Dead". [3] [4] [5] [6] Look at picture 1. From left to right we have Locke, Danielle, Alex, the blonde woman, Ben, Doug, Karl, someone standing behind Karl, Jerome, Claire with Aaron, Sawyer, Hurley and Charlotte. Picture 2 confirms Doug & Jerome, and reveals that the person behind Karl is the red-haired woman (also seen in picture 4 and later at the Barracks, and whose fate remains unknown). Picture 3 simply confirms the blonde woman. No Steve. Aridd 17:42, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

I'm pretty sure the podcast confirmed Steve was one of those killed in the attack on the barracks. Someone else might wanna confirm it though.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  18:01, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
Can we really trust the podcasts though? I mean I think that they said that what they say it non-canon. If that is true, then theoretically Steve should be with team Jack, shouldn't he? I personally beleive that Steve is with team Jack, not team Locke. Plus, someone said that when they said Steve was the second killed (which isn't true) they were kinda joking-ly saying it. I don't think that we can really take what the producers say to heart. I mean they got alot on their plate, I don't really think they put a whole lot of thought into which background survivor is alive or not. As for the red-headed lady (Played by Juliette Goodell) we are not shown what happend to this character. It is most likely that she is killed during the attack. The other survivors would not leave anyone behind. They could have seen her body when they were heading towards the jungle. But to bad they are not doing any more podcasts for a while... --LostCloverfield42 23:04, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I know the disscussion is pretty much done and moved on, but I just feel like saying that Steve Jenkins is alive and was seen on the 2nd Zodiac trip and as for the Red-haired Casualty, shes most likely deceased for she has not been seen for the rest of Season 4. If she isn't in the first few episodes for Season 5, then yeah probably dead.--Mistertrouble189 11:49, 4 October 2008 (PDT)


I think this article should be deleted. It's out of date, half the people on it are dead or off the island and most of the people left on the island now are together. --Ryan76el 08:42, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

Strong Disagree - there's no way this article should be deleted. Just because it's outdated doesn't mean it should be deleted. Since all of the mercenaries are dead does that mean we should delete the Mercenaries page? --CTS 12:36, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

This is not the same. If all the Oceanic 815 passengers died you shouldn't delete that page, however in this case it's like keeping a page created in season 1 about who lives at the caves and still keeping it when everyone now lives at the beach. --Ryan76el 08:22, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

Making an article about who lives at the caves isn't a bad idea actually. Just because that has passed on the show doesn't mean it's in the past. I never think of Lost as having passed, I always think of it in present tense. I never say Eko was a character on Lost, I say he is a character on Lost. There are still people who are watching Lost from Season's 1, 2, and 3...not everyone has caught up. I think, even though the factions are pretty much done with, they still merit there own article. --CTS 08:36, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

I don't mind this article. If someone is trying to sort out who went with who at the beginning of the season, particularly if they're trying to sort out how many redshirts died in the mercenary attack, then the article's good to have. Burnside65|talk|contributions 13:48, 13 June 2008 (PDT)

Structural changes to clarify

  • The treatment of semi-speculative information and extras was 1) not consistent between Jack & Locke's groups, and 2) not encyclopedically clarified for the readers of this article. Therefore, the tables have been clarified as containing main characters who were actually visible in the episode in which the split occurred: "The Beginning of the End". The subsidiary table/gallery which follows includes extras as well as other characters mentioned semi-canonically by podcasts. In this manner, 1) non-factual fan speculation (no matter how persuasive) have been removed such that 2) the average reader of this article will be able to evaluate for themselves the placement and fate of these minor characters, the fate of some of which may very possibly never be clarified by future episodes of Lost. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  18:42, 13 June 2008 (PDT)

Neil Frogurt

Should Neil Frogurt be moved to the main table for Jack's group and not the gallery as he was credited for two episodes and killed on screen?--Mistertrouble189 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New factions

Should we create a page/section for Locke's group in season 6, as well as Jacob's group, and then the two factions in Jacob's group, Richard's group and Hugo's group? BelleMacFarlane 09:05, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.