Talk:Agent 47/Archive 1

Archive 1

47's history

Where does the information about 47's early life (rabbit, slingshots etc) come from? I've never seen it referenced in the game.

It's from the 'diary of Ort-Meyer' on the Htiman 2 website. There's a link in the article. VJ Emsi 10:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

star trek reference removed

"...which comes from the numerous references to the number in Star Trek..." And I'm going to make sure it stays removed, until you find a citation. (from the creators, not some magazine conjecture) W00t-on-a-shtick 01:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't think there should be some mention of 47's in other instances? Without speculation, we could put in a link to [1]

HITMAN PICTURES!!!!

Anyone who apperciates hitman is going to enjoy the recent photos applied to the page! Anyone who hasnt checked, please have a look!

• Which, given the use of copyrighted pics anyway, I think a more clear photo of 47 should be used. Yeah, he looks badass with the rifle in the shadows, but better pics do exist. Shadowrun 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody help me please!!!

In Hitman: Codename 47 directory I've found a file named "resources.xml" (C:\Hitman - Codename 47\Setup\Locale\language-English.zip). There are all the game dialogues, mission briefings and all the game's text. In that file, I've found some really weird sentences, that aren't involved in the game, or I couldn't find them anywhere in the game... They are:

• (Possibly in "The Setup" mission) "Freeze - let me see some ID! Real slow now!"
• (Possibly in "The Setup" mission) "Hey - you there. Stand still! Who are you?"
• (Possibly in "The Setup" mission) "Stop! Police - identify yourself!"
• (Possibly in "The Setup" mission) "Tango 6 - 3 Delta - 1 Yankee. Proceed with caution. Suspect is armed and dangerous!" (maybe a talk between SWAT members)
• (Possibly in "Meet Your Brother" mission) "You - along with your brothers - are my true children. Now rid me of that rambunctious renegade!" (maybe a talk between Ort. Meyer and Mr. 48 clones)

There are many other sentences too, but I'm most worried about these mission descriptions in laptop:

• (Possibly at the end of the game) "Your mission is over. Surrender your self to the police and await further instructions. We will contact you. Diana"
• (Possibly at the end of the game) "ABORT - ABORT - ABORT RETURN TO BASE IMPENDING DANGER THE AGENCY WILL DISAVOW YOU RETURN IMMEDIATELY"
• (Possibly at the end of the game) "ABORT - ABORT - ABORT SEVERE DANGER DO NOT ATTEMPT FURTHER ADVANCES THIS IS AN ORDER"

Everybody knows that when 47 kills Ort. Meyer, the game is over, and there's no after mission description in laptop. What are those sentences?

Write everything in the world you know about this sentences, please! I'm in turmoil for this problem since 2002! I WILL AWARD THE USER THAT HELPS ME SOLVING THIS PROBLEM! --Aeternus 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's simple; the developers put them in there, but cut them at the last minute. It's not an uncommon thing to find unused sound files.

I thought it was something more interesting, but thanks anyway! --Aeternus 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you need to get a life, "ILL PAY THE PERSON WHO FINES OUT WHAT THESE MEAN" lame, totally pathetic, it is not a big deal at all.

• Dude, it's Hitman. You should expect this kind of reaction. Obviously I'm joking. Shadowrun 19:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources and References

Can someone please find some sources and references for the "personality" section? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WA2000 Sniper Rifle

"The rifle wasn't clearly considered a trademark of 47 until Hitman: Contracts, in which the gun is carried as a default weapon on several missions. In the earlier games it is more of 'just a weapon among the others'."

What?! Have you people never seen the title screen of Codename 47?

Well, the cover-art shows 47 wielding the R93 instead of the WA2000, as does the introductory scene. Furthermore, the WA2000 can't be acquired until realtively late in the game, and thus doesn't end up playing a very significant role in 47's arsenal. --Kalkku

The sniper-rifle's scope-wobble (at least in Blood Money - without weapon upgrades) rather contradicts "and has nearly perfect aim, limited only by the mechanical inaccuracy inherent in any firearm he uses". Is this non-canonical?

I think by "Aim" they meant the actual projectile actually land on its intended destination. Much like Big Boss in the Metal Gear Solid series, his hand are steady as a town clock yet the rounds still occasionally miss due to firearm's inaccuracy. Zerocannon 08:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, also the gun wobbles because apparently it is a rather heavy piece of equipment, hence why the wobble stops when you upgrade to lightweight parts. Either way, a fairly adept player can easily hit targets even without upgrading the WA2000. Guldenat 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-hero?

Would 47 count as an anti-hero? He's listed as such on the List of fictional anti-heroes page, and I wouldn't actually consider assassinating people for profit the acts of a traditional hero. I'm not knocking him or anything because, after all, "the ends justify the means" in this game's universe...right? WillyFourEyes 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure...I'll search this out further in the mean time. I'll get back to you in a second. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 47 being an anti-hero, but almost everyone he kills does deserve it.

Yeah, most people ( targets that is ) that he kills aren't exactly great people... but the poor deliveryman in Blood Money who delivers the Code Red message? Or killing the priest and reporter in the last scene? I understand his motives, but such merciless killing of people who didn't do anything wrong would certainly in 47's case point to him being labeled an 'anti-hero'. Guldenat 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They knew too much, come on. Some of these even James Bond would have to do. Billy Bishop 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree they knew too much, but James Bond? He could care less if people know anything about him, the guy is supposed to be a secret agent for MI6 and walks around telling everyone his real name. But either way, self serving murder such as I described above would still be considered unethical, and thus I think 47 goes under the anti hero category. However, I'm not sure if he should be labeled as such in the article because I think it may be difficult to say objectively one way or the other, given the subjective nature of morality and ethics anyway. Guldenat 03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ortmier

It is spelled Ortmier, not Ort-myer. This has been confirmed by Hitman: Blood money. Look at the subtitles.

I already pointed this out before the game was even released, look at the archives of the discussion in Hitman: Blood Money. --nlitement ^[talk] 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Though it's even more interesting to note that at one point in Contracts, there is an item "DR. ORTHMEYER'S KEYCARD" So it may very well be a running joke. Billy Bishop 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a joke. That card is part of the lil' "side mission," so to speak, to get the minigun in teh first stage. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. What I am saying is that maybe the guys at IO don't know how to spell Ort-myer either, and THAT is the joke. Billy Bishop 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the book Hitman: Enemy Within (Page 111) he is referenced as "Dr. Otto Wolfgang Ort-Meyer". I don't think subtitles can be relied on because they are often done by a third party (not the game's creator).Blackngold29 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Books aren't usually created by the games creators either, But I don't know what book you're talking about. DurinsBane87 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

47 and his barcode tattoo

Sadly, http://www.upcdatabase.com/ can not be considered a reliable source, as, like a wiki, it is editable by all comers. Not only that, but the cited entry appears to be more of a joke than anything else. Until someone can establish a direct connection between this "May Audio" and the IP-owners of "Mr. 47", this should be removed from the article: there is a very reasonable chance upcdatabase (and wikipedia) is being spammed in advance of the movie. mdf 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thier was a radio on too

Barcode Tattoo

Resolved

Since both the laboratory that Doctor Ort-Meyer AND IO Interactive are located in Europe, the barcode would more likely signify the 9th of May, since the usage in Europe is YY/MM/DD...and I have so changed the page. DannyBoy2k 01:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And, since someone changed it, I changed it once more, due to the above reason. DannyBoy2k 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it again. Nowhere in the world uses yy-dd-mm as a date order so 640509 could only be 1964-05-09. (as DannyBoy2k stated) —MJBurrage • TALK • 06:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you guys can't source this, then it may just get flat out removed; seems like OR. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it the game itself says the first half of the barcode (640509) is his birth date. That number is a common way (and the international standard) to identify 1964-05-09. No place on Earth uses those numbers, in that order, to mean any other date. This is not OR, it is the only correct date that matches the six numbers in that order, and that is the reason this order was chosen as the international standard. (see Date format)
If the number was reversed as either 090564 or 050964, then we would not know the intended date without more detail since those two numbers are different dates in different countries. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Development section

Could all prominent editors of this section attempt to expand this section in the article? Doing so would really improve the article and take it out-of-universe. It would also be helpful to include sources, such as interviews. I found quite a few online, so there may be more. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

baldness

wouldnt the most liekly reason for his baldness for DNA evidence reasons? buts its not even mentioned as a possibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.247.237 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You just stated a reason why nothing about it should be mentioned in the article: it's not even mentioned. No sources = no mention. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Date of... BIRTH???

47 was created via DNA experiments, he doesn't born! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.179.149 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He was created this day, so.... ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the copyright is under fair use but here is one section on the definition of born: (enjoy)

"born (bôrn) Pronunciation Key v. A past participle of bear1.

adj. Abbr. b.

  1.
        1. Brought into life by birth.
        2. Brought into existence; created: A new nation was born with the revolution.
        3. Having from birth a particular quality or talent: a born artist.
        4. Destined, or seemingly destined, from birth: a person born to lead.
  2.
        1. Having from birth a particular quality or talent: a born artist.
        2. Destined, or seemingly destined, from birth: a person born to lead.
  3. Resulting or arising: wisdom born of experience.
  4. Native to a particular country, region, or place. Often used in combination: Irish-born; Southern born and bred; Boston-born."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Number 2 is the one that makes the birth of 47 a true and accurate statement... 68.74.221.60 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also if that isn't under fairuse then here is the link to the content... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/born it is located towards the bottom. 68.74.221.60 (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The film

"but not to the point where he is conversant in any of them, with Russian being a possible exception, as seen in the film."

Should we really get sources from a film that has nothing to do with the whole Hitman story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MihaS (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree on this one that the movie can't be considered cannon until the devs have stated, "The movie is true to his character"... My opinions on it are strong but I just feel that to use the movie as a source of "reputable" information on his character in Cannon, is unfair to the "universe" as a whole... 68.74.221.60 (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

God no. Considered as cannon? What about a blot. The movie was an abomination and a huge disservice to the character. I think the fact that Jesper Kyd's musical genius and contribution to the game is lacking in the movie speaks volumes. 192.206.151.130 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on the topic of 47, not everyone's respective opinions about how good the movie was or was not. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Diateetus?

.... Am I seeing things, or does that really need to be in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.39.8 (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

47's Age

It is wrongly stated as May 9th, 1964. His birth date is in fact September 5th, 1964. This is proven in the hitman journal on the Hitman 2 website, here. http://www.hitman2.com/content/history_1964.htm The first entry which is linked states his date of birth. And the tab of 1989 states the day of September 5th being his 25th birthday. The setup of his barcode is the correct date, given that it shows his birth information in the format used by the Asylum, and not neccesarily the country of Romania.

640509-040147

640509: 1964, 5th of September 040147: Series 4, First phase of clones, 47th clone of all. (Møk3 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Article Name Change

I only put this at the top because it is important. I feel the title should be changed to Agent 47 instead of Codename 47. He has been referred to as Agent in the last 3 games of the series, so i feel "Codename" is incorrect. Either 47 or Agent 47 I feel will suffice. BishopTutu 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. JaderVason 00:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to "Agent." Like I said, Agent is more commonly used throughout the series than "Codename". Also, because he is, officially, nameless, and is referred to as "47" or "Agent 47," I feel it is more sufficient. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. 47 would be more correct, as that is what Diana tends to call him.

Billy Bishop 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. 47 is pretty much his... ahem "official" name. Well more so than "Agent" anyway (he's known as this when cameoing in other games as well). But Agent 47 is what he is most commonly known by, so that is what the article shall be called, however his correct name will be mentioned at the beginning of the article and in the infobox template. .:Alex:. 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well-tailored suit"

"During his missions, 47 almost always arrives in a well-tailored, silk-lined black suit, with a white dress shirt and his trademark red tie." Wellllll, the new model in Blood Money actually shows that 47's suit doesn't fit very well. It bunches up around the small of his back and is baggy around his neck and chest. I'd guess that the dev team modelled it off any old off-the-peg black suit they had in their wardrobes. If that thing cost $5000, I'd eat my hat. Also, his shirt is depicted as white or off-white with black stripes in pre-rendered images in Contracts, and the stripes are visible in-game in Blood Money. - Sir Frederick Chook

Your entire statement is original research; if you don't have a verifiable source saying what you've said, then it can't be added. Even then, the model changes from each game, so you really couldn't try to figure out if it fits well or not. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a reference cited for the allegation that it IS a well-tailored suit. Or lined in silk rather than synthetics. -FC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.107.210 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The article will be altered as such. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Seriously, though. The man earns fifty thousand dollars in an afternoon. He could get something which fits his bum made up. He can even kill the tailor afterwards so that NO-ONE IN THE WORLD HAS HIS MEASUREMENTS ON RECORD. Oh well. If IO had done any research, they'd have also realised that there are women in the world who aren't prostitutes with waists an earthworm would envy. So there you go.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.107.210 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The same in codename 47.His suit is not even put on right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.94.172 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Error

I could be wrong here, but in Hitman: Blood Money, in that last cut-scene, just before Diana enters his hideout, the article assumes 47 kills the canary by snapping his neck. However, since this is done off screen, and also the canary is caged, my assumption was that 47 snapped his fingers and the canary stopped chirping. This would seem to fit in with the fact that 47 takes care to take the cage with him out of harm's way when he hears someone coming. Just saying that we don't know that 47 kills the canary, particularly since the sound is more like the snapping of fingers then the breaking of a creature's neck. Any comments? Guldenat 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you know the exact sound of a canary's neck being snapped, it's safe to say that 47 killed the canary in some similar fashion. Plus, why could he just snap his fingers onscreen? That would seem like a pretty silly thing to do to silence a canary, anyways. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right, I don't know the exact sound of a canary's neck snapping, but I do know the exact sound of fingers snapping. Also, the bird was caged, how would he snap it's neck without opening the cage? Also, I think it's kinda cool to have a bird so well trained that one could silence it by snapping fingers, and it would also be a prudent way of doing it rather then saying 'quiet' if your going for the whole silence thing. And why would he kill it anyway? It's not like the chirping of the bird would give him away or anything ( no one would assume just because the bird was making noise that Agent 47 was home, who takes their bird with them? ), he just wanted to hear what was going on better. Just saying the article shouldn't make an assumption of what happened unless we know for sure it happened. If someone could find an official source that backs up the canary was killed, I'd more than happily concede. ;) Guldenat 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no sound of snapping fingers, only the bird's chirping coming an abrupt and permanent halt once 47 jerked his arm. While I'm sure trained birds must be fascinating (O_o) , there is no indication that the bird stopped squaking on command in this case. There is plenty on indication, seeing how 47 is a ruthless serial murderer, that he snuffed the bird. Johnnyfog 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The bird's chirping may not necessarily give him away, but the bird's chirping eliminates the silence, also eliminating the opportunity for 47 to get the drop on the intruder; in a situation like that, silence makes you be a little more on edge. About the cage opening, not every single bird cage door is gonna make a squeaking sound when opened; you make the assumption of 47 being able to train a canary and being generally so uber-cool, so why wouldn't you make the assumption that he's smart enough to oil the cage's hinges (rhetorical question)? Also, who would kill a chirping bird to "hear things better?" When you bring up the point on how we shouldn't assume things, you should do the same: you make the assumption of thinking he snaps his fingers with absolutely no sources, while sheer common sense tells us that the bird is killed in some way. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, my main point is that we don't know what happened, and with all due respect, you should really replay the Requiem mission again, because their IS a snapping sound ( which, as I have suggested earlier, sounds EXACTLY like the snapping of fingers ), and all the points you make to me also apply to you ( if we cannot say for sure if it is fingers snapping, than we also cannot say for sure it is him snapping the bird's neck, we do not know either to be absolutely true). In other words, you make the assumption, with no evidence whatsoever, that the canary has been killed ( with NO sources whatsoever, saying it is 'obvious' is POV, considering that the action is done off screen ). My point is simply that we don't know the canary was killed, therfore it should not be stated in the article as fact. I reiterate that it I am not saying it is necessarily the snapping of fingers, but that we do not know it is him killing the bird. Guldenat 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's become apparent that this is becoming a battle of OR. I said common sense says the canary's killed in some way. I did apply my logic to myself. As for the snapping sound, using common sense, yet, again, a tiny canary's neck snapping could, and probably does, sound like a human's fingers snapping; you expect some loud CRACK with onomatopoeia on the screen? Besides the "finger snapping" theory, which, being the only real theory that could contest the accepted one, can't possibly hold up, without assuming the unverifiable idea that 47 uber-trained his bird, there is no other way you can explain the bird being silenced that isn't totally outlandish and basically unbelievable. Also, if you try to use the "I'm following the rules" clause, taking into account that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and that the sheer existence of this conversation is ridiculous, the statement that says 47 kills his bird should stay. I mean, come on man. Ok look: you're watching a movie, and a guy shows up with a gun, walks into a room with 2 people inside of it offscreen then fires shots offscreen; afterwards, you don't see the 2 characters at all for the rest of the movie - better yet - the rest of your life. Wouldn't it be safe to say that they were killed, and, therefore, be able to add it into its Wikipedia article? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 08:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you got suckered into this debate, Klptyzm. I was pretty sure my first statement would have shut him down. But you had to keep going. Now it's escalated to the point where we have to insert "possibly kills the bird" into the article. Well done. Johnnyfog 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said we had to add it? I say we leave it alone, and, for the record, if this user wouldn't have been checked, he would have surely added that in anyway. I've seen this happen before too much. Believe me: not saying anything would have resulted in an edit war. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not and wouln't just change an article, that's why I brought it up. If the concensus is that the bird's neck has been snapped, by all means, keep it on their. Believe me, I was not attempting to be argumentative, just to bring up another possibility. I simply wanted to explore the possibility that the accepted view of the scene may have been incorrect. Being that their are only 3 of us debating the issue, and 2 out of 3 accept what is in the article, I'll let the matter drop ( I certainly did not expect the somewhat heated respone I got ). It is somewhat immaterial anyway. The only way I'll bring it up again is that I sent an email to Eidos, the odds of them even answering it are extremely remote, but if they do, I'll post it here.Guldenat 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's mature of you. It's always a relief to avert an edit war. I think if 47 had snapped his fingers, his elbow wouldn't have jerked in such a manner, anyway, it's all subjective if it's off-screen I guess. Johnnyfog 10:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see there is only one way to decide this debate. A canary must be bought and its neck snapped to determine the sound of a canary neck snapping.Freyyr890 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Found another website that supports the canary's neck was snapped. " Many people have noticed tears in 47's eyes after he snaps the neck of his pet bird, which he sometimes pets in cutscenes, when he sees that the intruder in his hideout is only his boss Diana. This supports the claim that 47 is becoming more and more human with every game." [2] Guldenat 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no tears in that cutscene. The source is an erronious one. There is so 'proof' that the canary died, and it's of little importance anyway.Johnnyfog 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is of extreme importance, it deals with 47's human element. I have watched the cutscene multiple times, and even asked other people what they thought. There is no way he kills the canary, it just does not happen, he moves it is all. 47 loved that bird like he loved his pet rabbit. Billy Bishop

That's original research, brother; nothin' but your opinion. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, how can simply moving a bird make it stop chirping, since we're posting opinions. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

JohnnyFog, your definately right about no tears in that cutscene in the PS2 version. The quote was in reference to the Xbox version of the game. Having said that, I've never played the Xbox one, so I couldn't say how accurate the observation is. Anyway, every source I came in contact with seemed to side with the canary getting it's neck snapped, although if that's true I think they did a poor job of representing that in the cutscene. Guldenat 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GAH. Can't we just drop it? This is turning into the "Vic Vance didn't die in Vice City" debate. Feel free to drop in on that on if you like; As with this one, it has no end. So there's no way to confirm the bird is dead or appease anybody. It's not important. This is stuff the player is supposed to fill in the blanks on -- it has no place here, really. Johnnyfog 03:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just opinion? Oh, and the rest of this talk page isn't opinion? Come on. Billy Bishop 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk page isn't the article. Go find a credible source before trying to get irrationally angry. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yow. I obviously came in late for this one; I just noticed Johnnyfog recently removed my edit about 47 killing the bird because of this conversation. I didn't even know there was debate about it. Seriously, guys, see for yourselves -- the idea that 47 did something to the bird other than kill it is so far-fetched that it boggles the mind. He's "snapping his fingers" because he had "trained the bird"? You might as well say that he has a sleep gas dispenser built into his gloves and that's why the bird shuts up. Or a teleportation device that instantly zaps the bird to 47's massive bird training facility that orbits the Earth. Nobody can prove that this isn't what happened, and that's exactly the level the arguments against 47 killing the bird take place on. All this "we shouldn't assume that he killed it because we don't see it" stuff is simply disingenuous. This is just about the most lethal man on Earth, who reaches off-screen towards a canary, which stops chirping when a cracking sound can be heard. Occam's razor and storytelling convention says that he's not using an ancient and gentle canary-silencing mesmerism technique, he's snuffing it. Even if he wuvs it so much.

This isn't anybody's fault here as such, but on a personal note, I have to say that debates like this are a huge reason why I find Wikipedia so frustrating -- you take an obvious thing, and you end up arguing about the sounds a canary's neck makes when it's broken and find the article a hair's breadth away from weaselly "some interpretations of this scene include the possibility that 47 kills the canary, whereas others maintain that he simply stuns its vocal cords" additions, and it gets so that the guy who actually agrees with you removes your edit simply because someone else might not agree... even though the actual scene is so clear and unambiguous that a child should understand what's going on there. And yeah, in the grand scheme of things the whole thing is pretty much insignificant, but on the other hand, if you're not anal about the details, the whole idea of writing an encyclopedia pretty much goes out of the window... -- Captain Disdain 09:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. That's part of the reason I haven't been editing alot. Plus, I feel we should still put that the bird has been killed, and if someone comes up and starts a silly ass argument, I'll just drop this idiotic crap altogether. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's totally ridiculous to make the assumptions some of these people make. He's a trained killer, who occasionally kills innocents. Why is it so hard to believe that he killed a bird. DurinsBane87 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard at all to believe Bane, and as the person who began this discussion, I say the article stays the way it is. Captain Disdain in particular has shown (although I admitted previously the article was fine) that their is no reason whatsoever to believe anything but that the bird was killed. Guldenat 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I IO interactive responded to my email, a very pleasant surprise. I'll paste it here. Also, I noticed someone had removed the text. I put it back at the end of the personality sub section, but I'm not sure if that's where it belongs. If someone knows a better place, or better wording, feel free to change it.

Hello and thank you for your letter. To answer your question: at the start of the Requiem mission in Hitman Bloodmoney, Agent 47 kills his pet canary by snapping it's neck in order to keep it quiet. I hope this helps settle the dispute :)

Kind regards, l Tatiana M. Hoejengaard l IO Interactive A/S l l Kalvebod Brygge 35-37 l DK1560 Copenhagen V l l +45 3373 2900 l www.ioi.dk l

Guldenat 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This argument is over but wasn't there a feather that dropped down on the floor? And also another point that could have adverted this was, there was a struggle (small but there was one) and birds (even trained ones) will totally freak if things start moving fast and banging into things. Anyways if anyone wants to dispute this more I'll actually look for a citation other than the email since the email could be argued as "fake" (Not saying it is but just volunteering if someone wants to go there) 68.74.221.60 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't fake a letter at all, let alone one that proved me wrong. In fact, I still have it saved if you would like me to forward it to you, at which point you could see who the original sender was. Furthermore, at the end of the game in question, you will find Tatiana Hojengaard's name mentioned on multiple occasions in the credits. Guldenat (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to start anything up here but even if that letter is from who you say it is from (which I truly believe it is), It's OR and as such can't be used right? I am of the opinion that he killed the bird but if there is any sort of doubt then it should not be in there. Should it? Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agent 17 section

This section could use some cleanup, especially when it comes to grammar.66.41.44.102 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agent 47 Mr Timothy Olyphant,

I enjoyed the Movie He is a Great Actor this movie was action packed didn't want to leave. This is the first time I have seen the movie and Mr.Olyphant, I will be watching for his new movie August 7th. I like him baldheaded(smile)he is Very Handsome and would do well acting with Angelina Jollie and also Jennifer Garner and Will Smith he are Action Packed Movie Actors. I wish him Great Success and will look forward to seeing him in many more Movies,I am still watching"Hitman"on cable and more than likely will get it myself on Blu-Ray or regular DVD,The Best to you.

Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.250.64 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Details from the book

I recently added some information from the Hitman: Enemy Within book, but it was deleted. So, it means the book is not canon or what? I think that must be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.126.88.82 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

agent 47 is such a gentleman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.69.82 (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

"He retired between the events of Hitman: Codename 47 and Hitman 2: Silent Assassin, a span of roughly two years, before returning to work there."

Where exactly is this specified? Based on the years of birth of each of 47's five fathers (Early 1930s as stated in mission briefings in Codename 47), it can be surmised that the events of Codename 47 occured in the early to mid 1990s (Supported by the fact that, given a birth date in 1964 and an escape after 30 years). The date is not explicitly given until the events of Blood Money, which occur in 2004/2005. The dates of the events of Hitman 2 are not stated within the game or manual. Unless, of course, there's something on the official website I missed. - Mastertechnician (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The last mission in Asylum in Hitman: Codename 47 is in 2000(it is stated in the game)As I remember he escaped in 1995(it becomes obvious when usin some math though it is not clearly stated in the game).In the start of Hitman2(don't remember where but i am sure) it is written 2002.U should replay both games and you'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.59.213 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The timeline for Hitman: Codename 47 is really confusing and is probably wrong because of IO Interactive. For starters, the letters that the five fathers send each other all have the year 1999 as the sent date, meaning that not even Lee Hong had been killed until 2000 (he was the first of the fathers to be killed and obviously couldn't have written the letter if he was dead.) It's also confusing that 47 is said to have been released by Ort-Meyer in 1995 as this means 47 would have waited 5 years before killing anyone. As stated in-game, the first Lee Hong mission is set a year after 47 escaped from the asylum, so 47 definitely couldn't have been released in 1995. However, in Ort-Meyer's notes he states on the 8th of July 1993 that his plan has already been put in motion and 47 would soon be released. Apparently this meant 6 years according to the games info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMystery99 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signature Weapons (AMT LongSlide Modified Silenced Silverballers)

why have we not mentioned the signature twin pistols? is it because of the glock versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.249.175 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove Copyediting tag?

I've gone through the article and improved the quality of it. If someone could take a look now and determine whether copyediting is still an issue, it would be great. Thanks! Vicyush (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Agent 47. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/galleries/top-25-baldies/?page=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agent 47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922110208/http://www.gamesradar.com/the-top-7-assassins/?page=2 to http://www.gamesradar.com/the-top-7-assassins/?page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Slighted weaponry" ??

I don't know anything about this game or about weapons, but I'm thinking this means "sighted weaponry" -- that is, guns with sights on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhurwicz (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

All published by Warner Bros?....

Not every game was published by Warner Bros and I think that should be cleared up.

2604:3D08:2980:E100:7421:5634:7B4:E3DC (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2018A47.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)