Talk: The Incident (event)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Incident (event) 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

Cause of the Incident

Didn't the Orientation film imply that the incident was caused by a human error? --skks 08:21, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Reading through the transcript again, I don't see that it specifically says it is human error that caused the incident. It could have been an environmental or technological problem.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   08:40, 28 March 2006 (PST)

How did you come to the conclusion that these two are involved?

I removed dating of incident as it cannot be conclusively proven that the Losties' interference in fact was the Incident, or merely pre-dated it or contributed to it in some way. Diamondjoecity 15:58, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Infertility

• Once the Incident began an infinite time loop "started" in which 30 odd years went by and a population (the left-behinds) was sent through time before settling in 1973. The infertility results because any children/people added to the population in the loop would cause an increase of X children/loop. This would in turn increase infinitely (through any probability of conception over absolute zero at an infinite rate) so that the population would reach infinitely instantly and destroy the loop. Therefore no people can be added to the loop who are not subsequently removed from the loop. Asymetric 10:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Examples of added/subtracted from time loop:
    • Alex is born to Danielle (added) but killed (removed)
    • Aaron born but leaves the island and does not return to the loop
    • Ji Yeon
    • Ethan (conceived before arrival of Sawyer & co.)
  • An issue with this theory may be the fact that the Others don't seem to travel through the loop with non-natives (evidenced by their disappearance in front of Locke); still it seems that this theory may be partially right, with the time loop/"paradox" prohibiting the arrival of new players in the loop. Asymetric 10:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AH/MDG

The first thing that came to my mind was something about "DeGroot". But none of our DeGroots got a first name starting with M. The only Dharma person I know of whose name starts with an M is Marvin. --Jambalaya 09:41, 30 March 2006 (PST)

It could be a reference to the type of incident - MDG being Magnetic D.... Generator? --Ronaldb 09:45, 30 March 2006 (PST)

I was thinking: Alvar Hanso / m.. De Groot --Loebas667 19:34, 3 November 2006 (PST)

Or their offspring? Mr. ? --Kilgore Trout 16:03, 13 February 2007 (PST)

We now know for sure from the jigsaw puzzles that AH stands for Alvar Hanso but what is MDG? 28 February 2007

Mama DeGroot; Dr. DeGroots brilliant, but evil, mother? -BearDog 16:38, 28 February 2007 (PST)

COuldn't the M stand for "Mittelwerk"? As in "Alvar Hanso/Mittelwerk & de Groots"? Furtim 22:14, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Alvar Hanso / Magnetic Disruption G(enerator?) Hunter 11:43, 18 July 2007 (PDT)

MDG could be Magnetic Direct Generation --gmc1001 15:37, 16 March 2009 (GMT)

The theory about the eye

Could someone elaborate on the theory of how the glass eye relates to the incident? Deleted for now.

The Crisis

How does DC's story about parallel universes apply to the Lost universe? The writer of this idea says The Incident may be the same, but draws no comparisons to the events of Lost. What's your backup? --Carl

• Just a theory Carl, Ive been looking into Walts comic, featuring Green Lantern and it seems that he has ties with the Linear Men, and the incident I refer to predates the story in Faster Friends, just as the incident in the hatch predates our current Lost storyline. Like I say its just an idea, I need to delve deeper, but it does support my theory that the numbers are six dimensional coordinates, which would lead to a parrallel universe. - Morrison

It just seemed out of place without an explanation in the article or without links and I wasn't familiar with that line of thinking. --Carl

The Dark Tower

(spoilers for Stephen King's Dark Tower)

This is something I wanted to comment (ramble) on but I wasn't really sure where to put it.

One thing which struck me when I initially saw the map was how it reminded me of the Dark Tower. The Tower in King's Novels is a structure that holds all of time and reality together. It's supported by six "beams" which run through the tower itself (i.e. one beam runs 0-180 degrees with the tower in the middle, the next is 30-210 degrees etc...)

At each end of the beam, there's a portal guarded by a particular totem creature (twelve portals/creatures in all, two per beam). The creatures are generally cyborgs of a particular animal (the one we meet in the novel is Shardik, The Bear).In the story the beams are being broken, threatening the Tower. If the Tower falls, so does everything in the universe.

While obviously the island is different, I do wonder if the Dark Tower is an influence here. You have several Dharma stations surrounding a central mystery with several lines running through it connecting them to each other. And the Swan looks like it's certainly preventing something bad from happening.

Just some thoughts I needed to get out. Feel free to move/delete this if you feel it's bloatish. :)

--Jmast7 12:42, 4 April 2006 (EST)

• There are other similarities to the world of the Dark Tower. Just as 4,8,15,16,23,42 repeat in Lost, the numbers 19 and 99 are very important throughout the Dark Tower books. The Life Extension project is reminiscent of the fact that the Gunslingers live for so long. The Hanso Foundation is very similar to the Sombra Corporation, in that they both formed in the last decades of the 20th century, and monopolised all sorts of new technologies. The Sombra corporation was associated with various compnies like North Central Positronics and Lamerk Industries, just as The Hanso Foundation is asscoiated with Widmore Labs and Paik Heavy Industries. North Central Positronics also resembles Widmore Labs in many ways. They both produce a very large variety of technology. NCP produces the guardians of the beams (like the Cerberus in Lost may be produced by Widmore), and the Doguns, which bear a remarkable similarity to the Hatches. The one main character child on the island (Walt) has similar supernatural abilities to the one main character child in the Books (Jake). The Others try to steal Claire's apparntly very important baby. The Taheen steal Susannah's very important baby. Claire has Charlie (an ex-heroin addict) in love with her, and trying to pretect her. Susannah has Eddie (an ex-heroin addict) in love with her and trying to protect her. Charlie and Eddie both have similar experiences smuggline drugs on planes, and ending up hiding in the toilet. The brand Nozz-a-la, seen on Henry Gale's baloon, is a brand of coke from the Dark Tower books. Perhaps Stephan King has some creative control in Lost, and the Island is another Keystone World. Perhaps the Hanso Foundation are the ones who cause the Supervirus that destroys the world. Perhaps Alvar Hanso becomes the Crimson King. Unlikely I know, but it would be cool nonetheless. ;)
  • Or it could just be the fact that Damon Lindelof is a huge fan of Stephen King and has stated that Dark Tower is his favorite series of books. --Isotope23 11:15, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Red Herring?

I don't know if the "Cheers" dialogue is really necessary to illustrate a red herring, it seems to just clutter things up when we could just link to wiki's red herring page. Also, do we really need to point out that something might be a red herring - couldn't everything be a red herring? Doubtful that the writers would just never explain this - it could be a red herring from DHARMA, but doubtful from the writers. Anyone? --Bremerton 10:26, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

Well, the "Cheers" Dialogue is a perfect example of a red herring, and it mentions a supposed incident that went unexplained. I am not saying it might be a veiled reference to Cheers. Besides, it's funny. †††GodEmperorOfHell††† --10:52, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm in agreement with Bremerton. The "Cheers" dialogue is pretty irrelevant and has nothing to do with Lost. The only connection to the page at all is that incident is quoted. Ya, it's funny, but not entirely appropriate to the topic. --Sid67 12:24, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm only bothered by how it's quoted in the article - i.e. how I'd have to widen my browser window a lot to see it all. The article would work with the explanation alone. --skks 12:36, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm also struggling to see the relevancy here. I guess it's OK to add the red herring-theory, but three quotes from an unrelated show is a bit too much. --Jambalaya 03:33, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

I personally doubt it's a red herring, and while I feel it's an OK thing to point out that something on the show might be a red herring in the Theories section ("The incident could be a red herring to distract us from xxx"), I don't think we need to have an in-depth explanation and example of a red herring on this page - as I mentioned earlier, I think we should just link to wiki's red herring; the less bloat here the better.

More appropriate than "red herring" term is the MacGuffin. A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or Maguffin) is a plot device that motivates the characters and advances the story, but has little other relevance to the story itself. On the actual topic of using the MacGuffin, J.J. Abrams is no stranger to using one. Taken from Wikipedia:

• Alias : Practically every episode of Alias is centered around a MacGuffin which the CIA and/or SD-6 is after. (Sydney Bristow: "What is that--perfume?" Michael Vaughn: "Whatever this is, we have it now, and they don't. Because of *you*." -- Season 1, Episode 13, "The Box (Part 2)")

PanSavant 18:06, 8 May 2006 (PDT)

regarding abrams, the first section of mission impossible:3 also revolves around the pursuit of an item named the "rabbit's foot", which is essentially interchangeable, and there as a device to advance plot, and nothing more. --kaini 19:51, 8 May 2006 (PDT)

Do We Need Theories Anymore

We know what the incident was, do we really need theories. Just a thought--CaptainInsano

The great thing about Lost, is that even after we find out what something is, there's still a hell of a lot of questions to be answered. I reckon there's still plenty of room for speculation regarding the incident. --Donelle 14:49, 17 August 2006 (PDT)

We do not know what the first incident was. As the first incident led to the numbers having to be pushed in the first place, so the first one was not by not pushing the button. --lewisg 15:44, 17 December 2006 (PST)

Exactly, we have a lot of information, but all that does at the moment is create chaos in knowing what the hell is going on, the first Incident could easily have been caused by Jughead, an electromagnetic anomaly, an incursion by the Hostiles, or even something trivial like funky sonar waves driving the animals insane and the polar bears and sharks killing people. All we have at the moment are potentials, and we won't find out for sure until we see it happen.Davie1253 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's appearing likely that there were several "Incidents. The one at the Swan the Cerberus system malfunction, and possibly a couple more. --LOST-The Cartographer 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Are you kidding, the incident is the central mystery of season 5 - do we need theories...geez

Agreed. We don't know if the 'incident' was a hydrogen bomb detonation, or some energy released while drilling at the Swan site. Or both. Or maybe something completly diffrent.--Pirate87 09:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Real Event?

Does anyone know if the incident may be something that happened in the real world, caused by the lost world? Like the crash of flight 815 was a result of the numbers being pushed, so whos to say that Chernobyl or something else was a result of the same thing?

Nah, Chernobyl happened in 1986. The Incident would've happened in 1980, or slightly before. (And the crash of Flight 815 was most likely a result of the numbers *not* being pushed in time.) :) That said, maybe there /is/ a corresponsing real-world event, but I really can't think of one off the top of my head. And we haven't yet been presented with any flashback evidence of such a thing, to my knowledge. --Shodan1138 21:05, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

I think I figured it out

I think I know what the incident was. This might sound crazy, but give it a chance:

Dr. Waxman was in the hatch initially (maybe with radzinsky, maybe earlier). There was a system failure of some sort, causing a large electromagnetic pull as seen in the season 2 finale. The pull started ripping knives, forks, stoves, and what-not across the room. Waxman couldn't escape and a stove or something very sharp/heavy came and chopped off his arm. This incident led to the Station 3 Protocol with mandates the input of the code every 108 minutes. --User:Degroot of all Evil

If the orientation video is to be believed, then "the incident" occured before 1980. I doubt that Radzinsky was in there for more than 10 years, so it'd have to have been way before he got there. --Doc 12:21, 7 July 2006 (PDT)

There might have been more than one "Incident" - the one referred to in the 1980 Orientation film, and another one in 1985. I kinda like Degroot of all Evil's theory, though. It makes some kinda sense. --Shodan1138 12:28, 7 July 2006 (PDT)

Natural Magnetism

Ok so if the island is really on Earth, then the island would always have produced this level of magnetism. I don't think it is a "natural" process that caused the incident or the need for the button to be pushed. DHARMA probably made some kind of machine to increase the power, but they messed up and there was the incident. Instead of remaking the machine they decided that they would just use a temporary fix, pushing the button. They could continue with their tests, without having to build a whole new station.

---

We should rename this one

I think that we should rename this article: we know that the incidents were 2, one before 1980 (the copyright on Swan's film is 1980), caused, as Dr. Candle said in Swan Orientation Film, "...attempting to use the computer in this manner [communications with outside world] will compromise the integrity of the project and worse, could lead to another incident. I repeat, do not use the computer for anything other than entering the code". The other incident is the one written on the Blast Door Map, named "AH/MDG", that took place in 1985.

But we should also think about these points: 1. Did the first incident happened because the computer was used to communicate to the outside world (but: outside the Swan station or outside the island?)? What were the consequences? Preventing communications with outside world could be because of the secrecy of Dharma, or, if referred to the other stations (and, maybe, an utopistic village) the thing was to compromise not the psychological experiment (I think that Swan, with the "Push or not push?" question, was also useful for psychological experiments). The second incident, in my opinion, was something like a dispute between Hanso and the De Groot (AH/MDG), maybe about ethical points of view. 2. The one who cut Swan Orientation Film was trying to hide THE INCIDENT and not the possibility to communicate with THE OUTSIDE WORLD. A consequence could be the fact that there are no references about 1980's incident on Blast Door Map.

So, I would like to know your points of view, and I think we should rename the article, because it's a fact that we know about two incident, and, now, talking about one only incident it's a theory. --andreapasotti

"Enter 77"

Any chance that "the incident" is related to the purge that Mikhail told Sayid about? Seems odd that the recording of Dr. Candle would also mention "hostiles" unless the two were related somehow. --Yoshie 11:40, 08 March 2007 (EST)

Yes of course there is in fact it is very likely but we aren't merging if that's what you're getting at. Princess Dharma (banned)

This may be splitting hairs, but if a discharged occurred unintentionally, I would have chosen the word "accident". Perhaps the incident was the Purge as stated by Yoshie and problems with Swan's magnetism was a result of the Purge, but not necessarily the incident itself. Its interesting that both the Flame and the Swan were rigged to be destroyed in the event of a hostile incursion (Swan = dead man's switch). What's weird about the flame is that you have to beat a chess game to destroy the station--who has time to play a game of chess when under attack? --Rjtalbot 08:46, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

• Unless those that man the station know the exact moves to make the computer 'lose'. As it has been referenced elsewhere, the winning sequence is a set of famous moves. Locke stumbled onto them, but Mikhail could have memorized the exact sequence of moves to access the override. Belle42 09:37, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

This Article is WRONG

Am I really the only one to notice this? The first paragraph in this article states that the incident happened four days after Jack, et all arrive in 1977 - that's not the case. It indicates that it was a drilling accident at "the swan" shown in "the variable" - the drilling incident in the variable was at the the orchid - the article here also states that the incident is what caused the swan to be built - the swan wasn't built over the frozen wheel and it was already planned in 1977 - this is totally wrong -- do it to it. 20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually you are totally wrong. Obviously you didn't hear Daniel. He told Dr. Chang that it was going to be at the Swan, and Dr. Chang states this in the Swan orientation film. I don't what you've been watching or reading, but you're mislead. --LOST-The Cartographer 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• • My issue with the article's opening paragraph is that we are still not sure - even after seeing this season's finale - what EXACTLY the incident is. There are some inconsistencies in wording between the opening paragraph and the rest of the article. For example, the opening paragraph indicates that the incident caused the DI to build the swan, which is not true. Another example, in the section on the swan orientation video, it is stated that the incident "involved a leak in the containment associated with an electromagnetic anomaly". In the opening paragraph, the electromagnetic anomaly is stated as the incident itself. I was mistaken about the drilling accident - my mistake on that one. In any case, I still feel that the paragraph is poorly worded - it states assumptions as facts and seems to be in contrast with other details in the rest of the article. I didn't want to change it without discussing it first.  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I was also mistaken about the timeline. It seemed to me that more than 4 days had passed since Jack, et al arrived. I checked the timeline on lostpedia, and it claims that only 4 days have passed. Is that accurate? I mean, how do we know? Just because we don't see the characters wake up 5 times, do we automatically assume that it's only been 4 days? I felt that Jack and his crew seemed to have been with the DI for weeks during the course of all this, but I haven't scutinized the calendar as much as others here likely have ....  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I also disagree with the timeline. I believe that Sawyer had mentioned that the sub would not return for another couple of weeks, and that the 3 of them would have to pretend to be new recruits on that day or not for a while. And at the end of "Some Like It Hoth", Dan returns on the sub. If it had been 4 days, the sub would have been to Michigan and back in that time, which is highly unlikely. Entropian 03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename

• I think we should move this to Swan Incident because there were other incidents too. Dancing Penguin (Talk!) 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Especially since there is now an episode of the same name Mage 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)MageRage

Swan Incident or Swan Incident (1977)? Jack Dutton 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article needs moving because the episode has the same title.Searching for the episode yields no useful results. Volt_tiger 09:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

- It has always been known as "The Incident", we always knew it occurred at the Swan and we learn nothing new about it in the finale to warrant a name change. Miles actually refers to it as "the Incident" too, so it should remain the title of the page.--Baker1000 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• - We know it as "the incident", there are many groups you could refer to as "others" but we don't change The Others article name. --Blueeagleislander 06:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• - At no time is the "Incident" ever referred to as the "Swan Incident" on the show. If there was an episode titled "The Dharma Initiative", we would not, I hope, change the name of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Really Bad Robot (talk • contribs) 2009-05-16T16:57:09.

I propose a rename to The Incident (event). ShadowUltra 01:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• - I think we need a disambiguation page. --LOSTinDC 20:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A disambiguation page is ideal. Wikis should be formatted to read the mind of the general reader, whenever possible. I reckon, a lot of people will look up "The Incident" and expect the episode page. We should compromise with a disambiguation. Jacknicholson 18:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it should be named "The Incident (event)" Because there is an episode with the same name and it would avoid confusion. However, I think a disambiguation page would be a good idea too
• Per above stated reasons. --Uncertainty 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Leave everything as it is. This was always known as The Incident. There were other incidents, as in significant events, but this was The Incident.-- Steele  talk  contribs  00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• There is only one incident so no need to change it. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• The Incident (event), not to distinguish between incidents, but to distiguish articles between the episodes (The Incident, Parts 1 & 2) and the event (The Incident). Even if a disambig page is created, the article name should be more clear about its contents. -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with renaming the article to Swan incident (as does everyone else) I think that ShadowUltra's suggestion of The Incident (event) is much better in differentiating between the two articles. I'm changing the rename banner to this name, and starting a new tally below. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

New Section

I think we should add a new section to the article describing the details of the incident.Right now, the article doesn't describe exactly what we saw in The Incident, Parts 1 & 2(ie., the construction equipment being pulled into the hole, Pierre Chang losing his arm, Jack dropping the bomb, the survivor's raid on the Swan site, Chang's attempt to stop the drilling, Juliet being dragged into the hole, etc.). Frankly, I don't think this article should have been chosen as Featured article of the week, since it's not properly updated. I'll begin working on this as soon as I rewatch the episode, and I figured I'd post this here until then.--Linus2342 02:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this section. It's debatable whether the events we saw prior to the detonation of the nuclear device (drilling, magnetic attraction, etc.) were "the incident," or if the incident was the detonation of the device. Therefore, the conclusion that these events constitute "the incident" is speculative. Also, this section merely describes the events that take place in the episode, and is therefore redundant.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying we should delete everything we see on the episode from the article? Do you think that the producers named this episode "The Incident" just for the heck of it? Do you think that everything we see on the show should be purged from the wiki? Maybe you think that the Purge seen in "The Man Behind the Curtain" wasn't actually the purge? What about the description of the plane crash in the Mid-air break-up article? Should we take all of that article's detailed info off because it is "redundant"? I know I'm being harsh, but come on, does anyone else here think that we should at least put some info about the whole Swan accident seen in the finale in the article? Does anyone else think that that whole scene was "redundant"? I understand that we don't know exactly what he Incident was (either the bomb blast or the magnetism), but seriously, you are going to far here.--Linus2342|talk|contributions 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, watch the attitude. My opinion is as valid as yours, lest you forget. Let's not forget edit counts either, I have hundreds of standing edits around here, because as the first few hundred get changed, you learn how Lostpedia works. Second, why don't you answer the following questions for me, using concrete, actual canon facts, not just "evidence". 1)Was the incident caused by drilling into the energy pocket? 2)Was the incident caused by the detonation of the Plutonium core? 3)Did the core detonate?

Why try to write about the actual event if we don't know what the actual event was? Your descriptions of the lead up and event were more detailed than the episode article! I'm not saying they were poorly written, or that they weren't accurate, just overkill. I mean seriously, read what I changed them to. Is there any fact I left out that is necessary to explain the Incident? No! Now read yours, then take a step back and think (this is what you should do with every edit) "If i were completely new to Lost, and I wanted to read an article about "The Incident" what would I really need to know to be able to understand it?" That's it. That's all you need to include. That's all you should include. All other information is available to them elsewhere. You're trying to turn this article into a summary of the episode, and It's completely unnecessary. What you're doing is making that new person reread through a whole mess of stuff they already saw in the the episode article before they get to what they really want to know. If they haven't read the episode article, there's a link that says main article: "The Incident, Parts 1 & 2" right there, for their convenience.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand both sides of the 'detail argument' given in this article, but after reading the initial summary edit by Linus2342, I have to agree with Roobydo. The sections that were edited by Roobydo were, in my opinion, way to detailed and he was correct in rewriting them. Personally, I do not have a problem with this info being on this page in addition to The Incident, Parts 1 & 2, and I don't have a problem with some detail, but a full summary of all the events is un-necessary (in my opinion). That type of thing can by found on ABC's site and other places. I do not see LP as a place for that kind of detail. Only the most important parts are needed. It is easy to site LP articles like The Purge and Mid-air break-up since they are past events that we now have hindsight to give us all of those details. I also agree that this is also pre-mature to state that we know exactly what The Incident was. As questioned above, we don't know whether the bomb was apart of it or not, or if we've even fully seen it. As far as the actual Incident event, we have to wait and see what facts are given. The episode name is not enough info to say we saw the exact cause of the Incident. Also, the section titled "Lead-up", was very un-necessary as this article is about the actual Incident, not an episode summary of events prior to it. All of that being said, I would be happy if none of this was actually stated as the actual "event" since we don't know that is the case yet.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename to "The Incident (event)"

• A better title. It does not sacrifice anything from the original title, but it helps to differentiate between this article and the episode article. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Per Sam McPherson.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The plain "The Incident" article should be used as a disambiguation page as suggested in the vote above. Menefalas 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Incident should be a disambig -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How is that an improvement? For the user trying to reach the episode article by typing "the incident", it's still the same number of mouse clicks to get to the right article (one).  Robert K S   tell me  03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally think that The Incident should redirect to the more highly trafficked page, (the episode) and offer a link to this page. Because most likely, when searching for the Incident, people are looking for the episode. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• The incident has been around since season 2, it is what people will be searching for when they search the incident. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, if Sam McPherson is right, and the episode article gets more traffic, then it's better to assume that people are searching for it, regardless of how old the article is. And Integrated, with two articles with such similar names, one click is the best we can hope for. "The Incident" should be a disambig page, and each of the articles (episodes and event) should link to eachother, that way we've all bases.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Typing "The Incident" into the search box should lead to the episode page, since more people will be looking for that. However, at the top of the episode page, there should be a link to this page, The Incident (event).-- Steele  talk  contribs  15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Steelekid. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, right on. -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm with Steelekid, good suggestion. Islandx 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For all the reasons stated above. Like the idea of putting a link to the event at top of episode page.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting of "Event" Section

Why was the "event" section of this article butchered and shortened? The purpose of this section was to provide a detailed summary of The Incident, as seen in The Incident, Parts 1 & 2. Now, instead of being a descriptive summary, it is a few choppy paragraphs that vaguely summarizes what we saw in the finale. The information that has now been haphazardly deleted is needed in the article. We have to tell what happened during the incident in an article about the incident! If I don't get any feedback, I'm undoing this rewrite. Namaste.--Linus2342 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All the information that was removed is present on the episode article, and was therefore redundant. Also, a lot of the information was speculative, in that it suggested that actual "the incident" was caused by the drilling into the energy by the construction crew, and not by the detonation of the bomb. Neither has been confirmed to be the incident, and the re-written portion reflects that. Also, The section that was re-written was added recently, and was not a long-standing part of the article. You can see the original argument for both the new section and its rewrite here. Thanks.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  00:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

THE Incident

Are we sure that the event described in this article is "THE Incident"? Maybe the Incident was the death of Jacob or something. Bhbogue 05:35, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Lawks

Seeing as per The End it turns out the "Incident" did not actually result in the the alt time line and did nothing at all (which makes sense as the Incident was referenced in the actual timeline after Incident) references to this creating the alt time line need to be removed/amended.. Rehevkor 05:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Saying that, this makes Juliet's "it worked", a little confusing.. Rehevkor 05:15, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, after seeing The End, that the sinking of the Island has nothing to do with the Incident. The Swan orientation film mentions the Incident, and this implies that after the Incident, the Island is still alive and well and Dharma continued their activities there. Plus, it is also said that the Alt-Line was created by the Losties (meaning they also created the reality with the Island sunken). I think when Juliet uttered "it worked"/"we can go Dutch" after the Incident, she was having near death experience on the Alt-Line, in which she also said those to Sawyer. Perhaps the only thing accomplished by the detonation of Jughead was bringing them back to 2007 (Orig-Line). Jim08 12:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

The bomb didn't cause the Incident

I've struck a line at the end of the introduction stating that Miles was correct and the detonation of Jughead caused the Incident. I don't think we can conclude any such thing. Certainly, we know now that Jughead's detonation was part of the original timeline all along and that "whatever happened, happened." But things were already going wrong at the Swan site before the bomb is detonated. If I'm remembering right, the action starts after Jack drops the bomb down the hole, but it definitely hasn't gone off, or else Juliet couldn't hit it with the rock. Since they have already been unable to stop the drill, I think the episode shows us that the Incident is caused by DHARMA's drilling into the pocket of electromagnetism.

Indeed, it seems very likely to me that the bomb is what prevents the Incident from being completely catastrophic. While it's hard to argue for that too directly (Daniel isn't that specific in his discussion of what the bomb will do), it at least makes some kind of sense of why Eloise would spend her life manipulating Daniel back to that moment: because if he's not there to tell them to set off the bomb, something very bad will happen.

I don't know that there's evidence to mention anything like the last paragraph in the article, but it could use a little more reworking (especially the intro) to clarify that the bomb doesn't make the magnetism/energy release occur. The bomb is certainly a part of the Incident, but I don't think it's clear or correct to identify it as a cause. However, I can't figure out how to reword this any better. --Paulbee 19:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm striking out a paragraph in the opening which states that the hydrogen bomb exploded and caused the incident. We have no hard evidence that this is the case, only suppositions. Diamondjoecity 16:15, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

At the Swan Site revisions

I've re-written this section. There are far too many suppositions supported only by assumptions and not by anything presented on the show. We don't know, for instance, that the nuclear warhead was detonated and that it caused the Losties to return to 2007, or that the bomb's alleged explosion is the reason why Richard told Sun that he watched them die in 1977.

See also the Lost Via Domus Game, with its presentation of the "Incident Site" which apparently has nothing to do with the detonation/non-detonation of Jughead.

We simply do not know at this time if Jughead actually exploded, if it is the cause of the Incident, or if the Incident is some other occurrence. The producers, in titling the episode "The Incident," might intentionally be trying to raise questions, rather than answer them. Diamondjoecity 20:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

• (Please sign your talk posts.) I agree with the way it's written as of this edit. I like the fact that the above facts, like the Losties returning to 2007 and Richard stating he watched them die, are still at least mentioned in the article, while not explicitly stating any cause/effect relationship between them. I do personally believe that the Jughead detonation caused the Losties to time-travel to 2007, which caused Richard to think they all died, but I agree that we were not explicitly told this information and therefore cannot state it as fact in the article, but we can at least mention them and let the readers draw their own conclusions. --Celebok 18:15, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with you too Diamond. Nice job! I like your idea also, Celebok, about putting the different theories of what happened on the page. Going back to the Incident room in Via Domus, it could be that if the bomb was not detonated that it was used as fail-safe device. Not many things could permanently seal an anomaly like that. Diamond, you might like a post I made about a similar subject on the Swan talk page. It's at the bottom of the page under The Construction Site. --LOST-The Cartographer 07:41, June 30, 2010 (UTC)