Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here
Take the Dharma Wants You test, all about Lostpedia, here
Talk:Arturo
From Lostpedia
Unanswered Questions
"Is Arturo a sex worker?" Is this open ended? And do we think it will be answered in a future episode? I see no evidence to suggest he is aware of the island (in fact there is evidence of the opposite) and therefore he would seem to be just a character to help reveal more about Tom's character. I'm not sure about the other two questions either but I don't think this one belongs.--MetallichickX 06:55, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- Gone. I'm not even sure the one remaining question qualifies as a UQ, because it's unlikely we'll hear about Arturo again--he was more a prop than a character--but at least it's the generalization of the questions I just removed. Remember, folks, speculation goes on the theories pages, not in UQ sections. "Is Arturo an Other?" and "Is Arturo a sex worker?" are theories disguised as UQs. Robert K S (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- The only reason I put it there was because of the "indulge" line, which was very suggestive. We accept that Tom is gay, and that Arturo was in someway in some kind of sexual relationship with him, but we don't accept that the character was essentially a hooker? or even question that? Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:24, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- There are lots of highly suggestive lines on Lost; they all make for great speculation. I think it's a valid point to bring up, but the UQ section isn't a place for it. UQ sections are for asking the questions that fill in the big gaps of the show--the things that make you ask, "But how could that be?" How did Michael get on the freighter? How did Anthony Cooper get on the Island? Why was Daniel upset about seeing the Oceanic Flight 815 wreckage? What is the Monster? There's no big gap here: Tom is in Manhattan and there's nothing unreasonable about seeing him interact with other people in Manhattan that we haven't seen before--whether they're hookers, Others, or the Special Hookers Unit of the Others:NY. Robert K S (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- But yet because Arturo kissed him on the cheek, we assume they're having sexual relations!!! You still seem to miss my point! If we can assume because of one kiss on the cheek that they're having sex, we can therefore ask whether he was a sex worker in the UQ based on the term "indulge". i certainly don't indulge myself when i see someone i'm having a relationship with, I just see them... Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:37, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- Maybe I am missing your point. UQs are meant to address otherwise irresolvable logical gaps which demand resolution. I don't see this as one of those. I also see "Is Arturo a sex worker?" a more closed-ended version of "What is Arturo's relationship with Tom?" or "How does Tom know Arturo?"--either of which I can handle keeping, if there are Lostpedians who insist in the possibility of Arturo being a character whom we'll learn more about later. Robert K S (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- I wouldn't rule it out. :) - Tvb 15:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- Maybe I am missing your point. UQs are meant to address otherwise irresolvable logical gaps which demand resolution. I don't see this as one of those. I also see "Is Arturo a sex worker?" a more closed-ended version of "What is Arturo's relationship with Tom?" or "How does Tom know Arturo?"--either of which I can handle keeping, if there are Lostpedians who insist in the possibility of Arturo being a character whom we'll learn more about later. Robert K S (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- But yet because Arturo kissed him on the cheek, we assume they're having sexual relations!!! You still seem to miss my point! If we can assume because of one kiss on the cheek that they're having sex, we can therefore ask whether he was a sex worker in the UQ based on the term "indulge". i certainly don't indulge myself when i see someone i'm having a relationship with, I just see them... Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:37, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- There are lots of highly suggestive lines on Lost; they all make for great speculation. I think it's a valid point to bring up, but the UQ section isn't a place for it. UQ sections are for asking the questions that fill in the big gaps of the show--the things that make you ask, "But how could that be?" How did Michael get on the freighter? How did Anthony Cooper get on the Island? Why was Daniel upset about seeing the Oceanic Flight 815 wreckage? What is the Monster? There's no big gap here: Tom is in Manhattan and there's nothing unreasonable about seeing him interact with other people in Manhattan that we haven't seen before--whether they're hookers, Others, or the Special Hookers Unit of the Others:NY. Robert K S (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
- The only reason I put it there was because of the "indulge" line, which was very suggestive. We accept that Tom is gay, and that Arturo was in someway in some kind of sexual relationship with him, but we don't accept that the character was essentially a hooker? or even question that? Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:24, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Reference removal
- Why to remove the hypotesis Arturo is based on the Italian real character Arturo Brachetti? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marianotomatis (talk • contribs) 2008-03-25T14:33:37.
- Probably because there's no evidence to support it, except his name. He could just as easily be based on Arturo Toscanini, Arturo Sandoval, or anybody else named Arturo. - Tvb 13:50, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
