Talk:Resident Evil Gaiden/Archive 1

Canon?

This game should be considered canon bcuz there is a level of this in resident evil: the umbrella chronicles Higgy531 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it shouldn't be considered canon. Capcom has stated it was a non-canon game. And the level that I believe you are reffering to is not of this game but of one of another Resident Evil game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.142.244 (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When did capcom say that, show us proof--136.145.89.48 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• The game's events are not acknowledged anywhere else in the series like the fact that Leon doesn't have green blood proofs that it's non-canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.61.204 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

--Besides, didn't Barry die? < -D > —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.125.101 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh no, Barry survived.

The Ending of Gaiden (and why Leon was never infected by the B.O.W.)

The ending of Resident Evil Gaiden has sparked much debate among fans mainly because it shows a close-up of Leon's neck bleeding green blood, indicating that he was infected by a virus before Barry came to rescue him, thus we're led to believe that Leon either died or became a zombie. Thus making it impossible for the character to show up in Resident Evil 4. This is a very popular theory of the game's ending, but it is not a theory based on actual facts explained in the game. The game actually hands out several clues at several points of the plotline that help explain the ending.

In the game's storyline, the B.O.W. is featured as a new type of amoeba-like creature that tends to imitate humans and he does this several times throughout the game. It is important to take note of the fact that the B.O.W. does not need to kill the original organisms in order to imitate them perfectly. Proof of this fact is that both Leon and Lucia were imitated by the creature at different points of the game's story. In such instances, both of the characters survive and can be seen very much alive in the rest of the game.

A relevant event within the game, occurs when headquarters contacts Barry Burton and informs him of a way to identify the B.O.W. Monster. It is explained to him that the creature emanates green blood when wounded. Another important clue given in the game, is that when the Parasite B.O.W. infiltrates a human body to live inside of it, the human host will always bleed red blood and not green blood. Only the parasite itself will have green blood. The color of the blood even plays a relevant role in the game when Barry has to identify the real Lucia from the fake one, near the game's epilogue.

Therefore, if all these clues are considered, it is understood that at the game's ending we're actually seeing the B.O.W. imitating Leon and the green blood on the creature's neck was actually given prominence on screen in order to emphasize that very point. The way how the "real" Leon survived the sinking of the Starlight ship, is something the game does not answer. However, we can safely assume that he survived it. For instance, before he went on his mission in Gaiden, Leon already had survived the outbreak in Raccoon City.

Now, the ending of Gaiden needed to be explained by people that actually played the game. Because it is extremely common for RE fans (including Wikipedia) to promote the argument that Gaiden is not canon based exclusively on poorly researched opinions that relate to the game's surprise ending. An ending that they have simply failed to understand. Mainly because they didn't follow any of the clues included in the game.

The argument that Gaiden is not canon should be based on the fact that it is merely a side-story with no real effect on the main storyline. And not on anything else aside from that.(Pikminister (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

This is the exact reason why it is so hard to find good references for the article: It seems only a handful of people actually played the game and understood its story. Even the German Eurogamer article I posted gets this wrong by saying that Leon becomes infected, which is not the case. I think that the current plot summary in the article explains the story and its twists pretty well, though. And it is made clear that the fate of the real Leon is not explained. The argument that it's non-canon should be based on the other contradiction, Leon actually joining the US government instead of an anti-Umbrella organization. Disregarding, of course, that it is no use to argue about a "true canon" in the series after the final version of RE4 went in such a drastically different direction. There is just too much material by too many different writers to make it all fit together. Prime Blue (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Darkside Chronicles made it clear that Gaiden is not canon. When Krauser tells Leon to tell him about everything he has gone through in regards to his encounters with B.O.Ws, he only mentions RE2's events. He doesn't say anything about Gaiden's events. I actually like Gaiden. It's a great game and the music is great.--NewsBot01 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the development blog and Q&A session, you'll see the thought process that went into developing The Darkside Chronicles. No one at Capcom or Cavia was thinking "here's where we make it clear Gaiden isn't canon!" Their mission was to retell Resident Evil 2 and Code: Veronica, and Leon's recollection to Krauser is a simply a framing story to that end.

Anyway, the parts of this article that say certain events aren't mentioned in later games should be removed; they're already tagged as lacking citations, and ultimately irrelevant. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Krauser told Leon to tell him everything about the B.O.Ws he faced. Leon did not mention Gaiden's events, hence, Gaiden never happened. --NewsBot01 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should definitely include the statements we have now, for example per WP:LEAD, as it is a controversial topic regarding the game. As mentioned before, it is evident that Gaiden directly contradicts the Resident Evil 3 epilogue files. However, flat-out "canon/non-canon" statements for the series are ultimately inviable as 1: there are no reliable sources with a clear rundown for all materials, 2: the "canon" is subject to everyone's individual view, and 3: starting with Resident Evil 4, every game contradicts certain information from past entries due to the aforementioned shift of writers (and even before, some materials don't match others, as is the case with Gaiden). Prime Blue (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's neutral for both sides. --NewsBot01 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a controversy. Yeah, I've seen the occasional forum post arguing about Gaiden, but that's happened with pretty much every Resident Evil game lacking a number in its title. It seems to be true of every fandom that people love to randomly declare things non-canon, but uncited material and original research unquestionably don't belong in Wikipedia.

There've been massive, irreconcilable contradictions in the Resident Evil story ever since Capcom started publishing sequels. Chris doesn't know who Rebecca is in RE1, but RE2 shows her desk is right next to his. Nemesis breaks a window on the second floor of the police station in RE3, yet it's in pristine condition chronologically latter in RE2. RE3 also says that all entrances to Raccoon are blockaded, but Claire and Leon just cruised into the city the previous game. Some games show Raccoon destroyed by a barrage of convention missiles, some show a single nuke. RE0 is the king of bad continuity... I like how the jeep next to the Bravos' helicopter has magically disappeared by the time RE1 rolls around, and how Alpha Team notices the smoke from the chopper and not from the massive burning complex several miles away.

Canon, insofar as there is such a thing, isn't based on "gotcha" moments. The one and only thing that would remove Gaiden from the Resident Evil story is Capcom saying so, something they've never done. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

After making the above comments, I noticed your note in the revision history of the main article, Prime Blue. Thanks for letting me know that the events of this game are mentioned in Wesker's Report and the "Biohazard Code: Veronica Kanzenban Kaitai Shinsho" book. I did a little more checking, and a 10th anniversary edition of Wesker's Report was released in Japan not long ago. It edits out Wesker's comment about Sherry, but the reference to Resident Evil Gaiden is intact. How can there be an argument about Capcom not mentioning the events of Gaiden when, just several months ago, they released a DVD mentioning the events of Gaiden? Splatterhouse5 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that Rebecca was promoted to Alpha Team AFTER the events of RE1? None of the desks of Bravo Team are seen in the STARS office. All we see is Alpha Team's office. It's pretty obvious that Rebecca's desk was put there after Bravo Team was massacred. The events of RE2 happened two months after the events of RE1. Also, RE3 never said that the entrances to Raccoon City were blocked. You have a point on the broken window though.

Also, nothing suggests that Alpha Team didn't see the smoke from the burning complex or the jeep. All we see is Joseph Frost enter the helicopter and Jill finding the helicopter with her flash light. That's it. By the way, Wesker's Report also says that Leon threw away the G-Virus sample and that Ada fell off the bridge in the shaft rather than being attacked by the Tyrant. None of those things were removed from the 10th anniversary edition of Wesker's Report even though the Claire A and Leon B is the canon scenario, NOT the Leon A and Claire B scenario. Finally, Hideo Kojima never declared that Ghost Babel is not canon yet Metal Gear Solid made it clear that the game is not canon.

Anyway, continuity errors have nothing to do with what Leon didn't tell Krauser. Gaiden is not canon. --NewsBot01 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Splatterhouse5: I cleaned that statement up by reverting it to the previous version. Now the sentence basically says the events were not mentioned or explained in later games, which is true. I added the citation needed template to ensure verifiability in the future (there is no clear deadline for finding citations). For now, I used the earlier reference from Eurogamer stating the game to be non-canon, which is the closest thing to "not mentioned or explained in later games" we can get at the moment (non-English sources are okay if they are reliable and if a translation is given). As soon as a better source turns up, we should include that one instead.

Curiously, the other two references to Gaiden (the Q&A in the aforementioned guide book and Wesker's Report) were also created by Hiroki Kato, the writer of Gaiden. Now, as far the controversy goes, whenever the game is discussed in message boards or articles, its ending will be mentioned in some way. It's probably the most important thing about the storyline, that's why we should keep the current phrasing. Not to defend the series' other plotholes (although the ones mentioned here are pretty minor: the RE3 window doesn't affect the overall continuity and is an effect of gameplay, and Chris seems to instantly know Rebecca by name in the remake; can't say anything about the blockade, though), but Gaiden putting Leon and Barry in an anti-Umbrella organization does not quite work with the epilogue files of RE3. The only way to keep RE4 in line with Gaiden and RE3 would be by making Leon join the US government, then an anti-Umbrella organization, and then the US government again, which seems unlikely to me. To sum it up: Keep the phrasing as is, but we shouldn't include the words "canon/non-canon" anywhere, due to reasons mentioned above.

Also, if you are interested in some of the writers and the inconsistencies in the series, check out these two sites: Writers of BIOHAZARD and Scenarios of BIOHAZARD. Prime Blue (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he only knows her name because Richard mentioned it. But again, it's not hard to believe that she got promoted to Alpha Team by the events of RE2. RE2's events took place in September 1998, which is two months after the events of RE1. And besides, she was the only survivor of Bravo Team. We only see Alpha Team's office in RE2 and RE3. And thanks for the links. Like I said, Gaiden is a great game. The music is great. But it's not canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsBot01 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this bizarre fanon theory of Rebecca being promoted has entered discussion. "Rebecca's Report" from the N64 version of Resident Evil 2 confirms her as Bravo Team right after RE1. There would be no STARS promotions; they were immediately put under investigation after returning from the mansion and disbanded shortly after, as recounted in various RE2 files and Biohazard Archives. The Select Police, which Leon Kennedy and Kevin Ryman were members of, was then formed to replace STARS.

The German Eurogamer article doesn't support the "not explained or mentioned in later titles of the series" line, it simply (and incorrectly) says the game isn't canon. It is in no way appropriate to add a citation that states something completely different than the line it's ostensibly a source to.

Leon wouldn't need to leave the U.S. government to work with an underground organization any more than he would need to leave the police force to write traffic tickets. Real government personal have aided resistance movements in the line of duty, as the CIA did the Mujahideen in the '80s. The writer and editors of Wesker's Report obviously felt there was no conflict between the two, as they reference both RE3 and Gaiden.

This also gives a good reason for Leon not to mention the Starlight incident to Krauser, if anyone wants to act as apologetic to Capcom's storytelling. The events of the mission would almost certainly be classified. Of course, you could also say that Leon was just dicking with Krauser entirely, considering the the story he tells of his time in Raccoon is hugely different from any scenario in RE2.

Capcom published Wesker's Report in 2001 and referenced Gaiden. They published the Code: Veronica kanzenban and referenced Gaiden. They published a new edition of Wesker's Report in 2009 which edited out a section that no longer fits their vision of the series, and it still references Gaiden. It's as confirmed as any non-main Resident Evil game gets. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

HA HA HA HA, those are the LAMEST excuses I have ever heard in regards to Leon not telling Krauser anything about Gaiden's events. You really are a sad person. By the way, Get your facts straight, kid. Wesker's Report's 10th anniversary version came out in 2006, NOT 2009. 2006 was the 10 year anniversary of the release of RE1. Wesker's Report originally came out in 2000. The second version of Wesker's Report was in an extra DVD that came with some bundles to celebrate BH's 10th Anniversary and DMC's 5th Anniversary. It contained Trailers and stuff related to those games plus the re-edition of Wesker's Report. Hirko Kato is the one who wrote Wesker's Report in order to link it to Gaiden yet he made several contradictions to the games when he wrote the report and made Gaiden.

Here's some more info on the second version of Wesker's Report.

http://www.the-horror.com/forums/showthread.php?t=540 http://www.the-horror.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6502

And RE2 and RE3 NEVER stated that S.T.A.R.S was disbanded right after the events. They only said that most of the members were going to go to Europe because Brian Irons refused to listen to their testimony on what happened in the Arklay Mountains. Hell, The S.T.A.R.S. office is still in the police station in September 1998. That sure would be weird for a disbanded unit. Oh, and Rebecca's file NEVER stated that she was still in Bravo team.

Read this link and please get your facts straight. http://projectumbrella.net/articles/Rebeccas-Report-EX

--NewsBot01 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

Just to be clear, the Biohazard Archives / Resident Evil Archives I'm refering to is the sourcebook written by Capcom's staff and later translated and published in English, not the re-branded Wii ports of RE0 and the RE1 remake. Here's the relevant information about STARS' dissolution...

Page 258: "In this manner, S.T.A.R.S. was reduced to a mere five members, and the group was disbanded shortly after they returned from the mansion. As a replacement, the R.P.D. Select Police Force was created."

Page 257: "They [the Select Police] were a special group quickly formed after the disbandment of S.T.A.R.S. after the Mansion Incident"

Also, while the book only provides detailed information on the main games, it has a "Chronological List" of the entire series. "Biohazard Gaiden" is included.

Yes, Biohazard staffer Hirko Kato did write Wesker's Report in order to link it to Gaiden. You may consider it fatally contradictory, but Capcom doesn't, because their edited and re-released edition maintains that link. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, SHORTLY after the mansion incident. The exact time is not mentioned. Also, there are four unopened cardboard boxes next to Rebecca's desk. This obviously suggests that she moved to the Alpha Team office after the mansion blew up. She may not have been promoted but she definitely moved to the Alpha Team office and took over Joseph Frost's desk. I suggest you examine the desk again when you play RE2 and RE3. Hell, watch this video and fast forward to 4:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUo3cqloGY

Anyway, Gaiden is never actually mentioned in the report. All it says is that Leon joined forces with an underground anti-umbrella organization. There were several of them.

--70.127.202.77 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you think it's likely that when Hiroki Kato wrote the line "Leon joined forces with and underground anti-Umbrella organization" he was talking about a different underground anti-Umbrella organization than the one he himself showed Leon working with?

If the STARS rearranged their office for the post-mansion lineup, why does Wesker still have a desk after they saw him die?

If Rebecca was promoted, why wasn't it mentioned in the Archives?

Do you think it's plausible for Chief Irons to promote an officer to a position in a department he intends to dissolve at the earliest opportunity (and in fact does dissolve)? Splatterhouse5 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked around and got a good answer from News Bot. --70.127.202.77 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Chris did not know Rebecca prior to the mansion incident, Splatterhouse is a bit of a tool. Rebecca joined only shortly before the mission. And no, she was not moved to Alpha Team. In the "Rebecca's Report" EX file, Alpha Team is a fuck-up by the localization team. It actually only says "S.T.A.R.S.". And yes, that S.T.A.R.S. office is the only S.T.A.R.S. office, but the stage designers got lazy and only built it around the main characters from the first game."

http://residentevil.wikia.com/User_talk:News_Bot

Edit war emerging?

I noticed that there have been a few reverts regarding the canonicity of the game. It seems this matter has to be discussed more thoroughly before some kind of consensus can be reached. First of all, however, please stay civil and keep the discussion cool – it's the best way to settle this. Now, I don't have time at the moment to help you come to a consensus. I'm currently researching the individual connections between series materials and the end result could probably avoid canonicity issues in the future. Right now, though, I think it would be best to continue the discussion centered on the core issue only and, if necessary, to get a third opinion or to file a request for comment. Prime Blue (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as the page says that none of Gaiden's events are mentioned in other games, I'm happy. --NewsBot01 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to include that statement, save as a backhanded way of implying that the game has been disowned by Capcom. I guess dispute resolution is necessary at this point, so I've submitted a request for comment. Until further review arrives, I'd like to call attention to two things:

1. Neither of the sources advanced for the "the events told were not explained or mentioned in later titles of the series" statement actually says so. The German Eurogamer article says the game is "outside the official canon," and as other editors have pointed out, its writer doesn't understand the game's story. The "Resident Evil Gaiden Tech Info" link is totally fraudulent as a source, giving nothing more than some credits and miscellaneous game information.

2. Survivor, Dead Aim, Outbreak and File #2... if you look at the history for any of those articles, you'll see they've went through this same conflict. Every time Capcom publishes a Resident Evil sidestory, a few people come out and say "it's not canon," but this is nothing more than a fringe theory that needs to be removed from this article as it was from those.

As I've said, I have been researching the canonicity of certain materials. I did a summary yesterday and this is the result. Prime Blue (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Survivor is mentioned in RE:0. A Tyrant T-0400TP appears in File #2 and Umbrella Chronicles. Several characters and locations in Outbreak appeared in previous games. Dead Aim is not mentioned because none of the main characters appear in the game. --70.127.202.77 (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaiden isn't mentioned in another game so it's not canon, while Dead Aim isn't mentioned in another game but it's canon because Bruce isn't a main character? Huh?

Prime Blue, I hate criticizing something you put a lot of research into, but it's a mistake to treat fiction like it's real history... to say that because Event A wouldn't logically lead into Event B in the real world, it must branch off into a separate reality in make-believe. I don't think anyone at Capcom sees it that way and I don't think anyone there would know what you were talking about if you said there were seven Resident Evil canons.

There isn't a "real" version of any of the stories, not even the first game's. If you play as Chris, Jill is captured by Wesker right at the beginning and spends the entire game in a cell, while Barry is never seen again. If you play as Jill, Chris spends the whole time locked up and there's no sign of Rebecca. There's no way to get both chains of events in any version of RE1, and it'd be impossible for both to be true in the real world, yet Capcom treats them both as happening (and even poke fun at it in the comics). No one can deny that Capcom soldiers on with this unresolvable contradiction in the storyline, so the argument that unresolvable contradictions result in a branching of canon doesn't float.

There isn't even a contradiction between RE3 and Gaiden. Agents of the federal government have aided underground resistance organizations. It's something that really happens.

It's also surprising to see RE0 listed as part of the original canon, when it wasn't. Rebecca was a rookie with no idea what was going on in the original concept of Resident Evil, and that's how she was written in the first game and its remake. It wasn't until later that anyone at Capcom came up with the idea of Becky having a crazy adventure the night before. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Has Capcom removed Resident Evil Gaiden from canon?

The first viewpoint is that there is a Resident Evil canon, that this game was originally part of that canon, and that this game's publishers have removed it from canon.

The second viewpoint is that the publishers do not strictly maintain a canon and that there is no reason to believe they consider the events of this game to have a different status than other Resident Evil sidestories. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

good to see a RfC being made. I have protected the article for three days to prevent intermediary edit warring. SGGH ^ping! 10:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish to point out that this game was not made by Capcom. Capcom always ignored the game. While some events in the series may be considered retcons, they are; apart from Resident Evil 5's retcons, simply showing something that the main characters missed, and allow it to happen by making the events so. For instance, Resident Evil Zero had a different creator of the t-virus than Resident Evil 2. To fix this, they had William Birkin (2's) steal James Marcus (Zero's) research. It doesn't retcon; it simply adds more to the plot.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's up to editors to prove it the same as any other statement which could reasonably challenged. If there is indeed a canon, and it's important, then someone involved with the series will have discussed it. If not, then RE:G doesn't mind, it's an inanimate object. The Castlevania canon was updated fairly recently and that was covered extensively in the gaming press, unless and until something similar happens with RE then it's best left as a regular discussion for fansite message boards. Someoneanother 17:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-protection status

Thank you to everyone who took the time to comment.

Regarding the removal [1] of information from the Code: Veronica kanzenban, Prime Blue and myself say it's a valid source, while 70.127.202.77 says that there is no source as far as he knows. It seems the consensus is that this information should be returned to the article.

Regarding the "the events told were not explained or mentioned in later titles of the series" phrase, neither of the links cited even mentions that (and one is just a list of credits), so they can't be used as sources. The phrase could remain, though, with the "citation needed" tag instead. However, I question whether it's appropriate to include.

There's no time limit for how long a line marked "citation needed" can remain, but a rough guideline of a month is given [2]. It's now been 14 months [3] since it was added. It may be time to accept that there simply isn't a source... and if one would happen to turn up later, it can always be added then.

Second of all, even if this was verified, why should it be mentioned? The real disagreement here, as I asked in the RfC, is whether Capcom considers this game "non-canon." While I believe 97.106.45.190 was acting in good faith when he added it, I think that the reason the line makes MarkAldred45/Sknmak/NewsBot01/70.127.202.77 "happy," as he puts it, is because it's easily viewed as implying that Capcom has disowned the game. Other Resident Evil titles have never been mentioned in another game (Dead Aim, RE5, the Darkside Chronicles, Outbreak File #2) and their articles don't mention that. If the consensus is that this information is notable, it should probably be added to those articles as well. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Code: Veronica kanzenban is a source, should definitely be used. Just because 70 doesn't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't valid.

As for the "events told" phrase, if receives sourcing, it can stay. If it doesn't, it can't. It's been in the article too long already without a source. Geoff B (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the interview and link for this Q&A kanzeban source. It doesn't actually state that Gaiden is canon. It just says that he was doing some Anti-Umbrella task during Code Veronica's events and that Kato couldn't say what Leon was doing yet. Leon mentions sending Chris an e-mail in Darkside Chronicles but he doesn't say anything about Gaiden's events. Enjoy! --70.127.200.182 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions and Answers

Resident Evil Code: Veronica Director

Hironobu Kato Answered the Questions

Question 6

What was Leon doing when Claire sent e-mail to him?

Answer 6

Leon is one of the members of an anti-Umbrella group. When Claire sent e-mail to him, he was doing another anti-Umbrella task and he couldn't go help Claire. -This story is already complete but I can't tell you what kind of story yet. Jill, Barry and Leon are member of anti-Umbrella group, but group that Jill in and others in is same or not is unknown.

Original Japanese text from: Biohazard Code: Veronica Kaitai-Shinsyo

Published date: Apr 14 2001

Published by: Capcom

http://projectumbrella.net/articles/Resident-Evil-Code-Veronica-QA

Okay, shortened that Q&A here to the question in question. :-) I've seen that the IP editor was range-blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks, too, which should make it much easier to come to a satisfying consensus with Splatterhouse5 (you took a lot of time and dedication into the discussion here, and in the description of the sockpuppeting, so thank you for that!).

First of all, as to the credibility of the Biohazard Code: Veronica Kanzenban Kaitai Shinsho: The Q&A contained in there was conducted with Hiroki Kato, the director of Code: Veronica who is also the writer of Wesker's Report and Gaiden (see scenario credits). In question 6, Kato definitely refers to Gaiden:

• he says Leon is on an anti-Umbrella mission for the underground organization he joined and thus couldn't help Claire during the events of Code: Veronica (confirming the December 1998 setting of Gaiden)
• he says the story for that is already written, the book with the Q&A was released on March 31, 2001 – less than two months later, Gaiden was officially announced
• he says Jill, Barry and Leon are part of an anti-Umbrella organization, though he cannot say if Jill is in the same as them, falling in part with Barry's and Leon's appearance in Gaiden

So: Yes, this Q&A is a credible source for the setting of Gaiden, seeing how the question was directly answered by its writer.

That said, I still think that it should be mentioned that the events are not acknowledged in later games. This is also the case for other games and materials in the series, but Gaiden seems to be the most hotly debated from what I've seen. It is inevitable that, if there is no statement about the storyline at all, someone will make a good faith edit in the future, maybe even stating that the game is non-canon.

Therefore, I would suggest a compromise: something along the lines of "The events told were not mentioned in later titles of the series, though its writer referenced the story in Wesker's Report, a in-universe documentary also authored by him."

The second part of the sentence would cite both Wesker's Report and the Biohazard Code: Veronica Kanzenban Kaitai Shinsho. The first part about no mention of Gaiden in subsequent games also has to be cited, of course. News Bot (the real, credible one) has found a source which would work: Shattered Memoirs, sort of a resource file for press reviewers of Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles (full transcript here. It says: "Leon's latest mission brings him to South America, and the four years he has gone without witnessing the horrors of a zombie outbreak are shattered in an instant."

Now, personally, I don't give absolute credibility to material seemingly unapproved by the actual series writers, but for Wikipedia, the source should suffice – given how the last time the game has been mentioned in some form was 2001.

Just my 200-something cents. I hope that's an acceptable compromise for you, Splatterhouse5. :-) Prime Blue (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've missed something, but wouldn't the events of the Capcom-created RE: Degeneration film conflict with the canon nature of this game? Given that, according to what the story section of this article seems to say (that Leon is a BOW with green blood), since the Leon of Degeneration doesn't have green blood and isn't a BOW, wouldn't that make Gaiden non-canon? FluffyPug (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also the fact that Leon did not tell Krauser about Gaiden's events when Krauser told him to tell him everything about his experiences with BOWs. Also, there's this statement in the book that Prime Blue was talking about.

"Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles focuses primarily on the stories of Leon S. Kennedy and Claire Redfield prior to Resident Evil 4."

Hence, Gaiden is not canon because Darkside Chronicles doesn't mention the game's events. Also, Leon talks about sending Chris that e-mail but he doesn't say he was in a sinking ship during the events of Code Veronica.

Regardless, I totally agree with Prime Blue's compromise. It's a fact that Gaiden is not mentioned in the other games. Not even RE0 which mentioned all of the other previously made games up to the point the game was released. You can't ignore that. Feel free to do the same to Dead Aim's page. --Masamako (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, Masamako was another Aldred sockpuppet? Kudos to the admins on blocking him so quickly. I notice he started adding the same kind of stuff to the Dead Aim article, though, which I'll revert shortly.

FluffyPug, the original Leon doesn't die in Gaiden. Also, as I've said before, the Eurogamer Germany retrospective isn't a source for the old "not mentioned or explained" statement. If you'd re-read Prime Blue's prior comment, you'd see that he'd suggested using a different line with two different sources.

Prime Blue, I appreciate your sentiments, and I'm sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this discussion. I agree it's pretty clear that Wesker's Report and the kanzanban reference Gaiden. Aldred's idea that they don't is about as rational as saying that RE0 doesn't reference Gun Survivor and was talking about some other Sheena Island.

It's not accurate to say that Gaiden hasn't been mentioned since 2001, though. The reference to it is retained in the 10th anniversary edition of Wesker's Report and it's listed to this day [4] on Capcom's official website.

Concerning Shattered Memoirs, it just says that it's been four years since Leon's seen a zombie outbreak. It could be used to try to argue that Gaiden isn't canon - though weakly, since RE2 and Gaiden are set in the same year - but I don't see how it's a reference to Gaiden being mentioned or not mentioned in other titles.

It's not that I dispute that Leon's Starlight tour hasn't been mentioned in other games, though, or that I think Capcom still cares about what was shown in Gaiden. I just don't think it benefits any article to talk about canon unless its writers have explicitly established one. Going back to the Darkside Chronicles, it tells majorly different versions of the Raccoon/Rockfort/Antarctica events than Resident Evil 2 and Code: Veronica. If there is a canon, then necessarily either it's not part of it or they're not... or at best parts of each are canon with only fan theories to tell us what's what. I'm not going to act as a perpetual roadblock if reasonable editors think this is something that needs to be addressed throughout the Resident Evil articles, but I really think they're better if they just report the unbiased facts. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You say "FluffyPug, the original Leon doesn't die in Gaiden", but the ending of Gaiden explicitly states that he's a BOW with green blood. I'm using Wikipedia's own telling of it- give some proof that says otherwise. FluffyPug (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@FluffyPug: Maybe I should reword the plot section a bit, even – it needs to be sourced with game quotes, anyway. The story is very hard to understand for first-time players (or those who never played it). During the course of the game, there are actually three Leons on board of the SS Starlight: The real Leon (last seen a bit more than halfway through the game in the engine room) and two B.O.W.s assuming his form, the last of which is seen in the ending bleeding green blood.

@Splatterhouse5: Note that the 全作品一覧 is really that: A "short overview of all works" in the series including their individual versions, the same exists for the mobile games. The 10th anniversary revision of Wesker's Report is essentially the same material, although an unknown individual decided to cut the last line for unknown reasons. So the last originally established mention of Gaiden is still from 2001. One could also say "not acknowledged in later titles of the series" which would also work better with the source given, though I've deliberately used "mentioned" to make it more compromising for you. There is also the possibility of using the timeline of Inside of Biohazard: The Darkside Chronicles since it seems to be the most complete yet, even including Dead Aim. I don't have the book, though, so I can't check myself. Basically, I'd like to know if you're okay with the wording above. I suggested it not to bring up a canon/non-canon debate but to prevent the issue from coming up with other editors in the future, as well as to prevent further edit wars. Prime Blue (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense to make the article slightly worse in order to stave off some person in the future potentially trying to make it worse still, especially after you've put in the effort to extensively improve the article otherwise. The Shattered Memoirs and Inside of Biohazard sources only show that Gaiden isn't mentioned in Shattered Memoirs and Inside of Biohazard, not that it isn't mentioned in other video games in the series... in RE4, RE5, ect. I don't see how it's notable that Hiroki Kato wrote both Gaiden and Wesker's Report - he was a Capcom employee working in his official capacity in regards to the series - or why it's important to say Gaiden isn't mentioned in other titles, but not to say Dead Aim / Outbreak File #2 / RE5 / the DC aren't mentioned in other titles, which is also true.

The line about Sherry was probably edited-out because Capcom dropped the plot thread of her being in Wesker's custody. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is about as much energy I can bring up for a compromise that addresses the concerns I've raised. You think the article is better off without mentioning the issue, and I will not insist on my suggestion. Prime Blue (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)