Talk:Wilhelm (Xenosaga)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
No This article is on a subject of no priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:


Contents

[edit] "Wilhelm" misspelled in Japanese

The way Wilhelm's name is currently written in Japanese, the romanji and pronunciation would be: "Viruherumu". The two dashes (I do not recall what they are called) after the "U" character shift the pronunciation to a "V" sound. This needs to be corrected. 26 August 2007

Is it really important? This case is best made to the fan community, and the consensus reflected in the article once it has been reached. (extremists aside) Tcaudilllg 23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Mistake

This Article was originally placed here, Wilhelm, untill Axezz did a terrible job of "moving" this article and making the old page a disambiguation. The history of this article up to 26/04/2005 is still located on the Wilhelm page. -- Revolver Ocelot 23:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Author Credits

This article was first created by Revolver Ocelot, and contributed to by Walton Simons, JarlaxleArtemis, and Ahalsall before the page got moved. -- Revolver Ocelot 23:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distortions in spacetime made by Zarathustra

The second to last paragraph in Wilhelm's entry of Episode III's in-game database:

It is unsure whether the current cycle is the tenth recurrence, or even the hundredth, but the distortions created by the repetition gradually changed people's consciousness. Ultimately, mankind rejected his power, choosing to progress to the future by their own will.

— Galaeron Nihmedu 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Last paragraph in Wilhelm's Episode III in-game database entry:

While his methods differed from Shion's, Wilhelm undoubtedly sought to save the world just the same. Or perhaps what he truly wanted was a revolution in mankind's consciousness, brought about by the cyclical recurrence of time.

That he succeeded in his plan to force the evolution of the consciousness of mankind was confirmed in the Official Complete Guide. The Eternal Recurrence was just a means to an end. PhoenixStrike 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That guide seems mighty helpful. I've got to get that for myself. Perhaps what I added can be changed from Every time Zarathustra was used to reset time, distortions were made. In the current recurrence, the distortions were great enough for Wilhelm's plans to use Zarathustra to fail. He is surprised by this, as demonstrated by his statement, "Humans, mere humans are rejecting me? Impossible. It is unthinkable." to Every time Zarathustra was used to reset time, distortions were made. In the current recurrence, the distortions were great enough for humankind's consciousnesses to change, causing them to reject Wilhelm's decision to reset time. He is surprised by this, as demonstrated by his statement, "Humans, mere humans are rejecting me? Impossible. It is unthinkable." Clearly, this was something Wilhelm did not expect; why else would he act so surprised? And if his surprise was all just an act, what would be the point of acting surprised if mankind's will's were already set on rejecting him? — Galaeron Nihmedu 03:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
For Wilhelm, everything is like a drama, he was just playing his part. Wilhelm's entry does need updating, but I've also been waiting for more information from the Perfect Guide (an updated version of the Complete Guide) to be made available. As for the current entry, if it needs to be changed now it would be better to just mention the distortions leading to the change rather than what Wilhelm thinks, because that's very flakey territory. PhoenixStrike 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conceivably...

At the end of this article, it is written:

"Conceivably, this notion would provide an explanation for a speculative "alternate universe" connection between the universes of Xenogears and Xenosaga; each story following different incarnations of especially willful characters who "resonate purely with Anima", within different cycles of Zarathustra (albeit spaced approximately ten thousand years apart from one another). But this connection is still confusing and potentially misleading, as the events of Xenogears are labeled "Episode V" and Xenosaga spans Episodes one through three, with the Infinite Recurrence of Zarathustra presumably being rejected at the end of Episode three."

I don't think that needs to be here. It's speculation at best, and probably very far from the series creator's intent. Tcaudilllg 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Um I took that out. It's speculation, after all.
Xenosaga is definitely the kind of work that is designed to spur questioning and debate. Speculations as to the game's real-world connections (Neitzsche, Jung) are completely valid. (if they weren't, the Database would not contain the correlations.) But the Xenosaga/Xenogears connection hypothesis has never been proven, nor was it mentioned in the game in any way. Certainly, the chracters Abel and Nephilim resemble the leads from Xenogears, ...but that doesn't mean they are in the same universe, save in the creator's own heart. Perhaps we should be asking that question instead. Tcaudilllg 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the "original research" heading. The others are fine and valid. (aside from the "notability" question; he is notable because he is an intended instance of the Neitzschen Ubermensche) I will say though, that the article needs sources. We have many now that the official companion materials are (mostly) translated to English. Tcaudilllg 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Accusation

Removed. The Xenogears/Xenosaga link was removed, and none of the rest of the article is clearly original research. Some of the other accusations seem irrelevant to me, also. Instead of lurking in the shadows, let the people who leveled these accusations show their respective faces in the open. Tcaudilllg 23:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wilhelm.jpg

Image:Wilhelm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Notability....

If Seph is notable, then so is Wilhelm. This game is a cult classic and in time Wilhelm will probably be about as notable as any other major RPG protagonist. The only reason the game isnt' popular is because it's artistic. I'm taking off the notability tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction Guidelines...

I believe this article has been restored to an acceptable state, given the information we now have. I'm leaving the copy edit tag and taking off the fiction-guideline tag. May submit for review, too.Tcaudilllg 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing and referencing

There seems to be little citations in this article and it would definately be an improvement. I might go and mark a couple of notations that could use a reference, but pretty much anything that has the word fan in it should be cited. I might help contribute to the article, but I haven't decided yet. If not, best luck to you all Zemalia 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would find it appreciative. :) I actually think that if we were to source from the largest discussion forums (Xenosaga Legacy, Gamefaqs, Namco, etc.), we could put together a credible source for the fan statements. Apparently Wikipedia looks down on the creation of new sources for the purpose of citation. Tcaudilllg 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia also looks down upon using forums and "fan statements" as sources. Fan statements and forum posts reflect no profesional authority, no statistical basis for the amount of people who actually agree with something, and offer no level of peer review or academic/professional accountability. Any forum post used as a source (unless it was posted by say, a person of verified authority on the subject) would likely be removed as a source immediately and discounted as OR. Using a forum post as an indicator of a trend or state is simply another variation of WP:SYNTH. See The Matrix Online's edit history and talk page for a significant example of this problem.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmph. I've already lent my support to the NOR reprise effort. We're not giving up until NOR's current form is overturned.
If you knew anything about group dynamics you would know the error of that statement. Why do you think so few people are forum regulars compared to the entire readership of a given forum? If someone is already speaking on behalf of others' concerns, those others will simply lend their support to the degree they feel appropriate to the speaker's situation. That's the way opinion leadership works. If perhaps you stopped trying to enforce "empires of knowledge" on people, you might have the time to learn what the world is really about. Tcaudilllg 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want the truth, I don't care. You can throw around what you think is psychology all you want, its not going to change the fact that WP:NOR isn't going to change. This may come as a massive shocker that shatters your world, but Wikipedia policies are not built on psychological theory. In case you haven't noticed, no one has come to support you on WP:NOR complaints. I posted the 5 pillars on your talk page, I strongly suggest you read them thoroughly before making any more assertions, particularly WP:CON, WP:POLICY and WP:NOT. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but that is conditional on agreeing to work within wikipedia's core policies. If you can't accept that, you're probably better off going somewhere else. We're about evidence here, and unless you can show material evidence with substance to back up a claim instead of psychological theory and conjecture, that claim is not welcome here. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you think that my world could be shattered? Perhaps because yours actually could? (nevermind, I'm not continuing the discussion here.)
But I will say this: I find a lot of similarities between you and the subject of this article, particularly in motive. Wilhelm proved so unable to accept the possibility of a world where the rules bend to fit the situation, that he massed people against himself even when it was plain he was in the wrong. I think you are in the wrong on this point because your motives are similar to those of Wilhelm: you want a world where there is an established authority overseeing everything, no matter how small or insignificant the detail, just to make sure there is not the slightest hint of irregularity or deviation from the norm. It is a valid view, but an incomplete view. Authority is natural: its perception need not be imposed save where there is a strong potential for irrationality. You may think yourself a savior of the orderly and traditional, but in this instance at least you're charging at windmills. Tcaudilllg 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, bit out of hand much? Anyways, I see a lot of references to the 'ultimate xenosaga guide' and what not, but no citations from it. Is it a book or an online resource? If its a book, that would be a great addition to citing and referencing. As for online sites, there are only a few that are considered to be reliable by project video games, and I think in order to up the status of this article, we should stick to their terms. I'm off to find a book about Xenosaga! ^.~ Zemalia 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe all of the guides, design docs, etc. are in Japanese. (regretfully there are no efforts to put accompaniment game material in English.) If you are Japanese fluent, then I suspect it won't take you long to figure once you've got a guide that the existing translations are solid. I misquoted from the Complete Guide; it should have been the Perfect Guide. (so easy to get confused, but I was lazy.) I believe I've referenced those at the bottom of the page, but I've not cited the individual parts, just the article as a whole. (I've not actually cited anything.) I'm not very good at citing things in general, because it's difficult for me to delineate when thoughts end and when they begin, so if you have a talent for such that would be most helpful. Tcaudilllg 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Would it help if I put in 'citation needed' templates and then you could add the reference? Zemalia 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Tcaudilllg 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section with explanations

Wilhelm's stature and mystique has inspired many allusions between himself and historical themes.(weasel words and lacking citation. Allusions are something that is implied, not infered, so they cannot be "inspired" in the reader) Partially owing to the strong parallels illustrated by the series' creators between the world of Xenosaga and actual history, many fans (again with the weasel words) believe Wilhelm to be a symbol for real life religious and mythological concepts. A leading comparison is to that of the Demiurge of the Gnostic religion, who is said to be the creator and "caretaker" of the physical domain (WP:SYNTH). Demiurge is portrayed as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Creator, just like Wilhelm is antagonistic to U-DO's will. He also tried to entrap elements of the divine in the physical world, much like Wilhelm tries to seal away the "eyes of God", Abel and Abel's Ark, in order to have his way with the world. (Rationale attempting to justify previous synthesis. Writing is attempting to make a thesis and justify it, original research) Also, Demiurge employed agents called Archons, powerful beings that acted on Demiurge's will. (More synthesis rationale)Demiurge's Archons can be comparable to Wilhelm's Testaments.(More synthesis rationale)

--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|[[Special:Emailuser/Oni Ookami Alfador|@]] 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of the Perfect Guide, or even some scans, so we can have some of the information cited. For now, the removal is fine. I appreciate the work you've put into analyzing the section you deleted and bringing your comments to the talk page. If anyone does know of somewhere I can get my hands on some Perfect guide scans, it would be much appreciated (untranslated is fine since I can read Japanese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zemalia (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well now if the translation provided on XenoTen forums isn't reliable, how can we trust yours? I think that's rather arrogant to think of yourself as more reliable and trustworthy than something that essentially hundreds of people are taking for gospel. (and if you think there is something ironic to that, then I don't know what else to say.) Don't you think there is a reason why that translation has gone unchallenged before now? Could it be because several other fans are in possession of that guide also, and affirming the translation independently? Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I have a genuine concern about this guide. Anything that needs "many fans say/claim/suspect/are inspired to think/etc ..." isn't likely to have a reliable source. If something is explicitly stated in the guide it would be fine but I would caution anyone to avoid the same problems with synthesis from that material that is happening here. Honestly, I have a feeling this whole section is irrescuable in any case since all of this seems like fan speculation and not something that is going to be found in that guide. (By the way, is that guide an official guide released by the creators, or something third party? That's a huge difference.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
From the research I've been doing on it its actually put out officially. I've been thinking that all of the Xenosaga characters need to be remerged into the protagonist articles, but I'm not really qualified for all of that crap. If you would like to propose a merger, I wouldn't object. So far, I can't find any out of universe information for Wilhelm... its going poorly to say the least. Zemalia 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what I'm going to do. The Perfect Guide translation is now finished (as of two days ago, I believe), and on that basis we can cite to our heart's content. I will include paragraphs straight from the guide as reference material: everything will be accounted for in gruesome detail. It will be Alfador's foolish insistances taken to their dismal logical conclusion. You'll barf at its technicality when you see it.
And as you painstakingly translate the guide on your own, Zemalia, you can affirm the veracity of the existing fan translation page by page, and critique at your leisure.
What the article really needs right now, though, is copyediting, not overzealous source checking. So to say, a second translation is not a good use of time. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you did not affirm that the guide was official before questioning it, Alfador. (a simple search for the guide on Amazon would have probably yielded it.) I'm surprised that you managed to deduce that my personality analysis was original research, given that many of the allusions were implied by the plot. (you are unfamiliar with the plot, obviously.) The analysis itself was made on the basis of what I concluded Wilhelm's socionics type to be, ISTp. ISTps are primarily concerned with bringing harmony to people's lives, satisfying their desires, and in particular, arranging deals on the basis of the same. The rest of the details I described in the article. What is there is something that is so keenly, carefully presented as to bring just a hint of credence and concreteness to what the reader familiar with the series already knows to be true. Actually, you and the character seem to have a great deal in common. (in as much as one can have something in common with an imaginary figment, anyway.)
I regret that we don't have the access necessary to affirm from the series' creator which religious references may be true or false. Certainly awareness of the same played a role in Wilhelm's design, and in his relationship with chaos and UDO. Very likely he would never affirm either way, however, given the intentionally ambiguous stances taken on religious references in the ODM. But it's plainly obvious that no one is so creative as to actually conceive of such concepts themselves, with no pre-existing source material.
When you deal with Xenosaga, you're dealing with stuff that generally isn't easy to explain concretely, because it's highly intuitive. I'm actually trying to piece together the details by which to present the Xeno fan community's conclusions on various Xenosaga matters and topics -- some of which are striking and may lead to actual scientific discoveries in the future. (yes I know the considerations themselves have no place on Wikipedia.)
One of those conclusions was that the "eternal circle of Zarathustra" Wilhelm mentions at the end of Episode II was an eternal recurrence mechanism. Turned out they were right. Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
After some thought, I've determined that I no longer care for the state of this encyclopedia enough that I won't risk upsetting its political undercurrents, all too manifest in the administrator elections which are held every few months or so. Consensus is dead: long live democracy and politics on Wikipedia. Progressivism is undecided as to whether this cause -- implicit timely acknowledgement on Wikipedia -- is worth fighting for. To find out, we'll rely on brute political force and see how far it takes us. It'll all also play into my larger strategy: I intend to unite progressives from around the world into common cause. I'm already taking concrete steps in that direction locally; might as well make inroads here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To the anon IP user: I am not going to do your work for you. I never said the guide wasn't official, I simply asked if it was, which required only a yes or no answer. I understand the frustrations regarding Xenosaga's lack of concrete and explicit declaration, but our hands are tied on the issue so long as the content is on Wikipedia. There are plenty of topic-specific wikis independent from wikipedia for this type of extrapolation. It is unfortunate perhaps that this information cannot be included, but that doesn't change that it, in fact, cannot be included. If the game and its allusions are notable enough, something will eventually be written about them. Perhaps efforts spent here would be better spent drawing attention to these things so that a credible source would speak on it.
I have undone the recent revisions as they seem to just be an attempt at extrapolating more from the guide than is explicitly stated. Even if this is not the case, much of the information added is indicative of original research and opinions formulated by the editor. If I may, here is one particularly obvious example: The use of "transcended man" here is important, because it is preceded by "the" and not "a", implying that the transcended man has a meaning detatched from the casual. It is a formal title not defined elsewhere in any other Xenosaga text; this implies its meaning as Neitzsche's opinion of the same, the bringer of the Eternal Return/Recurrence and the qualities such a role entails. The content of this statement specifically discusses the usage of phrasing in the material and its importance. Such discussion without coming from a source is original research, and would most likely fall under WP:SYNTH as well.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
But again, the conclusions are obvious. These aren't the kinds of conclusions you get from having a spark of insight: anyone familiar with the material will at least get a intuitive glimpse of the connections. Furthermore, I think you and your fellow crusaders are not giving WP:When to cite enough consideration.
It would be a good idea to seek out formal recognition of the religious/cultural subtext problem in games these days. The problem is how to get the attention of a relevant authority, and moreover, how to find someone who will actually put themselves on record as having drawn attention to it. It's not easy to do: the risks of being politically incorrect by pressing the issue may be reasonably judged as outwieghing the benefits of a thorough analysis of what is a real problem. (specifically, the infiltration of PC concerns into a valid expressive medium; something that for a while had completely given way, but since the Janet Jackson thing seems generally resurgent....) Or maybe I'm not looking at the right people. I can only say getting access to people for these purposes is damn difficult, if only because they all have limited energies and time.
I do respect that you acknowledged the "explicity" problem with XS in general. Obviously this discussion itself says something about the existence of the problem: my intentions with this article were to calm the psychological frenzy that XS's multifaceted plot can produce; as it is most people don't know what or even how to think about it, and this detracts from people's opinions of the series as a whole. What I'll do as a compromise is post the citations in their original form to the talk here, so that people who are desperately intrigued will have at least some source of closure available to them.
I'll revise the references. The conclusions are obvious enough, anyhow. Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, The first line in WTC is as follows... "Not every statement in an article needs a citation, but if in doubt, provide one." I am also directly disputing the notion of these conclusions being "obvious". That status is basically reserved for things that are directly apparent, without requiring interpretation or inference on the part of the observer. With very few exceptions, due to the differing breadths of experience and outlook of various observers, these conclusions may or may not be obvious to them and as a result not "obvious" as a whole. I'm sorry to break it to you, but unless a source of some authority or notoriety makes these statements, THEY ARE ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and are not to be included under Wikipedia policies. There really isn't any more latitude on this issue.
Also, this last statement you make show's the fundamental flaw in your efforts here. You are trying to calm confusion about Xenosaga's plot. Wikipedia is NOT the place for that. The most you can accomplish here is to state the explicit facts, point out any well sourced interpretations by notable and authoritative parties and leave the rest for the reader to figure out on their own or research somewhere else. I appreciate the good intentions in your efforts, as I appreciate the intents of those who insert links to charitable orgs in articles, but those violate WP:EL policies, just as this does not follow WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I removed all the synth: the Perfect Guide quotes are reliable translations of official source material. Revert. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That was a totally good faith edit. I sincerely desired resolution. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It appeared to me at first glance you were doing the same as before, using quotes to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated. After looking at it some more it appears I was mistaken. The wording may or may not need some tweaking to ensure neutrality but it does appear to avoid any OR. Feel free to revert. However, I am beginning to lack your capacity for good faith after your apparent need to attack me in a forum post only to link it on your talk page.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't YOU revert? Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The attacks need to stop. As it stands so far, the edits and attempts to reference the article look like they are going well. Please stop the personal attacking, and remember: no one owns pages, they are a collaboration between many different parties. Zemalia (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is getting far out of hand. As for why I didn't revert the page, quite frankly I'm not entirely on-board with the changes, and it isn't really a big deal to revert it yourself. "Go ahead and revert it" often proves to be a better policy than "I'll revert it myself" for a few reasons. Primarily, it avoids confusion. The original editor reverts as does the other and suddenly you wind up with a different version of the page that cancels out the action to begin with. Second, it enables it to be clear in the edit history where and who these edits came from. Like I said before, you may want to consider using edit summaries more often as it may have avoided this whole situation from the outset.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Messiah" figure

i keep reading people saying "the unknown messiah figure".

i am sure that they weren't trying to hide anything or make it a mystery of who it was it's Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.33.33 (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)