Talk:Resident Evil 5/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Controversy - In favor of adding section

• I support adding a new "controversy" section to article. It seems like pretty straightfoward reporting. Including that the game has been questioned or accused by diff sources of being racist, is not at all the same thing as affirming it is racist. The allegations have occurred, are noted in several sources, and the term controversy is an appropriate section.

Also, it deserves a seperate section because despite RE 5's rating, some parents, grannies, friends spouses & other adult players will inevitably consider gifting the video game without having played it themselves or seen gameplay. Adult gamers who look RE5 up in WP want to know about these and other game CONS as well as the PROS.

Since Resident Evil 5 features shooting to kill primarily Black and now Hindu-looking people, in shanty towns settings and mock ups of India (especially after the recent bombings), it is certainly likely to embarrass the unwitting guy or gal who brings it to the average social gathering.

BTW, I'm a fan of the franchise (except this version - yuck). My time spent as a westerner in Japan taught me the Japanese can be remarkably naive about their own bigotry to all other non-Japanese, including other ethnic Asians. (More often it seems like complete ignorence or insensitivity about acceptable behavior outside of Japan, rather than intentional nastiness.) It's little surprise that the game marketers thought a quick fix to adjust the game against the emerging charges of racism towards Blacks, would be to simply add a Black female shooter, and to add shuffling East Indian-looking bad guys to "diversify" the game's black zombie population. Hitting the game makers on the nose with a rolled up wad of cash would probably help. 63.226.210.22 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding your personal commentary to the article doesn't seem like "straightforward reporting" to me. It's also disallowed by WP:OR and WP:POV.--Atlan (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your generalisation of the Japanese as a bunch of racists is racist... Get off your high horse, and get that chip off your shoulder mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Atlan. Please note there's no intention on my part to add personal commentary to the article.

What I mented on the discussion section seems pertinent to the topic. Also, adding rational perspective to topics that get people steamed up seems in order. However, I think I'll take your advice. 63.226.210.22 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section wasn't merged into the development section, only to be turned into a separate sub section again days later. The earlier version was an NPOV representation of the Newsweek item. That which you added didn't seem to stem from an updated source, but rather your perception of how events have developed in the mean time. As rational as your perspective (which IS personal commentary) may be, it is against policy to add it, as I said before.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember that in the newest trailer it is shown that they are doing evil against their will, and as Wesker is in it we can blame him, also remember that the location my be significant in the actual games. I think a well writen "controversy" section could help the article though. Oh and as a last thought I don't know what why so many people were making a fuss (I am not trying to be racist here) but in all of the previous games they have been killing white people, whether living or dead, as soon as they change ethnicity people thought they could be being racist even though they obversely weren't. I mean come on, why can't they use other skin colours, it would be stupid having a game set in Africa with all the evil people being white just to try and make sure they weren't being racist. Oh and the African women who helps chris looked far to developed to be put in just to satisfy people. Last thing, remember to sign your posts, and not consider the wiki to be an advertisment site and just use facts.

--'The Ninjalemming' 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I find myself inclined to keep the controversy section merged into the "Development" section. The comments about racism in the game should not reflect any user or critic's personal opinion, but rather convey facts to the reader, and allow them to make up their own decision. The two major references pertaining to the controversy from the game's trailer simply document the first allegation of Racism in within the mainstream gaming community, and comment from one of the game's producers. A controversy section would seem better if there were more reliable sources/information that could be added that expands the article, or if another controversy surfaced. Furthermore, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal, which discusses using the word "controversy" within articles, and when it may or may not be appropriate to use. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --'The Ninjalemming' 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I shuffled around the "controversy" text because "controversy/scandal" sections are strongly discouraged now. — Realist² 02:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say something about my recent edits - sorry for delay in explaining them here and thanks for not knee-jerk reverting the big change I made.

I did read the above comments about how criticism/controvery sections are discouraged. However, what I have introduced is something quite different from a controversy section. Rather, it is a focused section on one particular controversy that arose during the marketing of the game which has a defined beginning middle and end. Separating it out from the main time line therefore makes for easier reading. Also, it assists in a neutral presentation since all of the facts surrounding the controversy, including the accusations and the responses, are in one place.

The problem with a general controversy section is that it can be a dumping ground for all of the different criticisms that have been made of the game. Particularly with a game like this, there are likely to be many (violence, gore, etc) and creating a section to cover them all would, I agree be a bad idea.

I hope that what I have done can be seen as a middle ground between inviting unbridled criticism of the game while nevertheless separating out from the rest a specific series of events that occurred.

Of course, if the racism issues erupt again once the game is released, a different structure might need to be found. GDallimore (Talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that giving the controversy it's own section, violates WP:DUE here, especially considering its size. I'm not going to outright undo your well intentioned attempt at improving the article, but I do think this isn't the right way the handle the racism issue. I'd value more opinions.--Atlan (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added some comments in the 'E3 Trailer Racism Controversy'-section. I also agree that the section should be removed or at least modified to make it more balanced. It's confusing that this controversy-discussion is spread all over this page, by the way. GammaDelta (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So you like the franchise but not this version? Because it's racist? Did you play RE4 at all? Leon was shooting Spanish people. I'd prefer to keep the controversy part where it was previously. We don't need a big section shouting "PPL THINK THIS GAME IS RACIST!" when it can be balanced into the main article. Earisu ♥|^Talk 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've forgotten that most whites and Japanese are racist in the eyes of anti-racists, and like to twist things beond belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Demo Release Date?

Why does the Demo release date change from Jan 2nd to 5th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanpage19 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The demo for it was released today for the PS3; if someone would like to add it. -- Gouryella (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already there.--Atlan (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lighting feature

On the article, it still states that "If Redfield moves between bright and dark areas his eyes will have to adjust, causing the player to briefly lose some sight.", however, according to Capcom (Or their official forums, at least), this feature has been scrapped. I also saw nothing of the sort in the Demo. Can anyone confirm this is still the case? Dengarde ► Complaints 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing. I checked the source for the lighting effects and it actually says nothing about it, so I removed that part of the text. It would be nice if we had a reliable source saying this feature was scrapped though.--Atlan (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Accusations of Racism" part still need to be there?

Well after playing the demo, I noticed that there aren't only dark skinned villagers to kill, and there are a wide variety of other races (or at least it looks so) to fight. I really don't see what relevance the Racism part has on this game anymore, because few people are even mentioning the races anymore. Not to mention that the end of the racism paragraph sort of ends in a "Capcom is just trying to mask the racism" type of sentence. I won't go ahead an delete it because that's not my place to do so, but I'm just asking everyone to consider removing it. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.98.108 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as I wrote in the above section a few hours ago. Its outdated and no longer relevant in my opinion. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of it. Belasted (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are comng from but it is still part of the games history and an important bit of information, it doesn't matter if it isn't sid about any more it happened so it should have a part of the article;if you want to edit it and make it horter that is fine in my opinion as less people think about it but other games with controvisies in still have it mentioned even if the game is old. This is probably completely irrelevent but it is lke getting rid of somethin about history on wikipedia such as a certain war or even a battle because 'no one talks about it', it is still releven no matter how old it is. Well that is my opinion, but we still probably need more peoples thought's on subject so wait a while longer to see, say two more days. --'The Ninjalemming' 19:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be commentary from notable sources, and it doesn't look like the issue is going to fade away, judging from the Eurogamer hands-on comments. This has stirred notable amounts of discussion, whether one considers it a load of bullshit or not. Keep it.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's notable enough for inclusion in the article. It's just that the way it is done now, with its own (quite large) section, violates WP:DUE. This section should be trimmed down.--Atlan (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well so far it is three for three, so wait for one more day and then we will decide. --'The Ninjalemming' 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we should try and shorten it before coming to a final decision, it will show us what it would look like and then give us a good idea of wheather it is still approperate. I better not be talking in a discussion that's dead in the water. --'The Ninjalemming' 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, I don't care that it's "three for three" (I'm aware of your canvassing at User talk:Xeno). The article needs to comply to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if we want it to be good and balanced. Right now, this section is anything but balanced.--Atlan (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've actually tried to make the article more balanced, but you've simply removed my changes, even though you agree with me. If you really do agree with me, why don't you do something about the situation yourself? And is there any special reason why your opinion should count more than others? (I've added some longer explanations in the E3 controversy-section on this page) GammaDelta (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew that, I just wanted to make it seem unbiased and wanted to make it feel that peoples opinions were taking note of, as to not cause any disrupts to the community thing;sorry about the canvassing, I didn't know you couldn't do it, I wanted more people's opinions on the matter, won't do it again unless it's necessary. I will try to shorten it as much s I can but I am pretty usless at trying to get the inportant information out, so if you have time can you tell me what is making it unbalanced, other then the thing at the end. --'The Ninjalemming' 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some new stuff on this at Eurogamer. Blend Games' assertion that accusations of racism are a thing of the past are obviously a bit wrong.Mr T (Based) (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody seeing the game play will automatically think it's racist. That part of the aricle STAYS!.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, why exactly have these accusations spilled over into the introductory paragraph. Personally I think the whole racism accusation is massively overstated having played the game but, in any case, I'd prefer that this was kept in its own section rather than being laced through the article. Does anyone have any objections if I edit it out of the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article in one or two paragraphs. If this is an issue with weight/notability, perhaps its worth addressing the inclusion of the material altogether. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I’d argue that the reference to the allegations of racism doesn’t fit in well with the flow of the introduction and by attempting to sum it up in a few words it comes off fairly glib. It also takes the claims out of context given that much of the criticism was directed at the early trailers for Resident Evil and has been counterbalanced some of the broader features of the game. Additionally, most of the criticism was rather more defined than simply a white protagonist shooting mainly black African enemies. I’d rather keep it in the controversy section where it can be dealt with more fully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Characters.

Shouldn't the characters Sherry Birkin, the Women in the Red Dress and the person in the bird mask be mentioned here to? They seem to be important seeing as they are in many trailers. --Dragon Lizard Reptileus (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Give them a mention if you wish but make sure your statments are backed up by references. I havn't seen many Resi 5 trailers but 'The woman in the Red dress' sounds suspiciously like Ada from Resi 2 and 4, we'll see. --'The Ninjalemming' 14:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Capcom (Or rather, the mods on their official forums), the woman in red is a blond known as Allyson. She also makes several mentions on Experience Kijuju, which is a promotional blog made by Capcom following a character in Kijuju, known as Adam. Don't know if Adam is in the actual game though. Game informer has also mentioned one more new character, known as Josh, who you have to escort though the mine levels of the game. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I haven't seen Birkin in one trailer, never mind in "many" trailers.Daymeeee (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't know that, and neither do I, nor he. Sherry was 12 in RE2, and the story of RE5 takes place ten years later, so Sherry is now 22. I find it doubtful that ANYONE could recognize her in the trailers right now, being ten years older and with no concrete facial structure to recognize.Dengarde ► Complaints

I naturally assume that until someone is said to be in the game, any unknown characters in trailers are just that, unknown.Daymeeee (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is no reliable source stating any of these characters are in the game, they won't be mentioned in the article.--Atlan (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is this, and the only suggestion I've seen that it's incorrect is that it's old. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire -past ops) 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Everytime 137.99.151.100 removes the link, I will simply put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrisonBreakguy (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/46048.htmlDaymeeee (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AMiB. The problem wasn't that the source was old. The problem was that it was an unreliable secondary one. The Famitsu issue it cites never actually stated that Sherry was in the game. It should be Weekly Famitsu by the way, but the article doesn't even bother mentioning the issue number or date. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you live in Japan? I know you speak Japanese. Either way, just leave it until March 5 unless you can find a link to that Famitsu article.

I don't live in Japan per se, but I do frequent Famitsu.com a lot, which republishes most of the articles they published in their magazine. Give me a moment and I'll find it. Either way, none of the Japanese sources I've read actually stated that Sherry was in the game (not even the Japanese Wikipedia article). Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're lying but there really isn't any evidence per English magazines that contradict the info. And most of us don't speak Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrisonBreakguy (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because we all know that a negative can be proved or disproved. :p There's no other sources that asserts that Sherry will be in the game either, except that one 1up.com article, which doesn't directly cite Famitsu anyway, but a previous 1up article which speculated that Sherry might be in the game. Anyway, I couldn't find an online version of the cited article, but I did learn that an issue of Weekly Famitsu published in that month had a cover story on the game (the May 30, 2008 issue). Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The new interview Gametrailers had with Jun Takeuchi mentions Sherry. I don't trust the translator (who calls her Shelly, showing he doesn't know anything about RE lore) and my Japanese is somewhat limited. All I can make out is that Takeuchi is jokingly being ambiguous, so I don't know how useful a source that is.--Atlan (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't very useful as to confirm either way her appearance, but it does show that the magazine article sourced made up the information; if Capcom had given them that information a year ago, why avoid the question now a week before release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.71.72 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chances are the Japanese magazine article wasn't making up the information anyway, but rather the 1up.com article misquoted/mistranslated their source. Either way, its hard to find out, since I couldn't find an online version of the printed article. Its not very uncommon for sites like 1up.com to mistranslate Japanese sources like Famitsu and spread false information around (I remember one site claimed that MGS3 was going to be a timed Xbox exclusive, but it was actually MGS2 Substance instead). That's why it bothers me when they don't even bother mentioning the proper name of the magazine (there are four Famitsu magazines, not just Weekly) or the issue number (its always cited as the "latest (or current) issue", as if the info is not going to be dated anytime soon). Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Strafing

The game will lack strafing.[13] - What does strafing mean? Can somebody clarify this in the article. Thanks. — R² 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Strafe#Gaming.--Atlan (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — R² 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that definition:

This term has been adopted by certain gamers to mean "sidestepping", primarily in first-person shooters (FPS); in this context, it refers to the movement alone, even when no weapon is being fired.

The game allows you to sidestep, just not at the same time as firing, so the game does allow you to strafe, or am I reading it wrong?--Hasney (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The game allows strafing while not aiming. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Survival Horror but Survival Action

They need to change the genre to Survival Action, because in Resident evil 4 it clearly on the back of the case states "Forget Survival Horror this is Survival Action" so if the gameplay is similar to Resident evil 4 it can't be considered Survival Horror.

I take it you're referring to the PAL version on the PlayStation 2? That's the only box that says Survival Action on the back. Beyond that, you misquote the box, as it says: "Forget survival "horror", this is Resident Evil redefined etc etc...".--Atlan (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It also would be horror as it is trying to scare people, if you were going to include 'action' it would be 'Survival Action Horror', and I don't think anyone is going to put this in. The "Forget survival horror etc" is just a tag line and doesn't actually mean anything anyway. Blah 'The Ninjalemming' 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reports of survival horror's death have been greatly exaggerated. Whatever existing genres the gaming press refers to the game as should be what's in the infobox, and there's no shortage of sources which refer to it as survival horror. There is no such thing as 'survival action', video game genres don't suddenly appear when different words are slammed together, and the whole point of genres is to compare like with like. That doesn't happen until several games of the same ilk are around, a loose set of criteria appears to define that genre and a name (or names) become associated with them. It may be in the future that another genre appears and that some games are retconned into that genre, but if that does happen we are talking years not weeks. The original Alone in the Dark is held up as the origin of survival horrors, yet the term wasn't even coined until the release of Resident Evil some 3 or 4 years later and a (halfway) clear genre definition did not take hold until several more games were released on the back of RE's success. So don't chomp at the bit to start applying an empty label to this and RE4, either a 'survival action' genre will eventually emerge or the very idea will fall into disuse and they will be marked as examples of an evolving genre, which is how several journos are already writing RE5 up as. Someoneanother 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey 2 year-olds! grow up -- this is a third person shooter! HORROR?! What the hell? Its the same as Dead Rising / DR2 -- just because they have monsters doesn't mean they're going to make you go AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Seriously project horror is illogical, everything is probably categorized BY STALE EMOTIONLESS BOT-LIKE WIKIPEDIA... fools. Who have never played the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.166.193 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell was that! I am 16-1=15-1=14 fourteen year solder then two, just because were balbering on about whether it is survival horror or action doesn't make us, what was it, emotionless bot-like wikipedia fools, who have played all the games. it can still be horror but not scary, like some people are scared by a horror film, but others who watch it are not scared at all, it doesn't have to be generally scary at all to some people (no what thats a bad argument). The lack or AHHHHH! bit doesn't make it a lack of horor category, CAPCOM made it third person as this was supposidly scarier, note the scarier bit. Actually, I can't be bothered to waste time trying to explain what it is to you, I am just going to say two things, one what the hell do you prepose it is and two, sign your edits foo'. Now, I will say good bye and leave, in a huff. bye =) 'The Ninjalemming' 11:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Leading expert on racism...?

Who, exactly, decided that the guy is a "leading expert" on racism? As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing. Are any people considered "leading experts" on vandalism? How about christianity or Santa Claus? These are abstract ideas, and it would be naive to say that someone is an expert on these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asperger, he'll know. (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If the source say's he is the leading expert (and so long as that source complies with WP:RS) that's what matters. Your (and my) opinion is really irrelevant. — R² 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that the claimed expert was chosen and brought in by the game's producers. i.e. This isn't someone who just happened to have an opinion, but rather someone whom the company specifically picked and showed the first three levels of the game prior to its release. John Kim (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No other source beyond videogamer.com establishes Bowman as an expert on race. He has never published on either race or Africa. He is an expert in Levantine culture, concentrating particularly on issues of Palestinian and Israeli identity.

In other words, he ain't exactly Cornel West.

If you're going to discuss the page please at least sign your comments with four tildes (~). Earisu ♥|^Talk 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a leading expert on racism. Prove me wrong.--Sherwood-Nightshade (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If I called you stupid is it racist? and if I called you fat is it racist? (and I have never seen you so don't take it personally) =) 'The Ninjalemming' 11:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

7th game of resident evil

Just would like to mention that while it says "Resident Evil 5" it is actually the 7th game in the series. so the first sentence should be the seventh game in capcom's survival horror franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cldmstrsn (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. I changed it accordingly.--Atlan (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be a tad bit confusing to some people, who would want to include Gaiden, Outbreak, Survivor, and the Umbrella Chronicles, in the series as well. Is there a way to distinguish that its part of the main series? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if it follows the events of Umbrella, if it has a number in the title helps (except Zero) and if it helps the main plot. I know zeron, 1, 2, 3, 4 and five are obviously part of the main thing but is 'code veronica' aslo part of the main thingy. (sorry if I wrote this badly I did it in a hurry) 'The Ninjalemming' 16:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

'Code Veronica' is indeed part of the main "thingy" ;) --Hasney (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article ought to be changed to state that Resident Evil 5 is actually the 8th game in the series. I think the Gamecube remake of the first Resident Evil ought to be considered a separate game. It wasn't a simple port of the original, as were the Gamecube versions of RE 2, 3, and CODE: Veronica. It really is a different game, just one whose plot and setting happen to coincide with those of a previous game in the series.

Thoughts? Cafink (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think we should get rid of the sentence and merely say it's a RE game. Whatever we decide, those that think otherwise will just come along and change it ("Gaiden doesn't count.", "Remakes do count.", "Ports count!"). By removing it we bypass all this, and it's not like there's any confusion about how many RE games there are (cue argument about how many are 'core' titles). Geoff B (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it as the 8th game too. All the others are spin offs; and the REMake is essentially the same title with the same story etc. It's just longer with more things to do and slightly simplified storywise. I think maybe zero and CV should just be mentioned somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Playstation Home compatability

Why hasnt anyone edited in anything about it being able to launch from home or the fact it has unlockables IN home.

Someone did add a section on it, but it was entirely unsourced (so I removed it). Everything needs sourcing. — R² 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it needs to be properly sourced. But unless there's a WP:BLP issue with it, you don't have to remove it outright. You can just add a fact tag (which I did) or try to find a source yourself. I didn't put the section back because I thought it was rather poorly written and mostly redundant, but please show a little more restraint in removing unsourced additions, especially for things that can obviously be sourced easily (such as reviews).--Atlan (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to remove unsourced information outright, regardless of whether it is controversial. We are trying to write a legitimate encyclopedia, with quality articles. As jimbo said, he would rather no information than unsourced information. — R² 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added this section back with a source. The wording is better than it was previously. JDC808 (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Drafting a Plot Summary?

Perhaps we should start drafting a summary of the game's (admittedly ridiculous) plot so that when we're allowed to post it online (once the game launches in NA and Europe on the 13th) we don't have idiots running around writing summaries that only highlight the big plot twists.

Fine then (sign your edits please), but how do you know the games plot is? If we do get summaries of the games BIG plot points, then we do what we are meant to do and edit it to perfection. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done my own plot summary, and am aware that someone else did one while I was writing mine up. That one is a bit too long, but it clarifies some stuff. Thanks Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spencer's fate

I have added a section on Spencer's fate. It is now officially known that Spencer is set to be killed in RE5 (in an unceremonously manner). I think this is important enough to be included in the article. Spencer, Wesker, and HUNK are the three most important antagonists in the game, and there have been many games that have alluded to them in numerous ways. Killing such a major character and showing it wholesale to people who have awaited over ten years has brought disappointment, as many websites will attest. Other editors have sought to remove this important fact. EgraS (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The section was removed because it did not contain any reliable sources, or represent an attributed or notable view point (WP:NNC/WP:Weasel). Unless a notable source made or covered the claim, it does not deserve to be directly stated on Wikipedia (WP:NOR). Also, I am not sure why it would even deserve its own section. If it were to gain mention in this article, it should be mentioned in the Reception section, as long as it meets the aforementioned criteria. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of racism section

This section seems to have gotten pretty one-sided over the past few days and that is a real shame. Someone removed some of the commentary, saying that it was done because "professionals have declared the game not racist." To begin with, this section was never about declaring whether or not the game is racist, but to provide an accurate summation of the controversy. Removing links so that the section only represents one side of the controversy accurately weakens the article as a whole, IMO. Furthermore, several parts of this section seem to be trying to declare the issue done and over with, such as the link to Blend Games (why is Blend Games more worthy of Wikipedia than any other random site that has discussed this issue, as hundreds have?), but off the top of my head , several major figures in games journalism have recently discussed what they see as problems with the game, such as Tycho of Penny Arcade, Dan Whitehead of Eurogamer and Tom Chick. The subject is obviously not dead, and linking sources that suggest that it is and not linking sources that have subsequently continued the debate makes this section incredibly biased. I don't think anyone here needs to agree on whether or not the game is racist in order to want this article to be the best it can be, but as of right now only one viewpoint is being accurately represented here. 219.122.35.195 (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The section suffered from undue weight and still does. — R² 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? I don't understand why the Eurogamer article was removed as undue weight, considering that it in fact played a large role in influencing the VideoGamer.com piece (as well as a lot of other commentary within the gaming blogosphere which is where this controversy has largely unfolded) which is still included in the section. I also don't understand why the word of an anthropology professor who's area of expertise is not racism, Africa or media studies is given as much weight as it is in this article. The section seems very one-sided to me. 219.122.35.195 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Glenn Bowman is "one of the UK's leading experts" has no evidence to support it outside of the claims made in the VideoGamer.com article. I also believe that it should be noted, as pointed out in this article, that he is not an expert on Africa nor has he published anything on racism. -- 125.207.210.112 (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Dan Whiteman commentary because a) the racism-section was too biased (in favour of the critics), b) the section was too long, c) professional viewpoints weigh more heavily, d) the commentary contained too many quotes. You mention only a few reviewers who've criticized the game: How about all those reviewers who haven't even bothered to comment on the issue? Remember that only 2-3 reviewers have complained about what they perceive as racism in the game. Most of the articles you see on the net are derived from the same sources and none of the reviewers you mention are considered 'major figures'. Some of the modified text also contained an error (which I've corrected): It referred to a scene with black men and a woman, when in fact the scene featured one man and he wasn't black. He wasn't even going to rape her, but to infect her. This scene has been misreported by several sources. GammaDelta (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

a) Currently the section is not too biased in favor of the critics: it contains criticism from two journalists, two assertions from non-gaming industry professionals that the game is not racist, and commentary from the game's creators on the subject. That looks fairly balanced. b) Why is the section considered to be too long? c) What do you mean by "professional viewpoints weigh more heavily"? Whitehead's opinion holds more weight than Bowman, who has publicly admitted that he is not an expert on racism and doesn't know why he was selected for the interview (see the link provided above)--Videogamer.com has removed the claim that Bowman is an expert from their piece as well. The opinion of Whitehead--a video game industry professional, holds more weight than that of a random anthropologist. d) The Whiteman commentary can be edited to lessen the amount of quoted material without excising it from the article entirely.

Also, a lot more than 2-3 people from within the industry have complained about perceived racism in the game. This article certainly doesn't need a laundry list of all of them, but your claim that only 2-3 people are talking about this is at best misinformed, at worst disingenuous. Also, you really don't think any of the people listed above are seen as major figures within the videogame sphere? Not even Tycho? 219.122.35.195 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Another scholar, Mary Flanagan (Professor of Film & Media Studies/Distinguished Professor of Digital Humanities at Dartmouth,), has weighed in on the issue in The Wall Street Journal. From the source: Mary Flanagan, a professor of digital media at Dartmouth College, argues that the fact that the game's zombies are of color is a significant detail. "It's not to say we can't allow for transgression, but there are so few depictions of Africans in games," she says. Though she's only watched videos of the game, Ms. Flanagan says that to deal with violent images, particularly ones that involve people of color, the game should be nuanced and confront issues of race head on. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672060500987853.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.95.134.29 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In an interview with MTV Multiplayer, Jim Sonzero (a cinematic director for RE5) says that he doesn't believe that the game is "racial". 125.207.210.112 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What others in "the industry" say is quite irrelevant as you can't expect them to speak without bias - it's very beneficial for marketing purposes for them to encourage people not to buy competing games (and I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few were asked to comment on it for this reason by their PR deparments/ministries of propaganda). --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

call a spade a spade

There's no need to beat around the bush with political correctness. the controversy is over a white person shooting black zombies. –xeno ^talk 23:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just need to say this: HELLO! This game takes place in AFRICA!!! There are GOING to be black people in a continent with a black MAJORITY!!! NOBODY complained when Spaniards were killed in RE4, BUT as soon as Chris starts to defend himself from black people that are ATTACKING him, RE5 BREAKS some unspoken TABOO! I SWEAR it's like you people have nothing better to do, then find everything bad about a game, and make a big FUSS over it! NO ONE EVER complains when the main character of a game is Black and they kill white people (i.e GTA:SA)! Okay, I'm done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.215.39 (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not the ones making the complates, if it were it would never be on here at all, it is the media; and by the way as the game is fictional it can take place were ever it wants so the fact the developers chose Africa could raise controvesy (which it did). I agree that with you that it is stupid but some people are very sensitive to this sort of thing and you have to resect that in life. Now I forgot the rest of my thing so all I will say is that the you are right about RE4 but as I just said people are sensitive especially as it was only about forty years ago te world started to take a proper slant against racism. 'The Ninjalemming' 12:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Most stuff claimed as racist isn't though; even if the "anti-racists" do "win". Shame London's in charge of the UK.... If you discount Brussels :P --Kurtle (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Change of release date

It seems that the pal region has changed its release date to the 12th.

I cannot edit this so someone do it for me.

http://ebgames.com.au/PS3/product.cfm?ID=13527 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasperth (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Retailers are not reliable sources for release dates.--Atlan (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was 13 March. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? It was 12th here, but I guess it may just have been a street date break. --Hasney (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's here? 'The Ninjalemming' 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On the 10th a called my local eb, they told me the date had changed to the 12th. I picked up my pre-order on the 12th. The Australian release date was the 12th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasperth (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah, my bad. Leeds, UK. --Hasney (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand release date was March 13th. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mercenaries

I didn't know where else to put this so here it is , I think 'Mercenaries' should get its own small article as it is now a part of the Res series due to its inclusion in Res 3, 4 and now 5. But at this point in time all I have is Res 4 (I never owned or played on Res 3 and as my Xbox has only just been sent off for repair there is no need for me to buy Resident Evil 5 within the next few weeks) so can not completely make this article. If I am alowed to make this article then I may require the asistence of some one else to improve on it. Please reply to me on my talk page if you wish to discusse this with me. Cheers 'The Ninjalemming' 16:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Driving into Africa

The lengthy plot summary says the story begins with the protagonist driving into Africa. There's only one place where you can drive into Africa, and I'm pretty sure the story does not take place in Egypt. I'd fix it but this article is protected. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC

they didn't say driving to africa and anyways egypt is a country of africa so that makes no sense

Plot segment length

I decided to redo the entire plot subsection, as I thought it didn't flow very well. However, I fear it's too long in its current state. If anyone could edit it into a more concise form, I would greatly appreciate it. Agent Chieftain (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is too long - if it takes that much space to synopsize the plot, then it takes that much space. Also, "edit it to discuss the work rather than reiterating the plot". Isn't reiterating the plot what the plot section is for? I really don't think there is a problem here. Icarus4219 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what the plot section is for. See WP:PLOT. Geoff B (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OXM's rating of Resident Evil 5

I am reading OXM magazine and it says Resident Evil 5 got 9.0 thats 9 out of 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.148.40 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They're NOT zombies!!!! Who added that?

I think it should be changed to Majini.. Not zombies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.188.253 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

PC version (or lack thereof) and reliable sources

Retailers are not reliable sources for video game releases as they have a clear conflict of interests (i.e. getting pre-order monies in the door). –xeno (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, last I checked Play.com only charges when they actually send it out... Not everywhere is the same as America you know. Also, it's early enough in production that they don't want to take orders for it yet. If you look on other item pages you will see there's usually a buy button. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Retailers are still not reliable sources for video game releases. –xeno (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Play.com are always reliable for this sort of thing... And if you're going to say WP:RS (like the edit summary) I'll point you towards WP:IAR. Common sense should win out over wiki-lawyering. I understand that to people outside the UK they may just be a "retailer" but just about everyone here has heard of them and in PC Gamer magazine recently it was stated that they are now the top retailer of games... they're one of the main people in the industry in the UK and they have many lines of communication with developers, in fact it's usually more detailed than most other news sources to check what new games are coming out in the next few months by just going to their coming soon section!! --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's generally agreed upon that retailers are not reliable sources for this type of thing. I'm actually surprised this isn't already written into WP:VG/RS, but i've solicited further opinion from WT:VG. –xeno (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool I don't really know them so I'll go look... I hope you understand I'm only trying to make sure that people are informed and know that it's coming, I it's just for the reasons I said I'm 100% certain it's a reliable source... if you think there is not going to be a PC version, well, don't complain when I come back and say I told you so in a few months/the end of the year or whatever ;) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While play.com may be "reliable" in the literal sense of the word ("they're rarely/never wrong") they just aren't reliable in our Wikipedia sense of WP:RS (and IAR isn't a carte blanche to ignore WP:RS). Let's wait to see what others in the VG project say. In the meantime, perhaps scour for some proper reliable sources that talk about the PC version. –xeno (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try... the thing is though that distributors have lines of communication that others don't have - it's probably a case of the developers not wanting to burst the marketing bubble by advertising it as available for PC widely before it's ready for people to buy (in that kind of situation people's attention moves onto other things... a lot of games companies seem to do it being very secretive about new games til they are almost ready) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a lot of chatter about it in Google searches, but I can't see the contents as most of the sites are blocked by my company's content filter. There are a few pages that I can view that "officially" announce the game for the PC, but it seems most sources information on a PC version is unreliable: [1], [2], [3]. Play.com isn't the only retailer showing the game for PC, but it seems there is no official announcement from Capcom. Perhaps the PC platform can remain out of the infobox but a section can be created about the PC port of the game; there appears to be significant coverage in secondary sources about the version, especially with Capcom releasing and retracting release schedule that list the port. But if the project doesn't want speculation, Someone's advice (below) about waiting would make sense. —Ost (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just wait for an actual announcement or journalistic source instead of creating bones of contention for the sake of getting in there 'first'? These things are debatable for a very small window of time before they either happen or disappear, from which point they're forever one or the other, there is very little point wasting time and words on this until it's properly announced. The same thing happened with a shady source for Sherry being in the game, within a week or two when people actually played the game it became clear that it was a shower of shit. A lot of the discussion surrounding it would have been avoided if it was just left alone. Same thing here, Play.com may be a popular (and reasonably priced) retailer, but something appearing on their site is not proof of anything, it could be an error or something left over from Capcom toying with the idea (and later abandoning it), in 6 months time nobody will give a damn so long as it's covered or not based on reliable sources. Someoneanother 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who is "there first" most people looking at this website do not even look at these pages just articles even less at history pages and stuff! I DEFINITELY don't care what anyone here thinks of me... please don't accuse me of being after points or whatever....

it's exactly like I said before I am just trying to make sure that people don't go to this page looking for a neutral updated source and think that there won't be a PC version when the evidence is clearly there that there will be (ex:video)! I am saying that I will be coming back and saying I told you so simply because I'm annoyed that all the bureaucracy is stopping the article being accurate for people looking for news, and this will all look farcical when the PC version comes out. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

if a reliable source were to report on the play.com listing, then you could include the reliable source in the article. –xeno (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you personally as wanting to get there first, I meant that WP doesn't need to get in there before more reliable sources confirm a PC release, though looking again that wasn't reflected in my wording (sorry). The moment they do the information goes in and gets cited, onto the next thing, it's the same for every article covering things which are still changing/in production etc. Those looking for gossip etc. are in the wrong place, the article isn't a short-term news service and gossip column. Someoneanother 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's try and sort this out pretty simply. It's quite simple -- a retailer isn't an RS. It doesn't really matter too much what the reason they do or don't list stuff is, they can and do get stuff wrong on the basis of rumor or simple wrong info. It doesn't matter how popular the site is (i.e. Amazon isn't reliable either for this sort of info). And incidentally, as for "not charging until the item is sent out", that's standard practice in the U.S. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• FYI based on the apparent consensus not to use retailers as reliable sources, I added a section to Wikipedia:VG/RS#Retailers. Please do not use this section as an argument in the present discussion though, as that would be circular. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that retailers aren't reliable sources. For one, their information is often wrong and subject to change. Also, they definitely are comercially motivated when making claims. The only accurate source for things like release dates are the developers themselves.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are all mistaken if you think retailers are not RS. If you believe that you'd better start marking almost every commerical item on FA or FL. However, for an unannounced game, it is a WP:REDFLAG. For release dates and for the products existance, if the item has been released, it is considered reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If WP:VG is to ingore the whole of Wikipedia for it's articles, it better have a damn good reason.じんない 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Retailers are only non-RS for future and unreleased games; while some may be right about the date of release, there are times they are just putting a date to the game to get your pre-order or to fill in their database. Once the game is out, then retail sources are fine. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well all release dates for unreleased games are subject to change so by that definition even the company could be seen as biased. Release dates that are the same by multiple independent retailers for an announced game should be taken the same level as a company's press release stating when the game will be available.じんない 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just from my own perspective, as someone that works in the retail industry, until the makers of a product actually announce a date, we don't know anything. We make the best guess and do our best to do what we need to do, but until the maker of the product announces a date, it is all based on speculation. If you think about it, what logical reason is there for a developer/publisher/distributor to tell retails stores that a game is coming out on X date, but then keep that date from the public? They have to know that the retailers are going to tell people any way and they are better off making an official announcement. Not that it doesn't happen... Rock Band 2 never received an official release date announcement yet retailers had it correctly tagged at September 14th for some time. Part of the problem was that the developer, Harmonix, continuously told people that retailers were not to be fully trusted and that only an announced date would be official. In the end it looked like EA (distributor) went ahead and finalized the release date without informing Harmonix, or something to that effect that would prevent Harmonix from announcing a date.

In the end, most of the time retailers have no concrete idea on release dates unless an announcement has been made. They make assumptions and guesses as best as they can. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• A somewhat related discussion regarding retailers and plot details is ongoing here: Talk:Mass Effect 2#Amazon, comments are invited. –xeno (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed a comment there and will paraphrase here: It depends. Retailers may have a conflict of interest in some things but not on other things, and it also depends on how the source is used. In the Mass Effect 2 issue I think that it would fall into the catagory of inappropriate if it was used to actually state what the summary is, but more debatable when used to mention it is a temporary possible leak. Then again, the incident probably fails notability unless some journalists are referencing the leak. I disagree that all retailers automatically fail due to conflict of interest, because by the same argument any developer that etails product on their own would also automatically fail; it depends on in-Wiki use, and I would say on a case-by-case basis. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not released for PC

The main page says that RE5 will be released for PC. On the official page it says nothing of it being released for PC. Motion to edit.

I don't think that it should be posted on the wiki unless we're 100% positive that it will be released for PC. Since Capcom has said nothing on this yet I don't think that it should be posted. Lsdwolf (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This hinges upon whether http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/44226/Fable-II-PC-Nixed-Resident-Evil-5-PC-Coming-2009 is considered a reliable source. if it is, we can report what they've said. –xeno (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes. There is no reason to distrust a report by IGN. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they said "we expect that it will arrive to shops", and Capcom has not announced such a thing. Why would Capcom announce through a Polish publisher? It makes no sense at all. It's a Japanese game. And not to mention the greater audience is English speaking. I want a Capcom statement, or the publisher speaking in English. NONE of us can verify that video, since none of us can speak Polish thank you very much. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Just because the developer has not announced something doesn't mean it won't happen. It's more than half a year away, they have no reason to announce it officially yet because this would just mean marketing/hype would die down gradually. But at the same time a small trickle of news keeps interest and publishers/distributors have probably not been gagged judging from what CD Projekt say and the listing of it for PC on several retailer's websites - not complicated really and pretty standard marketing/PR.

2. IGN is a verifiable source though, and they are saying that the polish of the statemeent that CD Projekt gave is so. CD Projekt are also a reliable source as they are a game publisher. You verifying the video is not an issue, that has already been done - and also, that would be original research. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Since none of us can speak Polish thank you very much."

Mówię po polsku. Far from fluent (and I hate trying to write it out properly in computer text), but please, let's not go jumping to incorrect conclusions, eh? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Every once in a while, a new batch of editors comes to this article and we start the same tired old discussions again about the same unreliable sources. This is the third time this Polish Youtube video comes up. The only new twist is that it is now disguised as a reliable source. "IGN is reporting it, so it must be true!". Except this isn't even IGN proper, it's Voodoo Extreme. They don't end the header with a question mark for no reason. It's just a rumor report. Find a real source like, say, Capcom.--Atlan (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that I'm personally referencing this, but remember civility. Nowhere do I find mention of this article here (or even this news source), so obviously it isn't a "tired old discussion". So yes, as long as you are using Wikipedia you can expect that people will be bringing sources, and they will quite likely have to discuss the inclusion of them. In short: deal with it, and hold your tongue incivility.

For starters, Voodoo Extreme is for all intents and purposes IGN. Second, no one is saying "IGN is reporting on it, it must be true!" What has been said is "IGN is considered a reliable source". If you claim otherwise than that... well, "tough" really. While individual articles might have to be viewed differently, the company as a whole is considered a reliable source. So is VE3D for that matter, and it is used as a source numerous times in Wikipedia.

While I think it would be silly to use this as basis to state a definite release date, it is equally silly to have issues about referencing the company CD Projekt as having stated that the game is being released sometime within the year etc etc (quote or paraphrase as you see fit). It is not the most solid statement and should not be attributed as such, but it is still a sourced statement from the game industry and reported on by a reliable sources. However the arguments of "I don't speak Polish" and "Voodoo Extreme isn't news" are both invalid in-and-of themselves as well as combined.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Human.v2.0 (talk • contribs)

Quite a stretch to find any part of my comment incivil. I guess you consider calling editors "new" is rude or something, but whatever. Grow some tougher skin (not that you need it for my last comment).

I disagree that Voodoo Extreme is IGN for all intents and purposes. If that were the case, they would call it IGN, not Voodoo Extreme. A lot more sites exist under the IGN banner. I also never said "Voodoo Extreme isn't news", but I guess putting words in someone's mouth is alright as long as you're the one doing it. But that was not my point anyway, as I do not dismiss the site as unreliable. I do find the real source, the Youtube video, unreliable. They have nothing to back up their statements, they just say it. And by what arguments is it considered a reliable source anyway? They only argument I can see is: "CD Projekt are also a reliable source as they are a game publisher". Well gee, I certainly can't find that one in WP:SOURCES, maybe I'm not looking right? Please point me to which part of WP:SOURCES does apply to the Youtube video. Note how Voodoo just reports on the Youtube video, they never try to lend any credence to it. It's just a report. They start the article with a question mark as in the following is a definite maybe. They categorize the RE5 part of the story under "Resident Evil 5 {RUMORED} (PC)". In no way does the RE5 article currently reflect this.--Atlan (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe my comment on civility could boil down to not being a snarky bastard without legitimate (and on Wikipedia; all-too-common) reasons, complain about the fact that people are rationally discussion a source on the talk page (which is the whole point of it), and in general reacting a bit more heatedly ("I guess putting words in someone's mouth is alright as long as you're the one doing it."). You are aware that people tend to use quotations marks for reasons other reasons that a verbatum quote of you? So let's try to go back to a little of the civility and good faith, as you might notice that I'm not entirely disagreeing with you.

My points are that Voodoo Extreme is an overseas aspect of IGN, and is indeed in and of itself a reliable source. Next, there's the fact that yes indeed CD Projekt can be considered a reliable source in aspects directly relating to them (which this makes entirely unclear how related, which is a point not in their favor). However, there is no need for them to back up their statements; they're not publishing an article on it, they're making a statement in an interview. If they are incorrect then it means that they made an incorrect statement, but they are under no requirements to verify their statements (that is the job of reporters and the like). While I think that your views on the use of the question mark might be over analyzing things (unless they have a standard protocol where "rumor mill stories get question marks in the title" which I'm unaware of, then it's your own interpretation), if I was being overly snarky I could counterpoint with the fact that they do not try to discredit the video either. They simply report it as the statement made by the company as journalists. While it it too vague of a story to allow us to enter a release date, I do think that the coverage implies enough notability to the interview that an in-text note on it wouldn't be unreasonable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

At least I don't resort to name-calling, like you implying I'm a snarky bastard. But enough about civility and your slanted interpretation of it, it only keeps us from the actual discussion.

Some of your arguments are contradictory. "CD Projekt can be considered a reliable source in aspects directly relating to them" and "If they are incorrect then it means that they made an incorrect statement". How can you consider it a reliable source it the information they provide proves unreliable? Also: "they are under no requirements to verify their statements" is in direct contravention of WP:SOURCES, which states that a reliable source is one that is known for fact checking and accuracy. Lastly, saying: "I was being overly snarky I could counterpoint with the fact that they do not try to discredit the video either. They simply report it as the statement made by the company as journalists.". is not a counterpoint at all, since that was precisely my point in my previous comment.

I'm trying to base my arguments on the relevant policies here, I appreciate if you would do the same. I'd like to make clear that my main issue here is, that the way this source has been edited in to the article does not reflect the Youtube video's ambiguous reliability. Note the parallels with the Sherry Birkin issue from last month. That was a good example of taking a source at face-value to a fault.--Atlan (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Remove indent) The long and short of it is "exceptional claims require high-quality sources." We should not be basing anything on gossip from someone way down the food chain in turn reported by a less than stellar site. Voodoo Extreme may be part of the IGN stable, but it isn't IGN, and if this news is so reliable why isn't it on IGN proper or any other major games site? It's Sherry Birkin again for the sake of waiting for a more reputable source. If we were talking reviews for some homebrew game it would be one thing, but this is a triple-A title and nothing so major as being published on another format should be attributed to gossip. Someoneanother 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the mention of the PC being one of the platforms in the header template, because even if the game will (maybe, surely, etc..., I don't mind ;) ) be released for PC during 2009, it is not available for this platform as of now. Hervegirod (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions of Racism

Personally, I don't find this game racist at all, however I find this section of the article obviously too one sided. It never really mentions such serious allegations that people "shouldn't already know". Then it goes ahead and defends the game outright against allegations of racism obviously because fans want to defend their favorite game from such accusations.

So, yeah I'm saying that section of the article is poorly made and one sided. Like movie receptions in wikipedia it needs two side of the story and right now I'm not really seeing any intense or harsh racial criticism.

I think it should be gotten rid of until someone can find something out there that make the article viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.174.96 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why make a new topic on this? It's already being discussed above under "Accusation of Racism Section". Earisu ♥|^Talk 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also if you can find some sources to balance out the debate I'm sure they can be put in. I know the article is locked but you can always show them here. Earisu ♥|^Talk 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A few inconveniences

Firstly, no game site has talked about RE5 PC version. It's not something which I've ever heard about. Secondly, why did someone completely change the story section and make it bigger? Read the sign saying it's too long, before changing it please. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not fork this discussion all over the place. Please see 2 topics above.--Atlan (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirk?

Taken from the Story-section: "As they progress, the two find Kirk's burnt body and are attacked." Who is Kirk? Not mentioned anywhere else in the article.--87.78.167.150 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Kirk was the helicopter pilot that was trying to extract Chris and Sheeva during the first part of the game. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is, he is seen burning on a pile of tires 'The Ninjalemming' 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

I changed the 'reminisces' as Chris isn't reflecting specifically on the past, and shortened the plot synopsis concerning the end of the game (including the controversial 'kill/defeat'; please see the relevant section of the discussion page), as well as confirming the game ends at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racooon (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Online Profiles

Maybe someone should put something about the online profiles. There are three symbols next online player screen name. I can’t find it anywhere what they mean. I am sure I am not the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.108.54 (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Infinite Ammo enabled, Attack Reaction and Connection Quality. 98.216.100.192 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wesker children

if you read the file on Albert Wesker it is stated that "The virus was more selective then original guessed. It left only a few of the Wesker children alive" (I know that it was not exactly like that but what ever, the important bit is still intact),, this sugests that there are more then just him left. This is not said in the article just that the rest died. Should I change this? 'The Ninjalemming' 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not "Wesker children" implies that he has clones. Rather, I think it implies that he is part of some genetic/bio-engineering project. Regardless, the detail should not be mentioned here, but rather in Wesker's designated article/section. Until we can figure out what it specifically means it seems like advancing our own theories would be original research --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean put it on or not? 'The Ninjalemming' 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this article. But feel free to add mention of the Wesker children [[4]]. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Spencer said Albert was the only survivor though, does the article contradict this then? Earisu ♥|^Talk 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

yes it does, in fact I am going to watch that cut scene again just to make sure it says what the file says. I'll get back to you. 'The Ninjalemming' 14:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The game lies!!!! Well it doesn't actually lie but it is a hippocrite of the highest degree. The main game says Weskers the only one left (just) but the file says that he has a few brothers and sisters. Even so, I not raising anythinig special here, unless you want to. Bored now bye. 'The Ninjalemming' 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if anything, the articles should be taken with a small pinch of salt. I'm not saying they're not canon or full of lies but when I read through some of them they weren't very well translated; with some typos here and there. I think I'd rather believe what's in the game since the game was the important part and they got the voice actor to even state "there was only one survivor...you" which I doubt is a mistake. Also, maybe other Wesker children did survive but the article failed to mention them dying later. Earisu ♥|^Talk

Oh yeah. The dying later bit. I kinda forgot that bit. Well live and learn (Damn that was cheesey), lets forget that slip up and just think what we want to think, oh on the Weskers death thing about the repetative defeat thing; could we just change one of the defeats to a different word. And don't say killed, thats just being sarcy. I think we should leave it as killed for now, for people, like me, who thinks his still alive then we will have to wait for more info on that. For now he is just kick arse and dead. Nuf said, every one shut up about it, keep it to yourself and be nice. This will only provoke blocking and edit warring, people getting angry and leaving and just because one word is different to what they want it to be. Now back to the proper thing of the Wesker children, yeah, wellthe files were badly done is some places and mainly were just to fill people in; not make a huge discussion. Bye, -) 'The Ninjalemming' 20:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably mention this here before an inaccuracy slips into the article. The "Wesker children" were not related and aren't clones; the file says that they were unrelated children who were taken (presumably kidnapped) and raised by Umbrella with the surname of Wesker. The important part: Not clones, not siblings. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is probably real late but oh well, the Wesker children were biologically engineered but still not clones, says in the cut scene with old dude; forgotten his name. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw Review

Shouldn't this review be included since other game's articles include his review of there games. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/624-Resident-Evil-5 He also had his own article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Punctuation which mentions the review.

Yahtzee isn't a notable reviewer, he does it more for comical purposes.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But they also appear on other articles e.g. Silent Hill Homecoming

Yahtzee is a more than notable critic and his reviews are often cited on other games. "He's funny too" isn't a reason to discard his merit and it's far from your place to difinitively state as fact that he exists for comical purposes and isn't notable.--Koji† 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yahtzee is an entertainer first and a game critic second. He's not notable and shouldn't be mentioned on any wiki articles unless the review itself has extensive third party coverage. I'm pretty sure this's been discussed at length on WT:VG. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because X-Play isn't at all like that? Or at least it used to be. 05:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)72.228.137.150 (talk)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} Please fix genitive "it's": "and it's Playstation 3 component" -> "and its Playstation 3 component" (2nd sentence of 3rd para of intro). 87.112.34.166 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wesker's "death"

In the plot section the current line is "Wesker appears again, but is finally killed by Sheva and Chris with two rocket launchers." There is no evidence that Wesker is killed. The rockets miss his head slightly and no corpse is ever shown. The word "killed" should be changed to "defeated". Fatcartman13 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes because the lava and explosion from the Rockets wouldn't have done anything. Wesker was trying to pull Chris and co. in to kill them WITH him as a last attempt. The last chapter FMV is entitled "The Fall of Wesker" so I think it's pretty safe to assume he's dead. And with RE6 being a complete reboot I doubt Wesker is going to appear ever again. Earisu ♥|^Talk 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely, the rockets take Wesker's head off completely. Unless there is a clone out there, he's dead for certain. Agent Chieftain (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But if you remember what Spencer said, there are other Weskers out there, some that were almost as successful as Albert Wesker. So, maybe there is another Wesker. Just because Capcom is doing a reboot doesn't mean Wesker can't be in it.--Sherwood-Nightshade (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the tapes at least a dozen time. The rockets pass through his head like an invisible wall glitch. There is no head explosion or decapitation indicating that he was ever hit. He could have quickly ducked and remember Wesker is not an ordinary person. How can you possibly say that Wesker is dead? The chapter is not titled "The death of Wesker", as fall can merely mean he has lost power and control. CAPCOM could make a RE 7 where he returns for all we know. Fatcartman13 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I swear people are such fanboys. Just because you don't want him to be dead doesn't mean it's not so, and until Capcom says he ISN'T dead we can all assume he is, I'm sure people don't mind changing this page if he's revealed to be alive. Why do we have to say he isn't dead and only say he is dead if the creator says so? They may never say so because it's OBVIOUS he is dead and by that we'd have to say Wesker is alive until we hear from them? That's just flawed logic.

The only reason Wesker survived his first death because he injected himself with the virus and PLANNED it so he would die and be resurrected with more power. The way this ending panned out it seems very likely he's dead, it was VERY dramatic, Wesker seemed unstable and it didn't seem planned and he seemed angry and insane, plus he infected himself with Uroborus which turned out not to be very compatible with him and he MUTATED, I doubt he's going to come back all normal like nothing happened. And bringing up RE7 which isn't even being worked on is silly, if they reboot RE6 and have a new villain why would they suddenly bring Wesker back after this dramatic death? PLUS Wesker isn't a "clone", he was part of a project but there weren't other "Albert Weskers" just other children CALLED Wesker by last name. And there is an explosion of lava at the end from the rockets. Also how the heck can he DUCK from LAVA that he is SINKING in (and yes, the lava was killing him don't deny it.) Saying he may have "ducked" the rockets is speculation (not to mention it sounds like grasping at straws) and not allowed on Wiki. Earisu ♥|^Talk 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we were to think like you, we could say "oh maybe Wesker slips the virus is Sheva's shoe when he has hold of her in the jet and will make it spread! But we just don't see this!" or "Wesker maybe planned to fall into a volcano! That might be how he will spread the virus to the world, through himself!" can you see how this sounds absurd? That's what "Hey he might have ducked the rockets!!" sounds like. And after playing this game many times I doubt the creator thought to make the rockets pass through his head as a hint that he's still alive, it's such a small thing to grasp on to say he's alive. Believe it or not I liked Wesker as a villain but if he is alive I just think they'd be doing it for fanservice and it would totally ruin his character to just bring him back again. I will however happily change it/accept the change on the page if they state he's alive and well. Earisu ♥|^Talk 06:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It won't happen. Resident Evil 6 is a complete reboot, Wesker's been alive for too long, the virus was overdosed, and they were two rockets simultaneously, not one. Notice, if the rockets tried to hit his head at the same time, the rockets would clash. That's the explanation for the miss. If they had traveled the same path into his head, they wouldve collided before they hit him. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh but he MIGHT appear in RE7!! (being sarcastic). And I have a screenshot of the rockets going for his head here and here. I think people analyze this stuff too much. Earisu ♥|^Talk 13:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Wesker has this seemingly magical way of not dying. Everyone thought he was dead after RE1 and boom he's in VC. Getting shot by 2 rockets while your sitting in lava SHOULD kill you but with Wesker who knows. It looks like he's dead but knowing Capcom they'll make some plot twist and say he was able to regenerate or w.e. Don't underestimate his power. He has T-Virus, G-Virus, Uroborus in him. He's dead for now but don't be surprised if Capcom goes "PSYCHE" and says he was able to survive it. Fatcartman13 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What they do or don't do in the future should not hobble this article or draw everyone's attention away from dealing with things that can be improved with the sources available. Nobody here is in any position to alter the article because of what they believe Capcom may do with the next game, which could be years away. Someoneanother 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't underestimate his power? You do know he's a fictional character and not real right? And I've been trying to tell you that you can't add "mights" and "maybes" to this article but you don't seem to want to listen, just insisting he isn't dead. If you must know Capcom probably was going to leave Wesker dead in RE1 but due to fans(a lot of people liked his character) they brought him back, retconning him into games he wasn't in and made a back story which spanned over 5 games. If they do it another time it'd be stupid. I'm not saying they WON'T do it, it's up to them and anything is possible, but as it stands I seriously doubt they will. Why ruin a perfectly good character who had a dramatic death? He was developed, he plotted, he failed and was killed as which is to be expected. Earisu ♥|^Talk 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you want something as futily impossible as that, take Halloween for example. The antagonist just WON'T die! And there's absolutely no sense in that. So if your proof is that Wesker is the boogie man, sure, go ahead. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because if so, your reply makes no sense, I never said Wesker was "the boogie man". Also I doubt Capcom will go the way of a crappy horror movie. I'm guessing you're replying to Fatcartman13 though. Earisu ♥|^Talk 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"The only reason Wesker survived his first death because he injected himself with the virus and PLANNED it so he would die and be resurrected with more power.", which was a retcon in RECV to begin with, but yeah its silly to edit the article to suggest that he survives. Its just a fictional character. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify something. Spencer mentioned The Wesker Children and guess what he said? There was only ONE survivor, that survivor was Albert Wesker. So no, there are no Wesker clones. Earisu ♥|^Talk 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past Capcom to pull Wesker back from the dead - I'd recommend the article be changed to 'defeated'. Racooon (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change it when he appears in another game. But when a character is sinking into the lava, decapitated by two rockets, exploded in their explosion, and being poisoned, there's no reason to doubt they're dead.137.99.151.100 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So? It's a video game, why wouldn't he be able to live? Maybe that was a fake one and the real Wesker was hiding or something, the point is that you don't know, therefore it's speculation.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By your logic no one can be dead in the series, hey maybe Birkin is still alive! Seriously, the way his death happened and the fact they're doing a REBOOT with RE6 means they're NOT using Wesker anymore. Saying he "might have been a clone" is also speculation. Also saying he "might not be dead" is speculation. There is more PROOF (er, boiling lava? two rockets and leaving no head behind? going insane and infecting himself with Uroboros as a last ditch attempt at killing his rival?) that he's DEAD. I don't see why we have to wait till Capcom says "he's dead" (which they might not do since it's OBVIOUS he's dead to them) before we can have "killed" in the article. But whatever, let the fanboys argue that he will come back all normal with no mutations and whatnot, that's the only reason people are arguing, because they don't want their favourite character to be dead. Earisu ♥|^Talk 07:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

By that logic no article on this entire website should say anyone in a fictional medium ever died.137.99.151.100 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Racooon was on the right path when suggesting using the word 'defeated.' It recapitulates what appears to have actually happened in the game, and can remain true if Capcom decides to add Wesker to another installment of the game. To my knowledge Capcom has not left any clear and indisputable that confirms Wesker survived. I would recommend to be more conservative in this area since we do not know much about the future of the series. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay killed. If RE1 was released when Wiki was around it would have said killed before they brought him back. The only reason people are arguing over this is because they WANT Wesker to come back and by having the word "defeated" instead of "killed" makes them think it's official that he will come back. I say keep it as it is unless Capcom says otherwise, there shouldn't even be such a big debate over it. Also it's very likely Capcom WON'T bring Wesker back in a way to say "PSYCHE!" also. It'd be stupid of them to even consider bringing him back after what happened. Also anyone saying there is no proof he's dead is clearly in deniel or didn't play the game. What proof is there that he's alive except for "the rockets glitch and pass through his head" or "he likes volcano lava and frequently bathes in it". Earisu ♥|^Talk 09:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should assume good faith instead of assuming you know peoples' motives. People are trying to improve the article, just like you are.  :) Lychosis ^T/C 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I know most of the people editing this article are doing it only because they don't want the character to be dead. Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I know I've been a bit...rude in this whole debate, but at first I was trying to be amicable about this and people came up with excuses like "he ducked" the rockets because they "glitched". And the people I'm arguing with are not merely changing the word "killed" to "defeated" they are changing it to "he is assumed to be killed" which is different and doesn't improve the article at all. Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be ass-retarded as poo to bring Wesker back, but I'd bet my left ass cheek that Capcom will bring him back at some point. Wikipedia articles should always aim to be written in a way that maximises continuity with sequels - Wesker's fate is clearly ambiguous. For the sake of accurate wikipediaing it is best to hedge our bets and write 'defeated'. I am changing this henceforth but I have no wish to start an edit war. In this edit I have written that Wesker's body sinks beneath the lava, abandoning all pretensions of knowledge concerning Wesker's fate and preserving accuracy. Racooon (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when is his fate "ambiguous"? If he wasn't dead why would he have let go of the helicopter and let Chris leave? He hates Chris with a passion. There is more evidence that he IS dead than isn't. RPGs, lava, poisoned and weakened? The series will go on whether he's dead or not and I always thought Wikipedia aimed for accuracy, not for what "might" happen in another future game/book/movie? Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just want to add one thng, if you're adamant on putting "Defeated" at least change the bit before that. When you put defeated in says "The two defeat Wesker [...] Wesker appears again and is finally defeated...". and it just reads wrong. It's been changed back to killed though but I didn't do it. (Though I don't agree with it at all). Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit late, but I do want to weigh in my opinion on this. We really don't have confirmation that he lived or died. All we have are a pair of rockets hitting near or on him and a gigantic explosion. I'm of the opinion that he is dead, but without confirmation, saying he either lived or died is original research. Therefore, the article should simply state the facts: he was shot with a pair of rockets and engulfed in a large explosion. Peptuck (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan on going through all of Wikipedia and changing all instances of "killed" to "defeated"? Why not even the others in this article? Why not, "Chris and Sheva find Alpha team defeated", or "Spencer says he would have been a God, however, Wesker defeats him"? You're giving me an impossible burden of proof here. Any sane person realizes Wesker is dead. Should RE6 come out and Wesker comes back despite having no head you can change it then. If he's dead, there's not going to be anything about him in future games, so what kind of "confirmation" are you looking for? Give it a rest for now. If Capcom wanted amibiguity with his death they wouldn't have brought the fight to a volcano of all places for a climax. And if he's not dead, what exactly happened in this game? What was the point? Daymeeee (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Were this any other series, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, this is Resident Evil, and Wesker's already come back from being clearly killed onscreen, complete with a body. This is even more ambigious, and without an obviously visible corpse or the obviously visible destruction of his body, there isn't any confirmation. All we have are rockets impacting nearby and a large explosion. Without confirmation that he is dead, saying Wesker is dead is a conclusion you're drawing, which makes it WP:Original Research. The only facts we have are that he was shot and engulfed in an explosion of lava; that is all that should be included.

Let me make one thing clear: I think Wesker is dead. I may not like it, but I am of the opinion he is dead. However, this is a series where multiple characters have clearly "died" onscreen and come back. I think that the threshold for "dead" in the RE series is either the presence of a clear and obvious corpse, or the clear and obvious destruction of the body. Infuraitingly enough, we have neither of those in Wesker's case. Peptuck (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He's in lava, why in the world would there be a body? He's not taking a bath in a swimming pool. And people hit in the face by two rockets tend not to leave bodies behind either. Daymeeee (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell is there such an argument over one word, oh well here are some points that I feel like adding in; I am not part of the 'should we change it' crew. One, to Daymeeee's ending, the point of all games is they ar emeant to be fun, not nessercerily make sense; some one capable of dodging bullets is not real. Two, the others can be called killed as the bodies were found, other wise (like real life) they are asumed dead, like wih Jill and Wesker before. I think the confirmation people want is his body dead, but this could still raise questions; what if he was like Krauser and didn't die? If this argument caries on it would proably be easier to say as Peptuck said and just say he was engulfed in a GIGANTIC explosion, people will come to their own assumption, meaning that this argument will be neutral and people are still going to say about it in real life anyway. Er, I forgot he next bit, oh yeah, the lava,most people would have died from being near the lava, Chris, Sheva and Wesker were still perfectly fine, and even if they were near a colder lava (which I oubt as the volcano was active) then they would ave been seriously over-heated any way; they ar eonly human but wai, it's just a game and is meant to be fun, thhis argument is ruining it so stop now. Or I will change it to 'and Wesker got a nasty burn'. Now to return to real life, a place that conatins great, power and SANITY. (Why the hell can't sane people belive Wesker still lives, and if they can't, I am off to the mental hospital) End this now please people, or you will start to smell of hamster turd; which is not nice and taste of stewberries; I should know, or not. 'The Ninjalemming' 09:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know Irving was killed? He looked like he was in a lot of pain, but did you reach into the game and feel his neck to check for a pulse? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? You want confirmation that someone drowning in lava hit in the face by two rockets is dead... I'm pretty sure the rockets are your confirmation. Daymeeee (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No point in softening up the language with 'defeated'. Wesker is plainly and obviously dead as a result of two rockets to the face and that lovely cloud of magma that followed. If there is any doubt in your mind that Wesker is dead, please stop getting your survival ideas from DBZ, thank you. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 06:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also no point in arguing in my general direction, I am just adding points; I no longer care what is put in as this is now just pathetic. Now to add the same point that he did not get hit in the face but DID get engulfed in lava and then disappeared; and that was a lovely bit of lava. (By the way the DBZ thing confused me at first then I wondered were any of this links to it, please tell. To the Irving thing, you could plainly see him dying through a lack of main body attachment to the rest of his transformed self, and then stopped breathing and the blood stopped flowing meaning a lack of heartbeat (Oh and I am just that incredably good I DID manage to enter the game and check his pulse, much like how I entered the game and grabbed a chainsaw in mid air then stole it and proceded to cut the chainsaw dudes spleen out with it then feed it to him; as with the same way I personally beat Wesker in a fist fight using only my face). Ahh, now thats anouther usless thing for something else. By the way, why are you still arguing over this; oh well give me more things to counter, it's kinda fun. bye hey Daymeeee 'The Ninjalemming' 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

http://residentevil.wikia.com/wiki/File:WeskerRockets.gif Derp that's pretty ambiguous, I mean his head was knocked off and he was drowning in lava BUT MAYBE HE'S STILL ALIVE THE FACTS DON'T ADD UP OMG - An idiot

Lol I'm not taking any sides, however look at the link above and you'll see Wesker's head looks like a balloon - the rocket punctures it and the air goes out -- seems like it. Also, the incorrect fact that he is incompatible is very bad... He still has a human figure, probably 50% of his normal appearance ( - his shirt), and retains all intelligence. Also, that Spencer/Alpha team 'Defeated' thing is hilarious. Wesker's fate is not resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.166.193 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if people want him dead then why don't I use my amazing game entering ability and just kick him in the nuts, it is his main weakspot (well any mans actually); it isn't mentioned in the game or any were else in fact but last time I entered the game he told me by accident. This would resolve the matter. Or an even better idea would be to blink when the rockets are going to hit him then unblink when there is the explosion, then every one can assume he is dead (maybe). 'The Ninjalemming' 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because Wesker sayng Uroboros will choose who will be choosen obviously shows he was chosen....riiiight. He mutated and people who are chosen don't mutate, they become superhuman like Wesker was BEFORE he took on Uroboros. Did you fight the second Uroboros boss? He began to mutate and Excella said he obviously wasn't worthy. Wesker retained intelligence you are correct there but he was mutating very slowly. His left arm was fine at first and then it mutated as he began falling into the lava (which he then uses to grab the helicopter) so yes, Wesker wasn't compatible with Uroboros but he seemed to have strong resistance to it. Feel free to keep arguing that my opinion is "wrong" when it's merely an opinion, the game never stated "he's dead" which you're arguing over, it also never said "he's perfectly compatible with Uroboros" so I can argue it unless the game states otherwise (which it doesn't). User:Earisu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.8.156 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Resolve this on talk, ideally with the use of reasonable sources. Continued edit warring over whether Wesker dies or not is going to end in page protection and/or blocks. Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Last warning, folks. Anyone else who reverts is going to get blocked for 24 hours. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I revert then revert my revert for no reason? 'The Ninjalemming' 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user

Coming as an uninvolved user who's never played or any interest in RE and I admit only briefly skimmed the discussion I'll say this. The best recourse is to rely on multiple reliable secondary sources. In the absence of that, if all you have is the game (i.e. primary source) and presuming it never says he dies, then the best bet is to describe what happens as accurately and concisely as possible avoiding as much as possible any inference of what happened. In this case, it seems the best bet is to briefly describe what happened to him and let the reader decide whether he died or not. If it's so obvious from what happened that he died, then the reader should be able to come to that conclusions themselves. There's no need to presume the reader is super dumb and can't come to their own conclusions if you describe what happened. While we should try and keep plot summaries short, in some cases there maybe no choice but to provide extra detail if there is dispute about what actually happened. There has been a lot of edit warring (aleit primarily one sided at least recently) so perhaps there was a better version but it seems to me the version before Daymeeee's edit here [5] is the better one given the reasoning I've already given. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So we should go through all the articles for fiction and remove the word "killed" unless the characters or book or movie or whatever actually explicitly say they're dead? The guy is decapitated (That means he's dead) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daymeeee (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he's decapitated simply he was engulfed in an explosion. Regardless yes, when there is dispute it's best to describe what clearly happened without inferring what probably happened. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is beheaded that doesn't mean he is dead. For example, Cockroaches are one of creatures that can survive their head being chopped off (some might argue because they aren't humans), the Necromorphs can survive being beheaded, (in Dead Space), and many others. However this is a game and the image doesn't prove that he decapitated, because if Capcom bring him back without answering about that, they can defend themselves via that his head POPS -- Like a balloon. Also, MOST NOTABLY -- they would explode if they came into contact with his head -- and, yes I don't want him back, I want Irving back for a Dead Rising 2/Resi 6 because, err it is possible to make Dead Rising be in same universe as Resi and... err I'm going off-topic. 124.179.172.49 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, there's no evidence at all that Wesker survived. His head was blown off and his body was blown to pieces and he sank into lava. Stop being fanboys. Speculation will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyphonFilter1987 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Speculation in the article is unwelcome and should be reverted. Speculation in the talk page is generally OT and may be removed if it gets out of hand. But do note what we're discussing here is primarily not speculation. There is apparently some dispute over whether he actually died or not. Therefore it may be helpful for people to explain why it is believed he may not have died particularly for people who never played the game/series so they can better understand the situation even if this is speculation. (This doesn't mean it's a good idea to get in to arguments about whether or not he died or that we should discuss every theory of what happened.) More importantly, to say he was killed in the article is inherently problematic when there is dispute particularly since we don't have any RS saying so. Given this dispute, it is best if we avoid saying he was killed. This doesn't mean speculation in the article is welcome because avoiding saying he died is not speculation and none one is proposing we discuss whether or not he died in the article. P.S. Do note it is possible to accept an idea as a valid and logical POV even if you don't agree with it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've fully protected the page due to an ongoing edit war over this disputed plot point. Please reach a consensus, or a compromise as swiftly as possible. Any admin may lower the protection if they feel an agreeable solution has emerged. –xeno ^talk 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Um...consensus? We reached one a long time ago but ignorant users do what they want. But the problem is, half of this article's contributors is not an admin which means, this article's improvement will be frozen. I suggest you bring down the protection to semi-protect. Makes me dense to me.--(NGG) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The last 6 edits before protection were reverts over a single plot point. Clearly consensus hasn't been reached nor has a compromise. –xeno ^talk 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only one of my edits out of those was a revert. The other was a change in the wording to make it less sloppy. Lychosis ^T/C 01:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But, since the edit warriors didn't come to the table i'll unprotect and leave it for WP:AN3 to sort out. –xeno ^talk 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

decapitation equals a no go

If we leave it as he died then don't put in decapitated, it would be quite an achievment to decapitate some one with two RPGs. decap means 'severed their head from their body', that is not possible with two rockets, he would just explode. Change this to something else if you are going to leave it as he is dead in another way. 'The Ninjalemming' 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So an object moving at (Wikipedia tells me) 115 metres per second couldn't sever a head from a body? Wesker, when hit by the rockets, would not explode, but the rockets would. And they'd do physical damage to the object they struck (Wekser) unless their detonation was instantaneous, which it isn't (though it is very quick). Killed or decapitated is fine by me though. I prefer killed, but that'll definitely bring out the fanboys and prolong the edit war. Geoff B (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is, Geoff, the people who've actually suggested 'defeated' have never played a single Resident Evil game in their lvies. They're just good Wikipedians. Racooon (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I played all of them and I still suggested defeated, I normally wouldn't have cared that it was killed but as so many other people did I decided to help them. The decapitation thing would be weird as there is no body left (well at least theargument is no longer over wheather he is dead or alive), what I meant by decapitation is that swords can decapitate but RPGs would just get forced through someones head if they were duds. However they wern't, they exploded (even though it was after the head bit) so thats not decapitation. Oh and the rockets exploding would cause his head to explode, along with the rest of him. bye, please talk about this rather then he is dead! no he isn't! yes he is! this is probably more productive. 'The Ninjalemming' 08:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Decapitation would suggest that his head was severed with the rest of his body intact. What I suggest in order to avoid more arguing, is that you add more detail, such as, 'fire two rockets at Wesker, which explode on impact with his face.' or something that sounds a little better. Say specifically what is seen in the game... just a thought. Find a way to describe it that can't be disputed, at all. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

thats gonna be hard. And I wouldn't suggest the term 'face', as to me this is used mainly for humour, such as 'I blocked it with my face!' (with emphesis on the face part as if it were a plosive). Maybe just head in general, but don't say the in general bit. =) 'The Ninjalemming' 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you intended to include me in your comment but I'm not personally supporting defeated. With due respect to all (except perhaps a certain one who didn't seem to be willing to have any real discussion) it seems to me this defeated/killed controversy is a no win situation. It should be possible to describe how he was killed/defeated without actually using either word. In other words instead of arguing about the adjective to use, discuss how you can concisely but accurately describe what happened (which you're already doing to some extent). The wording now seems fine to me without using either adjective. Presuming there is no disagreement it may be the start of an eventual definite consensus. I don't quite understand the decapitated issue. Did you see him decapitated (head coming off the body) or not? Is the dispute over whether it was the RPGs that decapitated him or something else? Is there some belief that his head came off his body on purpose, perhaps he'd made himself so his head can detach to save him? Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

With due respect to all (except perhaps a certain one who didn't seem to be willing to have any real discussion) I hope you're not talking about me now? I even said I don't care, defeated or killed, I just think it's silly that people are crying over which word to use so they can write fanfics and such with Wesker being alive. Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he CAN detatch his head on purpose, we never considered that. Anyway, I fully support your opinion as the best thing to do as this argument will continue for sometime, but at the moment it seems pretty stable. The decapitation thing was that the picture basically goes it's [his head] there, it's there, it's there, it's gone, nothing left but no explosion; the RPGs carry on as if there was nothing there in the first place. We should now discusse what to write in place of the word. 'The Ninjalemming' 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RPGs are meant for taking out tanks, APCs, buildings, etc... they're not going to detonate on contact with soft human flesh. As for his head disappearing, the sequence in-game is literally a half second long, I'm sure Capcom didn't feel the need to animate a popping head that 99% of people would never be perceptive enough to see. I'm fine with it the way it is now, btw. Daymeeee (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(This was not written angrily (or infact spelt propaly, see) so don't go reading it like it was, read it light heartedly and as though you have just come back from what you like doing best...do't reply to the last bit) RPGs are not meant to take down tanks, the velocity would never even dent mordern day tank, they don't even use stingers or 50. caliber rifles. However it would take out an APC and parts of buildings but not in the way most people would imagine, it would just blow a small hole in a building, the velocity is not right for the density of the brick to do any serious damage out side the area of impact and APCs wouldn't generally blow up but more be disabled... with a large chunk missing. RPGs are still designed to detonate on impact on soft tissue, especially as this soft tissyue would eventually reach bone; if a RPGs front half (especially the nose which is the most sensitive part) touches anything it will detonate, which is way they are not used by the miliatry these days as they are so unreliable, it's like carring proximity grenades and dropping one, not a good idea. The fact that it is less then half a second does not matter to these people, they aim for as much detail as possible so this bit which people are watching will be very detailed and they would have thought people would have noticedthey arn't just going to think everyone is blind; we all saw it (which probably sn't the point), and you said 99% not 100%. Most of the game is esigned down to the pixel to be correct, even in areas which people wouldn't normally look, such as at the next montain with a scoped rifle, which I have done and it is very detailed. And I think we (mainly me) are straying of the topic at hand here. The RPG exploded more then his head to go missing (if you say he died, if you didn't then a number of things could have happened, including the weird 'he was fired to the moon at the speed of light' argument I came up with five seconds ago), and his head would have to be intact and away from his body, which it wouldn't have been it would have been in several billion parts scated across the volcano; along with the other bits of him. Actually, you said nothing about the decapitaion bit, just that CAPCOM wouldn't have felt the need to make it detailed, so i have no idea were the rest of this came from. Also though they did spend several years making it so this very important bit in the game would have been very detailed and it would have been able to go on HD, which would have meant around 24 frame per second, the RPGs were done at this speed why wouldn't his head hve been. Very intrieging (whoops). Oh well, now just as long as every one agrees that his body DOESN'T sink into the lava, then I can go and delete that part, as you don'tsee any sinking just exploding, blarrrrrg. bye people =) hey daymeeee Wait a minute, Daymeeee wern't you going to be away for two weeks? 'The Ninjalemming' 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced my Lemming to English translator, but I think you're missing an important point here -

1. Decapitation is the separation of the head of a person or animal from its body. 2. Wesker at one point had a head. 3. Wesker at one point did not have a head. 4. Thus Wesker's head was separated from his body. 5. Thus Wesker was decapitated. That is all. Daymeeee (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Intact seperation of the head. If the head disappears that is called...er, I think it would be 'heady-explody' but I am not quite sur;. but at least this discussion has humour in it. My point is, is that he has no head (along with no body) so he can't be decapitated just 'heady-explody'ed. And as previously stated, wern't you going away for two weeks? 'The Ninjalemming' 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the 'his head was seperated bit was just that his head disappeared, which is weird and not physically possible as t is impossible for mass to be created or disappear, just be turned ino something else. SO in fact in some other place in the world his head has resembled as a very cunning squirrel intent on world domination. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume the discussion is over, since we've resorted to talking about squirrels? It's good the way it is? And if you want to talk to me about my whereabouts, this talk page isn't the place to do it; mine is. Daymeeee (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well squirrels are imense, but the discussion is not over till EVERYONE comes to an agreement, something that failed to happen in the last argument; however in this one we will not edit war, and leave it how it is till decided on how t will be. Which could be in the same way it is now. So, any new resons why it should stay as decapitation to begin? 'The Ninjalemming' 13:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, how about some reasons why it should be changed then? 'The Ninjalemming' 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now it's been changed again. Excellent. Geoff B (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. Well, I didn't check the talk page first, so forgive me. But isn't that a bit ridiculous? Does it matter if he's been decapitated or not? All we have to mention is that Chris and Sheva defeated him and he was sinking into the lava. No other details are really necessary... Guideline suggests not going this detailed for video game or film plots, anyways. I would also just like to put out there, that no where in the game does it say or show that he was decapitated. Sure, it showed to two rockets flying at him. If you want to get knitty-gritty, you can see them go through his head and hit the lava behind him (head still intact). It doesn't show any clear shots of a severed head, or headless body, however, so the word decapitated is potentially really misleading. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wells thats one point we will have to go with, as he is right. By the way though as no sinking into the lava is present can we leave that bit out, he's there, then all of a sudden (and with out warning, how dare he) he disappears (in a rather large explosion of fieryness. Probably filled to the brim with evil smurfs too no doubt. Can we stop this convetation now? 'The Ninjalemming' 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The file further up in the discussion shows a headless body. Thus decapitated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.1.45 (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But the file also shows a very dodgy image and frame rate, why does his head disappear when it would break open and the RPGs would explode on impact, we most probably are not taking this into account as this is to much detail as per above. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it would do in real life. In real life they'd all be dead from the heat from the volcano. This whole argument seems to stem from the fact that some people don't want to say he's dead even though it's obvious, since it's never explicitly stated in the game. If you're not going to apply that to this, where we have a clear image of headless Wesker, then we may as well have it go back to "killed".72.192.1.45 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this. To try to calm both sides of the argument, let's avoid it. Since it's never defined in the game, let's avoid mentioning it. You could say that you saw his body without a head, but it's never shown clearly enough for accuracy, and if you want to debate that it's clearly shown, thus obvious, you would be wrong. If it were obvious, this discussion wouldn't be going on. Now let's get realistic. In the article, since this is a source of much controversy, we won't say that he did or didn't die. Let's just say that Chris and Sheva got away; it doesn't say they killed Wesker, doesn't say that they didn't. Because honestly, saying he got decapitated is too detailed anyways; how does his head coming off clearly alter the plot of the game? Within the events of this game purely, not the series, his head going bye-bye would not affect anything, and is therefore necessarily noteworthy. To the people who want to say, "But he's dead, and that's significant to the game!": Let's consider Wesker for a moment. First, he survived being decapitated (only in the original; impaled in every other version) by a Tyrant, then he survived a fall of several hundred feet. Let's also consider the Uroboros virus, which Wesker contaminated himself with. In the first confrontation with Uroboros, Chris and Sheva lead it through a giant furnace several times before it finally drops. That was the untamed version of Uroboros. Assuming that Wesker and Spencer are telling the truth, and that if controlled, Uroboros is stronger, Wesker could potentially survive higher temperatures, assuming he wasn't really decapitated (which isn't certain, or else it would not be this controversial). And before we consider saying, "The next game is a re-boot, so Wesker must be dead," let's consider some plot leads, here. What about Ada's "organization" from RE4? She was deceiving Wesker to the benefit of this organization, which we have yet to know anything about. And what about Tricell? If Excella was in league with Wesker, it's damn likely he had others with him too.

So no, I don't think we should be specific, OR vague. I think we should just avoid the subject. As I have illustrated above, the possibilities are endless as to how Wesker could have survived, or what the next RE game will be about, and I haven't seen anywhere confirming a reboot; just another RE4-like game, i.e. it completely changes gameplay. So this is a fine line we walk, and I believe that to avoid saying he's dead, or that he's alive, would be for the absolute best, as if the game were clear as to his fate, we wouldn't be having this debate right now, and we clearly are. I think it's fine as-is; it just says Chris and Sheva got away. It doesn't speculate as to Wesker's fate. Also, remember that this game is a work of fiction; anything can happen that Capcom wants to happen, so the laws of physics, etc, don't apply here. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I always have to laugh at the people who say his fate isn't obvious. He was drowning in lava, poisoned, decapitated, and exploded. If that's not obviously dead then nothing is.Daymeeee (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In the original he was decapitated. He survived a fall of several hundred feet, with no injuries presumably (he was able to capture Jill). He survived being poisoned (which was actually just Jill's presumption, she couldn't confirm or deny that it actually worked, neither can we). He survived being shot in the face, then plummeting into the volcano below. He survived being infected with Uroboros, and managed to control it (unlike all other subjects, who ended up dead). Uroboros has some tolerance to extreme temperatures, as shown several times throughout the story mode. Wesker controlled the Uroboros inside of his body. It's still disputed whether or not those RPGs hit his head/face, and it's not confirmed he was decapitated. If it was clear, we wouldn't be debating it. Therefore, I think it's quite possible that he can live again. Wesker's always had some ulterior motive and backup plan in the past. That aside, however, if this is going to be disputed, like I said, it's better to avoid confirming or denying it in-article. --The Guy _complain ^edits 12:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He was decapitated in the original was he? Really now? I mean REALLY? The answer is, no, the decapitation of Wesker wasn't canon, the canon was Wesker being stabbed by the Tyrant. So when you find Wesker decapitated in the other story it's NOT CANON therefore Wesker did NOT survive decapitation. Have you seen Wesker's report? He says he was killed by the tyrant and came back to life (lol, even Wesker will admit he was killed) and it shows him being stabbed through the chest.

And Wesker wasn't controlling Uroboros, it just took longer to mutate through him (his left arm was fine, then it mutated later in the final battle). Yes he had a better control over it, but he was still mutating and he still wasn't compatible with it (other wise he wouldn't have mutated as he does, the whole point of Uroboros was to create super humans, not worm monsters.) Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So man with all answers (and I am on your side here), do we just say something about the RPGs hitting him then leave it at that; which to me still sounds like he could have died to people who haven't played them. And also what you just said was what I have been saying all the way through. The man is friking invincible, and whats more doesn't even show injury which is most annoying when you want him to bugger off so you don't die. Bye 'The Ninjalemming' 17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We've said that the two rockets were shot at him, and that he loosened his grip (implying they hit, which they clearly did hit; I'm not challenging that aspect). We don't go further than that, because that leaves his fate ambiguous. It's implied that he could've been killed by those two rockets, but we're not confirming it (as we ourselves don't know for sure). I know, I know. Some of you do know for sure, but for the sake of us who disagree, we've got to come to some agreement. I do believe that, since the game itself leaves his fate ambiguous, so should we. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wesker's decapitation in the original was retconned, so you don't have a point there. And Uroboros has tolerance to extreme temperatures? Uhh the game showed multiple times that heat is its weakness, I'm not sure how you managed to miss that. And finally, it is confirmed he was decapitated, since I can get you a picture of headless Wesker. Headless = decapitated. I conceded with trying to say he's killed since some people would rather be in denial (which still makes the article inconsistent - how do we know Alpha team was dead?). But there is picture proof for this, so I'm not sure where the denial is coming from this time.Daymeeee (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would notice, I did mention that he was only decapitated in the original version, but all versions since have depicted him impaled. Also, yes, extreme temperatures are Uroboros' weakness, this is true. My point was that, despite this being the its weakness, it's still extremely resistant. You've got to lead it through that furnace multiple times before it will drop. Granted, a volcano would be significantly hotter. But still; Wesker was very visibly resisting it, as he wasn't even sinking, much less dying. I will conclude that decapitated is most definitely not the final verdict. Those rockets exploded upon impact, and the explosion blurred out most of Wesker in any screenshots you could get. I don't think you could honestly confirm it given what we have to work with; the game intentionally makes sure his fate is ambiguous so that there's potential later. For the record, ambiguous means implied. The game implied his death, did it not? However, it never followed through and confirmed it. For example, you could shoot someone fatally and run. You could claim and claim and claim that they're dead, but you clearly couldn't confirm, as you ran before they were confirmed dead. Therefore, their death is ambiguous; they could have died, and could have survived, but you don't know for sure. You only know that you shot them fatally. Fact is, we just know what we're given; that Wesker fell into lava, and had two RPGs fired at him. The game never confirms that he died, but just implies it. Therefore, this isn't just the denial of a loyal fanboy. I just don't want to make assumptions in the article; that's not what we're supposed to do. We state what we know, and that's all. Saying he was decapitated is a stretch (especially when you consider that he's been decapitated once before, but Capcom still was able to bring him back, which just shows that they could no matter what this time, too), but saying he's dead is an even bigger stretch, considering that the game never shows his dead body, never has a character confirm him dead. It's a bit easier to confirm Alpha team dead; Chris and Sheva confirm it later, plus you see all their dead bodies very clearly. No, they're not just sleeping or resting, don't try to be stupid or play games to prove your point. Fact is, the last we see of Wesker, he's alive; having rockets fired at him, but alive nonetheless. Those rockets hit, so he's implied dead; but only implied, not confirmed. So please don't draw assumptions. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It was never canon in the original, if you play Jill's story Wesker gets impaled there in the original RE game (not the REmake), so you obviously don't play the games enough and follow the facts to know which is which. Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: In case you didn't know (I've said it in my edit summaries) we don't edit something from a page that's being debated (i.e. Wesker's proposed decapitation) unless we're able to first reach a consensus. I don't care how much your comment disproved mine, we still have to a reach a consensus, unless you have a citable source. In this case, a picture is not a source you can cite, so that doesn't count. Especially when others don't see what you see; that could potentially be user-interpretation. In any case, don't add that he got decapitated, please, unless we're both in agreement. To be more clear, until I have expressed my written agreement, or you get a majority of users to come and agree on this. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I just went back and studied that video frame-by-frame (pretty bored; this is also a casual note, not a debate note), and I noticed something rather funny. Wesker's head does indeed go bye-bye, but his head is very visibly gone before the rockets hit him. That's visible here. Looks like he's ducking forward. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind? His head is STILL THERE when the rockets go past. I think that scene is one of the most poorly done in the entire game but his head is still there when the rockets go past and THEN it disappears. Looks like he's ducking, I thought we weren't putting speculation into this anyway? "he ducked!!!" but did anyone confirm he ducked? Did Chris say "he ducked"? If we can't say he died or his head came off (which to me it looks like) then we can't say "he ducked". Also someone said we can't use the few seconds of the FMV as proof he died, so we can't use it as proof he ducked either. Though if you really want to say it he definitely ducked too late and I'd be happy to separate the .gif you showed frame by frame to show this. Earisu ♥|^Talk 11:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not blind. I can clearly see his head there, then I can clearly see his head NOT there. However, the rockets don't take his head off. That's very clear. His head falls forward, while the rockets are still there. Very clearly, someone watching this cutscene at a normal framerate would not be able to tell anyways. If they wanted to make it obvious that he lost his head, they would have shown it more clearly, not in a matter of 0.5 seconds. They would have followed through. My point here is that you want to go knitty-gritty. You can say that his head disappeared around the time the rockets would have hit him. But you can't deny that his head clearly fell forward, that it was clearly not meant to be examined this much. You can't beat around the bush with the facts and say, "well, I mean... The rockets were there, then his head fell forward... The rockets took his head off." His head fell the opposite direction the rockets were going. The rockets didn't take his head off. If you want to read too much into it, I'll play that game. I just did. However, if you would like to cooperate and try to reach a good consensus that both disagreeing parties can agree to, that would be much more favorable. I'm not really out to "out-prove" you. I just want both parties to be satisfied, and this conclusion clearly doesn't do that. Now, please. Be reasonable here. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the frames though the rockets have PASSED through his head BEFORE he "ducks", I don't see how you can actually miss that. I'm going to go through the frames just to show you.Earisu ♥|^Talk 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm not here to say "he's dead!" or not anymore, but if you really want to stand by your "he ducked" before the rockets got to his head you should seriously look at that animation because his head disappears late. I personally think Capcom just didn't make the scene very good since it was only a split second and didn't think people would record it to try and prove he survived, but whatever:

Frame I'm talking about:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/plushie/rocketshead.gif

Second picture to show, in case you somehow don't see this. Blue arrows are the rockets, and the purple box is his head, see how the blue lines go THROUGH the purple box? The head is still there once they've gone past his head.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/plushie/rocketshead2.jpg

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to force the article to say killed, I'm happy where it is now, leave it up to the players, but I'm just baffled at how you couldn't see that with the animation since it was even slowed down. Then again, I guess some people just see what they want to see. Earisu ♥|^Talk 13:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, he does look like he's ducking forward, I won't deny that, but to me it looks like a reaction. When something like that comes at your face you don't just keep your head faced straight towards it, a natural reaction is to duck your head forward and close your eyes. If someone where to throw something at you you'd do the same thing (although you'd probably use your arm as well but Wesker obviously couldn't do that. I know this is speculation but I think "he ducked and survived" in my book, isn't as plausible as "he died the dramatic death he deserved, and reacted to RPGs coming at his face like anyone else would". And I'm sure someone will come in and say "but Wesker isn't like everyone else so he wouldn't duck his head unless he was plotting survival!!" because I'm not debating it anymore. Earisu ♥|^Talk 13:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate reached a consensus nearly a month ago, so your reply here was absolutely not necessary. Your own speculation doesn't do anything to alter the already-reached consensus in which you did not participate, so please don't reply unless you have something that can benefit the article, instead of trying to convince me that I am wrong. Thank you. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This IS a dabate thing. Guidelines state that we are not meant to go into detail about agame, and I would say that if you say about something that happened in about eight frames (which is les then half a second) you cross these lines. You argue that we will have to change the whole of wikipedia for being to detailed, but this only aplies to video games and related media texts; and looking at other articles, they do not go into much detail even about very important thing. People that have been called fanboys generally are the people who agree that the game is ambigous and not that he is definately alive, only the opposition claim with everything they have he is dead. Now bye and reach a consenous thingy, I don't know what it is. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No more Wesker, eh? With the main antagonist dead I do not know how CAPCOM can continue. Unless they reboot the series. I think it would be interesting if Wesker somehow survives the blast AND the lava. However we must be realistic, Wesker's powers were getting a little dramatic. I cannot wait to see how CAPCOM continues from here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.215.39 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

a little bit talk pagey, but oh well; just don't do it again. Oh and remember to sign your edits. 'The Ninjalemming' 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to capitalize Capcom.208.103.64.207 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have signed your edit, nice one. 'The Ninjalemming' 10:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo, people, your meant to be editing it down here; underneath the rest of the texts. Anyway, the frame by frame thing is unclear so we can't use it as evidence for anything; especially 9as I keep saying) guidelines say...ar just check above. Why can't we just leave it out and make everyone happy, at this pint anyway, the only ones intent on reverting it are strange little IP smurfs. Can I shoot them? nah I am just kidding, just tell them to get away from the article. Just leave it as they shoot at him as this is the only clear, certain and approperate thing to put in, just disagree wih it your self then if he doesn't turn up in RE7 (I very much doubt he would be in RE6 in any shape or form as this is boring for a 'whoa' factor, it would just be 'yeah, what ever'), then change it and laugh at everyone who said he lived (however we still hold the right to laugh back in a big, more laughier way if he urns up latter in the seires). 'The Ninjalemming' 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow the player/reader to draw their own conclusion

This is by far the lamest video game edit war I've seen since Niko's nationality. Just agree upon a set of facts and describe the events. Do not speculate as to whether Wesker was decapitated, killed, destroyed, or survived. RPGs were shot at him whilst he was thrashing about in a pool of burning hot magma. The helicopter flew away. Fin. –xeno ^talk 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, see, this is what I was talking about, and also getting extremely annoyed over and was considering social suicide then being socially resurrected after three months; mystreyiously, after everyones memories of this page and the game itself, disappeared. Any way, he is right this is a crap edit war, and I only fight it for wikipedia (damn that sounded so cheesy), now I have finally lost all intrest in the game and this article, farwell. (I mean farwell, I am forever leaving this article, and will go and ask xeno whether he can ban me looking at it, even though I just spelt bean' not 'ban'. @emeraitesgefunkalbits;yaooshaytoothouse. 'The Ninjalemming' 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I believe Wesker was killed in the whole incident. However, there are probably a million fan theories out there to justify his survival, or further prove that he was killed. The fact of the mater is that most of these claims are just observations from fans. I agree with Xeno because no one as a reliable source - not a video, .gif file, or theory - but an actual source that explicitly verifies Wesker's fate. Until someone has a reliable source, this debate can go on for months until all parties are blocked and then blocked again. I mind you all that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since every attempt to edit the page to a more neutral point of view is immediately reverted by IP editors, I will be requesting protection until this can be resolved. This edit warring is lame in the extreme. Wperdue (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Yes it is. But so is life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.43.95 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that protection is taken care of, anyone with intelligent commentary want to attempt to reach a reasoned and informed consensus? Wperdue (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I am in favor of just describing the events, but not explicitly speculating as to Wesker's fate. In truth, I edited the article many times, but these people are adamant that he died, damn anyone who disagrees. I would like to reach a new consensus regarding the matter, as we were before overpowered by people who weren't up to debating, because to them, their opinion was right, and it is what belongs on the page. Revert, revert, revert. Oddest reply I've ever typed. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAI am concerned, we came to a consensus. Unfortunately, Daymeee/72.192.1.45 (same person) and 97.106.43.95/JohnRamirez (same person) decided to institute an edit war, ignoring consensus. Geoff B (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have only edited this page once or twice (usually reverting vandalism) and could honestly not care less about the game. I just had it on my watch list and saw it degenerating into edit warring and personal attacks/threats of violence. I agree that the facts should be stated and the conclusion can then be up to the reader/player. Doing otherwise constitutes original research. It does seem that there is a consensus here with the exception of the aforementioned rabble. Hopefully, once the protection expires, the editors who have been disruptive will read the reasoned discussion and come to the same conclusion. If not, they can always continue to edit war and be blocked as has already happened to 97.106.43.95. Wperdue (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Cool, I was even willing to compromise with decapitated (showing proof which some people are blind to I guess?). I tried destroyed, nope it's your way and I'm a vandal. I try to apply your logic to other games in the same series; nope, that's vandalism. No wonder no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Daymeeee (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have dismantled the "decapitated" bit -- he clearly wasn't. His head clearly leaned forward, the opposite direction that the rockets were going, before they even hit. Therefore, it's speculation on your part, and you're interpreting the picture, as it's not even clear that he was decapitated. Bottom line, many users disagreed with the decapitated/death bit. People (not pointing fingers) were too busy being biased themselves by calling our opinions delirious fanboy wishes (I wish those parties could realize the irony of calling us biased, and then reverting simply because of that). My opinion is not that of a fanboy. I simply want to mediate, to make both parties happy. Perhaps the most ideal way to do this revealed itself, but then it has to be screwed up by adamant people. People have to make their interpretations of the ending law, and engaging an edit war on Wikipedia is apparently the best way to do that. If Capcom wanted to make Wesker's death/decapitation clear, they would have shown it. It would have been clearly visible for the naked eye, and you wouldn't have to examine it frame-by-frame to try and distinguish what looks vaguely like Wesker being decapitated. They would have followed through. In other words, you're reading too deep into it. Any gamer taking it at face value, not stopping the video to examine it frame-by-frame, would not be able to see anything resembling decapitation, and therefore, it was likely not meant to be interpreted that way. Bottom line, users disagree with you -- lots of them. Like it or not, you have got to cater to others and be considerate as well. If something is disputed, you try and reach a consensus, you don't push your point-of-view until others are too stressed out to come back and oppose it further. This creates issues. This is what happened here. This is what needs to stop. We need to reach a good consensus, as saying he was killed, decapitated, etc, is clearly not working, and is not satisfying anyone. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If Capcom wanted to make Wesker's death/decapitation clear, they would have shown it. They did. It's called having two rockets hit him in the face, taking his head off, while he's drowning in lava. Did you miss that? Daymeeee (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I did. I didn't examine each frame of the video the first time I reviewed it. Congratulations, you've managed to cherry pick a single point of mine, take it out of context (completely ignoring the rest of my reply), and then restate the same thing you have been saying since point A. This is not very constructive, and you really need to see that others have other points of view. Wikipedia is not Daymeeeepedia. Capcom didn't show Wesker being decapitated by two rockets, as I have clearly explained, if you even bothered to read my above reply. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No one takes Wikipedia seriously, yet you've devoted hours of your life to a talk page debate over a single word.--Koji† 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, personal attacks. <3 you guys Daymeeee (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's stay civil here. I don't care if you two have it out for each other, I will not have irrelevant slander in a debate in which I am participating. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, this isn't constructive. Daymeee, I appreciate that you are trying to show good faith and discuss the issue. I don't think Koji's flippant remark constitutes a personal attack however. Back to the issue at hand, if "decapitated" is not an acceptable wording for other editors, then what would be a suggested changed? I'm sure we can resolve this globally important issue. We can tackle the Middle East issues next. Wperdue (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I suggest wording it exactly as the game displays it-- Chris and Sheva shoot two rockets at Wesker, allowing the helicopter to fly away. The game never follows up on the fate of Wesker, neither should we, lest we constitute original research or speculation. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The game also never follows up on the fates of Irving, Alpha team, and Delta team, yet when I tried to change those so the article was consistent, it was "trolling". Just because you think Wesker is "cool" doesn't mean he should be held to a different standard. Daymeeee (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The game CLEARLY shows Alpha and Delta dead (the issue with Wesker is that the last time we see him, he's perfectly alive, albeit in a volcano of lava). Also, Sheva: "That's the monster that KILLED Alpha team!" i.e. confirmed death. But, that's not even the issue. You're pulling at the ends of straw at this point. Alpha, Delta, and Irving are not main characters. Wesker is one of the central plot devices, and plays a major role in the game, and an even bigger role in the series. It matters completely if we mis-articulate his (implied, but not confirmed) death, while Alpha and Delta never even appear in the game alive. But if you're going to keep on accusing me of being biased, we're going to go nowhere. It's been the same old song and dance for you this whole time; "Wesker's dead, you're a fanboy. Accept his death." That's not working; it's not my personal view getting in the way, it's that I want to support the views of other editors as well, and not just yours. As Koji said, stop bickering. Stop beating the dead horse. We've heard what you have to say. You're now obstructing a process to reach a consensus by bringing unconstructive conflict in. Please stop it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They say "I think that's what GOT Alpha team." And I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. They never say Irving is dead, but it's obvious, and we say that. They never say Wesker is dead, but it's obvious, and we should say that. And I never called anyone a fanboy, that was the other guy who always had to put petty insults in his edits and made being on this side of the issue even worse for me.Daymeeee (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is pointless, and you're pulling straws. But still; here. 2:55; Chris: "That's the same type of bio-weapen that wiped out Alpha team." But enough about this. I'm not replying to you about anything other than the main issue now. This isn't the main issue. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a compromise that when the page is unprotected, I'll change Wesker back to being defeated, and do the same for Irving and the other teams. That's fair. Daymeeee (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to say again, though, that both Alpha and Delta are very clearly shown dead. We don't need confirmation necessarily if they're shown clearly dead. Wesker was not. He was still alive, he wasn't even sinking into the lava. But anyways, you're not the only opposing user. I don't necessarily agree with that compromise, either, as I believe we should just stick to describing the vital events of the game. We don't really have to confirm Wesker or Irving dead, as it doesn't impact the events of the game at all whether or not they died. However, it might be more important to illustrate that Alpha and Delta died, as it is emphasized several times in the game that they are alone, and saying that Alpha was there, but not saying they are now gone could be misleading. Like having a character in a stage production, but not taking them off the stage when their time was due over. So, yes, it is important to state the death of Alpha and Delta to illustrate that Chris and Sheva have no back-up, but the deaths of Wesker and Irving (Irving confirmed he was dying) play no significance to the plot of the story. If we mis-articulate Wesker's death, it could be damaging to the article, but not mentioning it at all will have no impact. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You say they're clearly dead, I say Wesker was clearly decapitated. Daymeeee (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the dead horse? We were making so much progress, too... Let me straighten something out for you. Something shown vaguely within a matter of a half a second, in a couple of frames, is not clear. That's your interpretation, that's not necessarily the truth. His body is never clearly shown dead, his head never shown separated from his shoulders. I wonder if you even read my bit about his head sinking the opposite direction of the rockets, before they even hit him. Regardless, this is again a dead horse of an issue; we've established that we disagree. No need to cover it again. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Guy! Stop making sense so we can get back to bickering with each other!--Koji† 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can everyone agree then that "defeated" is an acceptable compromise? If so I think we can move on to that Middle East peace to which I referred earlier. Wperdue (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

As long as I'm allowed to change all other instances of "killed" to "defeated" without being called a vandal, then yes, sure. Daymeeee (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In all the other instances, we actually see their lifeless bodies. Just throwing that out there to further delay the consensus. (I need something to read for another 30 minutes)--Koji† 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, we have a guy drowning in lava with no head. Daymeeee (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Drowning? If you would notice, he wasn't even sinking. He fell in, but the only thing that was concealed were his legs. Everything else remained above the lava, until the RPGs hit him. Also, his head clearly did not fall off, not due to the rockets if they did, at least. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So, in all probability legless, headless, and exploded, is "ambiguous". I don't know what to say to that. Daymeeee (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article should only use "killed" if it can actually be verified. It is unfair to claim that one character was killed, and then neglect to comment on what happened to another character because its too ambiguous. Perhaps the best way we can go about doing this is by simply adding only what we can verify through dialogues in the game, file transcripts, and director/producer comments. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Full protected again

Full protected for one week. Please engage in dispute resolution if talk page discussion can not come to an amicable resolution on its own. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think full protection was a tad unneccesary, no less on the mythological wrong version that should never ever be called the wrong version on pain of looking like a fool. Semi on the article and talk would probably be more helpful as far as you guys reaching a consensus (...again?) goes.--Koji† 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There are logged in users on both sides of the dispute, semi would not have had any effect. I think a straw poll may be in order. –xeno ^talk 01:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that motion. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, I stop guarding this article for a few weeks and look what happens. This is extremely shameful and I think the article is rightly protected. Don't argue over something so futile. I thought the agreement was that we were gonna leave it as "Wesker is defeated" rather than he died or might have died. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I have been here at Wikipedia since January 2008, and this is the first debate I've seen that's ever resorted to this. It's odd, it's shameful -- whatever you want to use to describe it. Apparently consensus counts for nothing on Wikipedia, as the #1 thing that always gets in the way of improving an article is other editors. --The Guy _complain ^edits 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I give you my word that you will see it countless times again. And that is not intended to be cheeky.--Koji† 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean it that, way; I meant this is the first one I have participated in. I have witnessed several incidents, but this is the only one where I've taken sides. It's OK. It's not as annoying a process as everyday quarrels with IPs and other members who get in the way. A vote is much easier on the nerves than a debate. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please add/vote for your preferred version below.

neither dead nor alive

“ Chris and Sheva, now in the volcano, discover that Wesker survived once again. He infects himself with Uroboros (...). They defeat the infected Wesker, who falls into the lava. A helicopter appears over the horizon, manned by Josh and Jill, and Chris and Sheva board it. As the helicopter attempts to fly away, Wesker attempts to pull it down into the lava with him. Sheva and Chris shoot Wesker with two rocket-propelled grenades, and the helicopter is freed. ”

Rationale: Seems to describe succinctly the events of the game without drawing any conclusions. As we can't back up either statement with reliable sources, we have to leave it up to the player/reader to decide. –xeno ^talk 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. –xeno ^talk 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I concur.--Koji† 01:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. I agree. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Geoff B (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. blarg! =) 'The Ninjalemming' 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Absolute support. Lychosis ^T/C 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comments regarding the Wesker controlling Urubos have been moved below to #Wesker controlling Uroboros?. As this isn't what's being voted on, I'm using an ellipse to skip over that possible contentious statement. –xeno ^talk 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Daymeeee, an involved party, has commented on his talk page that if this is the decision for Wesker's fate, then for consistency's sake, we ought similarly position the fate of Delta Team, i.e. describe succinctly what the player saw without drawing conclusions. I think this is reasonable. –xeno ^talk 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is he going to confine it to this article, or is he going to start vandalising other RE pages again? Geoff B (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism --From Wikipedia:Vandalism I don't want other people to get in trouble like I did for breaking the rules.Daymeeee (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes it sound like you're gaming the system; you're making it sound as if you know you're making misguided edits, but you know you can easily cover them up by saying they were in good faith. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just stating the obvious. Any good faith edit is just that -- an edit made to improve the article. Any edit made for other purposes is not a good faith edit. Anyways, as for the "ambiguous" fate of the squads, I disagree that we should not include them. It's not the same circumstance at all as the supposed death of Wesker -- a death that was only implied. We see the squads dead, and they die mid-game. They never come back into the game, and it's absolutely more than reasonable to say that they were exterminated; i.e. Chris' comment when fighting the second Uroboros confirms the death of Alpha team. We also see the dead bodies of Delta team amidst a giant Ndesu monster, who crushes the last of Delta team who was checking the pulse of his fallen comrade. Later, Sheva and Chris run into Josh, leader of Delta. He explains that they were attacked, and he was cut off. Then he asks where the rest of the squad is, the duo shake their heads, and Josh goes "Shit!" Sheva replies, "It's just the three of us now." If this isn't confirmed, I don't know what is! As for Irving, when Chris is about to shoot him, he goes "Dying's not so bad!" Then his body starts trembling, and he starts bubbling (the same way Majini do when they're killed), then he's motionless (dead). The file in the "Library" section of the game also confirms this saying, "Irving was left with no choice but to administer the injection to himself, at which he underwent an immense and rapid transformation. But even the power he gained from that transformation did not avail him, and he met his end at the hands of the two agents." Bottom line, Wesker's death is completely different; the only thing to support the possibility of his death might just be the circumstance, but that doesn't confirm it still. Alpha team, Delta team, and Irving are all confirmed, albeit insignificant. As I said earlier, it completely matters if we claim on false grounds that Wesker is dead, him being the centerpiece of the series. It doesn't matter at all if we accidentally confirm Alpha or Delta team dead; what significance do they play? Therefore, I don't believe Daymeeee is trying to pull this for the good of the article at all. I'm not assuming he's trying to damage it, but I really doubt he's trying to improve it. I believe he's trying to "get us by our own logic," if you will, but the circumstances are completely different; confirmed deaths in-game where we clearly see the dead bodies, the disdain on the characters' faces, is a bit different than an ambiguous death shown in about 0.5 seconds yielding no body, no other supporting evidence or confirmation. I don't believe Daymeeee is trying to improve the article by bringing this up (he knows full well that the characters he mentioned met their demise, and admitted so), he just wants us to have to face our own beliefs; that's clear to me in his manner, his tone, etc. I think he's just bitter at this decision, and so doesn't want us to have "our way" in whatever way he can. I have no doubt that he will come and defend himself against this, but I am not trying to accuse him. I am merely pointing this out. It doesn't seem to me like he's bringing up this issue for the good of the article, nor the Wesker one. I believe he just wants a say in the article. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you think about me, I'd like this article to be consistent. Pretending Wesker is still alive because no one ever said "he's dead" and assuming Delta Team and Irving are dead without the same is pure hypocrisy. You say we see dead bodies, I say they were injured. Same thing with the Tyrant from Resident Evil 1. That article states it "died", yet when I tried your method of "it was shot by an RPG", that got reverted. And once again I have to laugh at "THERE'S NO BODY!!!", as if someone sinking into lava and hit in the face by two rockets would leave behind a body. The tyrant certainly didn't, and we can say he's killed. Bottom line: you think it's obvious Irving/Delta Team are dead, I believe it's obvious Wesker is dead. Either we state the obvious in both, or we dance around the issue in both. I don't care which one, as long as it's the same, and I'll keep fighting this until there's a compromise everyone agrees on.Daymeeee (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go again; you didn't read my reply at all, did you? I confirmed the deaths of Delta, Alpha, and Irving, with evidence from the game; confirmation. But I see your strategy here, too. It's fairly obvious. You're using the squads and Irving as leverage to try and keep Wesker the same. It's either we both give up the beliefs of death, or we both don't. I don't know why you're trying to do this; if you're purely being antagonistic, or if you're aiming to benefit the article, but I believe the latter a long shot. I already explained how Wesker's death is a completely different circumstance, how he's vastly more vital; alongside confirming, with evidence from the game, the deaths of Delta, Alpha, and Irving. But my one big question to you is this: Why does it even matter to you or, more importantly, the article? Why is it so absolutely vital that consistency rules, even over verifiability? You would rather mis-articulate the deaths of many characters than say the ones that are confirmed, and leave the others ambiguous; for the sake of consistency? You don't actually believe these characters were injured, in fact you told me yourself that they were dead. They are minor characters who were confirmed dead, with lots of heavy evidence in-game, as well as confirmation. You're being purposely antagonistic. This isn't the same song you were singing earlier, before the poll. Something's changed, but at the same time, nothing has. So it's got to be something with you. But I don't know what. Anyways, Irving, Alpha, and Delta are CONFIRMED DEAD IN-GAME. WESKER IS NOT. It wouldn't even matter if the latter three weren't confirmed deaths; the death of a minor character is not as important as the death of the main antagonist of the series. You walk a much finer line with the main antagonist. It's not the same circumstance, so consistency should not rule. But I'll repeat this again, because you seem to cherry pick my sentences and reply to only the ones you want to reply to. IRVING AND THE TWO SQUADS ARE CONFIRMED DEATHS, WESKER IS NOT. Case closed. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NONE of what you said was proof that Irving or Delta team was dead. No character or file ever said "he's dead", so to say so would be original research according to your argument. Why do you have such an issue with just saying what happened and letting the reader decide?

Daymeeee (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really didn't read my post, did you? I'll copy and paste a chunk in here. Gotta separate it so you can tell where it is nicely. :)

"They never come back into the game, and it's absolutely more than reasonable to say that they were exterminated; i.e. Chris' comment when fighting the second Uroboros confirms the death of Alpha team. We also see the dead bodies of Delta team amidst a giant Ndesu monster, who crushes the last of Delta team who was checking the pulse of his fallen comrade. Later, Sheva and Chris run into Josh, leader of Delta. He explains that they were attacked, and he was cut off. Then he asks where the rest of the squad is, the duo shake their heads, and Josh goes "Shit!" Sheva replies, "It's just the three of us now." If this isn't confirmed, I don't know what is! As for Irving, when Chris is about to shoot him, he goes "Dying's not so bad!" Then his body starts trembling, and he starts bubbling (the same way Majini do when they're killed), then he's motionless (dead). The file in the "Library" section of the game also confirms this saying, "Irving was left with no choice but to administer the injection to himself, at which he underwent an immense and rapid transformation. But even the power he gained from that transformation did not avail him, and he met his end at the hands of the two agents.""

So there you have your confirmation for both squads and Irving. Thanks for reading my comment earlier and saving the trouble, I really appreciate it. I'm glad you know I type these comments so nobody can read them, I mean who ever types comments for anybody else to read them? Over-rated. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagreed that it was proof. You'll have to learn that just because I disagree doesn't mean I didn't read it. They never come back in the game - ok? That's not proof of death. It would also be reasonable to say Wesker is dead since his head was ripped off and he was exploded. I haven't mentioned Alpha team in some time so you can stop bringing that up. "It's just the three of us now" - perhaps the others were airlifted out for medical attention. Dying isn't so bad. I've told that to people before, and I'm still alive. Oh no trembling. I'm motionless every night. It's called sleeping. Irving met his end as a bioweapons dealer, yes. But it doesn't say his LIFE was ended. If that's proof, then the game calling the end "The fall of Wesker" is the same. Daymeeee (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You had never disagreed; you simply ignored it and continued saying what you have been saying all along. At least tell me you have read the post next time. Now you're just being antagonistic again. You need to stop. You yourself admitted that you know these characters are dead. You're now arguing semantics, which is irrelevant. You know what the characters dialogues mean. If Delta was alive, Chris and Sheva would have told Josh that his men were still alive, instead of shaking their heads, looking down in disdain, and saying that they were the only three left. But now we're coming back to the decapitation thing, are we? I've dismantled that several times for you; Wesker's head sinks the opposite direction of the rockets BEFORE they hit. Also, Irving was confirmed dead in the Library. You're being extremely antagonistic with this, as the text is very clear. It clearly says he met his end. The end of his life. It doesn't need to add "his life;" it's more than clear enough. "The Fall of Wesker" could mean anything. I've seen documentaries saying, "The Fall of <Insert ancient society>." They didn't die out, but it was their fall as a wealthy country into a poor one. That's a cliche that's used often. But the text is very clear about Irving, I'm sure others would agree with me on that, and you're now being even more antagonistic than before. You're being absurd, in fact. I would like you to stop opposing this just for the sake of being antagonistic. You're being counter-productive, and you're stunting this consensus process. Please step down. I've supplied you plenty of evidence as to the death of these character, as far as I know, that's your only quarrel. If we need a poll for this aspect as well, I would be more than happy to advocate that; "did these characters die, according to in-game dialogue and texts, or was the game being too vague, and really meant something else?" We both know the answer. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end you realize your argument comes down to "it's obvious they're dead", right? It's obvious it means the end of Irvings life. It's obvious that they're upset that Delta Team is dead. Yes I believe he was decapitated, that is what I see when I see http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7685/weskerfinalcurtain.gif And I belive it is obvious he is dead. Why are you so afraid to let the reader decide? Also, before you call me absurd, consider the fact that you're pretending a guy drowing in lava is still alive.Daymeeee (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's false. You're debating semantics now, and again, that's irrelevant. You're trying to say that these scripts imply something different because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You don't want to admit defeat. You're not fighting this for the good of the article, but because you don't want to be the guy who's wrong. You have made that more than obvious simply through these absurd insertions. I personally don't want to misinform anyone. Any death that's ambiguous in the game, leave it ambiguous. Any death that's confirmed, confirm it. Irving's death was clearly confirmed in his file. If it was simply the end of his bio-weapons dealer career, it would have went on to say that he's now living as a small time circus carny in LA. Or whatever you want to imagine a mutant with no legs crawling off the ship, and swimming away with his one arm doing. The text confirms his death, and it's as simple as that. I just hope you realize that saying, "Ricardo Irving died because two agents killed him" isn't the only way to confirm his death; again, semantics. Forms of communication, but it all means the same thing. It's very simple. As for Wesker's "decapitation," check this picture out, instead of yours (much slower frame rate). His head is clearly out of the way of those rockets, sinking forward into his body. Now please stop being antagonist, and absurd. I've asked you to do that many, many times. I just don't want to have to be hassled into spelling things out even more clearly for you than I already have. I would really appreciate if you were to step down, and quit being absurd. If you have to resort to claiming text, dialogue, etc, means something different than what it does to prove your points, that's a sign that you need to step down. You're not going to convince anyone here for a minute that "Irving met his end" means Irving got a job as a carny. Use yerr noggin. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We're just going in circles. Whatever logic you guys decide to use, I'll use it too. If we state the obvious, and say Wesker is dead, I'll leave the others alone. If we go with only what is 100% confirmed, I'll edit the others for consistency. That is all.Daymeeee (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be the agreement, yes, however not what we're arguing right now. I believe you were trying to tell me that "Irving met his end" means he got a job as a carny in a circus, whereas I was telling you it's clear that it means he died. EDIT: Did you really need to create an edit conflict to say, "That is all?" --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to tell me that a man drowning in lava, who's head is ripped off his shoulders by not one, but two rockets, and then exploded when they impact is alive, whereas I am telling you it's clear it means he's dead. Daymeeee (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's very clear that exploding rockets don't affect Wesker very much (Especially when he's already in a volcano). I've also already made defunct your "drowning" statement; he clearly wasn't even sinking, he was clearly stuck at the waist. I've also illustrated that the rockets did not even take his head off. But in all honesty, there's no text to confirm Wesker's death, where there's text to confirm Irving's. If there were no text to confirm Irving's, I would completely agree it should be left ambiguous, however, there is. Trying to formulate your own autopsy for the main antagonist of a popular series (then getting everyone to believe it) is different than trying to convince me that a very clear text is false. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The text is very clear, and it doesn't say he died. And to me it's obvious Wesker was decapitated, just as it's obvious "Irving met his end" means he's dead to you. I need to get going, but I've presented my compromise. If you don't like it we can go back to changing the word back and forth over and over.Daymeeee (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What game developer sits down and says "Alright guys, I wanna decapitate Wesker, but let's only make it vaguely visible for half a nano second."?--Koji† 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The text is clear, and no, it never explicitly says "Irving died," but again you're arguing semantics, which is utterly useless. There's more than one way to say "Irving died," and "Irving met his end" is one of those ways. You're being absurd. Again, I'm neither trying to confirm, nor deny in-article that Wesker died. However, there's text to prove Irving did. Quit being antagonistic about it. It's useless. It's counter-productive. Also, KojiDude has a very good point. Do you think the developers are going to purposely make a death vague, intending to make it clear? Do you think that they're going to say, "Alright... We're going to mislead the players saying that this Irving dude 'met his end.' It's really gonna mean he became a circus clown." Please be logical. No more trying to get us on technicalities. Be SMRT PLS. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind pointing out where the text says Delta Team died? And there were several seconds of video of the rockets headed towards Wesker's screaming face, before his head disappears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7aMVVfaiOs at about 1:44 Most people realize the intentions of the developers, but some are still in denial it seems. Daymeeee (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheva says, "We're the only three left," or whatever, when Josh asks where the team is. That's confirmation right there, if I ever did see it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I thought you might have proof or something. Not just "it's obvious", which is the same thing I'm saying about Wesker. Daymeeee (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, semantics. It's not just obvious, it's saying the same thing as "they all died, we're all that's left." --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We're all that's left implies death. Rockets to the face in lava implies death. Daymeeee (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We're all that's left confirms death, as it's not saying, "We're all that's left... Except Delta squad..." It's saying, "We're all that's left, us three." That word "all" is key. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in the same way that "That was for our fallen brothers" confirms Wesker died. Daymeeee (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee, I think it's become quite apparent that you represent the minority opinion here, and consensus is against you. Rather than continue to push the subject to the point of having other editors assume malicious intent on your part, you should go have a soda and relax. Let it die without being dragged down with it.--Koji† 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take a page from you and vandalize an article. Daymeeee (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

...If you're referencing Michael Keaton, that was epic and took me an inordinate ammount of time. Nothing to joke about there. Now, unless you're willing to let Dude continue to attack you with giant walls of text, I truly recommend chillaxing for a while and turning a blind eye to the 'pedia. Your call though.--Koji† 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

after protection

So, we appear to have a consensus, but Daymeeee has dug his heels in. What's the next step? Mediation? Arbitration? Are we amenable to mediation, or does someone have an objection? Can't use third opinion, anyone know an editor who will mediate informally? I'm just going down the dispute resolution list looking at options. Arbitration is supposed to be a last resort. Can we do an RfC? Geoff B (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's handled I don't care how. Not only has he dug his heels in, but he's dug his heels in sinking sand. His replies were getting more and more baseless, more and more ridiculous, less and less reasonable, and anything that goes along with that. He was simply being difficult. I stopped debating him, as I could see it wasn't going to go anywhere, unless another editor (or few) could step in. No one did, so here I am again. I don't know how to resolve this dispute, but I do know he's unreasonably dug his heels in, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with that opinion. The arguments were getting ridiculous. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just see what he does next before taking any steps. The protection expired, I've implemented this version since it's unanimous. Just a reminder that this consensus still does not exempt anyone from 3RR. –xeno^talk 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe, however, I've presented pretty cemented proof to counter his points. I would like to restate them, as I don't see a reason to wait for him, necessarily. Timing doesn't matter, it's just that he does or doesn't oppose. He already knows my proof, and he has already unreasonably denied it. All that's left is to draw consensus that the proof is accurate. We don't necessarily need him for that, do we? --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, state all you want ;> I was actually talking about Geoff's question above re: other steps in dispute resolution. –xeno^talk 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought you were talking about the content dispute itself, not the editor involved. Anyways, do you agree that when the article says "Irving met his end at the hands of two agents" (not the exact quote, very similar, ALMOST exact), that it's saying he died? Apparently this is disputable, that it could possibly be saying he met his end as a bio-weapon salesman, but the script failed to elaborate that. These are the kind of odd oppositions Daymeeee is giving, and does anybody actually agree with him? I would like some support/feedback, so feel free. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone "meeting their end" means they've died (met the end of their life). I don't think any reasonable person would disagree. –xeno^talk 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. In any language, there is more than one way to communicate the same exact message, the English language probably being the best example of this. It's semantics. But the argument was, "If it doesn't say he died EXPLICITLY, EXACTLY, then he didn't." I think that this is unreasonable in this case. As for the death of Delta team, first we see their corpses. Then Josh Stone asks what happens to them, to which Sheva replies, "We're the only three left." Daymeeee suggested that this isn't clear, that it means they could have been lifted out for medical attention. I think that this is also unreasonable; it's pretty clear that it means they died. Do you agree with that as well? --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, and "That was for our fallen brothers" means that Wesker got a time out Daymeeee (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've also gotta consider that these are two completely different circumstances. Delta squad = many visibly motionless bodies laying amongst an oversized monster, some being crushed by it on-cam. Non-modified humans, as well. Wesker = Super human who's been impaled, thrown off a high cliff, shot with rockets and bullets, infected with Uroboros, etc. Also bear in mind that the two main characters were looking on him from probably a hundred feet up, in a helicopter that was being violently shaken, and he was inside the blast of two rocket launchers. No body resulting. These are two circumstances, and in no way does "That was for our fallen brothers" confirm Wesker's death in the same way that "We're the only three left" does. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, because someone sinking into lava that had been hit in the face with two rockets would leave behind a body. Totally reasonable. Daymeeee (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I would like to, for the third time, say that he was visibly NOT sinking into the lava. I would also like to say that he's shot by many more than two rocket launchers many times throughout the game, and it has no effect on his appearance every time. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I must have imagined Wesker waist deep in lava then. And you say he was hit many times by rocket launcher? How about zero times? By that logic we can say Chris can survive being bit by zombies. Daymeeee (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Waist deep is as far as he went to our eyes. He sat waist-deep for many minutes. That's called buoyancy, which is the opposite of sinking. Actually, he's hit by a rocket launcher at least twice. That's necessary to inject him in the final battle. Also, yes, Chris survived being bitten by a Majini. It's not impossible to survive a bite wound of any kind... --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've beaten the entire game without firing a rocket at Wesker. And Majini =/= zombie. In RE1 the T-virus is transmitted by bites. In game you can get bit by zombies, and your health goes down. By your logic we have to say that Chris, Jill, Leon, Claire, Rebecca, Billy, etc. have an immunity to the T-virus Daymeeee (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. In the final battle with human Wesker, on the jet bomber platform, it's absolutely necessary to shoot Wesker with a rocket launcher at least once. This causes him to fall to his knees temporarily, which allows Chris to restrain him, and Sheva to inject him. It's a necessity to beat that boss; there's no other way. However, it's entirely possible to cover the entire length of the first-fifth game without getting hit by anything, without losing any health. Again, though, shooting Wesker with a rocket launcher is a necessary action to inject him. You absolutely must do it. You don't absolutely have to get bitten by a zombie, and therefore it's not necessarily canon. Also, for the record, T-Virus infected you by getting into your blood stream. Quite possible to be bitten, but not have it infiltrate your blood stream. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't call me a liar. You can shoot Wesker in the back to bring him to his knees as well. Rockets are not required, I have to wonder if you've even played the game now. Therefore as you said, the only time Wesker in officially hit by a rocket is at the end.Daymeeee (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I never called you a liar. I'm simply saying, go through the game, even on easy mode, not starting out with all powered up weapons with infinite ammunition, and try bringing him to his knees without using the rocket launcher. It could be possible, but as far as I've seen, it isn't. I'll have to verify that later on. For now, I'm done with you. Once again we're getting too knitty-gritty for our own good, it's getting us nowhere. I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing, I like arguing for the sake of getting somewhere, and that's not happening here. I would rather wait it out and make a new consensus; get the opinions of other users. Maybe another straw poll is in order? I just don't want to deal with this anymore. I guess next you're gonna argue that "That's the same bio-weapon that wiped out Alpha" means "that's the same bio-weapon that wiped [the tears] out [of] Alpha['s eyes]?" I don't know, I'm done with this until we're ready to get a larger group of users together and make a consensus together. No more pointless one-on-one bickering. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Before mocking me, remember that you're the one claiming that "That was for our fallen brothers" means that Wesker was sent to his room. Daymeeee (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

describe succinctly

Perhaps we could say they were deafeated, and quote the characters saying there are only three of them left. –xeno^talk 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. 208.103.75.16 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that was me, got logged out somehow Daymeeee (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How's this ? –xeno^talk 02:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I have no issue with that. Daymeeee (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, it's a bit random. Also, they never purposely rendezvous with Josh, it was an accident; they ran into him by accident. How about this? --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said I've never played the game, so please take the spirit of whatever I write and make it fit. I think your update is fine Dude, I'm sure Daymee would agree. –xeno^talk 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine too, either way is good. Daymeeee (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

after protection: arb break

Daymeeee isn't content with one discussion, he keeps changing other articles too. AFAI can tell, Daymeeee sees no ambiguity in what happened to Wesker, and is using other people's views as an excuse to interject ambiguity in the deaths of others even when there is none (because, to him, there is no ambiguity in what happened to Wesker). If it has to be this way for one, apparently it has to be this way for all. Geoff B (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation or RFCU may be the next step. –xeno^talk 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, does anyone have any objections to mediation? We all have to agree to mediation to apply for it, IIRC. Daymeeee's concerns over this article may be legitimate but he's still editing other articles without taking part in the discussion. We're well into piss-taking territory now. Geoff B (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, before I agree or disagree, does someone want to explain the proposed conflict resolution to me more in-depth? I am familiar with Wikipedia, and have been here for over a year, however, this is the first content conflict I've participated in that has gotten this severe. I don't want to lean either way before I understand what we're proposing. For the record, I agree with Geoff. I've been saying for a while now that I don't believe Daymeeee's intentions are to improve the article, but to "get us by our logic," if you will; find ambiguity in places where there is none for his own purposes. I don't know what those purposes are, and genuinely don't believe he wants to vandalize the article, but he's made it clear to me that his aims aren't necessarily to improve the article, but to use it as leverage to prove a point. That's what I think. Now, does somebody want to explain the conflict resolution process proposed to me? I see me and Geoff have very similar views about this matter, and I doubt it will be much different for the resolution process, but like I said, don't want to cast a vote unless I understand. Thanks. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, AFAIK, the options we have open to use are: Mediation - we all have to agree to this process, and we report the issue to the Mediation Committee. A mediator from there weighs up both sides of the issue and makes a decision. The whole process, and the resulting decision is reliant upon both sides agreeing to it, it's voluntary. After a decision is made by a mediator, if someone doesn't want to abide by the decision, they don't have to. A request for comment could be made. This is fairly informal, I think, an experienced editor looks at the different versions and the issue and makes a decision. Again, this is up to both sides to uphold. Not sure what else we can do, as Arbitration doesn't seem to be allowed over article content? Geoff B (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as for the issue at the RE2 article, I've reverted him; that source does indeed confirm Birkin's death, no matter how much Daymeeee would like to say otherwise. With two editors guarding that incident, we won't violate the 3RR; he would before us. No worries there. As for the resolution: considering Daymeeee doesn't seem content with simply letting this conclude on this article alone, I don't think any type of resolution for this dispute alone would help much. He would still be free to do whatever he wants to any other article. Yes, I would like to solve the dispute on this article, but by the root of the problem. He can't simply go around doing this. Some of the things he's trying to convince us of are just absurd. If he plans to continue this, he needs to be stopped. Then the problem here, as well as on a good majority of RE-articles with similar problems would stop. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He's just been blocked for 72 hours. Does anyone know of a solution where we avoid alienating Daymeeee and any other editors who feel the same way, and hence avoid any possible future edit wars about this? I'm aware this may be a lot to ask from those of you who aren't Jesus Christ, but... Geoff B (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire section/sub-sections devoted to this debate are testimony to the virtual impossibility of what you just suggested. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not ripe enough for ArbCom (which you are right, it doesn't arbitrate content disputes, but does look at editor conduct), but Mediation or an RFC/U wrt Daymeee specifically may be in order. –xeno^talk 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee has actually been having a nice conversation with me via his talk page (note of sarcasm). His comments there are making it truly obvious that he's simply bitter and throwing a fit, and using articles to do so. "My way is better, as it lets the reader decide." That was a direct reply of his to my comment on his page regarding the sourced death of Birkin. Sourced. Yet he still believes we should leave confirmed things ambiguous. This is ridiculous, and makes it clear that he's simply bitter. Shortly thereafter he deleted all my replies and replaced it with the text, "Hypocrites." As if I needed any more convincing. I believe something is in order. It's fairly obvious he's running down a one-way track, and he'll run rampant in these articles again after 72 hours. Not something I want to deal with. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how WMC got involved but he's a fairly no-nonsense admin. Daymeee will have to stop being pointy or he'll find himself facing lengthier blocks. –xeno^talk 23:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He responded to my report. Geoff B (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

After a comment I made at his talk page, Daymeeee indicated he was ready to move on and wanted me to let everyone [6]. As such, hopefully no further steps in dispute resolution are necessary. –xeno^talk 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I don't want to simply take his word. His actions when his block is done with will indicate if he's serious or not. In other words, I'll definitely believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm wary. A step in the right direction, though, definitely. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Awooga awooga, edit war seems to be resuming, anon IP 86.148.111.103. Geoff B (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And the saga continues... Going on a 17-day debate here, D.C. Douglas must be honored.--Koji† 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Greeeeeat. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have died down, but if it starts back up I will look at issuing blocks to those who continue to revert against consensus that have not participated in the discussion or semi-protection. I consider myself uninvolved in this matter, though I did support the compromise wording I proposed above. –xeno^talk 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Daymeeee's violated the consensus. If this was anybody else I wouldn't post here, but I wanted to let you all know. --The Guy _complain ^edits 04:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wesker controlling Uroboros?

Not totally relevant to this but we don't know Wesker was controlling Uroboros. 72.192.1.45 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that part isn't set in stone or being voted on here; I just wanted to quote enough such that people wouldn't slip in disputed details before or after the quoted excerpt though. –xeno ^talk 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh no problem then. 72.192.1.45 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's irrelevant right now, but I want to throw my two cents in anyways. The other test subjects for Uroboros were alive when infected. For instance, the half-naked guy in the chair, and Excella. Both had Uroboros suddenly burst from all open holes in their body (probably an exaggeration on my part), killing them, and making them completely unrecognizable; Uroboros took over their body. With Wesker, he was clearly still in control; he was still talking, he retained his body posture, he wasn't in pain, he was still conscious. He was clearly in control of himself, and therefore likely the Uroboros that was conjoined with him. But, if nobody wants to agree on that, it could just as easily be taken out of the article as soon as the current consensus is done. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How does this look, for what you're talking about there? Does that seem like two too short sentences? Lychosis ^T/C 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

“ He infects himself with Uroboros, and attacks them. They defeat the infected Wesker, who falls into the lava. ”

That's great, and I'd vote for adding that. I'd also like to explained what I meant in the first place; I completely mis-articulated it. I simply meant that Uroboros clearly wasn't controlling Wesker. He was clearly still in control of his body, and the Uroboros attached to his body, although not necessarily the spread of it. He was able to use it to attack, and it didn't have a mind of its own. It didn't kill him and take over his body like it did with the other test subjects. However, I believe this is just because of how he's administered Uroboros. With the other test subjects, Uroboros was inside of them, and burst out. The bursting out killed the subjects. With Wesker, Uroboros wasn't inside of him. Therefore, it didn't break out, and it didn't kill him. He was therefore able to control himself (and the Uroboros attached to his body) to some extent, because it didn't kill him from the inside. Therefore, I believe it's important to note that the other subjects (guy-in-chair, Excella) had Uroboros inside of their bodies, and it killed them then took control. With Wesker, he administered it externally, so it didn't kill him. Sound reasonable? --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wesker Plan?

It's not the Wesker plan. It's the Wesker Children Project. Could anybody fix that up? Re4leonscottkennedy (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Inside of Wesker's file it refers to the project multiple times as the Wesker Plan. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamespot Guide: Good reference?

As far as I can tell, Gamespot is a valid reference. However, this guide for Resident Evil 5 seems a bit fishy. For one, the proposed text, "Get ready to pull both triggers in the cutscene to finish him once and for all" seem to indicate finishing the boss, but don't seem to indicate the actual killing off of Wesker as a character. It just doesn't seem solid. My other issue here is that there is no author of this guide, apparently. I just want to get other user input before this is put in here to cite Wesker's "death": is this a valid source? --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to more accurately represent the source. –xeno^talk 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but I'm still questioning the reliability of said source. I'll be digging into this deeper later. Thanks for the input anyways, xeno. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've posted about this issue at the RSN. Anybody who wants, feel free to post about it there. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Daymee but I agree with him that Wesker is dead. The guy's head was blown off with two missiles while he sank in lava yet you cry like a little girl and start this whole edit war. Unbelievable. XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.45.198 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, If I recall, YOU'RE the one who's been crying about this, especially since you keep writing edit summaries saying things such as "Grow the **** up", and constant flaming over "What you believe". Dengarde ► Complaints 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You ought use proper indentation. As it stands, you appear to be replying to Dude527. –xeno^talk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) now moot, 'twas fixed

As Dengarde said, the issue is not me. I didn't engage in an edit war; I'm the one who took the initiative to discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach a widely gained user consensus. Daymeeee's violated 3RR before his first ban, and twice shortly after, hence his current ban. Now you're ridiculing me because I chose to try and satisfy what the majority vote was, and not what you and Daymeeee believe. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Please, if you're going to insult and ridicule me, don't waste article talk page space; go to my talk page. Actually, looking now I see that you already did. Please just keep it there next time. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to turn this into another edit war. It is obvious that a consensus has not been reached, so I have reverted another attempt by a drive-by IP to change the wording. I suspect some sockpuppetry here. Further, I have removed the personal attack here and issued a level 4 warning to the IP for disruptive behavior. Wperdue (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I agree; the last thing we want to go for is another edit war. If you go to xeno's archived talk page, I illustrated that Daymeeee was certainly using sockpuppetry, however he's been banned for a period of time so it likely would somebody else. Also, you have a point: a consensus was reached. It took over 2 weeks to reach said consensus after it was fought over for months after the game's release. It was a big decision, and it obviously shouldn't be changed (even necessarily with a source, given that it's not multiple sources) without a new consensus. I would say if we could find a couple more sources, or if we could get a new wide consensus to agree on the reliability of this single source, then we would be fine. However, neither seems to be the case, so this is once again starting to revert to an edit war. Let's not let it go to that, please. Remember: use the talk page before making edits to a statement which was widely controversial (namely this one), or that could be widely controversial. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he said it's obvious a consensus has NOT been reached. Anyway, at several points it was brought up that there was no source to back up Wesker's death. I'm not seeing the problem now that we've got a reliable source confirming his death, as I'm 99% sure all Gamespot guides are written by Gamespot staff. And as for "finish him off once and for all", it reminds me of when you were (rightfully) chiding Daymeee for being pedantic regarding Irving and him "meeting his end" or whatnot. PS reading this whole thing was amusing :D 208.103.75.16 (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; I misread. However, a consensus has been reached regarding the statement, and it took more than 2 months to reach it, after much edit warring. That speaks for itself: the talk page should definitely be consulted before making such edits, even with sources. I'm sure you're correct that GameSpot is a reliable source, but in a case-to-case perspective, it really needs to be examined before we break our previous consensus for a new one, considering the circumstance of our previous consensus. Also, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're referring to yourself in the third-person, Daymeeee. You are Daymeeee. Your edits are similar to Daymeeee's, and you have also confirmed yourself to be Daymeeee (click "Next edit" and go two edits ahead of my above link). Daymeeee, I would seriously consider not using your IP to sockpuppet if you really want to keep your account. The good thing for me to do would be to report your violation of your ban, however, I don't know if I will. I just don't think the reason for a ban is for you to evade it with your IP, even if you're only commenting on talk pages. Don't violate your ban again, though, or I will report it regardless. --The Guy _complain ^edits 04:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) In the past, I have seen other editors use staff-written game walkthroughs to source events in video games - including some FA-rated articles. I myself cited IGN and GS staff walkthroughs when Geoff and I rewrote the Characters in Resident Evil 4 last summer. In most cases, they were used to verify general events, ex "[Ada] provides Kennedy and Graham with a jet ski to escape the destruction of the complex and escapes via helicopter" or "Kennedy, with the assistance of Wong, defeats Saddler near the game's conclusion, and destroys his research and production complex". While its obvious that GS and IGN are reliable sources I'd like to point out that they have neither possess any say in the actual production of the game/storyline, nor have any knowledge on what the directors want to do with the franchise. I'm fairly certain that if you looked hard enough, you would find a conflicting RS that says the opposite - and then what do you do? list opinions from writers on what others think happened to Wesker? You may as well just link back to this discussion since there are better theories and arguments here. Nevertheless, if one would want to add a quote to summarize the events of the game's finale, at least try to make it from someone who actually worked on the game itself. ;) --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, the IP started flaming me on my talk page. Thanks for proving my point! Anyways, I have to agree with this. Gamespot isn't involved with RE5's development, and their frame of reference is no greater then anyone elses. If they got that info from the developers, which they're more then capable of doing, then we could site it, but I don't see anything of the sort on the site. Dengarde ► Complaints 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am agreeable as well; GameSpot, professional writers of not, had no part in game development, and so would probably not be the best source to cite when dealing with a death that seems purposely ambiguous. It's about as good as any of us saying Wesker did or didn't die; that is, we don't actually know. I'm sure we could cite the source to describe the general order of events in the game, but specifics, especially fates of characters? Probably not. Also, Wperdue, long and contentious would be the biggest understatement regarding the previous debate. (: --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments were confusing. The consensus to which I was referring was related the latest round of changes by the IP. I know that a consensus on the language regarding death and related issues has been worked on and finalized after a long and contentious debate. Wperdue (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3