Talk: The Man in Black

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Man in Black article. General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article. Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here. (Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite, don't bite, have fun! Admins are here to help More discussion at the Forum	Article policies Canonicity Spoiler policy Theory policy

Unknown time period (presumably the 19th century)

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) but isn't the shirt Jacob is wearing in this scene the same one he is wearing in the scene he is killed? Taking that point away I find the type of ship we see to be a pretty shaky indicator of what time period this takes place in. I'm no boat expert but that looks like it could be a ship that was as old as the kind Columbus used or a more modern refurbished/reproduction version. --ISawDivinity 07:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• We are encouraged to believe the ship in question is the Black Rock, a slave ship. This gives it a time period (more or less) from about 1450 to 1833. Jack Dutton 20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Encouraged by what exactly?--ISawDivinity 07:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Human history. Jack Dutton 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• If it is indeed the Black Rock (which, why wouldn't it be?), then the year would be approximately 1845, given what we know about the Black Rock. --Managerpants 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• This same discussion is going on regarding a similar entry on Jacob's page. We have no actual evidence this ship is the Black Rock, you're assuming it is. I think it's the Black Rock too, but until we have some kind of evidence I think it's premature to take it for fact.--ISawDivinity 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's taking it as fact, but I also think it's silly to say that "we have no actual evidence that this ship is the Black Rock." It looks like the Black Rock, and it's the only ship we've ever seen on the show that looks like that. Why would it be anything other than the Black Rock? This is just like when people got up in arms about the statue ("it could be a different statue," even though we've never seen evidence of another statue) or Jacob's nemesis posing as Locke ("he could be referring to another loophole, so we don't know it's him"). I'm glad the writers/producers don't come right out and say everything, because it's not fun to pander to the lowest common denominator. --Managerpants 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• When the episode re-aired (with the text pop-ups at the bottom of the screen), a note identified it as "an early 1800s wooden sailing ship."

• Information provided in enhanced episodes is not considered canon. --Slimeham 18:06, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

• This will need correcting, as the latest episode, Ab Aeterno, seems to indicate the Black Rock arrived at the island during a storm, and was immediatly swept inland.--Pictish 11:33, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Capabilities of the Man in Black

Considering canon information from the latest episode "Dr. Linus" we have seen that the Man in Black posesses telekinetic capabilities (removing the shackle from Ben's leg) as if he was using the Force from STAR WARS. I made a corresponding entry that has been deleted, quite frankly, I fail to see "why"? I'd agree that this should be part of a larger section entitled "Capabilities of the Man in Black" and have therefore added it. Please assist to prevent unnecessary further mutilation as we are in the progress of learning about his capabilities. Thanx for listening and your assistance --SokratesOne 08:10, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Update 2009-05-18 After careful consideration of all of the below, it is determined that there is greater consensus for the name "Jacob's nemesis" than for "Jacob's enemy", so the article has been renamed. Clearly, the debate over the name for this character is unresolved, and won't be resolved until he is named on the show. Until that time, "Jacob's nemesis" seems to be the preferred temporary name.  Robert K S   tell me  12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Monster

Why not just call him/it "The Monster?" This is the only name he's ever been called by on the show, other than "the Island's security system." So far, those are the ONLY canonical labels for this character, and "The Monster" is far more commonly used (very few characters have refered to it as a security system), and is far more catchy. He/it has never been called Esau, Samuel, Dark, The Man in Black, Jacob's enemy/adversary/nemesis, the Infiltrator, or anything else, so...why are we trying to MAKE UP a clever name for him when the name has been clearly, explicitly provided? I don't get it. I think The Monster is the best and so far the only name for this guy.C.m. 22:42, February 4, 2010 (UTC)]

• His name in the script is Man in Black. We do usually go by the name in the script if there is no name identified by the episode itself.--Jackdavinci 07:48, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
• My problem with that is the difference between the monster and a monster. I do not think we consider that there might be multiple "monsters" - Jacob and MIB. (Jack Dutton 14:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC))
• I completely agree, we should call him "The Smoke Monster". I don't even know why you are making such a big problem out of this. The only name anyone has ever given him is "The Smoke Monster". When it was announced that Nestor Carbonell was going to be part of the main cast, Lostpedia decided that it should wait until his name appeared in LAX to finally put his picture on the Main Character's Portal. The same happened with Jeff Fahey and Zuleikha Robinson. If you care so much about respecting such details why call The Smoke Monster Man in Black? It just doesn't make any sense. Artreids 00:37, March 4, 2010 (UTC)Artreids

Dark

I propose 'Dark'. As Locke explains about backgammon: "There are two players. One side is light, and one side is dark." We are clearly being led to believe, so far, that Jacob is the light player.--ISawDivinity 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's Partner

Jacob's enemy is too presumptuous for de facto name. Since we do not know in what way he is related to or associated with Jacob, calling him "Jacob's Partner" is a good solution, since it only implies that they are associated in some way, which is unequivocally true. It seems like an ideal compromise name until more is revealed about him. Islandx 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Counterpart

Counterpart would also seem to be a very good name for him. While it still suggests a relation to Jacob, it's clear that they have some connection and Counterpart doesn't automatically insinuate an adversarial relation like Nemesis does. Definition form Dictionary.com:

1. a person or thing closely resembling another, esp. in function

4. one of two parts that fit, complete, or complement one another.--ISawDivinity 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's Nemesis

Just an opinion, should the temporary name given to this entity and article be named something like "Jacob's Nemesis"? Gakhandal 05:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jacobs Enemy Sounds more Evil and more Interesting Then Jacob's Nemesis and also this Guy was Jacobs First real Enemy so the title (Jacobs Enemy) kind of belonges to him —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobs Enermy (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T07:48:54.

• I guess it's a personal opinion, but how exactly is "enemy" more evil and interesting than "nemesis"? "Enemy" is a common everyday word, "nemesis" is a lot more evil sounding if you ask me, and is certainly a more specific and more interesting word.--Sloth 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• What does nemesis add that enemy lacks? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• It's specific. Enemy is too broad of a term. Ben is one of Jacob's enemies, for example. Nemesis adds duality to the name. He appears to be Jacob's equal who opposes him, The ying to his Yang. An unfriendly rival. Gakhandal 06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is all getting a bit ridiculous. The current name is simple and direct and questioning it seems pretty petty and semantic to me. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
• Perhaps, but semantics does matter. Saying he's Jacob's enemy implies his role is of lesser importance. For all we know, and from what has been implied, he's the mastermind of a lot of things that have happened throughout the series (<- purely speculation). This alone merits some singular significance other than beeing mearly referred to as Jacob's enemy.Gakhandal 06:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Where are you getting that he's Jacob's opposite? For all we know, he's just some pissed off pirate that found a way to kill Jacob, whereas Jacob is a godlike being. -- LightSpectra 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote "purely speculation" for reason. While nothing is certain, it has been implied that this entity has some connection to Jacob that surpasses a mere acquaintanceship.Gakhandal 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a pretty good educated guess. These two's conflict seems to harken back to the first season, when Locke explained backgammon to Walt: "Two players, two sides. One is light, one is dark." Dualism. Black and white. One of the big themes/motifs of the show. Makes too much sense to be a coincidence. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• that Jacob's nemesis is much more appropriate in this case. Jacob probably has many enemies. --Pyramidhead 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Add me to the Jacob's nemesis camp --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 10:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that Jacob's Nemesis is the more appropriate title. --Soup76 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I vote for Jacob's Nemesis. --LoZeno12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• If this is a true vote than I also vote "Nemesis". It is more singular to one person and not multiple people.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that it should be changed to Jacob's Nemesis, per NEVERGIVEUP's reasoning. --Managerpants 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I like Jacob's nemesis as well.Muldernscully 13:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I also get the feeling this article will eventually be merged with the article on the Smoke Monster.--Puddin Tame 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I also go with Nemesis over Enemy. However, I suspect we'll rename it again (if we do now) when we learn more about him in Season 6. Heck, it could end up being Jacob's Brother, but realistically, we should expect to learn his name. humpton 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I do not think we have enough evidence to call him Jacob's Enemy OR Nemsis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beavedale (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T11:27:53.
  • Beavedale raises a good point. We know very little about this man and to simply assume that he and Jacob are "enemies" seems to suppose too much about the nature of the island and those like Jacob and Esau/Jacob'sNemesis/Enemy/Etc. Of course they don't seem to be the best of friends, but enemies has a different connotation and what that is Jacob-centric ONLY. By calling him "Jacob's enemy," we negate the personality of the very entity we are creating a profile for. This seems misguided to me. NiccoloA 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob had more than one enemy (This guy and Ben) but Nemesis is kind of like Mario and Bowser, ya know? Sounds alot better.--Nintendo_Warrior 18:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever we decide, we're probably gonna need a lotta redirects :-) --AddictedToLost 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I second Jacob's Nemesis, or Moses. --fredglass 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• A Vote for Nemesis. That is a far more apt title than Enemy. Calling him Esau seems rather presumptive, as it assumes that IS his name, while "Jacob's Nemesis" is precisely what he has revealed himself to be.--Bdjsb7 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I vote for Jacob's Nemesis as well. The word in Nemesis in Latin implies a polar opposite, not just and enemy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T15:32:55.
• Jacob's nemesis is the most informational and objective name from what we know from the season 5 finale.Pierre 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's Nemesis - only cos nemesis is a cooler word than enemy. Mr. X? Esau? Come ON! You can't just invent names for characters, this is an encyclopedia not fan fiction >.< --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's nemesis personal favorite. Also about Anti-Jacob, we don't know if he is his polar opposite. The fact that he wore Black, had a manipulative and murderous nature as well as the fact the Monster (as Alex) made Ben change his beliefs from a follower of Jacob's to a follower of Pseudo-Locke's, point more to a possibility that he is the Monster, rather than Jacob's evil brother (though it's possible he's both). --Orhan94 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's Nemesis. It's better. And can we delete Esau? The fact that someone made that page is just insulting.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That is insulting. Whoever made that page: you don't write the show. This site is to document the show not invent things for it.Integrated (User / Talk) 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's Nemesis. The name is perfect until we learn more about him. User:Spoutnik 44

• Anyone who says that Ben is "Jacob's Enemy" is wrong. Jacob is certainly Ben's enemy, but it was made VERY apparent that Jacob doesn't care about Ben at all, and Jacob certainly isn't giving Ben the pleasure of hating him. It is in no way ambiguous who "Jacob's Enemy" is referring to. Therefore, until a real name surfaces, or until Samuel becomes a better idea, I say leave it as is. --MJuice 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jacob's nemesis gets a vote from me as well (because it's a little premature to change it to Esau if my guess is right) -DesmondFaraday 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's nemesis I know its pointless since most of you are saying yes, but they mean the same thing so does it make any difference at all? Would anyone who read this artical gain anything from seeing Nemesis in the title instead of EnemyWild ste 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's enemy is just fine. "Nemesis" doesn't necessarily indicate a single person any more than "enemy" does—someone can have multiple nemeses, just like they can can have multiple enemies. Also, "nemesis" has the extra meaning of someone who seems unbeatable. While it's true that he killed Jacob in the end, it's not clear that he was an unbeatable nemesis the whole time. And we should definitely not make up a name. Any proper name would be non-canon at this point; they use fake names in casting calls all the time. We should use a common descriptive—not prescriptive—term, keeping it encyclopedic and neutral. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• - Per Graft. I can't believe people are considering Esau at this point. As for Mr. X...that's a terrible name. It sounds like a pornstar or something. Keep Jacob's enemy.--Baker1000 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Let's keep Jacob's enemy untill we get the real name from an official source. (No matter if that means we have to wait 8-10 months!)--erikire 05:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• By calling him enemy or nemesis we are taking sides. Are we sure who is the good side? I prefer something more neutral like "Jacob's antagonist" --LOST-Hunter61 07:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Enemy or Nemesis, with a redirect from "Fake Locke".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's _____ is the wrong way to address this character. They could both be a part of a larger community for all we know, and defining him by his relationship to Jacob is very narrowing. As has been stated elsewhere, the only official name we have is "Man #2". It's not very interesting, but it is correct.--Chocky 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• There's nothing wrong with either Enemy or Nemesis - So just leave it as is. Un-Locke is the Enemy and Nemesis of Jacob as much as Jacob is the Enemy of the Un-Locke. And once his name is revealed (if he indeed he has one) then it can obviously be changed.--Seaniepie 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• - We don't know enough about either character to make judgements or assumptions just yet. Nemesis is purely aesthetic and while the community may like it, it appears to be very unencyclopedic to other visitors to our site. --Uncertainty 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's Nemesis is OK, but I vastly prefer the Man in Black, since you can also use the MiB acronym to save time.--Beema|talk|contributions 17:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• While keeping this page on "watch" there are constant updates changing the name from "Jacob's Nemesis" and "The Man in Black" is getting a little silly! Saying the "Man" in black is saying he is a man but no human I know can shape shift, be smoke, appear as someone else and keep memories from another person (ex Locke's last thought and memory of death). So calling him a man is far from his actual being. My vote is for Jacob's Nemesis, or Dark Entity. He embodies both, I would be happy with either one but I think that it is getting ridiculous having someone change the name of the character back and forth. I am sure we won't know his name for quite awhile so I think the hosts of this page should settle this quickly. Some had commented on how this Lostpedia isn't a democracy and I agree, we have the ability to edit an add things but that's it. The hosts (I'm sorry I don't know your names)have actually spoken to the writers and producers so they should decide. Phryrosebdeco23 03:57, February 5, 2010 (UTC)Phryrosebdeco

Jacob's Adversary

• Jacob's Adversary, but nemesis works too. Belle42 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer "Jacob's Adversary."--Puddin Tame 03:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Jacob's Adversary." or "Jacob's Antagonist --LOST-Hunter61 07:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob's adversary or Jacob's opponent" --Blueeagleislander 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob's Adversary seems like the best suggestion yet. It implies contempt and competition, which sounds about right. Either way, this is only going to matter for about eight months or so. We'll probably find out his name early next season. --AddictedToLost 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Fakeob? As in fake Jacob. I know he's not pretending to be Jacob but he seems to be Jacob's contemporary and he kind of faked being Locke. Also, it seems as if he had to fake out Jacob to some extent. It doesn't make perfect sense and I know it isn't much better than "Flocke" except, in my opinion, it is catchy.

"Jacob's ____" isn't an accurate name

Calling him by the name of his rival completely trivializes what the character is and makes him one-dimensional. He clearly has an agenda beyond just killing Jacob, and Jacob doesn't own him as far as we know. He needs a name that does NOT hinge upon who he's against. It's the very same reason the Others are called "The Others" and not "The Oceanic Survivors' Enemies". The earliest chronological incarnation of him that we've seen in the show is in the form of a man that as far as we know from the casting sheet is named Samuel. That should be the name of this character until we hear otherwise. He's not "Jacob's" anything. He's his own entity and needs his own name. It wouldn't be the first time Lostpedia named characters from a casting sheet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gutsdozer (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T20:23:33.

We have pages called Sayid's father, etc. Samuel is a fake name used for casting purposes. This was never intended to be this character's name. A temporary name, I think, will work just fine. It's better than making something up, which is what Samuel would be. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• But Sayid's father is obviously Sayid's father. Their relationship is 100% obvious and explicit. The relationship between Jacob and this character is not (yet) clear.--Chocky 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that naming this character "Jacob's ______" is overly presumptuous, as we have very little information regarding the man's characteristics, motives, morals, etc. The man was listed on the official cast list as "Man #2", which I think is a much more suitable title for the article, considering the aforementioned lack of information about the character. --Bencordes 15:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

100% agree. Think about that we don't know Jacob's name, and this guy's name is Samuel. So, would it be possible to call Jacob as "Samuel's Enemy"? Jacob's Something will provide a one-sided view to this character in most cases. This is totally a different situation from "Jacob's Father", or "Jacob's Brother", since those examples refer to a family connection which is not subjective. If we have to call this character "Jacob's X", then x here should be a neutral term. I'm not sure, but something like 'rival' could be better than those evil nicknames which reflect our personal views to him. --Paintbox 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree- we know far too little about him to define him solely around Jacob, nemesis or not. For a lack of anything better, I think we should use 'Man #2' as stated above- that is his official name.--Chocky 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons listed above. Connecting him to Jacob and describing them as enemies only takes away from this character and makes assumptions when little is known. --Uncertainty 16:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Jacob's partner? That's one thing he definately is, in one way or another.

Man #2

These are the only two official names to be given to Titus Welliver's character on the show. It's surprising to me that both of these names are disregarded by the majority as options. Calling him "Jacob's enemy" is overly presumptuous, as we have very little information regarding the man's characteristics, motives, morals, etc. The man has stated that he wants to kill Jacob, and appears to have been successful, but this act or want should not dictate his name. The man was listed on the official cast list as "Man #2", which I think is a much more suitable title for the article, considering the aforementioned lack of information about the character. Additionally, the name Samuel appeared on the casting call for this character. It's my opinion that Man #2 and Samuel are the only neutral name choices, and are thus appropriate for the Lost encyclopedia, until we are presented with additional information regarding the character. --Bencordes 15:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If I had to choose one of those, I'd go with Man #2. Samuel is just a fake name to disguise a character he's playing. But I think "Jacob's enemy" is the best we can do for now. -Kaisle 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything other than Man #2 is conjecture. Only two names are offered in the show. From the credits we have Man #2. From the show Ben offers the nickname Moses. Anything other than Man #2 or Moses is not based on the show and is entirely fan opinion. It belongs on the theory page. Jack Dutton 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If no other name is debated as the accepted one. --Orhan94 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is my opinion that this person is indeed Jacob's enemy, we do not know the true intentions of Man Number 2 or Jacob. Our opinions and guesses should not matter and should not cloud the importance of keeping Lostpedia encyclopedic. The credits lists him as Man Number 2 and I believe we should leave him as such until it is revealed who he really is. Calling him "enemy" or "nemesis" implies a hatred that we don't understand or know about yet. To avoid speculation and the innate bias in calling him a "nemesis" we should call him "Man Number 2." --Uncertainty 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

for the above reasoning. Fact is, it's the only official name we've got to go with so far and his actions and speech are not proof enough of his exact intentions. It is entirely possible that Jacob was waiting for his own demise to complete his plan for the island. Until we see the aftermath of this mans actions, we shouldn't assume anything about his motives or non-physical characteristics. --MightyRearranger 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Man #2" is clearly the only name we have for this character, but there is a technical reason not to use that as the name of the article -- the pound sign (#) has to be escaped in URLs and it will be difficult to link to the article. LOST-Zaphod 10:24, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Samuel

Samuel would be a nice temporary name like in the casting call. --Paintbox 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree "Samuel" is the only choice we have a offical reason for: the castingAnubis2705 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Why call it "Jacob's" anything? Until we know his official name, use Samuel from the casting call and then rename it later with a redirect for any old links to it. It's WAY less cumbersome of a term than "Jacob's ancient rivalry acquaintance island buddy" or whatever we want to call it here. Gutsdozer 16:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded --Lkin3 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to name him Samuel, then you have to change Jacob's name to James. We know Samuel is not his name, so it is ridiculous to name him something we know is not his name. Jack Dutton 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• How do you know it isn't his name? It could be, but it musn't. Do you think "Jacob's enemy" is his name? "Hello, my name isn't John Locke I cheated you, Ben, my real name is Jacob's Enemy!" - "Well, that is the most ridiculous name I heard since I met someone called 'Fake Henry'! Oh, damned! That was me!" The problem is and will stay for nearly a year, that we don't know his REAL name, but normaly castingnames are wrong, if there is a reason to keep the real rolename secret, because it was already mentioned in the show, e.g. Jacob, Radzinsky etc.Anubis2705 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Casting calls are known not to be canonical, and have had "errors" (differences with the episode as broadcast) in the past. It may be a canonical name, and it may not, but at this point a mere casting call is insufficient. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of cases confirm that the names on the casting calls aren't the names of the characters (Hendricks isn't Millbanks, Carole Littleton isn't Donna, Alexandra Krosney's 1953 Eloise and Alice Evans' 1977 Eloise aren't Sophie, Captain Gault's name isn't Huston and Grandfather Shephard's name is Ray not Hal). --Orhan94 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Esau

• Esau Heck, call him Esau. (j/k) —Josiah Rowe 06:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm all for Esau until we have a real name. Aren't we used to using nicknames that the fans give until we have something real? Remember Tom? Daveman424 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Esau and for the exact same reason as Daveman424. It's creative, it's original, and even if it doesn't end up being his name, it rings off the tongue a hell of a lot better than Anti-Jacob or Jacob's ____. Aesthetics are everything for names and Esau v. Jacob just sounds right to me. NiccoloA 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's more likely that people call him Esau than "Jacob's [something]". Dancing Penguin (Talk!) 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• . Making up a name for a character that has never been referenced ANYWHERE is a terrible idea. Why don't we just start making up names for all of the random nameless characters like Anesthesiologist or Old Scooter Man? Hell, I put forward a proposal here and now that Libby's last name is officially Roberts. Let us now go change her article to read "Libby Roberts".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• . Esau is Jacob's Brother/Enemy in the bible. people are using that name because it is a clever reference. Just because the show hasnt mentioned it doesnt mean you cant use it. The writers of the show put millions of biblical and other references and chances are his name will turn out to be Esau in the end. Jeez read a bible or sumthing lol :P
  • . Which is why I've been calling him Esau. Until we get a definitive name from the producers, it's a good way to describe him (not name him). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scribble22 (talk • contribs) 2010-02-19T11:28:38.
• Who is voting Esau? What's your reasoning? There is NO canonical support for Esau, it was made up by someone who thought they were being clever here on Lostpedia. If we're going to name the article "Esau," we might as well same it "Susan." I mean, seriously, "Scruffy Guy With Male Pattern Baldness Who Wants to Kill Jacob" would be more a appropriate title than Esau. Some people... -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm... Ok. You seem to be missing quite a few things. It's obvious you don't like the idea of naming him Esau, but I think you're argument against it is just obtuse. First, there IS absolutely support for Esau. Jacob from Genesis has been an important reference to Lost's Jacob for quite some time now. It seems rather obvious that if not the same as the Jacob in Genesis, then the two are absolutely connected, which would entail Jacob's "nemesis" to be connected to Esau as well. Really now, I understand that you don't like the idea, but belittling it really shows more that you're just unwilling to listen to any other argument for any name that is not the one you voted for. I personally don't really like the "Jacob's ____" at all, I think it sounds clumsy and forces too much focus on Jacob as the center of the show when Esau could very well have as important a role. That said, however, I don't belittle the idea because I understand and am open to the name, "Jacob's ____" as well. Just take it into consideration. NiccoloA 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • 1)"Esau" is a name, a name that has nothing to do with the character more than sharing the name of an "enemy." Other than "God Loves you as He Loved Jacob" I don't know of any canonical references the the biblical Jacob. It would not be in line with Lostpedia's style policies (which you should probably read) to give that character a non-canon name. However, "Jacob's ______" is a description, not a name, and can therefore be and accurate title for the character's article until a canon name is known.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is against at least half of the official naming policies on the Wiki sites as we don't name character based on what we think is the best choice for their name, otherwise we should name a lot of people in the families of other characters with biblical names (Benjamin, Ruth, Naomi, Aaron etc.) --Orhan94 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Um... Like who? NiccoloA 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I doubt you could actually find a wiki that explicitly states that it's against policy to invent names for characters because... well... because it's obvious. It would be like having a policy that states that you're not allowed to create an in-universe article for Jean-Luc Picard or a policy that states that users must make posts from some sort of electronic device. Another way to look at it is to consider a user who has no idea about biblical stuff who comes to this page looking for the article on the man who seems to be an enemy of Jacob. What do you think is more likely they search for: "Jacob's enemy" or "Esau". And if they even manage to find the "Esau" article, imagine their confusion when they try to figure out where the name came from. If you want to have a character named Esau, feel free to write your own show. Beyond that, we just don't make up names for characters that have nothing to do with anything established either in-universe or by officially released material from ABC or TPTB. Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• As the individual who first coined the term Esau in reference to Jacob's nemesis (though admittedly others may have later arrived at the same term independently), and as one who freely uses the name on blog posts and in discussion, even I am opposed to actually changing the name of the article to such at this time. I do, however, maintain my theory that his name will be revealed as such on the show (but I do not believe that are brothers or necessarily share any other traits with Issac's sons; rather I see them as having the same dynamic as God and Satan in the book of Job). Yet until my theory is officially confirmed, it remains only a theory and it would thus be inappropriate to rename the article as such. -User:DesmondFaraday 02:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• One of the biggest flaws of this site is that the "Trivia" sections are usually half-comprised of random literary references, as if the editors are saying "Hey, look at what I've read." It definitely wouldn't help if an ostensibly informative site were to use one as a place mat for actual information.--AtxAxLoss 03:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Fans have made up names for characters before (Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl). Why couldn't we create a fitting name for this one too. They do seem to be equal/opposites like the Biblical Jacob and Esau were. And he is kind of hairy too, like "Esau" means. -JamesyWamesy 17:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Because "Sexy blue striped shirt girl" isn't a name we made up for her character, it was a description given to her by fans in lieu of a name. There's a huge difference between calling her SBSSG and calling her, say, Katrina. Similarly, there's a huge difference between calling him Jacob's nemesis (a description of the role he plays) and Esau (a name some fans randomly made up).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Because I already knew it would come down to a biblical battle between them, when I picked my account name in march 2009. But I will keep the outcome to myself, I don't want to spoil it for everybody. ~~Esau's~~ : Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. Afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them. ~~1:42, 19 March 2010 (GMT)~~

Anti-Jacob

• I am once again going to make a pitch for Anti-Jacob. Right now it has been very strongly suggested that this character is the polar opposite of everything Jacob, from the color of their shirts to their discussions about people. Unlike Jacob's Enemy or Jacob's nemesis, Anti-Jacob suggests an equal, a yang to Jacob's ying rather than a subordinate relationship.    Willo    talk    contribs    email   17:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• I like the name "Anti-Jacob." He is portrayed/suggested to be Jacob's equal yet oppositional other - black to white, ying to yang. Jacob to Anti-Jacob. --Qwerty7412369 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• We yet don't know he is the opposite of Jacob, or the nature of their conflict. It is too rash.

The Infiltrator

One thing we can definately label him as with confidence is an infiltrator. It gives him his own identity (rather than by association with Jacob), is not speculative, and offers a unique and telling description. Islandx 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Jacob (J.J.) Abrams. Need I say more? --Tpbaxter 19:14, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Man in Black

• The man in black He is wearing a black shirt in the first scene and this is what Randall Flagg is often called in The Stand. Duggie2 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• The man in black. That is how he is referred to in the official ABC recap, and thus it is the closest thing we come to an official "name". Should pretty much end the discussion. --Pierre 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• The ABC recap is authoritative, right? Side note, Duggie2, re: Flagg, was just thinking that... consider what Flagg's purpose is in DT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliwein (talk • contribs) 2009-05-22T13:32:07.

• The ABC recap is the closest thing to a canonical source that we have. I DEFINITELY AGREE. This is the best alternative until we find his real name / more canonical source. --Doughnutguy 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm just wondering why this argument was never really considered. Even the producers call him the Man in Black for now. --Cul-de-zack 21:21, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
• Lost: Final Chapter calls him "Man in black" (he is also called "Jacob's nemesis") -JamesyWamesy 04:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know where this Dark Entity nonsense came from. I think we should use The Man In Black until he is given a real name on the show.--Beema|talk|contributions 17:42, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to get more definitive that this, short from being named on the show: Damon Lindelof: "Call him the Man in Black." (01/30/10) Lost Producers Comment on Leaked Footage Eliwein 23:58, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is the one that makes the most sense right now. He's referred to as such in the recaps, the podcasts, he dresses in black, the Monster is black, it's not assuming anything about his name... it just makes sense. Illyrias Acolyte 02:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Damon and Carlton have already called him by this name, so it should be used. --Cith456 04:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Already voiced my opinion in support of this uption, but I also think this is what we should call him because this is what they refer to him by in Lost: The Final Chapter special aired before the show. --Beema|talk|contributions 05:57, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• I have heard many close to the show (Darlton and Michael Emerson on the recap) use this nomenclature for our mysterious friend. It works both on a literal - because he IS wearing black - and a figurative level.  WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  18:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• This seems like the most logical name to use until we learn his actual name. Incidentally, I really hope we can all say that we've reached a consensus on this now, because if this page keeps arbitrarily moving, I think I'm going to have a nervous breakdown. Or nosebleeds. Or something. Triptolemus 00:09, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
• For most of the first five seasons, the "Man in Black" only appears as "the Smoke Monster". Reading this article for the, um, character, it's really really awkward to see it named "the Man in Black" when it doesn't appear as a man at all. I would prefer to identify it as "the Smoke Monster" when it appears in its black smoke form, and as character-name-in-quotes when it's impersonating someone (i.e. "Jack saw 'Christian' and followed him into the forest"). Mblase75 19:57, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

This Guy

Or perhaps That Guy. --Fixman 04:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Other Proposals

• Merge it with The Monster I mean, he is the "Monster," so why not merge the two articles?
• Bad Twin comes from the first season novel, and it is a recurrent theme from the show's inception. The name Tom means "twin." Fair-haired Juliet has a sister who is a brunette. Black and white tiles. Black and white stones. Black and white shirts. Black and white thread. Black and white Dharma logos. One guys lives in the left foot; the other would be the right foot. Bad Twin is a pretty good name Jack Dutton 03:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Shapeshifting Pirate.PSewick 13:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Haha, I like it! Realistically, Jacob's nemesis is the better term. An enemy is anyone who opposes you in some way, while a nemesis is your equal and opposite, the most formidable enemy you will encounter. He is not an enemy; he is the enemy. Amandakay1 14:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Moses since he gave a knowing look to Jacob after Ben mentioned Moses, or "Fake-Locke" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beavedale (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T11:27:53.

• Moses had a brother who was pharaoh, and another brother who was Aaron. Jack Dutton 02:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• The OtherJust a Thought, but why not call him "The Other"?--Idipsum 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's MurdererI don't think that "Jacob's Enemy" nor "Jacob's Nemesis" are accurate names. We really don't have enough information to name him as such, even though it is true that this character killed Jacob. Due to that, I think we should rename the article to something like "Jacob's Murderer".--Doughnutguy 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• That'd be Ben. Assuming Jacob's enemy/nemesis was impersonating Locke, he still couldn't kill him. --[Proxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

ser:AProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

ictedToLost|AddictedToLost]] 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• {(Comment}} But Ben didn't kill him at least. It is "Locke" who kicks him into the fire while he is still alive. So you can't really say, that Ben killed him, because Ben stops attacking Jacob when he falls towards him. At least Ben hits him two times somewhere between shoulder and chest. Someone who can raise people from the dead and lived for hundreds of years should survive that. And at least that is the problem: How can we call someone Jacob's murder, as long we don't know if he's really deadAnubis2705 12:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jacob's CellmateI vote for Jacob's Cellmate. They have been 'banished' to this island in my opinion. Just a thought. --Silimike

• I don't like either name. We don't know enough about this character to know he's an enemy. For all we know, he may be doing Jacob a favor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frede (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T17:30:17.

• Mr. X I would like to propose Mr.X as it has caught on in the Lostpedia forums, he is commonly being referred to as Mr.X, I disagree with "Jacob's Nemesis" because as it has been stated before, Jacob does not have only one Nemesis'. He needs to have a specific name for his specific nature.- Mr.Bentham —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Bentham (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T18:42:01.

• Mr.X suits alot of people because in popular culture, the letter X is assigned often to aspects, places, or people of mystery, unknown, or power. All of which this man can be categorized as. There is a current voting poll in the LP Forum Here [1] and right now it is a close race with Mr.X leading and closely following Fakob. ~~Mr.Bentham

• The ManHow about "The Man"? Remember: "There's a Man going round, taking names, and he decides, who to free, and who to blame...". I'm pretty sure that will be referenced next year, maybe even in the form of an episode title. HenrieSchnee 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jacob's Frenemy How about Jacob's Frenemy? Jacob calls him "friend" even after he expresses his desire to kill him. DocAlpertz 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• We actually have no idea if these guys hate each other yet. Sure, the guy might have killed Jacob, but it seems to be some sort of a cosmic contest. Jacob's Adversary seems more appropriate in my opinion.--Exer 505 03:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mr. Loophole In the spirit of Mr. Friendly, Mr. Loophole is an appropriate interim name maintaining the tradition of Lostpedia and the show's producers. Jack Dutton 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, this is not a website where we invent names for characters, this is an encyclopaedia. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Then his name is Man #2. Anything else is conjecture. Jack Dutton 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"this is not a website where we invent names for characters, this is an encyclopaedia" Tom (cough)--ISeeDeadPixels 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fakeob--Samadeus 10:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fakob --LOSTinDC 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not John Locke. Sound OK? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Smoke Monster or 'Pillar of Smoke'

He is referred to as a 'pillar of smoke' specifically on the show, and the casual readers of this site are going to be looking for information on the 'smoke monster'. Period. -- Xbenlinusx 04:49, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

The Locke Monster

My cable provider's episode descriptions keep referring to Smokey/MIB as "The Locke Monster" obviously a play on The Smoke Monster. (Kdc2 21:33, March 7, 2010 (UTC))

Breaking the Circle

We need someone to go back and look through the previous episodes. The ash around the house (now known to be Rose & Bernard's cabin, not Horrice's as previously thought) was broken, I get a feeling Locke was the one who broke the circle around the house (but I can't remember clearly). Perhaps Jacob's Enemy was trapped there by Jacob, and the ash was holding him there? (See Hostage Theory) and this also brings up the point that: Ben took Locke to this house, saying Jacob lived there - Had Ben been going to Jacob's Enemy seeking guidance all this time? This would all be such a grand twist of fate if Locke initially freed Jacob's Enemy. Ahrotahntee 08:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "now known to be Rose & Bernard's cabin"? It's a completely different cabin. Marc604 10:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think it might be safe to say that the guy who said "HElp Me" to Locke was not Jacob, but this guy. He's a trickster.--Xocgx 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• And on that count, he got what he wanted. Monsterfurby 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You might think it's safe to say that, but it's not. Until it's confirmed (or even suggested) in the show, it's pure speculation. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

This issue about who said "Help me" makes sense. I mean, if this "nemesis" can take the identity he wants, he could be Christian. What's more, I strongly believe he is related to the monster, because in 5x12, the monster/Alex told him to obey the false Locke. As John was in the Temple as well, but not next to Ben, or the monster did not turn up earlier in Dharmaville when Ben summonned it and John was by his side, maybe Jaboc's enemy is the monster itself. Or at least, during the time John was away (and later on he came back to Dharmaville), he went to tell the Monster what to do. Anyway, it seems to me that Jacob's enemy/Christian wanted John to move the Island in order to get him out of that place, so when he came back, the nemesis could take his appearance. Then, the question is, why the enemy used the monster to convince Ben to obey John, so he was the one who eventually killed Jacob? Why didn't "John" stab Jacob himself? Well, it may have something to do with the Rules... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chusdegreit (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T11:02:02.

• First of all, it should be noted that the brocken part of the circle of ash was pushed in from the outside, in what looks like one delibrate motion. This could not have been Locke picking up a little bit of ash to examine it on his first visit to the cabin or Hurly randomly stepping in the ash while trying to run away from the cabin. Seondly, the person we all thought was Jacob up until now has brown eyes and is therefore not "Jacob's enemy". Also, the brown eyed mystery man was seen in the cabin with Christian, so they were not the same entity. Iburnedthemuffins 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably counter productive for me to take the time to question all the assumptions made in this thread but I will just add the contents of two episode for addition to your theory. Please review and take into account the scenes in "Something Nice Back Home" and "Cabin Fever" where Claire interacts with Christian. Taking this specific scenes into account will probably clarify the central question of this thread. Mister vijay 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• If indeed MIB inhabited the cabin, then the oldman that appears as an initial image of Jacob is in fact MIB. Should that be confirmed, then changes must be made to Jacob's wiki entry Aepma 23:08, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Where to Put Him in Lostpedia?

Well, this character's features caused something new about the Lostpedia concept. Although the character itself is a supporting character portrayed by a guest star, Titus Welliver is not the only who portrays Jacob's Enemy. We've learnt that John Locke is dead, and most probably Terry O'Quinn is going to be the main actor who'll portray Jacob's enemy. So the question is: "can there be a supporting character who is portrayed by a regular cast member?" Paintbox 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Since "Jacob's enemy" took over Locke's persona, i suppose the answer is "yes". Ben was right: Dead is Dead. dposse 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"most probably Terry O'Quinn" This is not true. Don't state your own opinions and say "most probably". Where's your evidence? --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, of course i have to state my own opinion. I don't have the ability to state some other's opinion. Sorry. Here's the information we already have: Jacob's Enemy appeared in six episodes(as far as we know), and Terry O'Quinn portrayed this character in six episodes.(So the percentage is 100% so far) Again, as far as we know another character that O'Quinn portrays is dead. We saw his corpse. And we've learnt that actually there's no resurrection on the island. That means "there is no John Locke anymore - except flashbacks". With these two important information, we can say if Terry O'Quinn will continue show as a regular, the main character he's gonna portray should be "Jacob's Enemy". This is not a prediction, or a theory, just a result of our current information. (Paintbox 13:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

• Where are you getting this information? Can you cite an episode or interview? Mister vijay 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. That way,it would be a spoiler. All i have been trying to do is analyzing the current situation. (Paintbox 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Um..... what?? Mister vijay 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, actually the question was simple. Whether it's a theory, a speculation or not we have a new character never mentioned before. Simply i was asking where to add this new character. Although he's one of the supporting characters, in my humble opinion we cannot simply put him on the "Supporting Characters Portal" because of the Terry O'Quinn's co-portrayal of this character. Until this time no regular cast member portrayed a supporting character, and i just expected a disscussion about what to do in this 'new' situation. I hope i could be able to express clearly this time. (Paintbox 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

• Perhaps I wasn't being sufficiently clear. I was referring to your previous post where you claim that John Locke is no more and that Terry has been portraying Jacob's Enemy for the past six episodes or so when I asked for evidence or a source in the canon. You again assert this to be verified in your response. This "theory" is a prime example of every problem mentioned in the theory policy page. It contains Logical fallicies, shoehorning and wishful thinking. Mister vijay 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Vijay, actually i thought that you were kidding. You can see on the main characters portal, John Locke's current situation is deceased. We have seen his corpse in the crate. Poor John Locke didn't want to kill Jacob. He can't want, because he's dead. It's clearly confirmed that the one who visited Jacob along with Ben, was Jacob's Enemy appeared in Locke's form. Not John Locke. A totally different character. I just can't understand why do you say that "Locke and Jacob's Enemy are the same characters" while the Locke's body was laying outside, and some other person appeared in Locke's form was encouraging Ben to kill Jacob.Paintbox 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So what you and pretty much everyone else is saying is that a character who appeared is over 80 episodes and has perhaps a dozen centric episodes died in 5.07 in the most disgraceful way possible and was replaced by a character with about five lines and introduced in the season finale of the penultimate season and that furthermore this character has been written into the entire series by connecting him with pretty much every unexplained event in the show (look up the definition of shoehorning)? Despite the fact that every episode refers to John Locke as "special" and having an important role, he's now a pawn in a game between Jacob and a character that has no name? How many entries had to be revised to accomodate this theory? Wouldn't it be far easier to simply write "A corpse that physically looks like John Locke and played by Terry Oquinn was shown?" Based on previous plot twists such as the dead bodies the fake flight 815 and the moment when we see two Lockes in the same scene there are far more simple explanations possible that do not contradict the other 101 episodes. If I were a new viewer and had only watched the finale I could understand thinking this but for those of us who have sat through over 100 episodes should really be questioning this "conclusion". Mister vijay 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• "So what you and pretty much everyone else is saying is that a character who appeared is over 80 episodes and has perhaps a dozen centric episodes died in 5.07 in the most disgraceful way possible and was replaced by a character with about five lines and introduced in the season finale of the penultimate season and that furthermore this character has been written into the entire series by connecting him with pretty much every unexplained event in the show?" Unfortunately yes, i exactly say that. I'm hugely disappointed also, but it's a fact that John Locke passed away. And won't be back as long as he doesn't act like a dead. lol. Perhaps Jack was right when he said to Locke "Maybe You're not special. You're just an ordinary old man".(Paintbox 19:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

• I disagree that it is "fact" that Locke is dead. This "cliffhanger" leaves the options open. I noticed that Juliet Burke's page says something like "her fate is unknown". I would have preferred people this to be written. We shouldn't just jump onto this bandwagon in an eagerness for explanations. Yes, we are shown a body but multiple episodes show multiple characters refer to this character as Locke, and his actions, dialogue, etc. are all consistent with the previous Locke. That's all I have to say but I am going to love it when the final season starts, the dead body is revealed to be a fake or from the future, "Jacob's Enemy" is revealed to be a red herring, and all these entries will have to be retracted. I wouldn't go crazy creating all these entries about this character because it's going to get deleted. Mister vijay 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke? Really?

What's with all the certainty that Locke was actually Jacob's enemy/nemesis? It's obviously a possibility, but there are several other possibilities and a huge lack of vital information. We can assume that the same thing that happened to Locke also happened to Christian. Therefore, does that make Christian was also really Jacob's enemy/nemisis? In addition, Locke has been saying from the beginning that he's had a connection with the island. He's had various dreams, such as the Nigerian airplane and Horace building the cabin. Why would an increased "awareness" of the island now mean it's not actually him? Plus, the LOST writers tend to like to have fun with vague terms; so just because Jacob's enemy/nemesis said in the opening scene that he'd find a loophole to kill Jacob doesn't necessarily mean that's the same loophole that Jacob was talking about with Locke even though they appear to be related. Considering all things, there are three possible loophole that he's referring to: Locke coming back to life, Ben returning to the island, and (if it is Jacob's nemesis) Locke finding a way to kill Jacob. All are things that shouldn't have happened but did. A couple other points:

• This isn't the first time that Locke's avoided killing someone. He also didn't kill Anthony Cooper. In fact, this incident was remarkably similar to that one. Locke kicking Jacob into the fire is similar to Locke wrapping up Cooper in a rug/mat and bringing him back to the Others; it's a finishing touch but someone else dealt the fatal blows.
• When Locke first emerges in 2007 on the island, not only is he in his funeral clothes but he also has all of his memories up to when Ben strangled him. So are we to assume that no only does this nemesis/enemy have shapeshifting powers but also can read dead people's memories? I know we're talking about LOST here, but that just seems too far fetched. I think within the LOST universe that there may be other explanations.

Regardless, it's obviously a possibility, but until it's either proven through the show or confirmed by the writers/producers, I don't think we should be treating this assumption as fact. --AddictedToLost 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I desagree. Real John Locke is proved to be dead, as his corpse was inside the cargo box. Also, Jacob asks "John" if he finally managed to find a loophole, but there is no reply, he just looks at Jacob. If the true John had been asked that, he would have answered he didnt know what a loophole is. --Chusdegreit 18:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Chusdegreit

As I said, all things considered there are three possible loopholes when Jacob says he "found the loophole". Locke would obviously know that him coming back to life could be considered a loophole, and Locke knows that Ben wasn't allowed to return to the island after turning the donkey wheel. Locke's dead body is interesting, but also consider that it's been proven that the same person can exist more than once at the same time since Locke had Richard go and tend to Timeshift Locke's gunshot wound (actually this has been proven with several other characters). Perhaps a similar thing has happened here. --AddictedToLost 18:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

On the idea that it is too far-fetched for the nemesis to read dead people's memories... Yemi (Echo's brother) was impersonated by 'someone/thing'- as were Christian, Alex... maybe even Libby (on the freighter) and Horace (building the cabin). They're all dead with bodies on the island. Jacob's Nemesis needed John Locke's body on the island in order for him to impersonate Locke. These impersonations seem to include access to the victim's memories. If the black smoke can show moments of a person's life (and I've seen it surmised that the black smoke IS the nemesis), then how different would this idea be? --Bdjsb7 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly remember the incident with Yemi, but as far as Alex goes that was more along the lines of the smoke monster creating a hallucination rather than the smoke monster impersonating Alex. As for Christian, nobody's seen his corpse so we don't know if he's being impersonated like it appears Locke is. For that matter, nobody's seen Claire's body either if she's dead. Anyway, I think we've only really seen proof of the smoke monster creating hallucinations instead of impersonating people... but with the smoke monster all bets are off so it may not be as far-fetched as I initially thought. I think that a lot of this was left intentionally unclear by the writers for a reason. I don't necessarily have an issue with presenting Jacob's enemy/nemesis as impersonating Locke, but I think that it should be presented that this is an assumption rather than canon or fact. We won't know for sure until next season, and if the truth goes against everybody's assumptions it wouldn't be the first time in LOST. --AddictedToLost 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• No one is suggesting that Nemesis is a shape-shifter. He actually make the comment (paraphrased), "do you know what I've been through to get here." That is in response to the loophole question from Jacob. Either way, the new Locke can't be completely this guy. If that was the case, then there would have been no reason for him to take Ben and Richard to the Beechcraft trying to make sure Richard helped Locke's gunshot wound. He wouldn't have really cared. His sole mission was to get back to Jacob and have Ben kill Jacob (probably the loophole was to get a previous leader to do so). I believe that this new Locke is not fully Locke or fully Nemesis.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there was a point in going to the beechcraft. He knew we had to have Richard talk to him, and tell him what he needed to do, otherwise he would get where he was going, and tha false-Locke wouldn't have gotten there. Also, maybe he didn't do it himself because he knew the real Locke would know it wasn't him. I mean, out of everything we've seen Locke do, i think he'd be the first person who would want to meet himself in another time period. -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "Jacob's enemy appeared in Locke's form in the water near the survivors' beach camp" is too strong of a statement to be made in this article. It's a theory without total substantiation.  Robert K S   tell me  05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that this would be considered a theory based on what I understand from the policy on this website. Mister vijay 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How can this be made anymore clear before its accepted?

Jacob's Nemesis: "Do you have any idea how badly I want to kill you..."
Jacob: "Yes"
JN: "One of these days, sooner or later, I'm going to find a loophole my friend"
J: "And when you do, I'll be right here..."
Then later on in the show, inside the foot of the statue after Ilana tells them they found the body in a coffin on Ajira 316, Sun asks the question for the audience that if that is Locke, who is inside the statue......
Locke "Hello Jacob"
J: "Well you found your loophole"
L: "Indeed I did.. and you have no idea what I've gone through, to be here..."
Its patently obvious, from what we have on screen, that the Locke in the water near the survivors' beach camp on Hydra is one and the same as the one who is in the foot of the statue with Jacob and Ben, and that person is the character from the beginning of the episode, that we call his nemesis. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It always kills me when there's this much debate over something that's pretty clear. The producers don't always like to come right out and say something, because why pander to the lowest common denominator? This same thing happened the first time the statue was shown in its entirety from behind. "Well, we don't know that it's the same as the four-toed foot statue, it could be a different one." UGH! --Managerpants 17:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So it could just mean the Locke-a-like and Locke have fused somehow (obviously the thing has Locke's memories). There are many possibilities besides the claim that the Locke-a-like and Nemesis are identical. It should be obvious that this claim of identity is premature. Things are often not as they seem in this show, so I am somewhat nonplussed by the surprise here that we aren't just accepting these identity claims. Charles widmore 01:12, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Tawaret

I've removed the part about Tawaret as it is entirely based on the claim that she is depicted with a crocodile's head, which she is not. Tawaret is depicted as having a hippopotamus' head. This is yet another case of people trying to change facts rather than let go of their theories. TDiNardo 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought it looked more like a hippo than a crocodile. I don't think we need to worry about who the statue is yet. If they wanted us to know, they'd stop showing it from the back.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said Tawaret had a crocodile head? I was the one who said she had a hippo's head. And I think the statue does too. It might look crocodilian from that angle, but it's probably not. Crocs don't have ears like that. Plus, Michael Emerson said it was Tawaret. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

Where?-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI Tawarets in the real world have hippopotamus heads (albeit sometimes crocodile backs). Also hippos have four toes. Of course the scuplture artist for Lost could've created a hybrid that does not authentically represent "real" Tawerets. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Appearances

How can we assume that the Enemy is pseudo-Locke? Pseudo-Locke might just as well be an entity created by the Enemy, or an illusion made by him, or some unknown subject of the Enemy, made to look like Locke, or the smoke monster made to look like Locke, or, for that matter, something completely unrelated to the Enemy? (Although I personally wouldn't bet on the last suggestion). And even if we agree to regard pseudo-Locke as the Enemy in disguise, how can we assume that "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" was the first time we saw the Enemy? To me it is just as safe to assume that Christians island-appearances is the Enemy, as it is to assume that pseudo-Lockes appearances is the Enemy. I say, for now the only appearance we can be sure of truly is the Nemesis, is when he is played by Titus Welliver. Anything else is speculation. Thus, we should move Pseudo-Lockes appearances and history to Psedo-Locke, Fake John Locke, Faux John Locke, Fake Locke or Faux Locke. -Pierre 22:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Christian may be the same person as pseudo-Locke, but i think it's pretty clear that Locke is pseudo Locke. I mean, "One day I'll find a way to kill you," and "Looks like you found your loophole" seem pretty intentional to me.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs 

That was supposed to read "'Jacob's Enemy' is pseudo Locke."- Roobydo  talk  contribs  23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Mock Locke ? :D --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, love it. -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  00:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Un-Locke, as it sounds better, and comes from a literary reference. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I like either Un-Locke or Anti-Locke. Iburnedthemuffins 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like UnLocke as well for a nickname. --Minderbinder 21:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Appearance as Christian and Yemi

I think it's stupid to be talking about whether or not to include The Enemy's apparences as Locke here. It is obviously him, they find out real Locke is dead and 2 seconds later Jacob comments on the loophole obivously reminding the audience of the earlier scene. What I think should be added here is the Enemy's apparance as Yemi and Christian. My evidence : it has been proven DEAD IS DEAD, Yemi said to Eko "You speak to me as if I were your brother". Christian was in the cabin where it is now known The Enemy resided and not Jacob, The entire series of events that lead to Locke's corpse returning to the island was started by Christian telling John to move the island. The last time Christian was seen was also the same night Locke showed up at the Ajira camp. Also Damon and Carlton a quoted as saying "by the end of The Incident viewers will have enough information to theorise well how the show will end." This all seems pretty solid to me what do you guys think? I vote for adding it to the article. --D Toccs 10:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What's your Canon source that he appeared as Christian and Yemi? How do you know The Enemy resided in the cabin? I'm not saying it's wrong, in fact, I think it's completely right, but as far as adding it to the article, let's stick with the Theories page-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  01:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just another thought, It is obvious that the Enemy either is the Monster or much more likely has some form of control over it, which is why "Alex" told Ben to obey Locke, also possibly why he took Ben directly to it instead of letting it come to them. Also the Enemy clearly has access to the person's memories as Yemi, Christian and Locke all display full knowledge of their prior life. I think these things are obvious and we should be discussing more important questions like "If he doesn't pyshically possess the body, what is the process shapeshifting, some sort of duplication? And where are Yemi and Christian's bodies, why would he hide those bodies and leave Locke's in the coffin?" or " What is his exact nature? Is he a pysichal being, Bram and Ilana only refer to him as a thing eg "WHAT they're up against" "SOMETHING scarier than whats in the box" The only character who really refers to him as a person is Jacob" --D Toccs 10:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I disagree with everything you said here, but it is anything but "obvious." There is a lot of assuming going on. Educated guesses are guesses none the less. They are to be kept to the Theory pages, not the main pages. Also, Yemi was confirmed to be an apparition of the smoke monster, not Jacob's nemesis. Now if they turn out to be the same being, than 2+2=4. But, that is only speculation at this point. Again, a lot of speculation turns out to be true, but until that happens, it's just theory.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• All this is based on the repeated word "loophole"? Everything follows from that? Mister vijay 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Of course it's not all based on the word loophole. Did you even read all things i pointed out? --D Toccs 06:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else is seeing that. Samuel or whoever he is, is who we've been calling "The Island" all along. Obviously he has a the attiude for judgement as the monster is known for. He didn't want people to come in the first place because of their wrongs. And then he wants to kill Jacob for what he did. Like you said, everything Christian ever said was to get locke to leave, die, and come back dead, so that Jacob could be killed. The only dead that I wonder if he was not "playing," were the one's Hurley saw off the island. --Usedearplugs 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Usedearplugs I never said he was the Island so please don't change the name of my posts. --D Toccs 00:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll address two points made here for now and save the rest for later:

• 1. You write "The entire series of events that lead to Locke's corpse returning to the island was started by Christian telling John to move the island." Although Christian tells Locke that he must bring all of the Oceanic Six back to the Island this goal is later asserted as a very important objective by several other characters who do everything in their power to bring about this end, they are: Charles Widmore, Eloise Hawking and Ben Linus. What is their association with Titus's character?

• 2. You also write "It is obvious that the Enemy either is the Monster or much more likely has some form of control over it, which is why "Alex" told Ben to obey Locke, also possibly why he took Ben directly to it instead of letting it come to them." Taking apart the first part that indicates that Titus character, John Locke and the smoke monser are all one entity: The smoke monster has killed several characters and its method of killing is very unique. If you compare the way it has killed the scenes with Terry's character in the 5th season arranged Jacob to be killed they are completely inconsistent with the monster's MO and methods and inconistent with the dialogue used to describe and explain the monster by several characters including but not limited to: Ben Linus, Danielle & her science team, Juliet.Mister vijay 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I know the writers have indicated that the Monster can "manifest" or "influence" the manifestation of a person and there is a lot of reference to Yemi going around to support that and now Yemi is being connected to Christian, however, I will call your attention to moments from the trasnscripts from

"The Other Woman": [Thunder crashes] [thunder rumbling] [Juliet wanders alone in the jungle.] [ghostly voices whispering] [ghostly whispering continues] JULIET: Jack? [Juliet turns around to see Harper Stanhope standing behind her, alone in the jungle, watching her. Juliet gasps.] HARPER: Hello, Juliet. Long time no see.

Actually I couldn't find the rest of this scene on the transcript where Harper Stanhope talks aboout Ben being exactly where he wants to be and so on but I know it's somewhere either in that episode or another. Here we have a clear clue or sign that this is connected to the smoke monster. Clues that are noticably absent in the appearences of Christian and Locke.Mister vijay 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• You write "And where are Yemi and Christian's bodies, why would he hide those bodies and leave Locke's in the coffin?" Yemi's body is clearly shown. Eko confirms that the corpse near the plane is Yemi in 23rd Palm. Mister vijay 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 **  Actually Yemi's body had disappeared on Eko's second journey to the plane, remeber he got quite upset about it.  --D Toccs 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• You write "Christian was in the cabin where it is now known The Enemy resided and not Jacob"... In the episode The Incident, Parts 1 & 2 Ilana et al take the crate and go directly to the cabin. Ilana knows where it is, despite previous episodes where the cabin is confirmed both visually and through dialogue to have the ability to move its location. They Ilana group immediatly recognize something is wrong and Ilana enters the cabin and returns to say that Jacob isn't in the cabin and hasn't been there "for a long time" she didn't say he's "never" been there. It's certainly logical to deduce that at some point in the past Jacob did use the cabin for residence but hasn't used it for a "long" time. When Locke sees Christian in the cabin it is at least three years earlier. Three years is a long time by many standards. I'm certainly not claiming that Christian IS Jacob, I wouldn't accept that, but I would like to call your attention to the involvement of Claire in the equation. She has been last seen in the cabin and she could have broken the ash and disrupted whatever purpose it has. Also, to address the claim made in a previous thread on this page that the ash restricts or confines the movements of either Christian or Jacob again look at multiple episodes where both Christian and Jacob appear both off Island and in other locales within the Island.Mister vijay 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• You wrote "It is obvious that the Enemy either is the Monster or much more likely has some form of control over it, which is why "Alex" told Ben to obey Locke, also possibly why he took Ben directly to it instead of letting it come to them."

• In the scene in "Dead is Dead" referenced above Ben goes to the Temple and confronts the Monster. He sees Alex who gives him certain instructions. Then we see him follow those instructions and when he verbally references the moment in the finale he says "My dead daughter told me to follow you". He doesn't say "The monster told me to follow you". We've already seen in mutiple episodes that Ben has knowledge of the monster he knows what it is, how to summon it, what it's function is, and its ability to manifest as people but he fails to question if this apparition is his daughter. When he sees "Alex" he apologizes to her and accepts her instructions. I'm not saying it's a coincidence that Alex appears when he goes down to meet he monster but I wouldn't confuse multiple identities shown to be unique. Her appearences are influenced by the monster. There are many clues as to how this happens that are consistent with all information given on the monster and that can be directed at the monster entry. So here what you're saying is Alex, monster, Locke, Enemy are alll one identity and Ben has no ability to distinguish between any of them. A simplier explanation would be the monster which the writers have hinted is able to "download" information from people in one of their podcasts, is a conduit for people's consciousness. Through the medium of the monster the people communicate their desires in the same way we use a telephone. The telephone isn't telling us what to do the people are. This is more consistent with representations of the monster that are more in line of an animal than a "person". But all these ideas about the monster should probabaly go to the Monster theory page so that they are consistent with that identity's apeparences and dialogue referencing it. Also, if you see Dead is Dead again the dialogue explains in plain language why they have to go to the Temple instead of summoning it.Mister vijay 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the monster being a conduit to channeling the dead is simpler than the monster taking the shape of Alex? I disagree wholeheartedly. The smoke may not have formed itself into Alex, perhaps it just made Ben see what it wanted him to, but I'm pretty sure that it was implied that he wasn't Actually communicating with Alex.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• My guiding principle was stated in a previous post where I said that a hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions is most likely correct. I would add that it also must utilize the most amount of actual dialogue from mulitple characters and multiple episodes. You're saying that it was implied that Ben didn't speak to Alex. I practically quote a line from the finale that contradicts that idea, unless you introduce the assumption that Ben really has no real understanding of the monster which is contradicted by multiple episodes. I have a feeling if I sit down and review transcripts of previous episodes where the monster appears I could find further evidence to support the idea that the monster isn't a person with motives but rather something different. Ben doesn't doubt the validity of what he saw in the Temple (ie was it real or not), he doesn't question if what he saw was Alex. It's not a question of what's simplier it's a question of what's most consistent with all the evidence provided in 101 episodes.Mister vijay 21:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can´t read all the text, but I also believe Christian is a manifestation of the moster, because we already know Smokey can adopt the "skin" of dead people who are in the Island. Besides, Christian is the one who convinces Locke he is the Chosen One by Jacob (when this is not true), so Locke convinces Richard, Ben and the rest of the Others he is actually the new Leader. In this moment, Christian tells Locke to move the Island to get to the real world, where he will be killed (maybe by Widmore, and that's why he is waiting for Locke's arrival?)and Smokey will be able to get Locke's skin; but this time, everyone believes he is the leader and then he is allowed to meet Jacob (and murder him). I mean, Christian seems a very important henchman of "Smokey-nemesis-whatevernameyouwanttogive'im" in orther to find that "loophole", so it sounds logical to assert he is the Monster itself. --Chusdegreit 13:23, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

This is all theory

Please place section entitled "As John Locke" under theory based on the policy guidelines. Mister vijay 15:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jacob said to him "You found your loophole", it's obviously him. --Blueeagleislander 06:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

-Well This does not proof that they are the same person. Although there are several facts that proof it. And they are explained after every point you have made. (fallowing)

Occam's Razor

I assume you've heard of "Ockam's razor". It's a logical rule that states "The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation." or further more that "the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions". Mister vijay 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Our hypothesis indroduces some assumptions, but yours introdruce a bunch of them. You are saying that many thing we saw in the show have a different meaning than the obvious. You are suggesting things that conflict with what we see, you are denying things that the only possible alternative explanation would have to have thousands of assumptions. Stop and think man. And with some effort you might understand it.

Enemy

Point: 1) The character played by Titus is Jacob's Enemy despite the fact that the refers to Jacob as "my friend" in his dialogue.

• Counterpoint:1) He also said that he wanted to kill him... and then got to at the end, with Jacob referring to the conversation involving the loophole.

• Reponse:1) True he said: "Do you know how badly I want to kill you?". This give rise to the theory: they are "enemies" and are enemies for hundreds of years.

Look at the complex relationship between Jack and Locke. In seson 4 he puts a gun to Locke's head and pulls the trigger. I guess they are "enemies" at that point. In season 5 though when asked about his relationship to the deceased he says "friend". This relationship evolved and changed over 5 seasons as the characters evolved and grew. But based on this theory of the relationship between Jaocb and his "enemy" the nature of that relationship remains so much the same for over a hundred years that the conversation picks up exactly where it left off over a hundred years later. This, however, is unverified. You write Jacob "refers" to the conversation he had over a hundred years ago. Why is he necessary referring to that conversation? Why is this so "obvious"? Many different characters can have the same or similar objectives, goals or plans. Many characters say they want to kill Ben, but they are not the same character.

Have you thought that he was being sarcastic? He said "One day I will find a loophole my friend". Just to remind you that the loophole means a way of killing you. "One day you are going to pay for you crimes my friend." That what Sherlock Holmes said to Professor Moriarty, and they were enemies, right? DUH!

Shapeshifter

Point: 2) This character referred to as "Jacob's Enemy" can change his shape. At best this is unverified. We never see this character visually change his shape.

• Counter point: 2) The dead body of Locke, and the dialogue verify who that was.

• Response: 2) The dead body of Locke what? We do not see this character visually change his shape. What dialogue verifies who who was? when? I have no idea what you're saying.

The Incident part 2 shows clearly that the person who we thought was Locke ressurrected by the island or by Jacob is not who we thought it was. Going further, the dialogue between this person and Jacob at the end of the episode do imply that he is the same person from the beginning of the episode or some kind of reincarnation of him. Between that and saying that he can shape shift is not a very big step, even thought that is not very clear yet. You denying it is more assuming than accepting it.

There is some inconsistencies regarding the shape shifting. In "The Substitute", Ilana states, that "He's stuck that way", but in the previous season we saw him in the form of Alex (and propably Christian too). When and why he became stuck ? After killing Jacob ? Pirate87 08:09, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously we don't know for sure yet. But that seems to be the prevalent theory. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  11:47, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Someone dropped a line on another page that burning the cabin locked (hmm) him into his current human form. It's worth keeping in our hip pockets because Ilana had to have some reason for ordering the fire.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:26, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

History

Point: 3) "He spent many years attempting to find a loophole to kill and defeat his nemesis, Jacob." Which episodes have flashbacks that "reveal" that he spent many years attempting to find a loophole? Since you can't point to an episode that confirms that this also is a "theory".

• Counterpoint:3) Its in the dialogue!

• Response: 3) What dialogue? When? Do you want me to make your argument and find supporting evidence because I can't. I have no idea where to look.

• Sometime in the 1800's, "Jacob's Enemy" is trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob. In 2007, "Jacob's Enemy" finds a loophole to kill Jacob. Much time has passed in between. Ergo, "He spend many years attempting to find a loophole to kill [...] Jacob."  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your response is based in 2 logical fallacies: circular reasoning, which is defined by wikipedia as "a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises" For example: "Why am I the boss? It's because I call the shots around here." Why do you call all the shots around here? "Because I am the boss"

• Umm... No? I don't assume my conclusion. We know for a fact that he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in the 1800's. We know for a fact that he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in 2007 (and succeeded). The number of years between the 1800's and 2007 is "much time" (subjective, granted, but I think most people would agree). That's pure simple deduction, my friend.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• You write out your reasoning and you assume that the "he" in the first sentence refers to the "he" in the second. You assume that Titus and Terry are playing the same character. There's no visual morphing of Terry into Titus. That's the premise that you're assuming and the position that I'm questioning.Mister vijay 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• We're clearly meant to ascribe some association between Locke and Jacob's enemy, whether or not that relation is "taking the form of" doesn't matter. From a storytelling point of view, and the way things are presented narratively, we're meant to believe that Locke has something to do with Jacob's enemy due to the planned killing of Jacob and the loophole. What you call fallacious, I call cohesive.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify what we're both referring to see JuxtapositionMister vijay 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, taken from Lostpedia:Theory policy "It is also possible to create statements that appear on the surface to be a theory, but fall short due to a logical fallacy; such statements are sometimes referred to as crackpot theories." For example,

   * The Island chose Locke because he is special.
   * The Island chose Walt because he is special.
   * Locke and Walt are the same person. 

The contents of the actual quote you're referring to doesn't clearly state anything. You've come to your conclusions based on the above logical fallacies.Mister vijay 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• You're wrong Mister. To reiterate above - FACT: he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in the 1800's. FACT: he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in 2007. If you refute those two facts please explain why. If you accept those two facts, can you not say then that he has spent over a hundred years looking for the loophole? If not, why not? --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree 100% w/ Integrated. I think it's really quite funny when people are so focussed on discovering the intriquicies of the show that they read way to far into aspects that are meant to be straight-forward and obvious. It's like the family guy gag when Peter and Brian are sitting at the breakfast table, and Peter looks, suprised, to Brian and says: "Brian! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says 'Ooooooooooo!'" Brian then looks at him, annoyed, and replies "Peter, those are Cheerios."-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  14:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Hahahaha funny stuff :) Yea this reminds me of when Ben said he was going to "fulfill a promise to an old friend" which spelt it out very cut and dried that he was going to go kill Penny, but people refused to believe it. --Integrated (User / Talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

- The argument used by Mister vijay is funny, but does not apply for the discussion. We are discussing by logic here mate. And your point is logically invalid, what we are discussing is not. Is a logical discussion based on facts. The way we interpret the facts is our problem and we can discuss them in here. Actually MANY unanswered questions from the show are answered here in LostPedia articles based on assumptions way more exaggerated than this.

Smoke Monster

Point: 4) This character "Jacob's Enemy" has the ability to steal people's memories. At what point in the series does ANY character steal another person's memory??

• Counterpoint: 4) Erm, the smoke monster?!

• Response: 4) The smoke monster can steal a person's memory? A) Ultimately what relevance is that to Jacob's Enemy? B) Can you show me a scene where this happens that mirrors what we see happen in the 6 episodes that "Imposter-Locke-Jacob's Enemy" appears in? Is there really a precedence for this? I want to discuss that theory.

• Addendum (added later): If I were to want to discuss that theory it would be on the talk theory page of the smoke monster! :) Mister vijay 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. General consensus is that Yemi's appearance in "The Constant" is the smoke monster in Yemi's form. Having taken on Eko's memories earlier ("The 23rd Psalm"), the smoke monster knows about Yemi and takes on his form.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in what "general consensus" says but I think I will listen to Official Lost Podcast transcript/March 21, 2008 where the writers address this issue. In the summary page it says "on the undead door there's only three pictures. One of them is Christian Shephard, and one of them is Yemi. And the other one is..." Carlton: "Kate's horse. Just a picture of a horse. So Kate's horse is undead." But I will have to listen to the entire podcast again to confirm the context of these comments. In any event, this is talk page about "Jacob's Enemy" and I am questioning how so many different entities are now tied together with this character. Other mysterious happenings can be discussed but I would prefer we clearly separate characters and phenomena and not mix them all together unless it's clearly shown or stated in podcasts/episodes.Mister vijay 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that characters and phenomena should not be mixed together, but as the show have given us some information that can co-relate characters and phenomena, is good for us to discuss about the points which we can connect them. I think people are going to far saying that the smoke monster IS a person. But the relationship with it and resurrected John Locke is clear.

• I just wanted to add my two cents. We can safely think that Jacob's Nemesis or Man in Black might be another dead man embodied by smoke monster. So there might be only one nemesis, which is smokey.

Richard

Point: 5) Richard who has been on the Island for a "long time" looks at Locke and never questions that this is Locke. While he says "I've never seen a man brought back to life" he also says "If I had to guess it was Jacob who is responsible for this". So now we're bringing in the assumption that Richard is completely misguided despite many many episodes that prove otherwise.

• Counterpoint: 5) Richard does question this is Locke. He actually says to him "you seem different..."

• Response: 6) You say he "questions this is Locke". Apparently his objections were not strong enough to convince him to ever contradict Locke's constant question "Am I the leader?" Richard replies "Yes". His actions speak louder than one comment he made. He brought him to Jacob. That's enough for me to say Richard was, under your theory, taken for a fool despite his "knowledge" of the Island.

• Yes, Richard was fooled. That's the point. He see's Locke, assumes (by Occam's Razor) that it is Locke, and is confused at how Locke came back to life because as far as he knows, that's impossible. Turns out he's right. Doesn't mean he wasn't fooled. That's not a huge assumption to make, it's just what is clearly in the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• As I said above Richard says some contradictory things in that episode but his actions speak louder than his words. The assumption is not that he was fooled it is that despite his close relationship with Jacob, he's not aware of Jacob's supposed "nemesis" nor is he aware of the scope of the power of this nemesis. That's a huge gap in his knowledge.Mister vijay 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's unclear whether even Jacob knew about the full extent of his enemy's powers. It seems likely that he wouldn't be expecting the ability of his enemy to somehow exploit whatever the loophole is (otherwise, why would he need a loophole? Additionally, in the opening scene it seems like Jacob doesn't know what such a loophole could be.) If this is the case, then certainly Richard wouldn't be aware. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a flaw to assume that Richard didn't know about Jacob's enemy (or at least about the notion that he could take the form of Locke.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well at least we've gotten to a point where we can leave behind the word "obvious" and use a different word instead, "unclear" to characterize this issue.Mister vijay 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is funny that Mister vijay says that we are wrong making those assumptions about "resurrected Locke" being the same person/entity as Titus' character, and being related to the Smoke Monster, which have solid ground in my opinion, and have the audacity of making the assumption that Richard ,"despite his close relationship with Jacob, he's not aware of Jacob's supposed "nemesis" nor is he aware of the scope of the power of this nemesis." Dude THIS is a pointless assumption as you have nothing to support that except for the fact that he did not recognize John Locke as any different person or "thing" than Locke himself. Actually, even say that is a assumption as that is based only in Richard's attitude towards Locke. And I believe that he seemed to be suspecting and concernead about Locke rather than faithful as he always was.

Ben

Point: 6) Ben who has been on the Island for 35 years and has knowledge about many of the Island's mysteries also doesn't question that this is Locke. His lines are "BEN: Sun, I had no idea it would happen. I've seen this Island do miraculous things. I've seen it heal the sick, but never once has it done anything like this. Dead is dead. You don't get to come back from that, not even here. So the fact that John Locke is walking around this Island... scares the living hell out of me." He uses the word "FACT" to confirm that John Locke is walking around this Island. Now we saying Ben is misguided despite many many episodes when his knowledge was very great.

• Counterpoint: 6) That dialogue confirms to me that he is kinda scared and confused as to what is happening.

• Response: Is he really confused? Look at his words again. Does he really ever suspect that A) That Locke is an imposter. B) That Locke is really the smoke monster. Again I can cite dialogue that counters that idea but his actions speak louder than words. He never seems confused that this is Locke. His confusion/fear stems from other sources. That's another discussion though.

• Yes he's confused, he admits that he's never seen anything like this before, and to the best of his knowledge, this is impossible. Of course he's confused. He uses the word "fact" because that's what his perception is. Furthermore, the idea that Ben has no idea what he's really doing has been the whole point of his arc for the last half of the season.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• We can go on all day saying "Yes he was confused" and "No, he wasn't confused" but at the end of the day the dialogue and the actions speak for themselves. You say his perception is that it is fact. That's really what I'm getting at. He trusts his gut, his perception.Mister vijay 00:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• How does this dialog prove anything? How many times now has Ben fooled us? How can anyone even begin to start trusting Ben? Anything he says or does should not be taken as truth without questions. Ben has fooled everyone multiple times. He is a master manipulator. For all we know the killing of Jacob could be entirely Ben's plan and everyone is just a pawn of his. I do not believe this is Ben's plan at all. I am just saying that we can't leave that idea out of our minds and we definitely can't start trusting Ben. He has never given us a reason to trust him. His words can't be taken as truth. --Ilostmyself 00:26, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Same than the argument about Richard. You are saying that the fact that Ben believed that that person was Locke is a proof that he is misguided and don't know what he is doing. Assumptions, assumptions. We know already that Ben don't know all secrets of the island, he does not know where the monster resides, he have net met Jacob, he was scared out of hell Alex came to him in the monster chamber. Ben did not know everything about the island, and is plausible that he believed that Locke has ressurrected as he knew John was "special". Again, your argument is against yourself.

The Island

Point: 7) The following dialogue was taken from "Follow the Leader": BEN: Your timing was impeccable, John. How did you know when to be here? LOCKE: The Island told me. Didn't it ever tell you things?

• The conclusion that this person speaking is "Jacob's Enemy" posing as John Locke, we have to assume now that "Jacob's Enemy" has a close relationship with the Island. That the Island speaks to "Jacob's Enemy".

• Counterpoint:7) Or that using John Locke's memories, he knows what Locke would say, and is in fact lying.

• Response: 7) There's a lot of possibilities but nothing is "obvious" or confirmed. Maybe he's using Locke's memories, maybe he knows what Locke would say, maybe he's lying, maybe he's omniscient. Let's not discuss theories but rather what's confirmed. Mister vijay 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First time you make a good point, but again against yourself. You must have a very low IQ. WHY the hell would "The island told me" be a sign that this person is John Locke himself. What by the mercy of God make you say that the fact that "Locke" said that, it mean that he has a connection to the island and the island speaks to him as a fact? Mate none of us who are discussing the topic said that. You said that. You are assuming that. We don't even know what that means so everything we say about that is theory.

Jacob

Point: 8) BEN: No, John. And clearly it hasn't told you where Jacob is, or you wouldn't need Richard to show you.LOCKE: You've never seen him. BEN: What? LOCKE: Jacob. You've never seen him, have you?

For this dialogue to make sense you'd have to now assume that "Jacob's Enemy" doesn't know where Jacob is despite evidence to the contrary in the flashback scene that is the only visual evidence we have. Futhermore, for this "theory" to make sense, you'd have to say that "Jacob's Enemy" is "pretending" or lying to Ben.

• Fake-Locke makes it clear that he wants the rest of the Others there for some reason (otherwise why bring them?). Clearly he has some further plans for them.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay this is somewhat unrelated to this point but at least you call him "fake locke" which implies maybe there's a possibility this is not Titus's character?Mister vijay 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Counterpoint: 8) Or, only the leader can actually go in to see Jacob, and thats another reason why Ben goes with him, because Ben is in the fact the leader, as Locke is dead.

• Response: This is just wild speculation. Nothing you say has any evidence to suggest that is the case.

That was a a bit over the top but here we go. The fact that John asks Richard to take him to Jacob does not proof anything for either side. He can be posing as John or be John himself. If he is posing as John, he would ask Richard for Jacob as John did not know where Jacob was. If that was John himself he simply asked it cause he didn't know where it was. But for that to be correct it would bring a lot of speculation as How John knows Jacob is not in the cabin he used to visit, How he knows that Richard knows where Jacob is, Why would he want to kill him.

Christian

Point: 9) In the episode "Dead is Dead" Christian Shepard tells Sun to wait for John Locke. For this theory to work you'd have to assume that Christian is misguided or somehow aligned with "Jacob's Enemy" despite many episodes that contradict this idea including his assertion that he can speak on Jacob's behalf.

• Counterpoint:9) Again. Christian has been seen in the cabin, which is currently being questioned as to whether it was Jacob we saw originally or not...

• Response: Feel free to question all you want but in the theories page.

• With one dead character who appears walking around on the Island and has something to do with Jacob's Enemy. It's complete wild speculation that the other dead character who appears walking around on the Island has anything to do with Jacob's enemy. </sarcasm> The idea that Christian Shephard is aligned with Jacob's enemy is the clearest solution we can assume from everything we've seen (including the fact that someone else has been using Jacob's cabin).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• What you're saying is that since Locke whose dead body is shown and Shepard who has been confirmed dead by podcasts and characters (Jack) there is a connection between them. All right. I accept that. But you further say that Locke is connected to Jacob's Enemy and since Locke is connected to Jacob's Enemy therefore Christian is connected to Jacob's Enemy because they both are confirmed dead. That I reject because I don't connect Locke to Jacob's Enemy because of the reasons I have been citing here that I won't repeat.Mister vijay 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Two things. First, Christian could have been lying about being able to speak on Jacob's behalf. Jacob's nemesis is obviously a liar, so it would conceivable for anyone aligned with him to be liars, too. Second, and most importantly, something that hit me last night: what if Christian IS Jacob's nemesis? (Or was, as he's taken Locke's form now.) Christian was dead on Flight 815, but has been seen by Jack and others on the island. Locke was dead on the more recent flight and has been seen "alive." Of course, people found Locke's body, so that begs the question of where Christian's body went to. Perhaps Jacob's nemesis hid Christian's body. In any case, it was an interesting thought I had that I wanted to share. Jinxmchue 05:51, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Lol. You are quite funny trying to be serious mister, but your arguments are one worse than the other. We did not assume Christian is Jacob's enemy, what we are saying is that based on what we have seen on the show, we can say that there is a relation between them as the events which lead into the murder of Jacob.

Loophole

Point: 10) To round off my top ten list, "Jacob recognized his nemesis through his disguise." This theory requires the following assumptions: A) Jacob never explicitly makes reference to the physical difference between Locke and Titus. So we have to assume that Jacob doesn't consider this important. Why? Well, it's too obvious to mention.

• Counterpoint:10) But Jacob did recognise his enemy, and his enemy admitted who he was. It was in the dialogue!

• Response: Where in the dialogue indicates that Jacob "recognized" his "enemy". When did his "enemy" "admit" who he was? Where in the dialogue?I have no idea what you're talking about. Did we watch the same episode? More importantly, have we just ignored or forgotten about the rest of the series? Someone who watched ONLY this finale would come to this logical conclusions not someone who watched the other 101 episodes. Mister vijay 00:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• The following dialogue is from memory, but it's approximately what was said:

Jacob: "So you found your loophole." (positing that Fake Locke is the same guy from the teaser)
Fake-Locke: "Yes I did, and you have no idea what it took to get here." (confirming his identity)
Ben: "Do you two know eachother?"
Fake-Locke: "In a manner of speaking" (further confirming his identity)

•  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I can quote mutiple lines from multiple characters in multiple episodes to provide counter evidence but your argument really stands only on this exchange the meaning of which is entirely present only in your comments to the right. If you look above I also cite the same dialogue and give another explanation. Locke has met Jacob in his own past, we see that in that episode in his post-fall experience. That is a far more clear reason then to connect two characters played by different actors in scenes separated by hundreds of years.Mister vijay 00:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you wish to deny the dialogue thats fine, but it was completely obvious to me that the most recent Locke and Jacob's enemy were the same. They even had the reflection of the conversation between Ben and Widmore where we find out Ben cannot kill Widmore as it isn't in the rules, same with Jacob's enemy and Jacob. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Always this word "obvious". I have no idea what you're saying about the "rules". There's no mention of the word "rules" in the dialogue between Jacob and his supposed enemy. You write "If you wish to deny the dialogue, that's fine." In my points I cited various actual dialogue from a few different episodes. In your response you not only fail to cite actual dialogue but when you refer to dialogue you "conclude" things that are contradicted.Mister vijay 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• See Juxtaposition Mister vijay 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol (even louder!) - Dude you are a joke! 1- Do you really think Jacob would say "Hey you are not John Locke, you are my nemesis from the 1800's! (That just happens in cartoons dude, when the characters have to narrate what is going on). 2-Yes, you are denying the dialogue. You say that is more clear that that person is Locke himself them Jacob's nemesis. That is forcing things a lot my friend. (you are not my friend, the same way jacob's nemesis meant at the 1800's). You have to make many assumptions to say that this person is John Locke himself. The whole scene implicate that the person is Jacob's nemesis. If is not, it was intentional by the producers. Your arguments cannot support it at all.

Juxtaposition

With the intention of clarifying what is being said in the "obvious"-"not obvious" discussion above, I made reference to a literary technique that uses comparative methods called "Juxtaposition". Lost will open an episode with a unexplained moment or a moment in time and then return to that moment at the end. This is one form of juxtaposition. When we see two things placed near or next to each other to give them meaning that each alone does not have. We've seen another variation on this used in Ji Yeon where the flashback of Jin is intercut with a flashforward of Sun to lead the audience to believe Jin is a member of the Oceanic Six. What gives the final scene meaning is its placement in the episode in comparison to the placement of Jacob's flashback. So in the story logic of this episode the assertions are certainly obvious and logical. However, my thread was to question the story logic of the series not the finale. But we can agree to disagree. Mister vijay 19:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That was the smater thing you wrote here. I just disagree that the discussion does not fallow the story logic of the whole show. Actually, reviewing all episodes, I realised how this episode gave sense to many thing that were obscure before. If Jonh Locke is indeed a resurrection, several points of the show are going to lose sense and the relevance of many characters is going to be lost.

Closing Comments

Thanks guy for taking the time to respond to my points and my final comment is this: When I watch shows like "X-Files" and "Heroes" that have characters who can shape shift as a plot device it is clearly shown (ie. we see characters visually morph) and there are clear rules by which limits this ability. In the podcast and the episodes the monster and the appearances of monster related phenomena are talked about in different terms that do not clearly establish the premises talked about in this thread. Within the Lost universe there are many concepts and characters introduced over the course of 5 years but the Titus character was thrown in at episode 102 with 17 episodes to go and this is supposedly connecting multiple entities in the show that previously were said to be different in podcast interviews. In the last 17 episodes I personally would like to see the fate of the characters that were established in the past 5 seasons resolved and explored further. I have little to no interest in seeing Titus return. If Locke is not Locke then fine I accept that but I refuse to accept that this is the same character that Titus played in season finale. Locke may be undead as the podcast suggest Christian is but this is a different and separate explanation. Thanks, again.Mister vijay 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• After all the talk about Locke being special and how he has a destiny, I also hope that something gets resolved that allows Locke's personal story to continue (say, for example, Fake Locke is still really Locke in mind and spirit, he just has a new outlook on life... sort of like a Trill or something), but given what we've been shown I just think it's hard to deny a connection between Fake Locke and Jacob's Nemesis. Hopefully we'll both be satisfied with how this turns out. My final comment is that, when shapeshifting is being used as a plot device then I agree that it's likely to be shown. However in this case it's being used a mystery, which makes it much more likely that they'd hide it from you. At any rate, like I said, hopefully it's somehow still sort of Locke (shapeshifter, fake dead body, clone or otherwise).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want the final season to be about the destiny of our characters but we all want to mysterious things to be explained. But I also want it to cover the history of the entities of the island. I would like to know about the egiptians, about the origin of the others, about the island proprierties, the history behind the oceanic flight. This is part of the show since the first episode. And the introduction of a character in season 5 finale, 18 episodes before the end (16 episodes, season intro and finale with double episode), in the context in which he appeared, make it very likely that he will be part of the closure of the show and the whole history of Lost. And this fact is the reason why we believe that this character has a relation with many island mysteries from the past 5 seasons. I think you have to agree that is way more plausible to create a character that have relation with the rest of the story than a random character that was there just as a red-herring for the audience.

Clumsy ways of referring to him in the "As Locke" section

It's not a "form" or a "figure" or even an "entity" doing all those things in the past 10 episodes. It's an impostor posing as Locke while at the same time being a distinct and separate person in his own right. No need to talk as if it's some "it"; in fact it sounds really clumsy and wrong when in context ("the figure shakes Richard's hand", "the form addresses the Others"), when it's basically just the blackshirted dude wearing a Locke mask. He's also very corporeally and physically there; so, not a vision or some other "entity" that would require the use of such elusive terms. Boyen 18:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This poll is ridiculous

• First, who the hell (sorry for my language) came up with these names :"Jacob's cellmate" (They aren't trapped/banished/imprisoned on the Island as Jacob left several times as seen in the flashbacks), "Moses" (On what grounds), "Mr. Loophole" (Sounds a lot like a Sawyer's choice for a nickname not an actual name, and it's like renaming Locke to Mr. Destiny because he is looking for his destiny, the same way this guy seeks that loophole), , "The Bad Twin" (Whose twin is he actually?), "Shapeshifting Pirate" (he's not a pirate and we don't know if he actually shape shifted to Locke or controls the Locke on the Island), "The Other" (after "The Incident, Part 1" I'm not sure Jacob's even a member of the group know as Others, not to mention this guy), "Fake Locke" and "Flocke" (The reason we don't call Ben "Benry" or "Fenry") and "Esau" (We really do not have a confirmation on the part about Esau being his name or even an inspiration as his simply Jacob's nemesis, not his brother).
• Second, As "Wikipedia/Lostpedia is not a democracy" and "Don't vote on everything" apply heavily on this issue, I would like to ask users to stop voting on the poll and start discussing why/why not should his name change to "Jacob's nemesis" as opposed to "Jacob's enemy". --Orhan94 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I coined the term "Flocke," but I did not intend for it to be used as a serious moniker. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, obviously Moses comes from the script. Ben says, "Who is he? Moses?" Jack Dutton 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Similarly, Bad Twin comes from the first season novel, and it is a recurrent theme from the show's inception. The name Tom means "twin." Fair-haired Juliet has a sister who is a brunette. Black and white tiles. Black and white stones. Black and white shirts. Black and white thread. Black and white Dharma logos. One guys lives in the left foot; the other would be the right foot. Bad Twin is a pretty good name.Jack Dutton 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jack - you don't seem to understand. If he has not been referred to in the show as 'Bad Twin' then we cannot call his page that. We can only call his page by his actual name (which we do not have) or as accurate a description we can provide: Man in black, Jacob's Enemy, Jacob's Nemesis etc. They are the only real candidates. --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First, while a bad vs. evil/black vs. white theme does recur a lot on the show so do many others Redemption, Fate vs. free will, Coincidence, Rebirth, Fear, Trust and Science vs. Faith, and we don't use them to name characters/locations/events because we are not writing the show, we are maintaining an encyclopedia about the show, the same kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia is, and you don't see them naming articles based on what they think would be the best fit for the article's name. And about Moses, it was a nickname and we don't use other nicknames to name articles on Lostpedia, otherwise we would have articles named "Mr. Haha", "Hippie car", "Sawbucks", "The Con-Artist Formerly Known as Henry Gale", "Heart of Darkness" and "Freckles". --Orhan94 10:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mr. Friendly, "Listening Station," "Dharmaville," "Otherton," et al. ??? Jack Dutton 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Without a canonical alternative, a nickname that as been used officially (ie: Mr. Friendly) is fine. Moses wasn't a nickname however, it was a comparison. As for "Listening Station", that's not a nickname, it's a description. "Dharmaville"/"Otherton" were never actually used to describe the Barracks on the wiki, as far as I can recall. If they were, policy has changed since then.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Also, (correct me if I'm wrong, I was not around this site for season 2) Mr. Friendly was provided by the cast sheets, not the fans.--Integrated (User / Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hence "used officially".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would move to say that (and please disagree if you wish), lacking a name, we call the page after the most accurate description of the character. Possibilities would be: Jacob's Enemy, Jacob's Nemesis, Jacob's Counterpart, Man in black. --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Integrated, you're right "Mr. Friendly" was a name given by the producers and widely used in magazines and enhanced captions. Also like Jumbo said, Dharmaville and Otherton were never names for this article, even though Dharmaville is canon as it is used in the written names in "Lost: A Journey in Time". And Listening station is a descriptive name, as "The Cove", "The Tunnels". Unlike Mr. Friendly, these are not a names used by majority of Lost viewers/the cast and crew and renaming it to one of these would end in a confusion, and unlike "Listening station" they don't provide us with an accurate description.--Orhan94 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

-I Was just hackering around the net and I found out his real identity, he is a banished servant of Santa Klaus.

• I would say that "Chess Piece Face" is the worst of all the names. So of course I voted for it. :) Ummagumma108 07:43, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Rename article poll (statistic)

Since polls can be easily manipulated, this will be for statistic purposes only. Please voice your opinion officially in the "name change" section below.

• This is not the way to do this. These polls are easy to manipulate and are not recommended for important purposes. -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for letting me know, it's unnoficial now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dancing Penguin (talk • contribs) 2009-05-15T16:37:27.

Symbolism

I suggest that there be some mention of symbolism in this article. There is a lot of black and white references (shirts, cloth) and duality. Also perhaps a mention of the relationship between the two chracters? They seem to be old friends/enemies. Kind of reminded me of Prof. Xavier and Magneto. I don't think they should be referenced in the article but the way they interact suggests a long standing relationship to me. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-Trivia

Two items listed under the trivia section section of this page are non-trivia and should be removed, one more egregious than the other:

First... [The opening scene is eerily reminiscent of Massasoit's dilemma upon the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620. Watching the ship on the horizon, he had to decide to make war or makepeace. His decision to act humanely eventually led to King Philip's War.]

The scene not only isn't "eerily reminiscent" of Massaoit's dilemma, it's has almost nothing in common with it at all other than a guy seeing a ship. No one in the opening scene of the Incident has to "decide to make war or peace". This (at best) belongs under theories.

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

In this case, the light similarity to the CS Lewis book might be an interesting parallel (and it's a light similarity at best --- seriously an "island planet"?...the poster is stretching to make it sound more similar to Lost than it really is), but it's not, in any sense of the word "trivia" about Lost. It's just some individual's personal feelings/theory.

Both of these should be removed.--Faraday100 15:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree - I've read that CS Lewis trilogy and feel the OP was stretching to make it sound more similar than it is, as well. As for the Massasoit reference having very little to do with the episode, I agree as well. I mean, you could say the same thing about the original inhabitants of Britain when the Vikings were seen coming ashore, but it doesn't belong in that section AlaskaDave 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Seriously? Are there people calling him of "Venom"? I mean, more than the human that inserted this to the page? This section of the article is getting ridiculous. We should stick to "Esau", "Un-Locke", "Flocke" and "Samuel". These are the ones that were used by respected websites. Nicknames without respected source should not be placed on this article. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to agree with you, but when I removed nicknames that were given without a solid reference my edit was reverted by a Sysop. So I take that to mean any nicknames can be put in this section without need for a reference.--Integrated (User / Talk) 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at the page history, the only revert to your edit was readding "Esau", but with a source. Since there's a source, it belongs. (If you'll note, "Mr. X", which you deleted, was not readded).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ok.. when I looked at the section I saw a lot of unreferenced fan nicknames that are essentially a free for all. Either we have this one way or the other - either only prominently referenced nicknames or it's going to be spammed by anyone who wants to add to the list (that's the point I was trying to subtlety make with the marvel nicknames). Looking at the Esau reference it is (correct me if I'm mistaken?) a fan made podcast site, making it absolutely not a valid reference. Why are these fans allowed to have their name included here, just because they have their own website? I hope people can see my logic, that including a fan made nickname section is really a minefield.--Integrated (User / Talk) 03:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that any nicknames in the section should be referenced, but given that it's a section for fan nicknames, what counts as a reference is fairly broad. Given that there's a fan made podcast that refers to him as Esau, that's enough to count as a reference for a fan nickname. What we need to get rid of, however, is just large lists of names that haven't been linked to anywhere. If we want to add things like "Spider-Man", "Mr. X" or "Notreallylocke" then we need to have a link to where these names are coming from.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I personally removed those ridiculous superhero/supervillain "nicknames" from that section yesterday. I agree that something needs to be done to stop people from just randomly adding unreferenced names to the list. There's a point, though, at which it's obvious someone is just making it up. Even with references, that sort of rubbish shouldn't be allowed. Piccolo113 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Allowing references to fan sites is really dangerous water. I might as well cite myself as a reference. This Esau business has nothing to do with the show, and if people are going to to make up names then add references to fan sites, then I don't see where the line is? --Integrated (User / Talk) 05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• The way it is now is great^[2]. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Fan nicknames have no place on here, as they have nothing to do with the actual show. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  01:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the disagreement. The more you think about it, the less what people want to call him has to do with anything at all. There shouldn't even be a nicknames section as it isn't canon and isn't even theory.

Agree with you two after thinking about it... I'm changing my vote, don't reference fan names. --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - ✉ 01:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no side on this discussion about removing all of the nicknames, but this character doesn't have a name and this would be some sort of connection for the fans to know who this nemesis is (of course no one would recognize him as "Venom", that's the reason I said to remove it). -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did remove it. Yesterday, actually.Piccolo113 04:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but .. I think calling him 'Esau' is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard but somehow it's OK because someone who runs a podcast I've never heard of calls him that? They are fans they are not a reliable source. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

LOTS of people call him Esau. It's because of the biblical reference. Have you not read the pages?Piccolo113 06:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They keep being fans, their opinion is not canon. Fan nicknames out. --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - ✉ 10:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the pages, and as soon as I read someone calling him Esau I laughed at how ridiculous it was. I might as well call him Jesus.. It's because of the biblical reference. --Integrated (User / Talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just being asinine. You obviously have not read the page, because the biblical reference I'm referring to is the fact that Jacob, in the bible, had a brother who was named Esau. If I remember correctly, Esau was starving and Jacob agreed to feed him in exchange for his birthright. Considering that would very obviously cause animosity or at least jealousy toward Jacob, THIS is the reason people are calling him Esau. Piccolo113 02:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Integrated is just pointing out how silly the whole nickname thing is. The thing is, the reason that people nicknamed him Esau is an extremely weak reason. The "reference" comes ONLY from the fact that Jacob's name is Jacob. Why does that have to be the Jacob from the Bible? It could just as easily be a reference to Children of the Corn! LOL -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly it. Esau comes from the bible, as Esau is Jacob's brother. This man is not Jacob's brother. Even if he was, why would one particular Jacob's brother mean he deserves that nickname? People who give this man a nickname 'Esau' just see the word bible and think "wow that must be right" without thinking for themselves. The name is a stupid one.--Integrated (User / Talk) 13:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that it's a stupid name, but that's not the point. You can't argue the fact that people are using the name, which is what the section documents. What's important, however, is the notability of the reference. Jay and Jack is a notable reference because it's a well known, popular Lost podcast. TV Guide is certainly another reference with notability. A random site on the internet with a couple of unformatted paragraphs, that google says nobody has ever made mention of, is not notable. For all we know, it was created by somebody simply so that they could claim Spider-Man was a "popular" nickname, despite the fact that nobody has heard it before.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I removed that BS the first time Integrated posted it....Referencing a quickly built webpage that claims "hundreds" of people refer to this man as "spiderman" is not a valid reference. There are no two ways about it, that's a completely BS reference and should be removed every time someone puts it back in...Hell, I'd be willing to bet the only reason that was added in again was to get a rise out of everybody.Piccolo113 04:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there are three fan names on the article now, let's go by and show how they're notable. First of all, as CTS said above, Esau is the most commonly used nickname by fans. There's no arguing that, regardless of how accurate the name actually is. Secondly, TV Guide is one of the most notable sources you can find, and it named the character "Un-Locke." So unless there is a major press source (TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, E!, etc), or multiple fan sources, a nickname should not be added to the article. And for those of you who believe the section should be removed, it was placed there for reference for those who come to the wiki searching for "Esau," (which there are plenty of, let me assure you). This way, searching "Esau" would redirect to the fan nicknames section, showing its non-canonicity instead of just redirecting to the article like a canon name would. Hope this has cleaned up some of the debate. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, TV Guide didn't create the nickname "Un-Locke". I did. I can get you proof if you want it. But that credit to TV Guide should be taken away. They stole, or at least appropriated, my contribution. It's still notable that they used it, and that should stay in the article, but it should not state that they created the nickname. And I believe that my original logic for the nickname's origin should remain in the article. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• Can you prove that they actually, willfully, appropriated your name for him and it's not just the case that multiple sources came up with the same nickname? I mean, it does kinda seem like a straightforward thing to call him.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Esau"

The reason the nicknames section was created in the first place was to include "Esau", and it was all because of the Esau redirect page. See Sam McPherson's comment for the reasoning. And for the purpose of listing notable, popular, and sourced nicknames, it doesn't really matter if they are weak or don't "make sense"; it's just listing the most common ones. That said, I'm wary of including the nicknames section at all, and still prefer my solution for the Esau page over redirecting to the Jacob's nemesis nicknames section. But while the section exists, "Esau" should be in there because of its notability as a fan nickname. (Not that I like the term myself -- or any of them for that matter.) -- Graft   talk   contributions  18:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And may I ask what makes the (horrendous) nickname Esau more notable than ..say.. Mysterio?--Integrated (User / Talk) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote to remove the nicknames all together unless they are listed in the show. Otherwise we're going to be dealing with this for the next 6+ months. -- Dhalia 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think it's very popular, it just happens to be voiced by a group of people who want to seem intelligent. There are far more sensible and perhaps even popular theories, but for now they are nothing but speculation. Even 'Jacob's nemesis' is at this point somewhat speculative, but as per the character's secrecy, it's the best we've got.

It isn't popular, the only people calling for this name are new users to the site who want to name him themselves because they think it's a "clever reference". --Integrated (User / Talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the section altogether. I said it before, and I'll say it again: fan nicknames have no place on here, as they have nothing to do with the actual show. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, fan nicknames would have no place on the actual article of a character. However, since no name has been given for Jacob's nemesis (and he is a prominent component of Season 5, and will possibly play a major role in Season 6) a section for nicknames doesn't do any harm. Whether you think that the nickname is "clever" or not deosn't really matter -- what matters is how fans are temporarily referring to this unnamed character. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 03:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Harm, no. It also doesn't do any good. People can refer to Jacob's nemesis any way they want to, but that doesn't mean we need to catalog them here. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to know CTS, if we're cataloguing how fans are referring to him, what makes one nickname more viable than another? If it is a reference to a fan website that certainly is circular logic there. I'm fine with references to TV guide, as it is now, but let's not get bogged down with silliness. --Integrated (User / Talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Piccolo, do not remove anything unless consensus agreement has been reached. And Managerpants, like I said above, under normal conditions we would not need to catalog nicknames here, but since this is an unnamed character we should have a nicknames section for encyclopedic purposes until a real name has been given on the show.-- CTS  Talk   Contribs 10:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• We're not bickering, we're dicussing- that's what discussion pages are for :) --Integrated (User / Talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't unterstand. Esau is the most used name to talk about Jacob's nemesis. Even more than Jacob's nemesis and Jacob's enemy on the forums, blogs and sites I'm used to visit. "Skate", "Jacket", "Suliet", "Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl" and a lot more are also fan nicknames--some of them as names of pages. As far as I know, "Jacob's nemesis" is a nickname! They are several nicknames used here, then why can't Esau, Samuel and Un-Locke be in a SECTION of the page called "FAN NICKNAMES"? -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan nicknames certainly have their place on the encyclopedia, but I don't think "Jacob's nemesis" can be considered a fan nickname. It's just a basic descriptor, a distillation of the full sentence or so that would otherwise be required to indicate which character was being talked about.  Robert K S   tell me  23:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Esau As I mentioned above, the nicknames section on the page serves a very specific purpose: to serve as a redirect destination. Esau is a commonly searched term on the wiki, regardless of its canonicity or accuracy regarding Jacob's nemesis. It's a very commonly used nickname around the fan community. Therefore, I created the nicknames section for "Esau" to redirect there to show that Lostpedia does not consider it a canon nickname, while still saying that it is notable enough for inclusion (which it is, undeniably). -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Spider-Man"

The site listed as a source for "Spider-Man" contains only a couple paragraphs of unformatted text describing the season finale. It talks about bringing over "old material from the other site" but a quick google search reveals no clues as to what the other site might be. I think that the source for "Spider-Man" lacks notability, unlike the Jay and Jack reference for Esau, the creators of which are obviously sufficiently well known enough in the Lost community for one of them to have been interviewed by Lostpedia. Furthermore, it certainly isn't "the most popular" such name.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I don't even understand why this requires discussion. It's extremely obvious that it's total BS. It's not even a site, it's a very quickly-built green page with text on it. Being as I've been warned before, though, I won't be the one to remove it. It SHOULD be removed, though.Piccolo113 04:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, Piccolo, I don't make the rules, and neither do you. CTS made it VERY clear to me that as long as nicknames have a reference they can be posted - and given this is a FAN nickname section, FAN sites are acceptable references. If you remove this again the sysops will not be happy - they have ALREADY spoken on this subject and said that Fan sites are acceptable references. --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in this discussion, he has said nothing of the sort. On your talk page, he has said that "the most recognizable and popular" nicknames should be added. Given that the sourced page is obviously fake, and also given that nobody else has heard this name used anywhere, this nickname is can't be said to be either "recognizable" or "popular". However, since I don't want to put words in the mouths of sysops, I will bow to CTS or any other SysOp who feels that this obviously fake page which makes unreferenced claims to "hundreds" of fans counts as a legitimate source if they re-add it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was very clear on the subject, I asked him directly, if you want further clarification please ask him again, but until then let's not have an edit war?--Integrated (User / Talk) 07:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... How do I explain this? Some people are arguing for the inclusion of "prominently referenced" (your words)/"recognizable and popular" (CTS's words)/"notably sourced" (my words) nicknames; some people are arguing for their exclusion altogether. However, you're the only one who thinks that it's okay to add random names to the list and claim that they count as fan nicknames because you came up with them. We all know that you've been adding random Marvel comics characters (including Spider-Man) to the nicknames section since its introduction. Guess what? I could create a random webpage to give him my own nickname, too. That doesn't make it a prominent/recognizable/popular/notable source. I know you don't want this section to exist, and I know you don't like how the rules work, but you are not the only person on LP; for the time being, there's a consensus about how this section should operate (ie: prominent/recognizable/popular/notable, sourced nicknames). Adding random stuff that you come up with is not "following the rules" but is just being a troll. It isn't about "oh, one person somewhere on the entire Internet called him this, so now I can add it to the wiki", it's about all the adjectives above; none of which apply to "Spider-Man". I'm not going to bother taking it down again, because I know you'll just re add it (despite your desire not to engage in an edit war, which I find an ironic statement since right after you said it you went and added the name again). Instead I'll just wait for the SysOps to come and tell you what I've been trying to say all along. Cheers.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make.. is that adding fan nicknames adds a matter of subjectivity as to what is regarded as "prominent/recognizable/popular/notable source." There is no clear definition. You and CTS state that Esau is a popular/prominent name, I don't agree one bit.. but if referencing fan websites is ok, then any name can be used. I guess what I'm trying to point out (perhaps this was a bit of a long winded way to do it) is the absurdity or including a section for names that one person thinks is popular/prominent and another doesn't .. with no clear definition as to which should be included apart from any Sysop's personal opinion. --Integrated (User / Talk) 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Integrated; I know that I said that in order to have fan nicknames on this page they would have to have references. However, these references must be from NOTABLE Lost fan websites. The website reference listed for "Spiderman" is not notable by any means, and it has zero credibilty in the Lost fandom. I could probably find five more notable references for the nicknames "Un-Locke", "Esau", and "Samuel" which is why they are included as appropriate fan nicknames for Jacob's nemesis. What Jimbo is saying is correct -- the nickname must be from a credible, notable source from the Lost fandom. Otherwise, I'm sure there are dozens upon dozens of nicknames for Jacob's nemesis scattered around the internet, but not all of them are "popular", "credible", and "notable" nicknames recognized by fans. Just because "Esau" is a common nickname recognized by fans doesn't mean it has to have merit to Lost's mythology; it's just a temporary placeholder until his actual name is given. If you can find another notable source for the nickname "Spiderman" from a notable Lost fan website, then feel free to put it back on the page. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here is, potentially, a good test. Go on a Lost forum and without explaining who you're talking about, write a post about Esau (not about his name, but about, say, something he's done, or a theory about who he is). Then write another post about Flocke, or about Samuel. Odds are most people would know who you're talking about. Then write a post about Spider-Man. You're more likely to confuse people with this post than anything else. Your dichotomy of "every nickname" or "no nicknames" is a false one: well-referenced, notable nicknames that are actually in use is what this section is for. Hopefully you can now stop trying to make your point by vandalizing the page.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here are SEVEN credible and notable sources for the nickname Esau for Jacob's nemesis.
  [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Hopefully, this can prove that more than seven sources (from notable sources in the Lost fan community) is enough to merit a nickname section for "Esau"; on the otherhand, one unnotable source for "Spiderman" doesn't cut it. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Since WHEN are random posts by fans considered credible and notable? There's a reason fan fiction is kept to the theory pages and this decision to have Esau mentioned on this page (when most people use it as a comparison, not a nickname) is a really big disapointment. I'm gonna ask for a second opinion from another sysop. --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, Integrated....You're taking this just a tad too personally...And being rather childish about it. It's been explained to you many times now, AND by a sysop no less. Just drop it. This is one debate you won't win.Piccolo113 02:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Watch the name calling, piccolo. -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  04:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm behind CTS on this one. Esau has been used by numerous fan sources, several of them notable (Dark UFO, Jay and Jack, etc.) It's too notable to ignore.-- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-Jacob" and "Anti-Locke"

I've seen this character referred to by both of these names on various sites. Depending on where you are one of these may be the most popular reference. In order to add an entry here, do I need to site each forum I've seen this on? Should I also site this page as it is mentioned here on lostpedia discussions as well? For that matter why are TV Guide and abc.com considered Fan references? These nicknames seem noteworthy since they address the "opposite" and apparent antagonistic nature of the character. This character has no name in the show thus far yet there is much discussion about him and has therefore accumulated a few nicknames by fans just so they can have meaningful conversations. This list is not nearly exhaustive enough and if you have to find a corporate site to reference as a "fan" for some reason before putting it here then this list will forever be incomplete. --Tpbaxter 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This list is not meant to be exhaustive or complete. We don't need every nickname anyone has ever come up with for this guy. We have the most notable, and we really don't need more. I personally don't think we need ANY, but this is the decision that's been made here. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  10:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* Well I don't know if it should be listed at all, but it is. Since it's there why include some names and not others? I think I know the answer. My feeling is that those names are 'notable' because a corporate magazine or website repeated them. That be the case the word Fan should be removed from the title of this section. If that's not the intention then common names fans see used in conversation and on various forums should be listed here. Either that or remove the section altogether. Judging by the discussion on this page there is quite a bit of controversy as to what to call this character so this section is should be somewhat of a compromise allowing alternate names to be referenced. Besides that some of the names people use are funny and creative. The title of this section doesn't imply anything official and if it's there then I don't get why it shouldn't be a source of fun.--Tpbaxter 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There used to be TONS of names here, but it was ridiculous. The fact is, this is an encyclopedia about Lost, not about the fans of Lost. The only reason there are ANY nicknames listed here is only because this character's name hasn't been revealed yet. If we start adding more names, though, where does it end? What becomes the requirement for inclusion? Why this one, and not that one? Pretty soon, we're back to where we were before, with every name under the sun listed, most of which don't help the reader at all. Right now, we have the three "most official" nicknames (Samuel, Un-Locke, & The Man in Black), and we have the most prominent fan nickname (Esau). It was decided that these were the most notable nicknames, and the ones that casual readers were most likely to search for. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  17:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-Cultural Refs removed

I've removed the two items referred to in the "non-trivia" thread above because someone moved them into the cultural references section where they both clearly violated the "direct references only" rule.--Faraday100 23:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's Nemesis In The Guise of Jacob?

I've added a question that I don't see being considered and should be. I think that clearly the Nemesis was appearing as Christian, Yemi, and Alex (to Ben in the Temple). He probably was also Young Ben's mom out in the jungle.

But what if he was also appearing as Jacob off-island to our heroes, that all of the off-island encounters with "Jacob" were actually the Nemesis drawing people to the island to use in his now-successful attempt to kill Jacob? I think this is a possibility we should keep in mind.

I removed that because that is a leading question which suggests a theory. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  23:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the survivors had ever met Jacob, so why would his form be of use? ESachs 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this completely. Though Lost is extremely convoluted and has many twists that no one expects, this particular theory makes no sense. Esau appearing as Jacob makes no sense because Jacob's image means nothing to anyone but Richard and Esau himself. Even Ben had never seen or met Jacob. Besides, why would the man who planned to eventually use the image of Locke appear to him in the form of a man he didn't even know? To be completely honest, what you're suggesting is that those scenes of Jacob off-island are a severe case of breaking the 4th wall...Something intended solely for the viewer, and not the story itself. Sorry, man, but that's just not that likely.Piccolo113 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Should we use this image or this image in the article's infobox? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  06:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I vote for the one without Locke in it because I can't imagine the one with him would look nice when it gets shrunk down to fit in the infobox.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, the one without Locke in it. Anyone who's watched the show knows what's going on and who this guy is (well, as much as we CAN know), anyways. No need to spell it out with the pic.Piccolo113 07:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How got he from the island and when? We have never seen him of course going from the island. and: Why saw nobody Jacob's Nemesis in the airplane? He was behind, but he has no scratch. That are mine questions so far.--Station7 07:13, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Main Character?

Assuming Terry O' Quinn returns as a series regular in season 6, one would assume that he will be playing Jacob's nemesis, just as he did in the second half of season 5 and as such, doesn't this technically make him a main character? InflatableBombshelter 09:07, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion (and it's just that) is that it's up to how he's credited in the press releases. If they say "Terry O'Quinn as John Locke" then I would say no but if they ever start saying "Terry O'Quinn as [whatever the nemesis' name is]" then we would start considering him a main character.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:40, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
  • Press releases from ABC still say "John Locke", but that's probably just for simplicity's sake, 'cause the character's name hasn't been revealed yet. I doubt Locke will make more than a handful of appearances in season six, and if Terry O'Quinn spends the majority of the season playing nemesis then we would have to conclude that the nemesis is a main character by that fact alone. --Golden Monkey 21:12, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
    • If Jack's plan to perform a "reset" with Jughead actually works, to any degree, then Terry O'Quinn very well could return to the show as John Locke, albeit still confined to the wheel chair. Thus, one must not assume that Terry O'Quinn's return for season 6 will entail him continuing to portray Jacob's nemesis. --Jaiotu 04:50, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Main Character redux

Well, it appears that the nemesis is continuing to adopt the John Locke look, even after everyone knows it's a lie. The press releases (well, one so far, not the LA X one) list O'Quinn's character as "Locke" (he played the nemesis, sideways Locke, and corpse Locke). The alternate timeline means that Locke will (likely) still appear consistently in the show, but should O'Quinn's two primary characters be included as "main?"--Tim Thomason 05:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

- I believe that "Jacob's Nemesis" should be upgraded to the main character portal. Now that we know with out a doubt that the Smoke Monster, Jacob's Nemesis, and the "resurected" John Locke are the same charcter, and it appears that the character will continue to be portrayed by Terry O'Quinn we need to consider it a main charcter. This character, in all of it's forms, has been in ever season, has manipulated the story line from the beginning, and now is portrayed by a main cast member. Jnorton 19:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

- It's obvious that Terry O'Quinn's sole primary character this season is MIB. Locke has been in 4/7 episodes but I think that fraction will just keep getting smaller. On island Locke is dead and buried, and in ALT we've already gotten a Locke episode and a Ben episode so unless wii get an Arnzt episode I don't think he's gonna come up anymore besides the finale. Let's just put MIB back in Main chars. It's not a big deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nintendo Warrior (talk • contribs) 2010-03-10T23:13:10.

I am not entirely sure how to propose a name change,

but I really think that this article needs one, to "The Man in Black". I'm pretty sure this is what the official ABC recap for The Incident referred to him as, and Damon and Lindelof just explicitly stated in an interview that this is what we are supposed to call him: "Q: Are there teams supporting Jacob and the Man in Black? And what should we call that guy, by the way?

Cuse: The Man in Black.

Lindelof: Call him the Man in Black."

http://tv.ign.com/articles/106/1065321p1.html *there are some extremely mild spoilers in that interview, so be warned* --Bish-Fiscuit 13:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, between that interview and the Enhanced transcript, we have about as official a confirmation as we're going to get for a name that character until some later date when he is actually named. On the other hand, the Enhanced captions also explicitly called him "Jacob's nemesis" and if we rename now and do a lot of work only to be given the actual name in the S6 premiere, we'll have wasted a lot of effort. So I propose we wait just one more episode before conducting the rename to "The Man in Black". (And that nickname already has certain associations among country music fans, anyway.)  Robert K S   tell me  19:09, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

• . I vote against a name change. There is a difference. The 'Man in Black' describes the man on the beach, only. 'Jacob's Nemesis' takes into consideration that he has taken on the form of Locke. Then there's is the fact that they call him 'Man in Black' after thet fact, long after Lostpedia came up with the descriptive 'Jacob's Nemesis'. It's worth mentioning, but nothing more than that. Besides, I'm sure we will call him by yet another name in the next couple of weeks. --LOST-Hunter61 19:20, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
• with change, but I'm neutral as to whether we wait an episode or not.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:28, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
• I think it's pointless to do a name change until the character is actually named. Otherwise, you're just switching from one nickname to another. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  22:04, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the important point is that Darlton have said that we should call him The Man in Black, otherwise I'd agree with you.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:28, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
• "The Man in Black" is more of a description than a name. Eventually, I think, we will know his name. In the meanwhile, change is unnecessary.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:56, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh, "Jacob's Nemesis" is more of a description than a name too. The only difference between the two is that Damon and Carlton want us to refer to him as "the Man in Black."--Bish-Fiscuit 17:47, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • They're not descriptions in the same way, though. For example, there's a big difference between calling me "Sean's brother" versus calling me "the guy in the green shirt." -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  14:27, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • You've got me there. I'm still reluctant to change this now when might learn the man's name on Tuesday, or next Tuesday, or... --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:37, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

No not the man in Black. Maybe we will find it out in a few weeks what his real name is, but not the Man in Black. We will see what happened in Lost.--Station7 20:43, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I added the rename tag to the article. I think that if we don't find his name out on Tuesday during the premiere, then we should rename it to "Man in Black. The popups in the enhanced episode, Gregg Nations, and Darlton all call him the Man in Black, we should too. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 20:47, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the Man in Black has been the official/unofficial name for a while care of ABC, but proposing a name change now seems like a silly 11th hour decision. In exactly 48 hours the premiere will be airing. I say if we don't get an answer on Tuesday, change the name then.--DanVader228 01:35, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
• I do have to stipulate that more people will probably be able to spell "Man in Black" than can spell "Nemesis." <sigh>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:44, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
• . At the time, no. While BOTH names, Jacob's Nemesis and Man In Black, were used in the season premier's recap episode (The recap aired tonight in Canada), I have to say that we should wait a little further into the season and see what happens. I'm guessing we wont have to wait that long to have a definitive name.--Gakhandal 04:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Name change again (after LA X) sorry guys...!

Why is "Jacob's Nemesis" the catchment term for what we now know to be the Monster and the MIB together? "The Monster" is an established term used by people within the show, and "Jacob's Nemesis" was only decided after a long debate by the fan community. And this "Dark entity" term I see somebody's done a find-and-replace for is horrible to my ear. Any thoughts? LOST-Figg 16:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• This article should be called "Smoke Monster" or "The Monster". If the reveal that MIB and Smoke Monster were the same entity had been made at the end of The Incident, the new information would have been stuck onto the existing Smoke Monster page 10 months ago. The only reason that this page is named anything else is because there wasn't conclusive evidence that they weren't the same entity at the end of The Incident and we needed something to distinguish the two between seasons. We now know they are the same, and it should go back to the original name. Most casual fans will look this up as "monster". "Jacob's nemesis" has never been used in canon. Referring to it as "Jacob's ___" may be inaccurate or understate what it is (see the above discussion on that topic). Referring to it as a nemesis may turn out to be inaccurate (again, see the above discussion). Calling it the Smoke Monster is the best and most accurate name. (Mirth23 16:28, February 3, 2010 (UTC))
• I vote "The Monster". Like you said, they've been calling "it" by that name since the very first episode. If we would have found out that MIB and the Monster were the same person last season then no one would have ever started referring to him as MIB or Jacob's enemy, or whatever. I certainly disagree with giving him another fan-frenzy induced nickname like "Dark Entity" that everyone will just argue about anyway. It's the Monster, we've always called it the Monster, last night on Jimmy Kimmel Carlton Cuse explicitly said "John Locke is the Smoke Monster". He didn't give him a nickname or anything. It's pretty definitive. Maybe he'll get a name later on. --DanVader228 16:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that a name change is necessary, but I think it should be to "Man in Black" instead. Yes, it's another placeholder name, but it has been used by TPTB (I realize Jacob's nemesis has too, but that seemed like it was more of a description than a name) and let's keep in mind the "the Monster" is also a placeholder name - as Ben said last season, they don't have a real name for it. And with MIB's recent assertion that he doesn't like being called a "monster" and that he's "a who" as opposed to a what, I think Man in Black is only appropriate. Gefred7112 17:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Because the producers use it I would say Man In Black. HE also clearly does not prefer the term monster. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  18:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that the page would work best at Man in Black - it's the term most consistently used by both the fandom and the producers, it's an adequate description of the character himself (itself?) rather than describing it only in terms of its relation to another character, and is less speculative than Jacob's nemesis. Sure, they seem to be enemies, but "nemesis" implies arch-enemy, and there's no proof that Jacob considers the MIB his nemesis.--BADavid 19:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• Merge this into the Smoke Monster's page, rename the Smoke Monster page when we have its real name. LOST-Merick 18:09, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• I get the impression we won't ever get a "real" name for this character. Does anyone else? LOST-Figg 20:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to 'Smoke Monster' if nothing else for the following: that is what the casual Lostpedia reader is going to be searching for. Undeniable. -- Xbenlinusx 20:26, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• While it's almost certain at this point that the man we see talking to Jacob and the Smoke Monster are the same entity it's not 100%. Maybe keeping two separate articles. Hell, even if we are sure I think it would be worthwhile to have a separate article detailing this entity's activity as the smoke monster (a long and stories career) and its activity as the Man in Black/Fake Locke
  • It IS confirmed, both by the producers and the character himself. That said, I don't think a rename is in order until the character has actually been given a name. Calling the character just the Smoke Monster isn't accurate anymore, because he/it only exists as the Smoke Monster some of the time. Along the same lines, calling the character just the Man in Black also isn't accurate anymore, for the same reason. It's best to keep it as "Jacob's nemesis" until a name is given, since "Jacob's nemesis" encompasses both the Smoke Monster and the Man in Black. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  22:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to 'Smoke Monster' or 'The Monster' until he is given an official and proper name (like Cerberus for example). Redirect from Jacob's Nemesis, Jacob's Enemy and all of those. It should have been discussed, sorry but Dark Entity is ridiculous.--Loganmac 15:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

This one is a tough call. I certainly agree that identity between the Monster and Jacob's nemesis has been established (they are one and the same), so all information about both should reside at the same article. At this point, calling it the "Man in Black" would seem obtuse. Clearly it can take a number of forms, not just a man in black. Whether it should be called "The Monster" (even though this is a term it does not prefer for itself) or "Jacob's nemesis" is also a tough call. No other name has been used on the show, but probably neither is appropriate for this character now that we know more about its motives.  Robert K S   tell me  22:25, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This one is incredibly tough! Robert is right to be cautious and is correct with his assertation that neither is probably appropriate right now. We aren't going to be able to actually make a definitive call on this till we know exactly who smokey/Jacob's nemesis are, and we won't know that till much later in the season, and possibly the final episode. What I would say however is this. The character, in whatever guise he is in, is certainly "the main antagonist/adversary of Jacob". The smoke monster is always "Jacob's nemesis" but Jacob's nemesis doesn't always take the form of The Smoke Monster. Likewise MIB is always his nemesis, but his nemesis isn't always the MIB. He's sometimes Locke, Yemi and Alex! Quite possibly he was also Hurley's friend Dave. Even in the script itself he says he doesn't like to be called the monster, so we should respect the characters feelings! hehehe.

The articles obviously has been merged, and if they are to merge as anything, Jacob's nemesis is the better choice, but I still don't like the name Jacob's nemesis however, but as it stands its accurate. I doubt it will be in the future but we cannot presume that. We can't change anything like that till we know more. Inevitably though it HAS to change. He will be given a name, if not in the show, then certainly by Darlton in the podcasts/interviews. Till now I think JN is the best of some poor options -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  22:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• I vote either Jacob's nemesis or Man in Black. I would be happy with both until we get more information. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
• The Monster We mostly know it as that, and when i type in "the monster" and its called 'Jacobs nemesis' and we see the picture of the swirling black smoke, I feel odd. Endoplasmic Reticulum 02:40, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Feeling odd has never, and will never, be a reason for an article rename. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:44, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Why cant we do what we did for Sawyer and Libbys pages, naming it Jacob's "smoke monster" Enemy, that way we can keep both names. We did that for say James "Sawyer" Ford. Buffyfan123 11:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being specific enough, I also think we should call it "The Monster" becuase we mostly know it as the monster, not "Jacob's Enemy". It's not that "Jacob's Enemy" is its official name or anything, we just call him that because that's what he is. But he is also "the monster" which is what he's more known to for us.Endoplasmic Reticulum 13:26, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously "The Monster." However, as more is revealed we must assume The Monster's real name will come into play. As The Monster says to Ben, "Let's not resort to name calling." Jack Dutton 17:30, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

RENAME TO THE MAN IN BLACK. As per this interview with Damon and Carlton, the character is to be known as the man in black. Renaming as such. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  21:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Paul, that interview's nothing new (it predates 6x01), and at most it tells us what the producers' preferred name for the human-form character was.  Robert K S   tell me  01:03, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

• • Uh, that definitely didn't seem serious. More just repeating what the interviewer said. Sixsevenfiftysix 23:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• "Call him the Man in Black (for the purposes of this interview)." What we need is for the admins to take a more long-range view of what they're doing.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Smoke monster or monster. This "man in black" nonsense is not in the text of the show, so it's not a proper name for the character. We have to draw a line somewhere, and site canon policy draws that line. Statements from producers are "semi-canon", but "smoke monster" and "monster" are used over and over again in the text of actual episodes. We must prefer the name given to it/him by the characters, not the nickname used outside canon by the producers. LOST-Zaphod 08:53, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

And I refer you to the character itself

BEN: You're the monster.

LOCKE: Let's not resort to name calling.

-- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:29, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

In-article references

Regardless of what the article ultimately gets named to, someone should definitely edit the article and take out all the references to "the entity". I'd like to propose a logical scheme for the appropriate references. The character should be referred to as "the Monster" (with the article "it") in all descriptions of scenes in which the characters and audience believed it to be merely a Monster. The character should be revealed to as '"Jacob's nemesis" or "The Man in Black" (with the article "he") in all situations when the characters and audience believed him to be a person (which he is). Thoughts? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

Entity was an all-encompassing term used to make merging much more fluid. I personally think referring to the entity with two different pronouns makes the article very segmented and not fluid in the least bit. It is the same thing, after all. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  00:24, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "entity" is about the most vague term possible. The problem is precisely that it is an all-encompassing term. Because it is not specifically anything, everything is almost nothing. Its usage when it is not necessary has the same basic problems as the usage of "mailperson" for a mailman. The Monster is not a he, it is an it. The man in black, whatever human shape he uses, is a he -- except when he took Alex's form -- then the character was temporarily a she. You wouldn't say, "Ben's daughter appeared underneath the temple. He came out of nowhere." Articles change with the noun being discussed. When the character in question becomes a different thing, it's appropriate that the article should change as well. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• I agree with Aobozu, refer to him/it both as the Monster and as the Man In Black. "Entity" is such a strange term for either of those characters. LOST-Figg 08:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. Can we please get rid of all of "the entity" references, and replace it with either "The Monster" or "Smoke Monster" when it appears as the monster, and "Man in Black" when it is in human form, or something to this extent? "The Entity" is so vague, and isn't even what he's referred to as on the show or by the producers. The name of the article has been changed to "The Man in Black", so it's time to make the article consistent. --Themorgan 00:12, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. Someone edited ALL the references to "entity" and changed them all to Man In Black. It sucked, and I created an account here just to change it back. "The Man in Black was referred to by Danielle Rousseau as the Island's security system." - Um, no they had no idea about the man in black, only the smoke monster. "in this chamber was an engraving of The Man in Black facing what appears to be the Egyptian god Anubis," Um, no, it was an engraving of a smoke monster, not a man in black. I have no problem changing the references when it is clearly the man in black in human form, but not when it is clearly a smoke monster. Nintigod 08:03, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree wit Nitingod.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:25, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • While I agree to a certain extent, referring to it as "the entity" is just as bad as what you're saying!!! "Entity" has no bearing, not in the show or by the producers. The Man in Black=Smoke Monster. Confirmed. Use Man in Black to refer to the Human form, and Monster/Smoke Monster to refer to the black smoke. It's not rocket science people. --Themorgan 23:57, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Umm... yeah, that's what he said. Or at least what I took him to mean when I agreed with him.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  16:18, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • I took it that he said he changed all the entries BACK to "the entity"...as it stands, "entity" occurs in the article well over 100 times. IMO, this is a problem, as the term has absolutely no bearing with the show. The article needs a lot of work. I mean just look at at the the picture captions...they are so wildly inconsistent, from "entity", "nemesis", "man in black", "smoke monster"...this needs to be cleaned up a little, even though I do agree with some of the captions, all references to "entity" need to go. --Themorgan 05:21, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
• What is the basic point of existence of you know who? (Sounds like we're in Harry Potter!) I submit that it is smoke. If "Smoke Monster" is too judgmental, how about "The Smoke," with the capital "The?" (That distinguishes between it and any other smoke on the Island.)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:08, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

The man in black is not the smoke monster?

On Tuesday's episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live (2/2/10), Damon says "no" to the question, "Is John Locke possessed by the man in black?" I was wondering what your thoughts on this were? [10] It's at 28:41 (Sorry Non-US people!) I know "possessed" could mean that John Locke's body is still alive, but did he just misspeak? Or it was he implying that fake John Locke and the Man in Black are two different characters? --Uncertainty 16:18, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

They were answering the question sincerely. John Locke is not possessed by the Man in Black. John Locke is dead. The guy who looks and acts like John Locke is actually the smoke monster in disguise.  Robert K S   tell me  16:38, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be stated definitely that MIB and Fake Locke and Smokey are the same, since it seems they existed exclusively until after Jacob was stabbed by Ben. Perhaps Fake Locke gained control or merged with Smokey after Jacob died, but they must have been exclusive before that fact. --19:22, February 6, 2010 (UTC)Googuse

Precisely what evidence do you have that they existed exclusively before Jacob was killed? Have we ever seen them together? No. We know that Smokey shapeshifts. Ergo, unless they were seen together at the same time, there is nothing to suggest they weren't the same all along. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• In trying to explain the smoke monster and whether he and the MIB are the same, there is a contradiction that I'd like to see explained if someone can: Ben unleashed the smoke monster when Keamy killed Alex (after believing Alex couldn't be killed because of the rules between him and Widmore). This demonstrates some ability to summon the smoke monster on his behalf even if he can't completely control it. Later, in the temple fake Locke apologizes to Ben for having to see him that way (as the vengeful monster). In this instance and when Alex as the smoke monster appeared to Ben, it was the monster who choose when and how to appear. It doesn't make sense that the same smoke monster which would feel Ben's anger and act on his behalf (and apparently wait or be contained until summoned) is the same entity which takes charge in the temple. If they are the same then is the smoke monster evolving and becoming more independent? If the smoke monster is the MIB would the MIB have allowed himself to be used by Ben?--Destinedjourney 00:18, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
• The Smoke is bound to the leader of the Island people (the term "Others" is getting fuzzier with time); it's also a separate intelligence which is trying to break free. Ben knew the Island could be moved. The Smoke, posing as Christian, told Locke to move the Island in such a way as to make Locke accept Ben's offer to do the work, leaving Locke as leader. The Smoke was now bound to Locke, but Locke was weak. He allowed himself to be convinced that he had to die, first by hearing it from Richard who got it from the Smoke (as Locke) then having it reinforced by hearing it directly from the Smoke (as Christian). Locke died and his body was returned to the Island (Hydra counts), allowing the Smoke to use his image. The last time, Ben didn't so much summon the Smoke as place himself before it for judgment. The Smoke no longer responds to Ben's call. Ben was too caught up in his battle with Widmore to see that he was being used.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:12, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Can you explain how The Smoke and MIB could be the same? Your explanation of The Smoke as bound to the leader is helpful. The confusion I see is whether The Smoke which used Locke's image is the MIB and the same entity that allowed itself to be summoned by leaders like Ben. I just don't see Jacob's adversary being summoned by mere mortals, even if they are leaders, of the island. At the same time, Richard recognized the person in Locke and vice-versa as if seeing him for the first time in a long time. That reinforces, to me, the supposition that Richard was seeing in Locke a force which he hadn't expected to see in that way. That would lead one to believe he was "seeing" the MIB in Locke. So is it The Smoke inhabiting Locke or is it The MIB? For the reasons above I don't believe they are the same but do have a connection.--Destinedjourney 02:49, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
• This is an item I've been working on. Part of it appeared on another talk page:
  • No one lived at "Jacob's Cabin." Jacob lived below the foot of the statue; The Smoke lived someplace else (to be determined). The Smoke is a security system; its job is to guard the Temple. It is not, however, allowed to enter the Temple. The Smoke is not supposed to kill. As punishment for its attack on the French in 1988, a portion of its strength was taken away from it and placed in the Cabin. The Cabin was protected by a ring of ash, which the Smoke, when it is in the form of smoke, can not cross and can not touch. To touch and move the ash, the Smoke needed to replicate a deceased human form. The inhabitants of the Island made sure there were no bodies by sending their dead to sea in a flaming boat. The DHARMA Initiative sent remains Outside to their families (supposition).
  • When Flight 815, crashed the Smoke gained immediate access to Chirstian Shephard's body. He used it to replicate into a human form. As Christian, the Smoke created the path through the ring around the cabin and reacquired his strength. When he charged through the jungle the first night, he was exercising his newly recovered powers, possibly with a little lapse of coordination.
  • In human form, the Smoke can not kill; in smoke form its communication is limited to those who believe, who have faith.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:07, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Given that season 5 and 6 Locke is the smoke thing, how does that directly mean that he/it is/was the man standing with Jacob? They both wanted to kill Jacob. They both needed a loophole. But Ben wanted to kill Jacob too; that doesn't mean he is the smoke thing or the man. Since Sayid stabbed New Locke and nothing happened, it's safe to say one might need a loophole to kill Locke as well. By applying the MiB=Locke logic if we could say, given the right conditions, Jack, who may want to kill Locke later and need a loophole to do so, is Sayid, who wanted to kill Locke and needed a loophole to do so. I'm not disagreeing with them being the same, and because I've never questioned it until yesterday I've never noticed any official thing listing the two as one. They could have been careful in the wording and we heard what we wanted to. Maybe there was something I missed, and that's fine. But if not I think we might have skipped a step in our logic.--Mooses05 23:55, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

episode count

What is his episode count? We need that to on the page.--Station7 16:57, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to measure because we don't know which of his appearances were really him. Was he Christian? Was he Dave? Do we count times when the Monster appeared offscreen as appearances? ShadowUltra 19:18, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

• And the producers said he appeared in the second half of season 2, I recall, must be Yemi/Ana in ? surely. Buffyfan123 07:11, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

yea

woot! teh monster mystery is solved!

Episode appearances

As noted above, we should make a temporary notation of how many episodes this character has appeared in. I propose the following method of determining Monster/MIB appearances up to this point:

• All of the Monster's onscreen appearances, even ones where it wasn't shown explicitly onscreen. The Monster was still causing trouble and chaos as early as "Pilot, Part 1" despite not being shown onscreen, and those appearances should be included. It will be confusing to mention "the Monster killed the pilot and encountered John Locke" if we don't actually count those as appearances.
• The Monster's appearance as Yemi in "The Cost of Living", the Medusa spiders in "Exposé", and Alex in "Dead Is Dead". These are the only confirmed Monster transformations and the only ones that can be added right now.
• The Monster's appearances as Locke beginning with "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham". Note the overlap with Alex in "Dead Is Dead", so don't accidentally count them twice.

By my calculations, this puts the total number of known Monster/MIB appearances at 21, which appears to be the same consensus reached on the supporting characters portal. ShadowUltra 00:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nice workup. I mostly agree, but wonder if the Medusa spider episode is reliably the Monster. I know TPTB said it was, but they've said a lot of things.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:50, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense (Nikki was given a chance by Paulo to redeem herself and chose not to take it; thus the Monster killed her) and we heard that famous chitchitchitchit-chitchitchitchit noise, which both Nikki and Paulo notice (they start looking around for it). ShadowUltra 02:18, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't the writers claim he appeared after 23rd Plaism and we didn't realize it, If Yemi is MIB in TCOL, then surely he must of appeared in ? as Yemi or Ana Lucia. Its not confirmed, but the producers have confirmed he appeared in the second half of season 2. Buffyfan123 07:13, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

That may be a possibility, but we can't make any assumptions. ShadowUltra 02:49, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Assuming That Island-Christian Is The MIB (a bit of theory)

If we assume that every time we've seen Christian on the island, it has really been the MIB in disguise, then we should consider all of his actions in a new light. For instance, Christian's image wanted Claire. I saw a theory somewhere that Aaron was the savior of the island, citing Charlie's vision of Claire dressed as the virgin Mary as possible evidence. Perhaps the MIB wants to have Claire for leverage against Aaron, should he return to the island as its savior. This is based off of the assumption that the MIB cares more about the lives that the island has negatively affected than the fate of the island itself. I assume this because of the distaste he expressed towards Jacob when they were on the beach as the Black Rock was sailing in, implying that he feels a empathy for its passengers, although another theory is that he doesn't want people to come to the island because he thinks they will corrupt it. As evidence for my idea though, Christian did lead Jack to the caves which made life a lot easier for the flight 815 survivors. Anywho, back to Christian's actions. He's told both Jack and Locke that they have "work to do," just as Walt tells Locke when he sends him on a mission to stop Naomi from radioing the boat. So if we assume that Walt's image was also the MIB, then we know that the MIB wanted John to stop Naomi, but why? Possibly because he needed Ben to kill Jacob (and Locke), and if Naomi had called in her freighter buddies while the 815 survivors still held Ben as a prisoner, he would be killed. And a funny tidbit: In the episode Something Nice Back Home, Jack sees Christian briefly twice, and the second time is when he hears a smoke detector go off at the hospital in the room where he then sees his father. I just thought it was funny for the smoke detector to go off because I assume that this image of Christian is the MIB, who is also the smoke monster. We might also assume that every vision of a dead person that has been seen on or off the island has been the MIB. For instance, Charlie when he visits Hurley, which makes sense because he tells Hurley to go back to the island, and I could be mistaken , but I think he also says something along the lines of "You have work to do," a phrase that dead people tend to use a lot on this show. --Patches124 08:00, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

• While I agree that it's likely that Christian is the MIB, I don't think Hurley's visions are of him, since a) Jacob seems to approve of the visions and b) appears in one himself after he dies.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:22, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Remember we have two different Christians on the Island. All of Christians appearances up through "Cabin Fever" had him in the blue suit and white sneakers he was buried in (suggesting a reanimated corpse since the body is missing). All of Christian's appearances since then, to John, Claire, Sun, and Frank, feature Christian in a flannel shirt. I believe this second Christian is definitely a manifestation of smokey, but the original Christian wasn't. Lanpesci 10:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe, but there's also the possibility that, while in the form of Christian or other humans, Smoke can change clothes. His more casual appearance would make more sense to Sun and Frank, at a minimum, in the circumstances.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for killing Eko

I've heard speculation that the show's producers had to fire Eko's actor, which is why they found a quick and easy way to kill him off, namely the Smoke Monster. Thoughts?

Nerdly dood 20:23, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

• The published version was that he wanted out because he wanted to return to London. I've never heard anything to contradict that.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:34, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct. The actor who portrayed Eko lost both his parents in sudden accident and wanted out of the contract to return home to London. He has since indicated he would return for the final season if the writers had a way to work the character in. Lanpesci 10:04, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

An old friend who became tired of my company

In the general trivia section there's a line that says "After his death, in speaking to Hurley, Jacob describes the Man in Black as 'an old friend who became tired of my company.'" Is it known for sure that Jacob was talking about the Man in Black or is it possible he was referring to Ben? It does seem a plausible way for him to describe Ben, although it does make for sense for that to be about MIB. I do suggest this line should be slightly more ambiguous. Like: "After his death, in speaking to Hurley, Jacob describes 'an old friend who became tired of my company.' This may be referring to the Man in Black." Unless it's determined that it was distinctly about him, that is. Juhsayngul 19:22, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

• That's a valid point. If you're confident, change it. You're an editor and you don't need anyone's permission.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:30, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Undo Merge

How do we know that MIB is the monster? He could be a monster, of which he and Jacob are two. In fact, MIB distances from the term monster when Ben calls him one. (Jack Dutton 14:42, February 15, 2010 (UTC))

• I don't think there are two or more monsters. While I try to argue in-universe most of the time, in this case I think there's an absolute limit on how much more the producers can introduce this late in the game. What I do think is that we've made too many structural changes based on three hours of television without really knowing where we're going. I know we're on a wiki, but I think we need a moratorium on redesign.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:08, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

"LA X, Parts 1 & 2" has "Locke" saying "I'm sorry you had to see me like that." He also doesn't deny it when Ben says "you're the monster". cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:15, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

• All signs currently point to MiB being the monster. The show has made it obvious that he is the monster, and the producers confirmed it on jimmy kimmell. Until something directly contradicts this, which it won't, we should leave the article as is. InflatableBombshelter 15:18, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Lindelof and Cuse on Jimmy Kimball Feb 2- JK: "Is John Locke possessed by the Man In Black?" Lindelof: "Uh... no." JK: "No?" Cuse: "...big bit of information about John Locke, he revealed he is the smoke monster." They confirmed that Locke is the Monster, but state that Locke is not possessed by the MiB- this significantly implies that the smoke monster is somehow a separate entity from the MiB. I think either unmerge, or make the distinction that it still isn't entirely clear they're the same thing. SoLostEleri 18:40, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • This was already answered above in a previous section. They are the same. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  18:58, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow, what a misinterpretation. When Lindelof denied that Locke was "possessed" by the Man in Black, he clearly meant that Locke was the Man in Black; in other words, the Man in Black took Locke's form, which is different from "possession" in the commonly understood sense. --Ydgmdlu 20:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Is the MiB the Monster or is the Monster the MiB? There is subtle difference, I think. What is the native form of the creature? What is its gender? (Does it have a gender?) I didn't mean to suggest that that the character we thought was a resurrected Locke wasn't the Monster or that the Man in Black wasn't the Monster. I think that answer is pretty obvious. I just don't think we're being deliberative enough in the writing of our encyclopedia.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • "I'm not a what, Ben. I'm a who." ("LA X, Part 2") And I think it's implicit from the TV Guide interview with Titus Welliver that the character is masculine in gender. [11] He has a name, but we just don't know it yet.  Robert K S   tell me  16:00, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Let's not undo anything just yet. "He" says he was once a man. If we're patient, we'll find out what's going on.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:00, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Boone

Can this paragraph be reworded at all?

The Monster's actions in Boone's dream appeared to be consistent with its behavior outside of the dream, even though Boone had never encountered it. After the fatal attack in the dream, two wounds to Shannon's bloodied body resembled those inflicted to the body of the pilot. The Monster's emergence from underground was also consistent with its attack on Locke that happened 20 days after Boone's dream. ("Exodus, Part 2") According to a Season 1 deleted scene, Charlie told a number of survivors about the entity killing the pilot, so Boone may have heard these details from Charlie. Also, after the survivor's encounter with the polar bear, Boone asked, "Do you think that's what killed the pilot?" The fact that he knew the pilot was alive gives credence to the idea that he knew about the attack. ("Pilot, Part 2")

It reads like a user first making the suggestion that Boone's imagining of MIB is something notable, followed up by users saying "no, no, he knew about the Monster from Charlie". I think it should be rewritten to explain what's going on consistently throughout it. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 18:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

smokey

What about an Aztec reference for Smokey? I stumbled over Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl on Wikipedia. Tezcatlipoca is often translated as "Smoking Mirror" and is able to perform some sort of shapeshifting... Quetzalcoatl's opposite was Tezcatlipoca, who sent Quetzalcoatl into exile. Part of the legend is that both were not able o kill each other... Djchainsaw007 11:59, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Victims

What are we going to do now about the victims :S

There are too many now, and most of them are unknown. :S :S :S :S :S

--f23456ar 17:40, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Man in Black's group?

Should we make a page for the Man in Black's group? Similar to Ilana's group and Sawyer's group. Members would include the defected Others, Claire, Sawyer, Sayid, Cindy & kids, and Kate(?).--Mistertrouble189 22:08, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I guess we should.--Gonzalo84 22:30, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

• In the bottom listing under MiB it is mentioned that Jin is apart of the MiB's group. This is untrue for certain. He was with Claire but we don't know his whereabouts at this time. It is specualtion to say he is in the group, not a fact.--Phryrosebdeco23 02:59, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sundown, Monster Travelling Over Kate, Screams

Did anybody else notice the weird screams coming from the monster in Sundown when it was travelling over Kate? At first I thought it was just the wind passing by, but now I'm not so sure. After Kate jumps into the hole, the camera changes angle to look down at her, then we see another angle looking up at the Monster. A second or two after that, we see a substantial shape fly through the smoke accompanied by a sharp screaming noise. It almost looks like it could be a person in the smoke being hurled along. Anybody else got anything on this?--Terryjb 13:07, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! I heard it. It's the same scream that the Hurley Bird makes! But here it doesn't say "Hurley", it says something else. That's very interesting, because the Hurley Bird was probably the Man in Black. Actually, the first time we hear it, is in Exodus, when they show the Monster for first time. My english sucks, I know =P but it's because I'm writing fast --f23456ar 15:07, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad you said that! I thought the sound was reminiscent of the Hurley Bird also. I uploaded a large animated GIF on my website http://www.terrybutler.co.uk/2010/03/06/lost-s06e06-sundown-figure-in-the-smoke-monster/ (The links are all there), which if anybody wants to use for something, they're welcome. I would prefer it if the Monster and the MiB weren't the same thing, but that's probably wishful thinking. I wrote on my my site about how we've never seen the MiB change (It's always off camera) so all we've got to go on is the word of a man who's motives are selfish, although it has been hinted that the monster can take shapes for a few seasons now. (I uploaded that picture of Eko turning to face the monster and the Monster is actually partially formed for a single frame to mirror Eko's shape). So either the Monster is carrying a victim along, or it's carrying the MiB along with it (Whether MiB and the Monster aren't the same thing, or perhaps they are and it's just a partially formed version of him (or somebody else)). Phew! --Terryjb 16:58, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Origin

We can't be sure that the man in black originated on the island, after all he said "I want to go home", so i've changed from "the island" to "unknown"

--Unionx 19:31, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Other manifestations

Two possible manifestations of the MiB have been overlooked in this article: (1) Christian Shepard, who was a mysterious presence in the first season, & reappeared in the 4th season (with Claire in the shack) & in the 5th (welcoming Sun & Frank Lapidus to the abandoned Othersville); (2) the boar which Sawyer hunted down in the powerful episode "Outlaws" from the first season. Were they or were they not manifestations of the MiB? I think they were. -- Llywrch 20:57, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

connection to the magnetism

Button pushing happened because Dharma hit a "pocket of magnetism," if Faraday knew what he was saying. What if that pocket has something to do with Smokey and/or his trap? (I reached this idea after reading some of the "genie" theories). Then, the destruction of the hatch would have loosed him, in some way, giving him the freedom to begin his trans-chronological manipulations leading to Jacob's death. When Juliet detonated the H-bomb, she stopped this event.

Negative view of humanity

From the article: The Man in Black expressed a negative view of humanity

When did this happen? When did he indicate that he was referring to humanity, and not a specific group of people?

Some cleaning and housekeeping

Based on numerous requests for rewrites, I've gone ahead and done some housekeeping and general cleaning up of this article.

Based off the loosely worded "Capabilities" and "Inabilities" sections that recently popped up, I wrote full, detailed "Abilities" and "Weaknesses" sections with subsections for the Monster, shapeshifting, immunities, sonar fence, ash circles, banyan trees, etc. Also, as per a request, I tidied up the "Victims" section, adding "Single" and "Mass" subsections to the "Direct" section in order to add the Temple massacre's unknown number of victims.

One potentially controversial change I made was cleaning up some of the unweildy, oddly-worded references to the character as the "Man in Black," as if someone had just run a Find and Replace search for "Monster." Phrases like "the Man in Black looms above Montand," when the picture clearly shows a giant cloud of smoke, are confusing and oddly worded. Therefore, whenever he's in his Monster form, I called him the Monster or Smoke Monster. When he's doing something as one of his shapeshifting forms or his motivations and thoughts in general are being discussed, he's the Man in Black. I didn't make too many alterations, I just changed references to activities by his smoke form so they didn't sound as weird. ShadowUltra 17:27, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Banyan Trees...?

Appears Banyan trees have been added under weaknesses of MiB, tho' per my two cents there's not enough evidence to support it. Characters have hidden in them -- e.g. not been found -- and who knows what was going on when the monster flashed lights at Juliet and Kate. The section on Boone and Shannon is irrelevant as it was a hallucination under the influence of drugs. I do not recall Rousseau making any such claim that Banyans were a source of protection -- merely she indicated the group could hide in there. I think this section should be removed. Spiral77 16:13, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• The original poster might've put words in Danielle's mouth somewhat, but overall it's consistent in the transcript:

"We hear the sounds of the monster and see Arzt running around. Danielle runs into a bamboo stand.

DANIELLE: - motioning to Kate and Jack - Here, in here.

HURLEY: Dude, we've got to book.

LOCKE: Wait. It's headed the other way.

- The rain stops.

DANIELLE: We're safe now."

I made the post about the non-effect to MIB in 'Recon', and tried to clean it up to use "appears to repel" since we don't have any science to go on, just the related instances where Smokey remained outside the thickets. Trying to keep to a factual presentation of what seems relevant. For example, the black smoke had no problem issuing from an intricate & small vent in the floor when Ben faced it, but if I added it inside the banyan entry would it look like a forced proof. But I *think* that's good proof that Smokey doesn't enter banyan thickets because they're too narrow. That's what this page is for, weighing the merits & significance of what we know. I understand under the banner of 'Weaknesses' it sounds like we're looking for kryptonite, but really it's just putting events on display until we do get some explanations. Duncan905 23:58, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Seems a bit of a weak peg to hang the coat on to me. You may have something in that the monster might want to haul people out of there but could not because the entrance was too narrow. I'd have to go back and check, but seem to recall the Monster did penetrate such a tree when following Kate & Juliet, flashed mysterious lights at them, then took off for unknown reasons. Rousseau's comments could also be interpreted in that banyan trees just make good places to hide. Alternatively the Monster just didn't care. Note in "Recon" as well, MiB walked into one to talk to Kate. Spiral77 03:11, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • Agreed it's 'coincidentally effective' each time, but Smokey doesn't go in close to Juliet & Kate, presuming that's what the camera POV meant. Danielle survived alone on the Island for 16 years & was familiar with 'the security system', so I take her direction into the thicket as more than taking cover. Where do you hide from something with no eyes? Maybe instead of "Weaknesses" it should be "Limitations"? Again, not looking for kryptonite, trying to highlight possible clues. Duncan905 04:03, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • I believe Robert told Danielle the monster was a security system in "This Place is Death" (S5). Spiral77 22:13, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • • Correct: "There is no monster. It's just a security system that guards the temple, that's all." Robert of course passed along wrong information which Danielle partially adopted. Sorry I used 'security system' instead of Monster above, I meant Danielle's own experiences in the 15 years after her team was dead. Duncan905 23:05, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

'Recruiting/Influencing' - new section?

I've noticed a correspondence between how MIB (accurately) describes Jacob delivering his touch at moments of people's vulnerability, and his own timing of recruiting or trying to influence people when they are vulnerable:

• Claire - stole Aaron and blamed the Others
• Sayid - had undergone resurection, torture, banishment, and was offered anything he desired ('claimed' still unexplained, could be a factor)
• Richard - Jacob's death, knocked unconscious & kidnapped upon recognizing MIB
• Sawyer - found alone in a drunken rage at the barracks
• Ben - found digging his own grave
• Kate - just attacked by Claire, sobbing alone

if we go on to add other encounters (though not all encounters confirmed as the Monster)

• Ben/Ben's mother - was running away from 'home' after being blamed for his mother's death
• Jack/Christian - Christian's recent death, the ordeal of the 815 crash
• Eko/Yemi - recovering from his ordeal in the bear cave, afraid of the black smoke, spiritual crisis
• Ben/Alex - was seeking judgment from the Monster, feeling guilt over Alex's death
• Locke/Christian (cabin) - desperate to save the Island
• Michael/Christian - facing his death, trying to redeem himself with the sacrifice
• Locke/Christian (cavern) - just fell & broke his leg, desperate to stop time skips

In 'Recon' we learn that "recruiting" doesn't mean transformation into a mesmerized evildoer, everyone following FLocke only made a choice that suits them at the moment. Cindy speaks up that the group "wants to know what happened", and MIB's response causes some discontent. It's being presented that "recruting" isn't a magic spell - MIB's influence is limited to what people will believe, so he chooses his moments for maximum effect. Anyone else think this aspect of MIB's behavior is worth having a section? It might prove to be his strongest 'ability'. Duncan905 00:35, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone agree? I think in'Ab Aeterno' we get a full look at MIB's modus operandi: scan, appear as someone known & deceased, manipulate at a moment of weakness. Maybe it could be added as a column to one of the tables of encounters. Duncan905 18:35, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Smokey is the Spider????

This page states "In the past the Man in Black once took on the form of a Medusa spider so as to paralyze Nikki." Is there any justification for this at all? Yes, I know the Monster's sound was heard in the vicinity when Nikki was bit, but is there anything that's ever been on the show to suggest that the Monster WAS the spider as opposed to just in the area? If no one comes up with some evidence for this.... I"m removing it.--Faraday100 13:30, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

It was confirmed by Damon and Carlton at the same time the other forms were confirmed-in the March 21, 2008 podcast. --Golden Monkey 13:38, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Body-snatcher Jacob & what to call "Titus"

Pretty significant accusation by MiB that Jacob stole his body. Needs to be addressed on the Jacob page too, but for now I just listed it in the narrative from 'Ab Aeterno's' timeframe.

Meanwhile, we also have the unexpected physical interaction with MiB and Richard. *If* the MiB was truthful that Jacob stole his body, the Man in Black as portrayed by Titus kind of needs a better designation: his form is almost certainly that of a deceased person, and we have no leads on what their name might be. For the narrative on 'Ab Aeterno' timeframe "in his standard form at the time" sounds clumsy, but how else can we designate that Richard saw three different forms of MIB in a short space? Duncan905 19:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Isabella

I think it's premature to definitively say she's the smoke monster too, although it is strongly implied. She could have been a pure hallucination of Richard's, or something else entirely. Tuttlemsm 21:04, March 24, 2010 (UTC)tuttlemsm

• I couldn't disagree more. How would MiB know about a hallucination? She appeared after the smoke monster scanned Richard. MiB then exploits Isabella's appearance and extends the decption of being in hell, and lies that she is with Jacob and can be retrieved. Duncan905 21:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • MiB would know about the hallucination because MiB can scan people's minds. My point is that we don't know for a fact that Isabella was the MiB. It is only strongly implied. Do we know for a fact that Jacob doesn't have shape-changing abilities as well? Tuttlemsm 15:22, March 25, 2010 (UTC)Tuttlemsm

Names section reorganized

I reorganized the Names section to separate fan/cast/TPTB nicknames from how he's referred to on the show. Should the on-show section remain the single list I condensed? I thought having "as the smoke monster" "as the man in black" would look very redundant with the obvious first entries in those categories. Any formatting ideas appreciated, I tried adding a separator line between the two types but that looked off as well. Duncan905 21:43, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE LOOPHOLE?

At the end of season 5, the MIB says "One day I am going to find a loophole" in order to kill Jacob. I thought that it was because of rules that would not allow that to happen, at least easily. However, as we have seen it, the answer, the loophole, did not exactly require a rocket scientist to be found. Rather the MIB could have someone else do it for him. How long did that take MIB to figure out?

Seriously now, the only thing that makes sense to me is that MIB would portray Jacob as someone evil. Then the person deceived would commit the murder without really knowing he was doing something bad; quite the opposite. please share your ideas on that.--Johnnybravo2323 22:04, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

MIB/Jacob Theory

I think that Jacob is actually bad, while MIB is good. Because if you look at the flash-sideways, a world without the island, or Jacob, most of the people seem much happier. Claire is happy to be with Aaron, Hurley is lucky, Sawyer is a cop who almost found the real Sawyer (or Anthony Cooper), and etc. So, maybe MIB really isnt the devil like everyone thinks, and Richard (who wants to start working for MIB) knows its the right thing to do. Tell me what you think. Ilovelucy225 22:52, March 24, 2010 (UTC)Lucy.

Ilovelucy225, could you please delete the entry above & instead add your input to the Theories page? This page is to discuss what belongs on the article, thanks. Duncan905 00:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)