Talk:Ryu (Street Fighter)/Archive 1

Ryu's power in Street Fighter 3
Does anybody know where's the source saying that Ryu in Street Fighter 3 is as strong as the Satsui no Hadou?Dark Rain —Preceding comment was added at 03:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Nope but his skills and satsui hadou is not gone but he able to control outfow of it some sort of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.109.49.181 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Move
I moved this page because there is another Ryu in the video game word - Ryu Hayabusa of Ninja Gaiden. WhisperToMe 23:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just curious if this was noteworthy to maybe put under triva: in the first megaman X game there was a secret Dr. Light hologram where you would recieve the power to use the Hadoken. I only remember that and dont currently have anysources to back it up but if people feel this would be something worth adding I could look for some 64.53.130.241 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That sort of trivia is better on one of the Street Fighter pages than Ryu's page, since the Hadouken isn't unique to just him. Virogtheconq 08:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but Dr. Light was dressed up like Ryu (with the bandana) when you were awarded the move.--Yewyew 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hair Color
Ryu's red hair is his younger version, and his brown hair is his older version. --Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com

Not only that, his hair was black in the Street Fighter 3 games. but original hair color of ryu hair is brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.175.146 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources?
Where in Street Fighter canon does it say that the fabled blow Ryu delivered to Sagat was a "cheap shot," or a dark Shoryuken, or that he'd lost to Ken when receiving the headband? Second time I've seen questionable twists on known Ryu history. Where also is being captured, brainwashed, and rescued in canon? Is all this referring to some sort of Street Fighter Alpha series ending? If so, I haven't noticed it in either of his first two in those games. Does this instead refer to endings for Ken or Sagat? If that's the case, I don't think the version of events in their stories can necessarily be considered the official background for his (Sagat is even reported as saying in Street Fighter Alpha 3 that the dark Ryu is not the one who gave him the scar). Changing this to what's strictly known as canon unless these matters are verified.

Ryu received the red headband from Ken in Ken's SFA/SFA2 ending. The "capture and brainwash" part comes from Ken, Sakura, and Sagat's SFA3 pre-Bison battles. The Street Fighter II animated movie is not part of SF canon, therefore the "Shoryuken/Hadouken" finish isn't applicable. The Street Fighter Plot Canon Guide, derived from the book All About Capcom, contains everything that was put into the character entries on Wikipedia. DarkSoldier 05:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Sakura, Ken, and Sagat pre-Bison battles, I feel that, as was mentioned above, the versions of events in those stories can't definitely be considered the one and only official events in Ryu's (no more than something about one of them in his version of events could be considered their official canon). I think it's better off left out. Whether the "Shoryuken/Hadouken" finish is applicable strikes me as rather trivial; regardless of just how he won, the official story remains that Ryu beat Sagat in Street Fighter 1. That "All About Capcom" book sounds interesting. I couldn't find anything on it. Have a link? -- James26 07:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AAC is only in Japanese. I found it for sale at Sasuga Japanese Bookstore for $32. Regarding what happens to other characters, if there is nothing to contradict those statements, then they can be taken as canon until such time as they are contradicted. DarkSoldier 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- James26 23:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources List
Why is the list of sources at the bottom of the page constantly being removed? Nawara Ven 04:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kanji meaning
I think there is an error in the definition of the name "Ryu". The page states that his name means "prosperity", though I have seen in many sources, such as a Japanese-English dictionary that it can mean Dragon, smartly dressed, or a fighting style. I have seen nothing before stating that it means Prosperity. I am not very experienced in Japanese, so anyone who can confirm or disprove this is free to.


 * Ryu does mean "Dragon" in Japanese, not "Prosperity". I have the anime Street Fighter V, Japanese soundtrack with Chinese subtitles. The Chinese translation was "Dragon".


 * Shoryuken is the Japanese name for Dragon Punch. Shoryuken is Dragon Punch. Shoryuken is Dragon Punch. Tekken is Iron Fist or Punch.


 * As far as I know, "ryu" indeed means "dragon". I was kinda surprised to see "prosperity" there. If nobody is against it, I think it should be fixed.--Kaonashi 03:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've discovered something about this some time ago, and I think I should share with you. I looked on my kanji dictionaries and searched for the very same character shown on the article (隆) for its definition. It indeed means "prosperity", and not "dragon". The word "ryū" can mean several things in Japanese, including "dragon", but this one kanji character refer to "prosperity". I looked on Street Fighter's section at capcom.co.jp, but I didn't find the kanji referring to his name (to check if this is the one). Only in katakana.
 * So, for that reason, I think we should see the "dragon" stuff we're discussing here as a mere speculation. The kanji for "dragon" is not that one, and that's for sure. Until anyone comes up with proof, I think the article should stay the way it is now.--Kaonashi 03:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Capcom only spelled Ryu's and Ken's names in kanji back when the original Street Fighter was released. After Street Fighter II, they spelled them in plain katakana. The kanji in Ryu's name definitely the one for prosperity and not dragon though. I'm guessing the misconception comes from the fact that most of Ryu's techniques have a Dragon motif. http://ameblo.jp/user_images/1e/b3/10000706467_s.jpg Jonny2x4 07:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. It's for something like that I've been looking for. I took a look at the Street Fighter ROMs I have here, but I couldn't find anything. I hoped to see something on Street Fighter II for the PC Engine, but not even there. I also remember playing the first Street Fighter at some point, but I didn't remember the kanji. Thanks for finding that out. It's indeed the prosperity one.--Kaonashi 04:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Call me a skeptic, but I'd like to see some official documentation on Ryu's kanji. Not to say that you'd photoshop a pic like that or anything, but your source may or may not be an official capcom text. I'm just having trouble believing ryu's obvious "dragon" connection would be overlooked for the kanji for prosperity.

I do read japanese however... and it does look pretty legit though. Nevertheless, after reading through some japanese websites (including wikipedia's own Japanese's article on ryuu) It seems that his name has been changed 2 or 3 times. Since SF2 to the present its only written in katakana, so I left only the katakana name. If we want to discuss the name changes in the actual article, I wouldn't be averse to adding a few sentences explaing thatLinkMaster 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---Ryu is pronounced 'roo', I believe, I will make such a correction to the article, any objections?

That is wrong. "Ryu" is pronounced moer or less like "ree-ooh". "Roo" is very far from that.--Kaonashi 01:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ryu - Sounds just like the Ryu in "Shoryuken"...meh, ill just pronounce him the way I can.--Neofcon 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Granted that the article even has a soundbite of the correct pronunciation of Ryu's name, but do common alternate (if incorrect) pronunciations also merit a mention? Notably, when the American cartoon and CollegeHumor's Street Fighter: The Later Years say his name "rye-you"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.160.167 (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On another kanji, I believe one that appears on Evil Ryu and Akuma's backs is not 天 (ten / amatsu) for "heaven", but rather 夭 (you / wakai) for "early death; calamity". Note the curvature in the top line, which is quite clearly distinguishable in the game. In fact, the kanji 夭 is more in line than 天 with common themes for Satsui no Hadou techniques which are described with 滅 (metsu: destruction; ruin) and 殺 (satsu: murder). Estevaocm (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Street Fighter III/Street Fighter The Movie/Street Fighter EX
This article needs more Ryu images from these games. I would like to upload some images and edit the article, making a gallery. --Mateusc 16:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to accuse, but you'd have to admit this is probably a tad too suspicious coming immediately after the page has been protected from vandalism. It's best to hold off on this idea; I agree with Mackeriv that the article should just stay locked for a while, as all the written content that needs to be there is pretty much there (meaning the first priority has been met). --James26


 * 1. I never vandalized articles in Wikipedia. If you think that I suspect, you should ask for IP verification to an administrator instead of pose of plaintiff coward.
 * 2. My intention is expand the article, because Ryu was shown significantly different in many games and also in a movie.
 * 3. What Mackeriv thinks on articles is not what the community thinks. Vandalism is a problem in the wikipedia, but not a reason to keep locked without power to be expanded. Thanks. --Mateusc 16:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. I never vandalized articles in Wikipedia. If you think that I suspect, you should ask for IP verification to an administrator instead of pose of plaintiff coward.


 * Okay, I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but it sounds like you've overreacted.


 * What Mackeriv thinks on articles is not what the community thinks.


 * I hadn't noticed any overwhelming disagreement in regards to this particular case, so...


 * Vandalism is a problem in the wikipedia, but not a reason to keep locked without power to be expanded.


 * I disagree when it comes to certain matters. This being one of them. Perhaps if you'd been fighting this particular vandalism you would too.


 * Thanks.


 * Welcome. --James26 04:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute about Chun-Li relationship
I removed it a while ago, and I'll remove it again - it's pretty common knowledge on Wikipedia that fancruft just isn't encyclopaedic. That paragraph is more circumstantial than speculative, but it still doesn't belong here, no matter how much the 'shippers or fanfiction authors want it. Sorry, but "some fans" isn't enough to merit inclusion. The "trivia" section isn't a blank slate to put down whatever pops into your head about the character. I don't want to start an edit war over this. --Marcg106 05:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have many strong opinions regarding this (though I'd probably leave that info away, since it doesn't sound a lot good to be here to me), but it's a little strange to hear you saying "don't start a revert war" when you're the one reverting in the first place, without explaining why first (like you're doing just now). If you were really concerned about revert wars, you'd probably only talk instead of editing the article for a second time. You'd have talked instead of taking actions. Just keep that in mind next time.--Kaonashi 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in revert wars either, but respectfully, I tend to disagree with the reasoning here. The definition of fancruft refers to it as detailed information, and includes the following.


 * ". . . Or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."


 * A simple mention that Ryu and Chun-Li are a popular fan-pairing is not overly detailed nor distracting. Listing and describing several notable fanfics, fan-sites, pieces of fanart, and petitions to Capcom to get them together might be; simply stating that the notion exists, however, is not. This has nothing to do with being a "shipper," as you put it. (And I also agree that if you object so strongly, the right thing to do would have been to discuss first, as that info has been present for a while). Stating that the trivia section is not a blank slate to put down "whatever pops into your head about the character" doesn't strike me as a very valid argument; it rather strikes me as a means of trying to dodge the argument. The trivia section is a blank slate to put down information that is both interesting and factual. This qualifies as that, not, by definition, as fancruft. As it is neither overly detailed or distracting, I'm therefore restoring the information unless there is another reason given for why it shouldn't be there. Thank you. --Respectfully, James26 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was a hardcore Street Fighter fan in the early and mid 90's, and I don't recall anyone I played with thinking that Ryu and Chun-Li would be a good pairing. And in any event, fan speculation doesn't really have a place in an encylopedia, does it? It's one thing, for example, to have an article about fan-fiction, it's another entirely to include said fan-fiction in articles. -Locke Cole 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles shouldn't revolve around what anyone does or doesn't recall personally. And as I myself have argued, I agree that fanfiction does not belong in articles. This, however, isn't "fanfiction," it's trivia. Let's stop attempting to redefine things as fancruft or fanfiction in the interests of personal desires. The problem here is that those who don't want the trivia included don't have ample reasoning to support their position; it's apparently just a matter of whim.
 * I will now state a case for why the trivia should stay. First of all, the report happens to be factual. A simple Google search for "Ryu Chun-Li" will prove that this is a popular subject among fandom. Secondly, this particular bit of trivia, as stated in another article, is not fueled entirely by "fan speculation." While not all are canon (which is beside the point), there are at least four officially licenced or created works that also support this concept (and it's interesting to note that the citations to those were deleted from the Chun-Li article by Marcg106 -- further suggesting that this is more of a personal matter than anything else). Those works are the Tokuma Comics Street Fighter II manga, the Malibu Comics Street Fighter series, the Street Fighter Alpha/Zero OVA, and the game SVC Chaos -- all of which, again, are officially created works, not fan works, that either hint at or include romance between the characters Ryu and Chun-Li. Therefore, this is not a matter of baseless fan speculation; it is something that fans have been given ample reason to speculate over.
 * Also, as it is a part of the trivia section -- not the main body of the article itself -- and as I've already detailed, not a piece of fancruft, there is no reason left for it to not be included... save for it apparently rubbing someone the wrong way. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to go editing something out. Wikipedia is not about unilateral decisions, and given what I've presented, I think it's clear that this appears to be a pretty rash one based mainly on personal preference. --Respectfully, James26 22:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look. If you can give me some credible source from Capcom that states Ryu and Chun Li were meant to be together, or were a possible coupling or something, then yeah, sure, leave it in. But until then it doesn't pass the WP:V test, and ergo, it's out. It's funny too, to note that this seems to be an ongoing problem on other sites as well. Until you provide a credible Capcom source or a consensus of editors disagrees, I'll be reverting this change on sight. Also, please see WP:CITE. -Locke Cole 04:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Taken from the Chun-Li article. "The two are acquainted, however. In SVC Chaos: SNK vs. Capcom, their pre-fight dialogue hints that of all her opponents, Ryu is her favorite, since she was very happy to see him again. He enjoys fighting her as well, and considers her to be a good friend and ally." That's where the "possible coupling or something" comes in. If that doesn't satisfy you personally, then I can't help you, but whether or not it's to your personal satisfaction shouldn't decide this. I've provided the citation you asked for -- an official source that implys it. I also have cited my sources regarding the fan matter in mentioning the stories that have contained this. It seems to me that you're attempting to apply the WP:V policy to your personal whim, now dictating that it has to come directly by Capcom and not by the stories that they've allowed to be created. How does one person get to decide this? In any case, I've changed the entry to not include the word speculation but instead include the fact that certain officially liscenced stories have featured this concept. Perhaps this should indeed be put to debate among moderators. However, if a mere mentioning of fandom is not appropriate for a trivia section in this article, then you be sure to go and weed out fandom referrences in every single other Wikipedia article as well if your whim is approved here. No bias, right? --James26 23:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that doesn't satisfy me personally. She says she's happy to see him. He says they're friends and she's his ally, not that they want to get "coupled". That's original research on your part (or rather, fans in general), and clearly disallowed by WP:NOR. Moreover, the consensus (that'd be myself and Marcg106) seem to believe it's fancruft. -Locke Cole 05:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Moreover, the consensus (that'd be myself and Marcg106) seem to believe it's fancruft."


 * A consensus is not necessarily right, especially when you've yet to adequately rebuke my earlier points that cite the article on fancruft and detail the inaccuracy of your claim.


 * In any case, the new edit should satisfy all but the most stubborn parties. Please note that I have cited what I mention above. Also, why was it that the matter with Chun-Li was considered un-cited "fancruft," while the following line -- at the very top of the trivia section -- was not?


 * ". . . Some fans refer to him as a "one-dimensional character." Some assume he does not care about winning or losing, just the moment of the fight and the opportunity for spiritual advancement."


 * Where is the citation/link that proves that "some fans" feel this way about the character? Why is this not being equally picked on? It seems the fancruft claims were selective and, as I'd mentioned, really a matter of a personal nature. Hopefully it's resolved now. -- James26 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, now.. don't get in a hurry. We can tackle that bit of potential fancruft next if you're eager about it. I just think that, since this is the subject at hand, we should deal with it. Not try to tackle rewriting the whole article. -Locke Cole 05:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this really worth all this crazy war? I mean, what importance does this have? I advise you both to stop reverting the article like you're doing. You both are almost breaking the 3RR rule, and that grants blocking. Please consider that before doing anything from now on.--Kaonashi 05:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. My point is that certain parties were obviously upset about what they deemed speculation. I've now changed the article to no longer include said speculation but instead the fact that certain official stories, canon or not, have implied the Ryu/Chun-Li thing. If my fellow users continue to revert even that fact, then that proves that their real problem is not with the previous speculation (which I've suspected all along), but with the Ryu/Chun-Li thing. I say let it go with what I've included, which is clearly cited and true.


 * If not, then I agree that this really isn't worth it. Either way, both of the edits I've supported (the first of which I didn't even originally include) are facts. -- James26 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with you: now you claim to have cited something, and you haven't. All you say is "some officially created works" say it, but you fail to cite a screen shot or anything that says, explicitly, what you assert as "true". Instead you read that she says "of all her opponents, Ryu is her favorite" and run with it. That's original research, and that's disallowed on Wikipedia per WP:NOR. I made a good-faith edit to your last contribution changing it to state what your "source" actually stated (per your own words): that they are friends and allies. Wikipedia is not a place for ridiculous fan-fiction/fancruft. -Locke Cole 06:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Locke, the problem is that you apparently haven't read my upper posting in which I did cite those officially created works. I'll re-post what's above.


 * "While not all are canon (which is beside the point), there are at least four officially licenced or created works that also support this concept (and it's interesting to note that the citations to those were deleted from the Chun-Li article by Marcg106 -- further suggesting that this is more of a personal matter than anything else). Those works are the Tokuma Comics Street Fighter II manga, the Malibu Comics Street Fighter series, the Street Fighter Alpha/Zero OVA, and the game SVC Chaos -- all of which, again, are officially created works, not fan works, that either hint at or include romance between the characters Ryu and Chun-Li."


 * It seems you're now attempting to redefine the issue. What I've "assert[ed] as true" is that these official works either feature or imply romance between them. I have not "assert[ed] as true" that Ryu and Chun-Li are an official couple; that was never even stated in the article in the first place. Some of these official works do include romance between the characters (mainly the comics), and that is fact. I appreciate your good-faith edit, but what you label as "ridiculous fan-fiction/fancruft" is really the result of your lack of actually reading the citations when included. If that doesn't support my assertions that your insistence in this matter has been rash, then I don't know what does. And you still haven't actually responded to my counter for your "fancruft" assertion, in which I've cited that the article defines it as detailed info, which renders your claim invalid.


 * I'm sorry this has turned so ugly, but I find the rashness of those on the opposing side both immature and annoying. -- James26 17:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, what's immature and annoying is the "OMGWTFBBQ, Chun Li and Ryu are meant to be, LOLZ!!!1!" attitude you're displaying. I don't know if I'd necessarily consider the comics to be canon, if possible, I'd rather stick to stuff from the games. And besides, so far the only quote you've provided is from the game where it says they're friends and allies, or that Ryu is her favorite opponent. If you're going to quote comics, quote passage and verse at least (issue, page, and a snippet of the dialogue indicating they are or could be in a relationship). It's not really asking that much that you prove it before we let fancruft in.. --Locke Cole 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not displaying that attitude. Let me clarify (again) that I never said they were "meant to be" or that they're a couple. Neither did the person who originally wrote what was in the article. The only one who's suggested that that's what's being debated is you actually. You keep speaking for your opposition so that you can then declare that your opposition is wrong, doing original research, including fancruft, or including fanfiction, when none of that is true. It would be if the original claim was "Ryu and Chun-Li are a couple." Too bad it wasn't.


 * The Original Claim:


 * Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple


 * Taken from the WP:V policy/WP:NOR policy:


 * Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research . . . the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources


 * A few sources that verify the original claim ("Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple") are here, here and here.


 * Once again, the claim has never been that they are a couple.


 * "I don't know if I'd necessarily consider the comics to be canon"


 * Let me clarify (again) that neither do I... as I've restated once already.


 * "It's not really asking that much that you prove it"


 * Just so we get it completely straight this time and there's no clever dodging or redefining... Prove what? -- James26 01:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My problem with this is, why is it such a big deal that it be included? Why is it important to someone who's never heard of Ryu or Chun Li? There's already two people here who think this should be out altogether, then there's you who says it should be in. That's 2 to 1. I'd rather get some additional opinions before trying to claim consensus on this, but c'mon, why the revert war over taking it out? --Locke Cole 12:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia is not necessarily supposed to be overly important or unimportant. The main body of the article is there for the important part. Trivia, in any work, is simply a collection of little facts that some may find interesting and are thus included. You can make the claim that it may not be interesting to someone who's never heard of either character, but it works both ways: at the same time, there exists the possibility that it may be interesting to someone who has. Therefore, what's the big deal about insisting that it be taken out? Why not just leave it alone? While there may be people, as you've said, who think it should be taken out, you've yet to provide an actual Wikipedia policy that says the same, and that is why I oppose this idea. It is not fancruft (as explained by the very first line of the definition), it is not fanfiction (the line doesn't read, "Ryu and Chun-Li are a copule"), and it is not original research (as the sources have been verified above). There's no clear reason it should be taken out other than certain people simply wanting it to be, and that is why it should stay. -- James26 22:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm done justifying my position with you. It was a mistake to even engage in this ridiculous discussion. I'll state it as simple as possible: so far 2 people want this out, with you as the only one wanting it in. If you don't like that, well, there's not a whole lot I can do. I've explained why I believe it should be out, and whether you believe that meshes with policy or guidelines is really irrelevant to me, because as far as I'm concerned it does. --Locke Cole 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, according to policy, there's more to it than where you stand. Now you're being immature with the "I don't care what you or the guidelines say; all that matters is what I want." You're right, if that's your final attitude and you're not mature enough to simply acknowledge being incorrect when you can't prove otherwise, it was a mistake to engage in this. -- James26 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Going to administrators if this keeps up. What you're doing now -- stubbornly reverting without substantial enough reason (a consensus that you can't support with policy) -- borders on vandalism (the very thing you claim to fight). Please, get over it and move on. -- James26 23:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe history will record that you are the one stubbornly reverting here against consensus. If you don't like this, make reasonable proposals that will gain consensus instead of pushing your POV on the rest of us. --Locke Cole 06:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, the "consensus" you keep referring to was for THE ORIGINAL CLAIM ("Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple"); it does not apply to the current edit.
 * And dude, I'm not stubbornly pushing a POV on you. I'm merely requesting, as I believe is reasonable to do, that you present a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to support your edit. You haven't, and therefore this consensus that you keep blindly clinging to is invalid; it's an excuse you use to support editing a page based on your own personal desires and not on policy. You've even admitted as much by claiming that you don't care that your edit isn't supported by any guideline, because "as far as I'm concerned," it is. Whenever I attempt to inform you that your claims of "fancruft," "O.R," etc don't add up, you...


 * 1. Ignore me
 * 2. Attempt to change the trivia's meaning to something you can apply your argument to (which hasn't worked)
 * 3. Say, "Well, there's a consensus, so..." (which currently isn't true, and would be irrelevant anyway without validity)


 * Also, the current version is something you yourself were willing to deal with at one point, but now you suddenly change your mind? Why don't you just admit that your motivation here really revolves around personal feelings (a dislike for the subject)? You've more than proven it. And even if you succeed in removing the fact that some fans and official works like the idea of a Ryu/Chun-Li relationship from this encyclopedia, that isn't going to "hide it from the world," if that's what you're after. It's been well known for years (the image I linked to was made in '97; the first site I linked to was just updated this month). This debate should not be motivated by whether any of us like it or not.


 * Look, the sources that verify the current claim are clearly cited in the article and you haven't provided anything in policy that says it should be gone. Therefore, your constant edits revolve strictly around your own whim and qualify as vandalism. Let it go, or I report that to administrators. Someone with your skill at writing shouldn't let this wreak or hinder a Wikipedia career. Is it really that worth it? -- James26 03:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one at fault here, so by all means, get an admin to intervene. Meanwhile, I'll continue to edit with the view of the consensus. --Locke Cole 09:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have already proven that you don't have consensus, just as I've proven the inaccuracy of several of your other arguments. Now you won't admit to being at fault. You have to be the most immature and utterly stubborn Wikipedian I've come across. Even when proven incorrect, you deny it and refuse to yield, and that is clearly on display here for anyone intervening to see. So yes, I will get an admin. Sorry it has to come to this. Then again, no, I'm not. -- James26 04:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the authority to usurp my vote. That's not the way it works. All I did was try to explain why I believed it should be out, and instead of accepting my decision you've chosen to attack it. We are all peers here, you don't get to act as referee and decide whose opinion matters and whose doesn't. If that was the way Wikipedia worked, nothing would ever get done. Now you can accept that you're in the minority or you can act juvenile and try to report my edits as vandalism (which they most certainly are not). I really couldn't care less. But if you think threatening me is going to get your "OMG Chun-Li and Ryu are meant to beeeeeee!" crap in, you're out of your God forsaken skull. --Locke Cole 09:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

''Again, just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the authority to usurp my vote. ''

Nor you mine.

instead of accepting my decision you've chosen to attack it

You're the one who started this without talking first and then declared you'd continue to edit "on sight."

you don't get to act as referee and decide whose opinion matters and whose doesn't.

I haven't been concerned with opinions; my edits revolve around facts and they've been cited. And I never declared or inferred the "meant to be" stuff that you've posted, nor am I "in the minority," as I've already proven (though you seem you have a difficult time accepting truth when it proves you wrong, so you tend to ignore it and repeat the same thing over and over). And yeah you've tried to explain why it should be out, and you were proven wrong. That pretty much clarifys the difference between us on this matter, as does the insult in your immature post. Actually you've done nothing but constantly put your immaturity on display here every time, and I'm so, so glad. -- James26 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried to usurp your vote, I've merely pointed out that you're in the minority with your single vote. 2v1 in this article, 3v1 in the Chun-Li article (both about the same thing, so effectively 3v1 in both). I declared I'd edit "on sight" when it became clear that you were disregarding the consensus and were instead trying to impose your POV on the article in your edits. I believe I'm well within my rights to do that once you show a disinterest in accepting the consensus (and definitely more "in the right" than you are to unilaterally decide to go against the consensus). As for "proving me wrong"-- again, this is your opinion. IMHO I believe you've only twisted what I've said, proof positive to me that I should never have engaged in this discussion with you because it seems all you've wanted is to find a way to attack my decision (rather than trying to understand it). And how can I be immature if you're the one making threats of getting admins to try and enforce your minority position against the will of the consensus? THAT's immature. I have a better idea: why don't you take your ball and go home? It's clear you can't play well with others. --Locke Cole 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Locke, I will repeat once again that you do not have a consensus. Do you even READ what's here? The consensus you refer to was for the original claim; no such consesnus exists for the modified one I tried to create to satisfy you. However, while you accepted it at first, you then changed your mind and


 * 1. Have ignored every counterpoint that disproves your claim
 * 2. Have now launched a personal insult (God-forsaken mind)


 * That is why you're immature. Again, you have NO consensus, and even if you did, policy declares you wrong... but you never want to talk about that. -- James26 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I accepted a revision I made, which was later edited by you. You trying to reword it ever so slightly to slip it in is immature IMO, and just smells of desperation. I'll say it one last time: you are in the minority, you do not have consensus with these edits, merely changing the wording slightly doesn't automatically make everything OK. If you'd like to discuss potential changes and see if a consensus agrees with your changes, that would be a lot better (and a lot more mature) than revert warring/ignoring peoples opinions/threatening to try and get an admin to back your POV. --Locke Cole 10:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I only edited back my revision after you'd edited it first, because what I'd said originally was and is true. I'm through with the mud-slinging; you just seem to apply what's said to you and throw it back anyway. And I'll say it again, you do not have a consensus with the current edit. And your original "consensus" was incorrect -- NOT according to me, but according to the fancruft definition. Nothing gets through to you; you just ignore everything that directly proves you wrong (such as the fact that you don't have consensus here, and the fact that you can't prove the original claim was fancruft). -- James26 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah, I just choose not to get into a justification match with you about why I believe it shouldn't be in (I already tried that, and you don't seem interested at all in what I have to say). All I'll say about this matter is that it reeks of fancruft, and that's it. If you want you can propose edits here to see if they gain consensus, that's cool. But unilaterally adding it back in (just slightly reworded to include your supposed sources) is not, to me, a valid way to resolve this. It's just another example of you ignoring consensus. --Locke Cole 10:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have been ignoring consensus when you don't have one for the current edit (why don't you stop ignoring that when I point it out). -- James26 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The current edit (that is, the omission of any mention of Ryu and Chun-Li (potentially) being in any kind of relationship) is what originally got consensus. Since then you've made a marked effort to try and push your POV into the article via revert wars rather than getting consensus for an edit a majority can agree to. --Locke Cole 11:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah, I just choose not to get into a justification match with you about why I believe it shouldn't be in (I already tried that, and you don't seem interested at all in what I have to say).


 * Not true. Okay then, tell me why you think it shouldn't be in. -- James26 05:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Because I believe it to be fancruft, and I believe it's inclusion violates WP:NOR and WP:V. --Locke Cole 10:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is the current edit fancruft (you can't just say "I believe")? And how does it violate the "no original research" thing when the sources are cited? -- James26 06:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can just say "I believe", actually, and that's all I'll be saying. I won't be drawn into some lengthy debate where the only goal for you is to say my opinion doesn't matter. As for your "sources", as I said some time ago, those aren't sources, those are examples. The non-canon comics aren't even source-worthy, if that's what you're talking about. --Locke Cole 11:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried.


 * So you refuse to explain why you feel the way you do. That's where the problem comes in. You have a position that you won't support; you're just basically saying "because I said so." That just hurts your credibility. And don't try to blame me for your lack of supporting your argument. If you won't support it, it's because you can't find substance to it, which just backs my claims.


 * What I meant by "the current edit":


 * "*Some officially created works, such as the 1993 Malibu Comics' Street Fighter series, and Masaomi Kanzaki's Street Fighter II manga, suggest that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple&mdash;a concept that has been a point of contention among fans."


 * This is what you DO NOT have a consensus on. This is not fancruft (it isn't detailed). And those "examples" are citations. Whether they're canon or not wasn't the point; the claim was that they were "officially created works." And you don't get to decide whether they're source worthy. However, if you want more to the citation just let me know what exactly, as I'd offered before.


 * And the original edit -- Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple -- was verified and therefore was not orginal research. It was not detailed and therefore was not fancruft (how many times must I repeat all this?).


 * Verification of the original edit:


 * Taken from the WP:V policy/WP:NOR policy:


 * Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research . . . the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources


 * A few sources that verify the original claim ("Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple") are here, here and here.


 * Whenever your claims have been disproven, Locke, be they the fancruft ones or the O.R. ones (see above) you either ignore or try to discredit what disproves them. When asked to explain your position, you refuse to (moderators will tell you that that hurts your side of the argument; common sense should tell you that). The former is stubborn, the latter is immature. I can tell I'm not going to get anywhere with you, but I have tried, so again, it's time for intervention. Your claims are disproven (whether you'll admit it or not) so your edits are vandalism. -- James26 06:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No claims have been disproven. No consensus has been reached to support your edits. Really, go on and on all you like, you're definitely not changing my mind after all this. --Locke Cole 11:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You've claimed fancruft. I've proven that they aren't, by definition, because they were not detailed info. You've claimed original research. I've disproven that by citing the sources of the first entry (here, here and here) and the second. You've claimed consensus for the second entry (which was a peace offering), when you don't have it.


 * Anyone reading this can see your claims have been disproven. Anyone except you of course.
 * Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you agree or not now. -- James26 07:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! Actually, it does really matter whether I agree or not because I'm part of the consensus that doesn't want Chun-Li fancruft here. Despite your evidence I remain unconvinced. Despite your assertions you don't get to decide whose opinion matters and whose doesn't. Get over yourself and get over this. --Locke Cole 12:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that I don't get to decide about opinions. It's just too bad the only one who's presented opinions is you; while I've presented, cited, and linked to facts. Wonder which looks better. Never mind, I already know. ;) -- James26 07:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a contest you know, you can't "beat" me just because I disagree with you and your conclusions. Get help. --Locke Cole 12:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, dear Locke, it's no contest at all, because the facts remain that you have neither consensus or policy on your side when it comes to the edit you've most recently removed. Your policy claim is, "It's fancruft." The definition to that page you always link to (try reading it yourself) says you're incorrect. You've also launched how many personal attacks now? So, in conclusion, you're in the wrong no matter what. Not my opinion, but the verified facts. -- James26 07:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh... I wonder if what I said up there, a million years ago, sounded like Greek to you. Why are you still talking about this? How come this is still going on? I see you both left messages at my talk page, and I suppose you both expect me to take an action. The thing is, sysops don't exist to jump inside content disputes and say "you're right and you're wrong, the article stays this way, etc". Unfortunately, that's not how it works. I can't take part on this because admins don't solve disputes.

The best thing that can be done to solve this is to start a votation. It makes no sense to say there is already a consensus based on what some other people said they think. It's clear that didn't work. Start a votation to set things right. Also, attract other people to this article and this talk page. Post messages at other places and expose the situation to other users. You might think that Third opinion could be useless now, since other people already said what they think, but I say it's usefull, since it'll call more people into this. They'll show their opinion and they'll do what they think is the best thing. As soon as you notice there are more people agreeing with one version of the article than the other, you'll know there is a consensus, but stick with the votation. It'll make everything clearer and it'll probably decide things once and for all. You can also try Requests for comment. Doing both might increase your chances of getting the necessary attention you need. In any case, reading Resolving disputes is always a good idea.

But please, use common sense. When you start thinking things went way too far, they probably did. I see you both started reverting the article like mad again. None of you have broke 3RR yet, but if you do, you will be blocked from editing, and nothing will prevent that, so take care. Also, if all this fails and the article keeps being reverted, the page will have to be protected... again. It will probably happen if things keep going bad. I know I have already given my opinion on this matter, so I might not be able to protect the page myself if someone says I'm already involved. Wikipedia forbids admins to protect pages in case they're already "involved" in a dispute, though I don't see myself involved in this. Anyway, this is what I can do for now. Talk. Sorry if it's not enough, but please listen to what I said. Try following those steps. It'll help.--Kaonashi 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

At leat, the White Wolf RPG hints that Ryu and Chun-li are attracted. User:Kage Tenshi 15:10 13 February 2007

As far as I know Street Fighter Alpha the animated series depicts a close friendship between Ken, Ryu, and Chun Li. There is no way that a "pairing" can be twisted out of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.234.42 (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Alter Ego
Why isn't there any stuff about Evil Ryu in this page? Or would it make sense to have a separate Evil Ryu profile on wikipedia? He is after all a separate character in some Capcom games. Doom jester 13:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Say, that's something I hadn't thought about when I had come across this page so many times...but I don't know about making a whole seperate article- the fact of Ryu almost sucuming to Sadatu no hoi pretty much explains dark Ryu's "origins", so I don't really think it needs much explanation. However, perhaps you could make a section for Evil Ryu somwhere in the article ; similar to Shin Akuma in Akuma's article. -ZeroTalk 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have merged said "alter ego" into the article. -ZeroTalk 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of the meaning of the Symbol(kanji) on "Evil Ryus" back after a win. Akumas symbol was translated on his page in the trivia section (but not Shin Akumas?) so it seems strange that it is not posted for Evil Ryu as well...
 * It means destruction. But that's about all I know of it. Danny Lilithborne 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryu/Chun-Li fancruft vote

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal detailed below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was No -- Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 20:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

 Please note:  there is an identical poll being conducted on Talk:Chun-Li. Please place your vote there as well.

Since James26 does not believe there is a consensus supporting the removal of fancruft related to Chun-Li and Ryu being in a relationship (or any deviation on that theme), I figure the best way to resolve this is with a vote. Voting will be allowed for one week from the time this is opened (see signature date on this posting). A simple majority (50%) will be used to determine the outcome. The question being voted upon is--

Should details on a relationship between Ryu and Chun-Li be included in the trivia section (or any section) of this article (or any deviation thereof)?

Please register your vote by typing in  *Yes - optional reason -~  or  *No - optional reason -~  below. Please limit discussion to the Discussion subsection of this voting area. Thank you for participating. --Locke Cole 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No - it's clear fancruft -Locke Cole 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - It is not, by definition, fancruft; it is trivia. --James26 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No- The "relationship" is not backed by any official sources, so It shouldn't be in the article; it has no purpose other than one's desire for it to be there. --MegamanZero
 * No - Maybe it doesn't fall under the current definition of "fancruft" (which can change, by the way), but it's circumstantial, fanfiction-esque material, not worth mentioning. --Marcg106 04:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - It is trivia. My reasons are in the below discussion.--Mitsukai 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No - The dreams of shippers don't belong on Wikipedia. --Paul Soth 03:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No. This is speculation, which is not encyclopedic. It's subtrivial. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No - See reason below. --S.Reemas

Discussion
Discussion regarding the vote above should be made here.
 * Please note that the definition of fancruft defines it as detalied information, while the edit currently being disputed is only one sentence long. The edit is as follows:

"*Some officially created works, such as the 1993 Malibu Comics' Street Fighter series, and Masaomi Kanzaki's Street Fighter II manga, suggest that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple&mdash;a concept that has been a point of contention among fans."

That does not qualify as detailed information or fancruft by intended definition; it is merely trivia. And despite what Locke Cole has said, there has not previously been a consensus regarding this edit. Thank you. --James26 12:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) --Locke Cole 06:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please also note that the edit James26 is referring to is only a slight rewording of the previously shot down edit, as detailed below in this diff of the two edits:
 * Please, by all means, decide for yourself whether the second edit&mdash;which does not start by referring to fan thoughts, but instead starts by mentioning officially created works, includes a specific citation featuring publisher, name, year, and titles, and then finally makes a neutral referrence to the fanbase, as many Wikipedia articles do&mdash;qualifies as a mere "slight rewording."


 * ''Originally written by MegamanZero
 * "The 'relationship' is not backed by any official sources"

Just to clarify that this vote does not claim that Ryu are Chun-Li actually have a relationship, and therefore that should not be what anyone bases their decision upon. The edit being disputed refers to and only to officially created works (of which there actually are some cited within) that feature a Ryu and Chun-Li relationship, and whether or not they deserve a one-sentence mention in the trivia section of the article. And no, the works are not labeled as canon, which should be entirely beside the point in this particular decision. --James26 04:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note also that Locke Cole had been willing to accept a revision he made of my edit before (on the left below), and has innocently preached that "we're all peers here," yet as soon as I reverted the edit to my own version (just to add the citations), he suddenly wants it gone again. In other words, his way or no way. Example of the two versions:

Proof that his stance in this is motivated mainly by whim and having his own way, even if it means bypassing policy. I've exposed all of this and a lot more on his part in the debate above, which he'll surely find excuses for shortly. --James26 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you can read minds. Can you tell me how this votes going to turn out, it'd save me a week of wondering. --Locke Cole 22:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Boy, I probably should have kept tabs on these pages - I had no idea so much debate had arisen. Anyways, if you like this "relationship", there's no need to validate it to yourself by sticking it in articles. --Marcg106 04:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it is likely non-canonical part does not diminish its importance as trivia. Why? Simple - obviously, if there were two (considered non-canonical) stories published that considered Ryu and Chun-Li a couple, then that should be listed as examples of the Ryu-Chun Li "controversy". Has CAPCOM made an official statement to confirm or deny this? No, because getting just about anything out of CAPCOM regarding SF canon is about as difficult as pulling off a shoryuken with a broken joystick. If they have (and I haven't seen one if so, I admit), then we should use that as a counter-reference within the text. Regardless of this, denying the existence of the Seishua and Malibu Comics versions of the story is needlessly removing information.--Mitsukai 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is subtrivial non-information, documenting nothing other than occasional fan speculation. It should not be included in this article, and should not be included in any article. I've just spent hours cleaning up similar non-encyclopedic speculation out of Metal Gear articles, and I don't want to see it creeping into Street Fighter articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a username so my opinion might be judged as less valid, but I simply had to weigh in. (I believe this is the last day for the week-long vote, and if I'm too late, just ignore it.) All the "valid sources" in the world don't change the fact that the phrase "would make a good couple" is taking the relationship much further than anything hinted at in any official sources. That phrase reeks of fancruft and while the manga and comics (only one of which I have seen) might hint at them having a some sort of relationship aside from opponents (be it friends, allies, couple), I'm fairly certain that none of them state that Ryu would be the perfect boyfriend who would never forget their anniversary and always say the right thing. You may find that last sentence ridiculous, but that's precisely the point. What defines a "good couple"? What source ever implied that and how? Whether anything should be said at all is up in the air, but that particular edit is horribly slanted, primarily due to that phrase (which makes far more of any "evidence" than it should) and should not remain (or be reverted) as such. --S.Reemas


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

...Canon?
I was just curious - are the mangas that claim they have a relationship canon, notable? If they are canon and notable, their relationship is not trivia. If only notable, then it must be mentioned that a notable manga makes the claim. I mean, Mario mentions the events of the movie (if it doesn't, it should), despite not being canon. The reason being is that the movie was notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say no. Judging from concensus alone, inserting that tidbit of info just might set off another edit war. Best to leave well-off to itself, my friend. :)-MegamanZero 11:31 5,November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there was such controversy about its content being mentioned here, I'll probably just create a separate article about the manga soon to go along with all the other Street Fighter story entries, but I'm glad that the fact that a friendship does indeed exist between the characters ended up in the article anyway. --James26 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also never mentioned that a less heated resolution to this argument was reached elsewhere. -- James26 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought official Street Fighter animes are valid canon source too. Especially Street Fighter II : The Animated Movie had been referred by game series. Ryu's head band story, Sagat's scar by Ryu's shoryuken, Ryu and Ken defeated M.Bison, all of them are from that movie and then available at Street Fighter Alpha series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.139.62.118 (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

vitals/proportions
This page's vital stats differs from the Japanese version's... is it possible that one set is his SFA proportions, and one is his SFII proportions? 222.2.137.193 05:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ryu vs. Ken's speed
Ryu attacks faster than Ken. This has always been their main difference. Suggesting that Ken is faster than Ryu because he does more hits or because he "bounces faster" is extremely misleading. Of course, no one can dispute that Ryu does more damage with single hits in his special attacks, but this does not make him stronger. It just means he does damage in single hits. Please make this clear. Nawara Ven 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this just won't do. Since an failure to reach an neutral point of view is conveyed in thae article, I'm afraid removing it altogether is the best course of action. We don't do power scaling in wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 12:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I fully understand you here, Megaman Zero, pardon my ignorance. I don't know what you mean by "power scaling", or how we're doing it. All I'm concerned with is accurately reporting which character executes the same manuver in less time. There's not really any opinion involved with that. Nawara Ven 14:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not ignorant. Please don't insult yourself like that, I think you are clearly editting in good faith. I did not mean to sound oppressive. Regarding this, I've already removed the information, I was referring to. Upon furthur inspection, I think we may have been talking about different lines of text. :) -ZeroTalk 14:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooooooh okay, there it is, I saw your edit, we were "arguing" about different lines entirely. Ha. I've just been edgy that an anonymous user keeps switching Ken & Ryu's info around, hence I made a point about it on the talk page. Keep up the good work, MM0. Nawara Ven 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop mentioning Alpha Generations
In street fighter alpha generation original story is given by capcom while manga co only produce it ,mean plot movie and characters. So story line will remain same and cannon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.241 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC) if u don't belive than watch street fighter alpha 3 evil ryu ending and his biography detail in game. one of his statement in the ending relates with darkhadou blood line.
 * Capcom officially sanctioning an anime does not make it canon, they've said so explicitly. Check Tiamat's Street Fighter plot FAQ.  It's irrelevant. Danny Lilithborne 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Satsui no Hadou is not the "Dark Hadou" nonsense that the Alpha movies drone on about. JuJube (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. Dark Hadou is just an alternate translation of the Satsui no Hadou/"Evil Intent". Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an alternate translation, it's a wrong translation. JuJube (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Evil Intent" (used in Alpha 2 and Alpha 3) is also a "wrong" translation. "Murderous Intent" (or "Hadou of Murderous Intent"), which is used in 2nd Impact and Alpha 3 is much closer to the actual meaning of Satsui no Hadou. Either way, we should acknowledge it instead of deleting it, especially considering "Dark Hadou" is also used in UDON's adaptation of the Nakahira manga. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * God, are you serious? The more I hear about UDON the less I like it.  Anyway, I know "Evil Intent" is wrong too, but it was used by Capcom of USA, as compared to Dark Hadou which at least was.... x_x only used by a non-canon movie.  But that's out the window now. Goddamn it... JuJube (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not a big fan of UDON either. The way they write their Street Fighter comics is like a marriage of the localized versions of the games with second-hand/third-hand knowledge of the original Japanese versions, which is just as bad as "fan canon", like having a character named "Charlie Nash" (why not used "Ryu Hoshi" and "William F. Guile" while they're at it). It would be okay if they kept their "Udonism" in their own comics, yet somehow they managed to throw their "Udonism" in the Nakahira manga titles too. At one point, Chun-Li refers to Ryu as a "Shotokan warrior", even though they clearly state several times that Ryu's martial art is a nameless one which has its "roots in the ancient arts of assassination". Its very distracting in my opinion and annoying in my opinion, but I disgress. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In street Fighter 4 Gouki's story relates deeply with two characters Ryu and his big brother Gouken alive. It seems both brothers fighting eachother for ryu as also shown in akuma vs ryu trailer too. And also three are related with eachother because gouki mentioned ryu as a cub while he was not young child but a grown man. So don't make any more false theories jujube that gouki and ryu are related some how is doing of capcom.So blame them of their doing and you are really a big comical nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.151.73 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even think you know what you're saying. JuJube (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See the street fighter 4 gouki's ending boy. Than give argues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.151.73 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the fact that I am without a doubt older than you didn't speak for itself, "than give argues" does. JuJube (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

jujube give any valid points if you have that ryu and gouki donot relate with each other don't fight with me hot head this not chatting room discussion place. So give points or clues if you have i like to appriciate that and by the way street fighter 4 is developed by capcom not me they relate story in such away and confusing all people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.151.73 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the SF4 ending. There's absolutely nothing in it even suggesting a blood relationship between Ryu and Gouki, so you can shut up now. JuJube (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

you dont even know how to find clues what kind of sick person you are? shut yourself. readers are many but to understand story clue and good strategical players are few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.151.73 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what you want. Have you read about Wikipedia's original research policy?  Because this is exactly what this is.  If you insist on keeping this up I will have to file an RFC. JuJube (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Ryu used Kyokushin?
Having everything related to SF, I've read Ryu's page and I am surprised to read that he was supposed to be using Kyoukushin in SF1. Unless someone proves it with certifiable sources, namely pictures and/or text that I don't have (doubtful), I think it is utter BS (IMHO) and a vandal act. Capcom Japan never intended to have him (or Ken) to be followers of a certain school, but universal characters instead. --Kim Kusanagi 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Kim Kusanagi

Storyline sections...
...are needlessly confusing. Please keep the canon storyline to one unified section, please. And BushinGuy, stop reverting the pages because you like your way better. There should at least be a discussion before a major overhaul in format. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who broke it up into sections, because it seemed the best way to explain where these various pieces of story were coming from. Please don't remove the headers without somehow indicating that such-and-such story is from SFII, such and such story is from SFA, and so on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, then, A Man In Black, the reason it's confusing is that one story can and often does retcon another. Capcom's released various guides relating to what the storyline is, canonwise, so splitting it into sections is not necessary and can actually cause confusion in a reader. I'll leave the headers alone while this is in discussion. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was hoping to move out of the universe and handle it in a chronological-by-real-world-games order, mentioning the retcons along with the games in which they are introduced. That said, I'm not attached to that order, but I want to make sure every version of the fights is described and label retcons as such. A good example of what I'd like to do is Justice Society of America, a long-running comic that has been retconned and retconned and retconned again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryu Pic
Why is the normal Ryu pic removed? T-1000 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you presume we require it..? -ZeroTalk 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It shows how Ryu looks in game. As it will not prevent people from buying the game. It falls under fairuse. T-1000 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a decorative fair use image, which is a (mild) no-no, plus we already have another Ryu sprite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, the more recent pic should be used, and the SF II sprite should be removed instead. T-1000 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good pics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.53 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha Force
Rather than drag out a revert war over this, I want to take it to a vote here, because maybe I'm wrong. The way I see it, even if a game is made by Capcom, the fact that a character has a fireball, hurricane kick and super fireball is insufficient to make the whole character an "homage" to Ryu. I think comparing the two is fancruft and doesn't belong on the page. What do you think? Danny Lilithborne 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently you're missing out the concept of "gameplay" in fighting games. In earlier games what defined a character were mostly his special techniques, so a character who has 3 specials that look just like the same as the signature-moves of Ryu IS somehow, a spin-off. I mean, one could have a hadouken-ish move but not a shoryuken-ish one and a tatsumakisenpuukyaku-ish one, but come on, if it's got all three of them, it's a spinoff, accept it.--151.41.0.81 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only does Cyber Hero use Ryu's moves, but he also has the same victory pose as Ryu's where he crosses his arms.--DynamoDT 22:12, 19 June 2006. (UTC)


 * Anyone have any images? Pardon my skepticism, but Ryu's become such an archetype that I'd have to see it for myself before I accept that it's a clear reference. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what to do, buddy-boy. [nods at Dynamo] Also, Cyber Hero also has the same Hadouken two-palms-out thrust when delivering the Hero Shot and Hero Beam, and the exact same Zankuu Hadouken one-handed thrust that Evil Ryu/Akuma uses when shooting the Hero Shot it in the air. His bio also states "A wandering [fighter] who travels the globe in search of new opponents to test his strength", just like everyone's favorite shoto. Then again, those may be minor points. Also, Dynamo, doesn't Cyber Hero do a Shoryuken at the end of his ground combo? It's been forever since I last played as him.--TerminusEst13


 * You mean take crappy quality pictures with my camera? :p Anyways, while I'll try to get them, here are some from the official Gotcha Force site. http://www3.capcom.co.jp/gotchaforce/images/gotcha/borg123.jpg http://www3.capcom.co.jp/gotchaforce/images/gotcha/borg123ssx.jpg --DynamoDT

Infobox

 * I like this infobox. It doesn't have height or weight.  Those items of information have become disputed, and I really am sick of it.  I propose using the CVG general infobox for all the Street Fighter characters. Danny Lilithborne 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the info of character design and voice actor(english and japanese)someone has just scribbled "Some guy" as i dont know what his voice actor´s or character designer is i hope someone can fix this!Also someone has changed Ryu´s name to Gordo and give faulty information of how he look!

SF1 Retcon
Where exactly does it elaborate on Sagat vs. Ryu in the Alpha series? I beat each game with both chars.


 * Agreed! I never seen anyone cite a reliable source for this. The in-game dialogue between Evil Ryu and Sagat in Alpha 3 seems to suggest the opposite: that it was regular Ryu who gave Sagat his scar and not Evil Ryu. 09:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Play Alpha 3 with Evil Ryu and beat Shin Akuma. It shows that Ryu turned to Satsu no Hadou and scarred him with a Messatsu Shoryuken attack. Thats the only portion where it includes the retcon. Anymore info, check tiamat's plot guide or find "Street Fighter Eternal/All about Capcom" books.--Neofcon 02:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure if the Evil Ryu ending is canon, kind of like it's hard to believe that M. Bison's would be. Thus, I have a problem with the segment that reads, "Later games elaborate."  I don't think any game "elaborates" that Ryu turned to Satsui no Hadou to beat Sagat.  It's misleading to claim "later games elaborated," because this whole idea that Ryu was beat first, then won somewhat unfairly is not concluded from any game, but from the book.  There should be clarification that this book more or less contradicts the games, the instruction manuals for the home versions, as well as the animated movie. MrMacross 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it depicts what capcom retconned to happen in SF1. The ending itself isn't cause akuma is still alive to kick Bison's arse but the memory concluded is.

And yeah it does suck that capcom would rather put info in books (and having americans mistranslate them) rather than the games so we can get better clarification but hey, just because it's insane doesn't mean they dont have a say in what they decide to do with their stories. Fact is we're still getting the info (in a form of something we hate to pick up mind you). Also home manuals ALWAYS have some misleading information on the story, but manuals are for instructions on how to PLAY the game, not give you canon info. And it's been said many times, movie DONT COUNT FOR CANON! The stories were made from people other than capcom, so unless they say it's official, dont even mention movies. They are usually made to tell alternate stories with our favorite video game characters with at least some references to the official storyline, but they dont have to follow it completely to be entertaining. This is the problem with people on Comic book adaptations and VG flicks, they always complain that the story is too loose on the actual storyline. They dont serve the purpose of telling the official story, thats the actual company's job for that. Not anyone else's. Besides most companies detail that if the story of a show/movie/comic ties in with the official story, they can't do it (or so i've heard) so I really WOULDN'T count movies in the first place.--Neofcon 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand no movie, cartoon, comic, manga, or anime series is canon. My point is, though, that the everything short of the book, which very few SF fans read, reinforce the idea that Ryu won fair and square without Satsui no Hadou.  SFA3 doesn't "elaborate" because you can't come to the conclusion Ryu tapped it unless you read the book.  I think most gamers would conclude that regular Ryu's ending is canonical, whereas Evil Ryu's is more of a "what-if" scenario.  Also, consider the exchange between Evil Ryu and Sagat when you fight as Evil Ryu and reach Sagat as the midboss:


 * Ryu: Why...?  Why were you not fighting with all your strength?
 * Sagat: Why should I?  You are not the Ryu who left a scar on my chest!
 * Sagat: A warrior wouldn't allow himself to be tempted by a cheap trick!
 * Sagat: I will wait for my true rival to return, and challenge me!


 * If anything, the American version of SFA3 clearly indicates that Sagat recognizes he was beat by regular, boring old Ryu. And that's why I say the book, and the book alone, "elaborates" that Sagat was defeated unfairly.  The above quote, as well as regular Ryu's ending in SFA3, also indicate that Sagat was not seeking vengeance against Ryu.  I'll be honest, I think Ryu's retcon in the book absolutely sucks, so I'm totally biased against it.  That said, it seems to me that the book stands alone in that awful conclusion, so I'd like the Ryu page to indicate that the conclusion from the book goes against years of story implied by the actual games. MrMacross 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well having a bias against it doesn't make it untrue but yeah that really DOES suck when you think about it. But anywho..

http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/575310/26094

Thats the spot where everyone is getting their info. Despite the amount of retcons capcom keeps making, we can't say it's bs clearly because it's not shown in the games.

It would help very much if capcom did infact put all that info together, but they like to rush 2D games out and botch a lot of the story. Hell they wanted to make SF3 without Ryu and Ken or any old guy to make a fresh new story because they know they F'ed up their previous one (think about it, story has never been an issue for capcom until snk had stories that were running circles around the simple old SF2, so now we have botched storylines) but (as stated before) fans had a BF over it, so capcom put them in to please fans, and ended up botching the story even more (moral of the story, DO YOUR OWN THING! Hell nintendo does that plenty of times and gets millions of sales regardless of complaints) and thats pretty much why we wont be seeing an SF4, rights to SF sold to america, and a 14 year old remake going "HD" when it doesn't really need to.

But despite all of that, Ryu is still the first World Warrior champion anyway so no one should really care how he won in the first place.--Neofcon 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've read the FAQ. Problem I have is that I think Tiamat's in game evidence is flimsy.  From the FAQ:


 * "While Evil Ryu in SFA3 is a what-if character, he temporarily flashbacks about his fight with Sagat in SF1, which is NOT a what-if occurrence (obviously). And you know it's his fight with Sagat in SF1 and not his midboss fight with Sagat in SFA3 because the post-fight dialogue didn't have Sagat acting like his chest just got ripped through with Evil Ryu's Metsu Shoryuken.  You can also see this in Adon's SFA2 ending (where Satsu no Hadou is mentioned as the power that Ryu used to defeat Sagat)."


 * What Tiamat completely left off was the quote I posted above, when Sagat says Satsui no Hadou Ryu did NOT leave the scar on Sagat's chest. SFA3 clearly contradicts that notion.  I'm not even sure the picture in Ryu's ending shows the scar forming, though I'd have to play again when I get the chance.  Also, it does not ever mention Satsu no Hadou in Adon's ending.  The exact quote is "He used the same power Ryu used to defeat Sagat."  That "power" can just as easily mean Ansatsuken.  Plus, we all agree that SFA3 retcons SFA2 in the event of contradiction, and SFA3 says Sagat lost to regular Ryu.


 * So, all I ask (for now) is that we change the words "Later games elaborate." Much of the info on this page is not interpretable from the games, but from this FAQ alone.  The SF1 retcon is one such instance.  I hope we can come to an agreement on this, because right now I don't think the page is accurate written as it is. MrMacross 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're gonna have to ask him yourself. He gets cranky like hell when someone questions the plot guide. For one he does not say it's 100% true that everything written is fact (and a lot of people including myself contradict that notion by pointing everyone to that faq) but it's pretty close. Besides that, it's the only thing we've got and we can't simply look to the games. Capcom re-made SFA3 again and the story hasn't changed except for them making a half-arsed decision to include ingrid as a "time traveling chick" who is the actual source of Psycho power (you see where im going with?) Asking capcom to change the in-game evidence to fit their official statements is a bad idea (no im NOT SAYING YOU WERE DOING THAT!) because they'll just F around and screw something else up. You could probably email Udon since he's getting info from those guys as well for clarification. BUT for one thing it's true that "later games elaborate" because the original game DOESN'T! It was made back in what? the late 80's? Story was the last thing on anyone's mind during that time. But ill help a little more. Ansatsuken is a Martial Art, not a "power". A Martial Art is a system of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. It's not a specific super power and ansatsuken is a fictional one that teaches in killing techniques. Sagat's quote to Evil Ryu is an archtype quote that practically EVERY CHARACTER IN HISTORY uses when they KNOW something is wrong with that specific person, like Yugi on Kaiba, saying "You're not Kaiba, I know you aren't" or something of that nature. The EXACT SAME THING applies to Sagat's quote because he knows something is clearly wrong with Ryu at that precise moment, it doesn't mean there's a contradiction, but I can see your confusion (capcom has terrible writers ofcourse). The Evil Ryu flash back was capcom's explanation of how Ryu won the first tournament as at the moment Ryu was getting his arse kicked, he wanted to win desperately and he submitted to satsu no hadou AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT and pwned sagat, but he snapped out of it that fast after realizing what he did.

Understand?--Neofcon 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have little interest in changing Tiamat's FAQ, because he's free to interpret as he pleases for his personal FAQ. Wikipedia entries, though, need some consensus.  It's true later games, starting with SF2: CE, do explain that Ryu beat Sagat, but no game directly describes the event to the detail that this page or the Tiamat FAQ does.  That level of detail is swiped directly from the book (I presume) or some non- or poorly-documented interviews with Capcom folks.  Ergo, it's not the GAMES that elaborate, it's elaboration through interpreting VAGUE scenes and lines, reading a book, asking some Capcom officials, etc.  Also, I'd throw out there that if Capcom's right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing, then we should take the quotes in the games at face value.  If Sagat says to Evil Ryu, "You are not the Ryu that left a scar on my chest!" then that's just as correct as any conclusion.  Anyway, that's why I have the problem with "Later games elaborate," because the games alone were not enough to come to the conclusion as posted here and on the FAQ.


 * I've noticed that Tiamat's FAQ is no longer cited as an info source, which is a GOOD thing. It's a good FAQ, but it's not official.  Overall, this page should cite some more official sources, or just explain that there's a lack of good, undisputed official data.  Either way, we need to footnote more of the "facts" listed.


 * Thanks for the exchange, Neofcon. Even if we can't come to an agreement, it was fun. MrMacross 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The books are all japanese and tiamat actually has japanese speaking friends to help translate them. There's one book in USA called SF eternal but it's already been stated that it has mistranslations on most (if not all) important information. 2. It's not a personal FAQ, it's to help get an understanding of the overrall story because capcom screws up too much. Plus thats the ONLY page that actually cites info from Capcom's sources. Unless you want to reference cesspools like Shoryuken.com who's info gets wiped every five weeks due to terrible servers? Any other official source (on the net) is something WE CAN'T READ! 3. I've said it before, Sagat's dialogue with Evil Ryu is a cliched dramatic scene where if a person becomes filled with evil, the latter would usually respond "you are not who I once knew" and thats what Sagat means. He believes Ryu is not himself (which is true to an extent) and it shows since he's (obviously) "evil". 4. If you take everything from the games at face value, then EVERY ENDING in SFA3 is obviously true, meaning Bison died in MANY MANY WAYS! And it's true he has over 30 lives because in the game and the amount of characters, thats how many times he dies and since his soul couldn't die, it's obvious he had over 30 bodies at his disposal. And Charlie is still alive because his ending shows he survives, and Bison's base blew up over 30 times. Catch my drift? 5. This I forgot to qoute

"as well as regular Ryu's ending in SFA3, also indicate that Sagat was not seeking vengeance against Ryu."

Sagat was never in Ryu's ending for one thing, and two, doesn't Sagat's intro state

"Sagat is known as the "Emperor of Muay Thai. The scar upon his chest serves as a reminder of his defeat...    ...to Ryu and his Shoryuken! He fights for vengeance alone...    But, he's begun to realize that the power of hatred is limited." As much as that doesn't really make sense, Sagat DEFINENTLY was seeking revenge on Ryu if you want to go by in-game stuff. Especially in Alpha 2.

6. No one said Tiamat's guide was official, but that doesn't mean he isn't at all credible or shouldn't be sourced. Just because a game presents one version of a story and a book details the actual info doesn't mean there's an actual problem with it. If you're still getting the info, still actually gaining knowledge of how things turned out, and if that type of info actually APPEARED in the games as well (Ryu scarring Sagat despite being in Evil Ryu's memory, even though Evil Ryu IS Ryu) then WHATS THE PROBLEM!? 7. Be my guest to change the name if you want, but since like you said, tiamat's guide is no longer being sourced, it's gonna be tough finding a new title since that was just about the only official source anyone (in america) had to Street Fighter's true story and with it not being sourced, no one will know how wikipedia came up with the info and declare it complete BS like most other articles. There really isn't another source on the web that has the official info.--Neofcon 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sagat was in Ryu's ending. "I welcome your challenge any time you desire a match!" he says.  My point about Tiamat's FAQ being "personal" is that he compiled the info, so any part that needs interpretation he's allowed to interpret as he sees appropriate.  It's made for the public to see, but it's his FAQ, he copyrighted it, it's not like wikipedia that is subject to some sort of consensus.  And hey, it's really, really good, and I think it's rather accurate.  I also understand that not every line should be taken at face value.  Obviously, you can't have everyone win the tournament.  I just figured that there's no really good reason to discount Sagat's line, no matter how one chooses to interpret it. MrMacross 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That was SAGAT'S ending, not Ryu's. And there's plenty of reason to discount sagat's line in evil ryu's story. 1 would be the major reason that Evil Ryu did not appear at all (going by official statements now)

Thats all i'll say now. Nice talk we had *wink*--Neofcon 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sagat is in Ryu's ending, albeit very briefly. It's the part when Ryu flashes back to talking to other fighters.  The flashback order is Sagat, Rose, Chun Li, Sakura, Akuma, then Ken.  I know because I just checked vgmuseum.com.  MrMacross 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

ok....fine, ill give you that one, except for the fact that using this to state Sagat's position of not seeking vengence completely contradicts Sagat's intro at best. And at most, Sagat never even stated that line in his entire life to Ryu. Also you'ed have to take in consideration that Sakura never asked for a rematch either.--Neofcon 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What does Ryu do for a living
I am curious about this. If Ryu just keeps traveling all over the world, focusing solely on self-improvement, where does he get the money for his normal life ( and travel fee as well) ? Anyone knows?

Well, according to the non-canon movie and tv series, he is a con-man. DeathGodDragon EDGE 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No! You don't mean he cheats on people to get money? A man of such calibre and dignity? What about his desire for perfection? I can't believe such a great man who considers fighting his lifetime goal can be a con-man? --S--


 * He's not; as DGD EDGE said, it's not canon. No one is sure how Ryu makes a living. Danny Lilithborne 09:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how it is! But I don't understand what canon means here. Can you explain to me? Thanks!--S--
 * In this context, it means what officially happened according to Capcom of Japan. Danny Lilithborne 09:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cant remember were I heard it, but in one non - canonical game it says he does manual labour from town to town.

Or it could be he still has some money left over from his (possible) prize money from winning the first World Warrior Tournament MightyKombat 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He gets money from being an instructor and from doing labor work (as part of his training). He also carries passports in his bag so he can travel freely. For one who is devoted to the tiamat plot guide, im surprised you did not see that Danny. --Neofcon 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon my idea was pretty much close to the mark. It would have made more sense than the, lol, CON-MAN ANGLE. MightyKombat 12:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Con-man?--Neofcon 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He gets money from being an instructor and from doing labor work: but I think this's impossible. As he keeps moving country to country, language will be a big problem, even for just labor work. What's more,if he does labor work, he'll get exhausted at the end of the day, with no strength left for praticing his moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.196 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First, sign your posts properly. Manual work doubles as training for him. And he can speak English, he's not a Goku-type village idiot.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Age
I've always been curious about Ryu's age im guessin by third strike he's like in his early twenties?--Cojin 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that TS takes place in 1999 and he was born in 1964, he's 34 or 35 by then. He'd be 43 by now. God, they should make a new SF by now...--196.40.89.175 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That comment is mine, this sh***y computer keeps logging me out. Jeez.--Kim Kusanagi 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets see. 23 in SF1

35 in TS. (which is 99)

he's pretty much 42 by now. --Neofcon 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

His Popularity
Hey im just wondering, where do you get this info from saying Ryu is the archtypical fighter of any other fighting game series. You realize that is very wrong, he is just a normal fighting character that was invented first in any other fighting game series. I must edit that.
 * Pick a random fighting game from the late 90s. Chances are good they'll have a guy in a karate gi probably wearing a bandana. JuJube 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah that may be perhaps, but it still shouldn't be there, I mean he isn't the most popular fighting game character. (Milos Warrior)
 * It doesn't say he's the most popular, it says he's an archetypal character, which is undeniably true. JuJube 01:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It does kinda seem that various fictional martial artists are based off of him.Oh does anyone know his age?--Cojin 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * His birthyear is unknown, so no. :( I just checked, and he was born in 1964. That'd make him 35 at the time of Third Strike. JuJube 09:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought they would change it seeing how long the games been out.--Cojin 15:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in the process, completely rip the entire floor out of their story. It's an ongoing story for a reason. Time passes between the games, and if there's ever a Street Fighter IV, you can bet your sparring gloves that he will have aged another five-ten years.FlameAdder 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually they would probably keep him young and probably change his birth year.--Cojin 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your boundless heights of ineptitude astound me and defy all reason. Why would they retcon something so heavily after almost 20 years of having him slowly age throughout the series? You make no sense. Granted, Capcom loves to retcon EVERYTHING, but in this case it would make no sense.FlameAdder 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if they haven't done that with May Parker she would already have 120 years old.Newsblade (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add a "Ryu in popular culture entry". I resently saw him in Robot Chicken and he's a character in the Family Guy v. American Dad flash game.--The dez 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we shouldn't. That's two. JuJube 09:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not "the" most, but he's darn well one of the highest ranking in popularity. There is no official confirmation to who is the most popular fighting game character (as millions exist) but most recognizable would be in ryu's favor no doubt.--Neofcon 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ken fans have over run these articles
I keep reading things about Ken defeating ryu in the second and third tournament. Both these issues were unconfirmed (especially the third tournament where Oro originally defeated ryu and no confirmation has been made if ken fought ryu in both the 2nd and 3rd tournaments). There is also a short note of ken defeating dan for taunting him wrong or something on ken's article...there hasn't been anything stating Dan ever met ken or ryu so I dont know where people keep getting this info (unless it's "original" research (IE fancruft)).--Neofcon 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, I've always heard of the "Ken married Eliza after a decisive victory over Ryu..." which is cause behind his action in the 2nd tournament...3rd is unknown, but everyone should know that Ryu beat Ken in 3rd Strike canon. As far as Ken's encounter with Dan, it does happen in Alpha 2, but no word from Capcom if that was made canon...阿修羅96 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a question. Did this come from the tiamat plot guide? If so, there is a line in there that dictates that information being "misread" as it is supposed to refer to the fight in SFA2. If the fight with Ken and Dan is canon, then I have no prob, but like you said, no word if it is. Then again he was just ken's "mid-boss" and most of those fights are usually filler, but he does state that it "might" have happened. --Neofcon 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably did, I'd have to check that... 阿修羅96 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisions need to be done
the section "Street Fighter II to III" has to be revised. First, it can't be said "Ryu (...) easily defeats many of the new warriors". Easly? How do they know? Where are the facts? Second, I don't understand the need of a paragraph speculating if Ken beat Ryu just because of a promise he made to Eliza (presuming -see?... a presumption again- he is a man of word and has to keep this promise).Newsblade (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple images flagged in a week?
Whats going on?--Neofcon 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shotokan VS Ansatsuken
It should be noted, as I'm assuming it has been done before, that Ryu's fighting style is canonically *Shotokan*. This information is found in the instruction booklets from all games, as well as the UDON Street Fighter comics which are officially liscenced and are considered canon. The fighting style "Ansatsuken" was created via fan fiction in an unofficial storyline that was never endorsed or published by Capcom. This fighting style rumor has spread across the web through various personal Geocities-type webpages, and continues to be propagated and ending up on Wiki's. It should also be noted that Akuma is also a Shotokan fighter, as this "Assassins Fist" nonsense was made up by the person who created this webpage: http://members.tripod.com/~Streetfighter_3/index.html and is not in any way related to Street Fighter canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.186.147 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the case. Maybe in Nintendo manuals in America, they call it Shoto, but not an anything that counts. And remember these are the same people who invented Sheng Long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.173 (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're wrong. Thank you, drive thru. 71.110.2.111 01:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea how wrong you are dude.--Neofcon 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along!--Kim Kusanagi 05:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He's right, but for the wrong reasons. Ansatsuken is not the name of Ryu's fighting style, but merely a generic term used to describe any martial art made for killing . Ryu's style is an unnamed fictional one. Its not even a true "ansatsuken", since according to the backstory Ryu's style is a non-lethal variation of the original "ansatsuken" learned by Gouken. Using "ansatsuken" to describe all the Ryu/Ken-types in the series is completely misleading in my opinion, since only Akuma uses a killing style. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Street Fighter II Movie
- The information "which Ryu briefly gave in to his intense desire to win" part in 'SFII Movie' section should be removed. Why? Those words give us the idea (in an implicit way) that «he wanted to win desperately and he submitted to satsu no hadou AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT and pwned sagat». We can't say that, we have no clues. The truth is that when this anime was made (1994), the "retcon" about how Ryu defeated Sagat in an improper way didn't existed. Besides that, creators of the movie were only basing this story in SF1 (fighting with Sagat) and SF2-SSF2T, the only facts that existed until that time. Only after alpha series "'evil ryu' or 'Satsui no Hadou ni Mezameta Ryū' thing" was created.

- Another thing: The zero or alpha only appeared in 1995 (a year later) and were based on "the animated movie", not the contrary (see characters design, final stage of Sagat (Australia), etc. It doesen't have elements of SFzero/alpha series, the movie GAVE elements to those games. (it should be more explicit, that SF2movie was a great influence in latter games, more than the other SFanimes. Newsblade (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the truth. He never gave into it for the entire movie but someone played the games first and assumed. --Neofcon (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong... Newsblade is basically correct. They did not "base" Alpha after the movie though. They borrowed elements from it. That's completely different. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I totally denied Newsblade's facts. --Neofcon (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should alpha series be part of SF storyline?
I don't think Zero/alpha series could be considered canonical. It brings a mixture of many characters “unrelated” with main SFseries (ex: Final Fight, Capcom Fighting Evolution, Dead or Alive – hmm… no, this last one is from EX series) – see? the same thing appends with EX series, so what’s the difference (beside one game being better than the other)? Why one is canonical and the other isn’t? They were booth published by Capcom… and both are spin-offs imo. (This doesn’t mean they didn’t influence the SF canon witch I believe they did. But the only games that should be canonical for story line are the main series (SF1 through 4). Alpha is more like a parallel universe - a possibility to play with all SF (and non-SF) characters and see with whom they interact (or how some would interact if still alive/present). Even if we consider a part of storyline… with Yun (sf3) in alpha's character list (see SFa3-gba) where do we chronologically place alpha series? Before SF2 or before SF3? Newsblade (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should, because Capcom declared it official in the first place. --Neofcon (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alpha 2 and 3 did happen, and took place between 1 and 2. Yun's appearance is a "what if" scenario. JuJube (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's supposed to be Yun and Yang in Fei-Long's new movie while at young ages..or something like that. Mainly a joke ending. Bah who knows whats going on in Capcom's brains.--Neofcon (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Yang wasn't in the Alpha series. What JuJube says is correct though. Alpha 2 replaces Alpha 2. This is because of Dan ending when Sagat killed him. Or at least one of the reason. Alpha 3 happens afterwards. These two games elaborate on the story in Street Fighter 2, so it is canon. Not to mention Capcom did say so themselves. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eagle says that Sagat has always been someone else's goon. Eagle calls M.Bison a "loon bent on World Domination." He says that M.Bison is beneath [Sagat]. So, based on this officialy stantment from Eagle we see that Sagat was under Bison’s orders since SF1. Also, Tiamats says that “Yun in SFA3 as anything but a very young child is pretty what-if" although it's not an official statement, only Tiamat’s assumptions (we cannot base our explanation on that). It’s true that Capcom said Alpha series are canonical, that's ok, but it is also true that they “told Udon that all games take place within their own Universe”. So, in order to eliminate the contractions, we must assume that Alpha series are not only a development of SF1 and SF2 but also an alternate retelling. Newsblade (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Newsblade, I'm going to address both of your posts in this one. You couldn't be any more wrong here. First of all, Final Fight has ALWAYS been a part of the SF Universe, with SF representing the one-on-one aspect of fighting games, and FF representing the brawler/beat-em-up aspect. In fact, FF was to originally be called "Street Fighter '89." The EX series is different if for no other reason than the fact that half of the character roster wasn't even developed by Capcom, but Arika. It the same reason why none of the vs. games are canon (and BTW, there are no DOA characters in EX, where did you get THAT from?). Alpha being an "alternate retelling" of SF1 and SF2 makes NO sense. If that were the case, then SF1 and SF2 would no longer BE canon, and there would have been no reason for Capcom to have released yet another update to SF2 to line up with Alpha (SSF2X Revival).66.93.119.120 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternate stories

 * The anonymous vandal rampaging through other video game articles raises a good point. Is this section really necessary?  It goes into painstaking detail about storylines that aren't even relevant to the character in question, since they have no bearing on canon.  I think the section should be removed. JuJube (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether it is canon or not is not important. Any information on Ryu (despite being unnofficial spinoffs) is encouraged. It's a part of the character's history in general and as such should be noted. I doubt we should play favoritism in part of what info we should include because of canocity alone. Information period should be included.--Neofcon (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the "alternate appearances" should be ignored, but the detail it presently goes into is excessive. I doubt anything more than a sentence or two on each one is required. JuJube (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the suggestion about the sections to be removed entirely shouldn't really be suggested but I see your point.--Neofcon (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Note To User Jujube
Well,I read the Guile Article and the Alternate storyline Wasn't there you hypocrit!

Hey!He's Right!I just read It and it wasnt there!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbringer47 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personality
Ok, if you ask me this section doesn't explain a lick of his personality. I think it should be improved.--Neofcon (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note from Warbringer47
Why isn`t any information about Ryu`s weight and height added?These two info are part of a character`s data!I`m disappointed that you wikipedians who edit this article hasn`t added this small but vital information to this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbringer47 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Guile (Street Fighter). Playing dumb is not appreciated, you know very well why. JuJube (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Appearances
Would it be considered trivial to include the other cameos that Ryu has done outside of the Street Fighter series? He appears in the following CAPCOM games: Plasma Sword -in a character's ending, Onimusha: Dawn of Dreams -as an alternate costume, and Varth: Operation Thunderstorm -in the background. Just wanted to know. Sake neko (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Images
I like the image of Lara Croft in her article that shows her evolving appearance through different games. Anyone think a similar image here would be a good idea, I tried to make on myself, it could be left as it is or modified, what do you think, comments? IMAGE HERE

Carlwev (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting concept, but unfortunately, a fair-use nightmare. JuJube (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In other media order
What is the order chosen for "in orther media" section? It should be in chronological order: SF2animated, SF(film), SF2v and then SFcartoon. Or if you want a story order (but I don't think it is possible, because only USfilm and UScartoon are related): SFfilm, SFcartoon | SF2v, SF2animated 213.63.2.46 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryu's colours in SF1
"When Ryu first appeared in the original Street Fighter, Ryu still had his gi, but he wore a white headband, had red hair, grey eyes and wore red slippers. In the Street Fighter Alpha series, Ryu now has auburn hair, but still has the white headband, which harkens back to his appearance in the first Street Fighter"

If we can distinguish his red hair (in SF1) from his auburn hair (in SFalpha) we should also distinguish his grey gi (SF1) and grey headband (SF1) from his alpha white gi and white headband.

compare: [Ryu in SF1] http://www.sfgalleries.net/art/sf/sprites/ryu.gif [Ryu in Alpha] http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/BadAss2961/Ryu.gif [Ryu in Alpha like he was in SF1] http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8330/8ryuar9.gif [Ryu's portrait in SF1] http://www.sfgalleries.net/art/sf/series2/ryu.jpg 84.90.24.156 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryu Takegami
According to the Japanese Wikipedia, Ryu's original surname in SF1 was supposed to be Ryu Takegami. Anyone care to verify the exact source for that? Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Red bandanna
"In Street Fighter Alpha 2, he receives his red bandanna from Ken (which was originally used by him to tie his ponytail)."

The truth is that this information comes only from a SFz2 ending (Ken's) and in SFz3 we don't see Ryu using it. Instead we continue to see Ryu using the white bandanna and Ken using the red one like Ken's Sfz2 ending never happened (not all endings happen in SF games). Saying that I think this information should be removed. 84.91.227.228 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But it happened. The canonical reason they gave is that Ryu only began using it after deciding SnH wasn't worth it anymore and rejected it for good in his A3 ending, and before OHNOES came with his SF"4" ending and screwed up as he always does.--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Hebert
I mentioned in the actors section that Kyle Hebert would be portraying him in SFIV. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero 004 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. It was moved to the infobox. Kyle Hebert is voice-only anyway, so it didn't belong in the Actors section. JuJube (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

-Sweet, thanks for the clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero 004 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To IP re-adding stuff about Satsui no Hadou/"next Akuma"

 * All of that is original research and speculation and does not belong in the Wikipedia article. See WP:OR.  Neither the Evil Ryu ending, nor the Akuma CvS2 ending, qualify as sources since they're not canon, and even if they were, drawing the conclusions that you do from them is synthesis on your part. JuJube (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Street Fighter series added more information on the reason for Akuma's fight with ryu. An explanation.
This comment and information is for Jujube who repeatedly deleated my information i gave regarding Akuma and Ryus fight. First and foremost, Evil Ryu is not a 'What if' character. He's the real deal. He appears in a number of games and atleast 2 animes. He's story is inner turmoil and dark power rising in Ryu, and he being unable to control it. Theres a difference here...'unable'. Whilst Akuma submitted willingly. This information is given by Capcom and you can check. Ryu is a character who represents the good side to the full. He doesnt fight to kill. He fights for enlightment and to get stronger. This is evident from his wanderings and he's comments he gives after a fight. Akuma whilst possesing the dark hadoi and originally submitting to it willingly, isn't nessasirily evil. I read the original street fighter alpha manual and at the time capcom mentioned that he made a pact with the devil and later even killed the devil. He seeks opponenets who are strong not weak. For what? In the hope that someone will be strong enough to defeat him. He is constantly asking himself this question "where can i find the one who can defeat me."? And as you will be aware since you mentiond Street fighter canon then you will know why he urges Ryu to fight him using The ark Hadoi? Simple... 1 reason so they can fight to the death and perhaps Ryu is that man who can defeat and release him, because Ryu is the only one with the dark hadou like Akuma. Check out the new anime trailer for street fighter 4 aswell. Akuma calls Ryu a coward amongst other things for refusing to submit to satsui no hadoi {evil ryu} and fight Akuma. He says further that Ryu will follow his teacher Gouken into the bowels of hell for his cowardice. Which angers Ryu and he attacks again... in what? he's normal form. Akuma senses Ryu's power but its the dark power that can ultimately defeat him, which he so badly wants Ryu to bring out. Otherwise there are quite a few strong people out there like Oro, Ken, etc but Akuma knows and senses that none of them are equal to satsui no hadoi. My friend this is not me this is Capcom themselves and the events that have taken in games etc. It was Ryu who defeated Sagat not evil Ryu who submitted to dark power as has been mentioned. This is evident in Sagats ending in Alpha 3 when Sagat himself mentions it. Oh and character endings give alot of insight into where the story is heading, and a charcters story and impact. If you think its not canon then nothing is canon. We should disregard everything like Ryu walkin away into the sunset,  Ken marrying Eliza etc. I think you will get some of your answers in street fighter 4. which brings me to my final argument. Evil Ryus ending in alpha 3. Now we know that they didnt fight in Alpha 3 but i mean how ignorant can you get? Evil Ryu will become the next Akuma 'if' he defeats him, he hasnt defeated him yet. I didnt say he did. I meant evil Ryu will become the next Akuma once he defeats Akuma in he's Evil Ryu form. But as i mentioned Ryu doesnt want he's dark power to take over And become like Akuma. On the contrary, he fights he's dark power. Ryu will beat him but Ryu wants to do it in he's normal form. The fact of the matter is Akuma's fight with Ryu will be the fight to end all fights...or will be 'THE FIGHT' which is why capcom avoid it for the time being too keep the tension and sales rising, aswell as gamers expectations and attentions. They have had 1 face off not a proper 1 and Akuma destroyed the island. Which shows he's strength, and Ryu's for that matter as Ryu defeated him in that bout. In the history of Street Fighter only a handful of fighters keep on training and advancing their style, and try to get stronger. And Ryu and Akuma are 2 of the few. Akuma does have an edge as he does show once in a while what he's capable of in various endings of various games. so you are telling me that none of these endings are true or canon as you say? look at the outcome you get when you defeat either ultra Rugal or Shin Akuma, they both become stronger. but who do you reckon will win in a fight out of rugal or akuma to reach that conclusion we see at their demise? Thats like putting 2 and 2 together! Come on you know who Akuma is, you know what he's been through, defeated Gouken,defeated Goutetsu, although that has never ben proven as they both just simply dissapeared. But they both were no pushovers thats certain. They both were capable and stronger than Akuma. Forget even that, look at what Akuma has done in training as i mentioned earlier. Case closed...till the next time you make a comment then...my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.214.13 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. Seriously, this is nothing more than the usual unsourced hash from Akuma fanboys. There is virtually nothing in the above paragraph that is not synthesis based on non-canonical material. Capcom has STATED that the only time Evil Ryu EVER existed was in the end of the first Street Fighter tournament. "It happened in Alpha 3" is invalid also as most of those endings Did Not Happen Dot Com. And then you mention Rugal which solidifies how this whole rant is devoid of merit and goes right back to tl;dr territory. To put it succinctly... you're wrong. JuJube (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Read No original research. That's what this entire screed is - it's theory based off of what happens in other games, there's no sources that state that your conclusion (that Ryu is the next Akuma or whatever) is outright true. Fan speculation don't belong on Wikipedia, period. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 20:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: this is probably the worst grammar I have ever seen in my entire life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.31.15 (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER JUJUBES AND FRIENDS QUESTION
Yo you people are still at it? You still qustion the obvious? Ok now Capcom dont have to scream repeatedly the story line to you they will just put the story in the game wont they? duhh? Why is it so hard for you 2 to understand the bleeding obvious? And no i dont like Akuma or Ryu im just stating the obvious. A story is told repeatedly in games,animes,comics yet you still question it, and yet say that Capcom didnt mention it? Look, Ryu is the main protagonist/hero of the game check? He is one of the few characters along with Ken and Chun li and maybe just maybe a few others as the reason people come to buy the games check? Ken is described as his friend and rival but not as strong as him. Ryu is the one who wants to avenge his teacher not Ken. Akuma sees Ryus anger and wants to milk it for what its worth by bringing it out. In the form of the dark hado. Akuma knows full well that Ryu is powerful otherwise he wont fight him. Oh and Capcom said this, want me to quote? He seeks opponenets who are strong not weak. And that ending in street fighter alpha 3 ...are you people for real or what? I didnt say it happened...its what will likely happen if Ryu starts fighting to kill and uses the dark hado. He will start to say "where can i find the one who can defeat me"? Look you people need to re-read your street fghter facts again. Some things dont need to be anounced repeatedly you just have to put 2 and 2 together its what the games are released for. YOU NEED TO BE EDUCATED IN STREET FIGHTER? OK COOL FIRE AWAY ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND I WILL ANSWER THEM. OH AND CONFIRM IT WITH CAPCOM IF YOU THINK IM LYING.

WTF are you talking about, anonymous nobody?--Kim Kusanagi (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In Other Media
I guess for completion's sake it would be kinda nice to list Ryu as a major character in the series comics. There's only a couple that I can think of the top of my head where he wasn't (the Cammy one, Sakura one, and the manga for III). If nothing else, then at least the Alpha II manga or the Udon series where he's definitely a major focus. Sake neko (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe it should be noted as well that there is a complete Ryu costume available on the PS3 HOME network available for purchase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.184.76 (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dark hadou and satsui no hadou
can you guys add (dark hadou) every time you guys say satsui no hadou in other articles mentioning it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

no --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

why not??? i dont mean like EVERY time, just the one time they mention in it in other character articles.Linder1990 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ree-yu or Rai-yu?
i keep hearing capcom pronouncing ryu, "rai-yu".

but konami keeps calling it "ree yu" (and of course other spin off stories not form capcom). So my question is, what is the correct pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn it's "ree-you" in the SFIV cut scenes. hateless 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

in the movie, "legend of Chun-Li" it was pronounced Raiyu.Linder1990 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In respect to Japanese pronunciation, the most accurate way to pronounce his name is "Ryoo" (one syllable). Failing that (since it's kind of difficult to pronounce), the next most accurate way would be to say "ree-YOU," although, strictly speaking, that would be wrong.  Beforemath (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoryuken redirect
I didn't see anything in the history, so I thought I'd bring this up -- Shoryuken redirects to here. It's apparently the result of being flagged for deletion. Any opposition to reviving and correcting the old article (especially since the word "Shoryuken" isn't mentioned in the Ryu article)? --Beforemath (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Shoryuken part of Ryu's page? I think it deserves its own article because Hadouken has its own and Shoryuken expands beyond SF (like the SRK forums and other media like Deadpool). It could also mention the differences between the users and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.54.246 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Ryu section is horribly wrong
I don't know where did they get that from but that's not the canon. FIx that, or I will.Kim Kusanagi (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

STRENGTH
Do you people think its ok to add or mention Ryu's strength or power? I mean he is a very powerful character, and it would be very fitting since people like Akuma or other non street fighter favourites have the powers and abilities mentioned. Notably goku from dragonball superman from dc etc. I know its abit misleading as capcom have never come clean on his power level but they have hinted that he keeps growing in terms of power and experiance, which would make him similar to Goku. Plus he has gone neck and neck with the likes of Hulk,Ironman wolverine, in marvel vs capcom. Although its not cannon, it is Ryu! I dont know but maybe someone knows more and can add it to his wikipedia profile. Oh and remember he has fought Akuma before and the result was for there for everyone to see. Thanks

Ryu has a WHITE bandanna in SF1, not red as stated:
«In the first Street Fighter game, Ryu has dark brown hair and wears a tattered white karate gi with a red hachimaki (headband) and red gloves». Please correct (it's in the section Character design). 217.129.243.17 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lyoto "RYU" Machida
It should be mentioned that Lyoto Machida is considered to be the "real life" Ryu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.79.180 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)