Talk:Loyalty vs. treachery

To me, this page seems too close to secrets and deception to merit its own article. I'm not sure there's enough unique examples of loyalty and treachery that won't already fit on other pages. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2007 (EST)

• "Treachery", as we're using it here, does not necessarily equal deception. Simone disobeys Nathan's request by showing Peter the missing painting, but I wouldn't say she deceives him in doing so ... she's just loyal to Peter instead. Eden goes rogue, but she's not particularly sneaky about it. Sure, the Haitian's loyalty is brought into question because of his deception, but even that disloyalty is separate from the deception itself--if he's not loyal to Mr. Bennet, where does his loyalty lie?
  
  Treachery aside, there are even more example of loyalty to consider. Hiro sticks with Ando when Kaito's men catch him. Mohinder's mother puts her husband's needs above her own. I'd say if it's done properly, this is quite a separate theme: who are people loyal to? When faced with a choice, with whom do they side? In Eden's story alone, I'd say her primary quest is figuring out who to side with.--Hardvice (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2007 (EST)
  • I see what you're saying. I'm not opposed to the page, I just don't think it's necessary. That, or I'm lazy. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2007 (EST)

AFD

I figured this article has been a stub for a long time without any input for it, and as stated earlier, it resembles Secrets and deception enough to where any examples of loyalty vs treachery can be put there. Treachery seems to be the main focus of the article since people's loyalty shift a lot in the show (I think it was Beeman or Arkus who stated that it's intentionally done).--Bob 03:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

• I don't have any problem merging the two--sounds like a good idea to me. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
• If people's loyalties shift a lot in the show, shouldn't that be part of the focus of this article? Again, I think Secrets and Deceptions fits the one example we have; I don't think it necessarily fits all examples of shifting loyalties. There's nothing deceitful about, say, the tension between Hiro's loyalty to his family and his loyalty to his quest in Distractions. I just have the feeling that if we merge the two, a lot of examples of shifting or conflicting loyalties are going to be ignored because they don't fit very well with Secrets and Deceptions.--Hardvice (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Point taken ... but if we only have one example right now, is it really a recurring theme? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Again, there are a ton of examples that just haven't been added. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's one of the most prevalent themes. For some characters (Eden, Mr. Bennet, the Haitian), the question of where their loyalties lie is pretty much their entire storyline, while for others (Nathan, Claire, and Hiro), it's a big part of their storyline. This is exactly the case where we're voting to delete a stub that could have a ton of content, which seems silly, instead of arguing over an article that would have, even if expanded, little content (and most of it redundant), like the story arcs.--Hardvice (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Great point about discussing deletion. I'm right there with you about the story arcs -- I can't believe there's been that much discussion about it, and nobody's tried to write any content to support keeping it. As for L&T, I personally don't see this as a recurring theme, but if you do, more power to you. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
        • You honestly don't see the question of who or what the characters choose to be loyal to as a recurring theme? Wow. I don't know what to say. I really think that's probably the biggest theme for many of the characters. Perhaps we should change the name ... people seem to be getting hung up on the "treachery" part.--Hardvice (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
        • I understand where you're coming from Hardvice. It seems though that Loyalty/allegiance is your main focus, whereas my argument was treachery falls under Secrets and Deception. Because treachery is very close to Secrets and Deception (such as the Haitian working for Angela instead of the Company), this can be seen as treachery and deception/a secret. Whereas for loyalty, his ultimate loyalty is with Claire to protect her, but we don't know the true motives of it all. In all honestly, I think with regards to loyalty/allegiance, many of the characters involved in larger plots (Linderman, Angella Petrelli, Mr. Bennet, the Haitian, etc) we won't know their true motives until the end (I have a suspect feeling that Bennet knows who Angela is and somehow knew to send Claire to her). So with that, a loyalty article would mainly focus on Claire, Hiro, etc. as you stated. I just don't see how the theme as a whole applies since half of it can be interpreted as another theme.--Bob 16:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
          • You took the words out of my mouth, Bob. I am getting hung up on the "treachery" part. "loyalty vs. allegience" would be a much better title. The treachery part is pretty much synonomous with deception, and that's probably where my egg-addled brain was going. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
          • I have to disagree that Loyalty isn't a theme for Mr. Bennet, the Haitian, Eden, etc. Just because we don't know where a character's loyalty ultimately lies doesn't mean we can't talk about it. For example, in Company Man, Mr. Bennet's loyalty to the Company is tested multiple times: when Sandra discovers his equipment, when he's sent to kill Claude, and when he's asked to turn Claire in. Not all of those involve deception, but they all involve a question of choosing to whom to remain loyal. (For that matter, not all treachery necessarily involves deception...it's possible to betray someone to their face with no prior deceit.) I think it's the word "treachery" that's causing all the difficulty, but there is most assuredly a separate theme of conflicting loyalties.--Hardvice (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
            • It's been on my To Do list for a while to think of some good examples for this article, but it appear that there are any, except for the one listed. If there aren't instances of Loyalty or treachery, it can't really be a theme now, can it? Heroe!(talk) 18:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
              • I'll work on it. There are a ton of examples of situations where characters are forced to choose to whom or to what to be loyal.--Hardvice (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
                • So what should we do with this empty page ? Is someone really going to full it ? Because if not, then we probably should delete it. Anyway, I don't really like pages about feelings, I mean, are we going to have a page for Happiness or Sadness and add each time a character smile or cry ? -- FrenchFlo (talk)        04:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
                  • I think some people want to populate this page with examples, but we're all a bit busy with the new episodes. Let's give it until at least June 1 when things slow down a bit. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
• What does everyone think now? -Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
  • We actually have content now, but I just feel like some of the content on the page isn't exactly an example of treachery or loyalty. For example, Nathan sleeping with Niki isn't an example of loyalty as much as it is an example of treachery with his wife. A better example of something for this theme would be Niki's loyalty to Nathan to tell him about Linderman's plan since she seems to like him after their night together at the hotel earlier in the season. Seeing some examples though, I think that we should extend our "deadline" a bit further. I think Ryan's idea of waiting was a good one, and we should give people some time on this. A lot of the themes are stubs, and little is being expanded. Since there's content, however, I think we should hold off.
  • That being said, my original point on the article was that secrets and deception holds more true to the majority of examples with shifts in loyalty. Niki deceitfully telling Nathan about Linderman's plan behind Jessica's back seems like a stronger example versus her loyalty to Nathan, since her "loyalty" only is shown in one example. The only strong loyalties in the show are Peter to Nathan and Bennet to Claire. The rest of the loyalties seems to taper on and off, which would be a reason for secrets and deception to be the article for this content, where an individual still maintains their loyalty eventually (Claire's loyalty to her father), but it's hampered by secrets and/or deception. This would allow for loyalty to still be illustrated when "Claire's loyalty to her father is put into question when she learns of his involvement with her mother's mental illness". In addition, however, the shifting of many loyalties wouldn't have to be recorded. Matt's loyalty to Bennet, for example, is never fully established. However, his relationship with Bennet is documented in Groups and this article. My two cents (or bullets).--Bob 09:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Everyone for deletion? --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 22:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
      • No, in fact the afd should be removed. This is just a stub for which examples have yet to be added. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)