Talk:Reclaimer (Halo)

message: Two things: "...by destroying all organic life..." Is incorrect, the ring only targets (as 343 himself says) all -sentient- life with a biomass sufficient enough to sustain the flood.
And finally: "343 Guilty Spark incorrectly assumed, for unknown reasons, that the Earth soldier Master Chief was a Reclaimer." Also incorrect, with the release of Halo 2 and the events that has transpired it is now painfully clear that only humans can be reclaimers and that only we can activate Halo's core with the index (and stop the firing). From the story line it is possible that we are the descendants of the original forerunners who escaped/activated the original purge in the "ark" mentioned at the end of Halo 2. -- Cadogan
Should this be "Reclaimer (Halo)"? --OGoncho 04:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: "...the Earth soldier Master Chief..." Master Chief is a rank, shouldn't it be Spartan-117, or something? --OGoncho 04:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: "...and the fact that the Covenant have not asked humanity to join them..."  how does that support the theory that Humans are related to the Forerunners?--Moosh88 07:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: the final paragraph of this page seems a bit sloppy and off topic.  I edited it already for gramamar (and improper formatting of book titles) and whatnot.  Anyone want to take a look at somehow tie it into the actual page it's on.  Right now it seems to only discuss the Forerunners and not the Reclaimers (It isn't not ever stated that a Reclaimer is a forerunner)
Another possibility is that the Forerunners interbred with humans passing on their genes. Master Chief, Johnson, Mobuto, and Commander Keyes would then be genetic descendants of the Forerunners. This is also supported by 343 Guilty Spark's reactions to Master Chief in Halo: Combat Evolved, where he assumes that Master Chief understands everything that has happened on Halo. In the book The Flood, he also states that the Master Chief is the one who activated Halo the first time, "Why do you hesitate to do what you've already done?" This could mean that Master Chief's ancestor was the Forerunner that activated Halo. Also supporting this theory is that in the book The Fall Of Reach, Dr. Halsey chose candidates for the Spartan program based on certain genes they carried. It is possible that those genes are those of the Forerunners. As with everything, this is highly spectlative.
I think that this is all wrong. Rather than an "ancestor" of MC activating Halo for the first time, it is perfectly logical to assume that 343 GS is just mistaking MC for a completly different person, or thing. Judging by the context of the quote, it can be interpreted that 343 GS just got confused, and assumed that MC looked alot like, or had the same type of technology and outward appearance as this other person, or thing.
That has nothing to do with the argument that the Reclaimers, Humans, and Forerunners are related. It should be deleted. Besides, wikipedia is supposed to be a factual database, not a pit of speculation. Take that stuff to the forums.
Another thought:
While in the Library (Halo: Combat Evolved), the Monitor makes the comment that "Work of this kind requires a 'Class 12' suit" and the Master Chief's suit is only a "Class 2". The armor that the Master Chief was wearing could have confused Guilty Spark and led him to believe that the Chief was a Forerunner (since Guilty Spark could not see the Chief because of the armor and thus could not discern his physical characteristics). This could also have led to the "Why would you hesitate to do what you have already done" and "You asked me, if it were my choice, would I do it? Having had considerable time to ponder your query my answer has not changed." Since the Monitor thought that the Chief was a Forerunner, he assumed the Chief knew about how the Forerunners were destroyed and such.  Scrinwarrior (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  last paragraph 

message: A lot of the claims made in this article are entirely speculative and unsourced, so I've tagged the article. However, I haven't read the book, so I'm unfamiliar with the material. --Wafulz 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about that because it is not entirely certain whether or not the Novels are actually canon or not. Many fictional works/novelizations can be interpreted as not canon to the actually established universe (i.e. Star Trek novelizations). -- Dark Observer 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research