Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto)

Archives
August 2005 to June 2006 July 2006 to August 2006 August 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to November 2006 November 2006 to December 2006 January 2007 to February 2007

Danzo

does anybody know about a connection between danzo and tobi because i've been told that theres a japanese legend that includes a character with the combination of danzo and tobi's name just wondering if anybody knew something about that and no i dont know the name of the legend or what its about, sorry--Zetsuie 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Akatsuki's rings

On the Akatsuki page, under descriptions of rings, the editors made a typo.

For Tobi's ring, the letter means "jade" in english, nothing else.

can anyone else find other typos? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayboi012 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The rings each have different names. All, with the exception of the leader's, are written with two characters. Each ring has only the first of their two characters written on it. Thus Tobi's ring, the Virgin (玉女, gyokunyo) has only the character "jade" (玉, tama) on it. –Gunslinger47 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Itachi main page

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think Itachi should get his own main page. i think he certainly has enough background information on him, and i think he plays a good enough role to get his own page. Does anyone else think this?24.185.163.37 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

hmmm..... to be completely honest, i am kinda split 50/50 on this, i mean... on one hand yes in the over all story(well at least for sasuke) yes he does play a major role........ but on the other hand, besides one main flashback and three fights( with kakashi and co,his fight with Sasuke/Naruto/Jiraiya and finally his fight with naruto/kakashi) he really has not made much of an appearance (probably not even really being in no more then 10 episodes)... basically i guess I'm indifferent either way, i mean I'd like to start seeing each member getting their own page, but also i don't think it'd be a good idea to basically have them all be mega-stubs(not quite a full article yet not a stub)Ancientanubis 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I've memorised this answer. No Itachi cannot have his own article because of the following reasons:

• Itachi has barley done anything in the series except for flashbacks and a few fights.
• Itachi has done nothing for Akatsuki, except hunt for Naruto.
• And he has yet to have a major involvement in Naruto Shippuden.Sam ov the blue sand 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, Sam.... i basically said all that(minus shippuden), and i also said i could understand some pluses to it alsoAncientanubis 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And your point?Sam ov the blue sand 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

my point is that i had just said itAncientanubis 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you! And now I just said it. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

lol. i think itachi should get his own page because even though hes not that major, itachi plays a huge role in sasuke's life, who plays a big role in naruto's life, whos the main character. just a thought... KKIPPES 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

lol thats very trueQuietDrive627 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but has he had a major affect in Akatsuki business?Sam ov the blue sand 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... good point... but maybe since he's after naruto, the vessel of the strongest tailed beast yet, he plays a huge role in akatsuki. KKIPPES 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

True but remember Kakuzu and Hidan were after him and were killed trying, so now we have no clue who is after him.Sam ov the blue sand 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that, but thats just it. Hidan and Kakuzu were defeated. That's why they'd have to send itachi and kisame to finish the job! if not them then another pair, but they may be defeated too, as what happens with all fights with the main character involved. But whatever, idk for sure. KKIPPES 05:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Is this debate already resolved? I really think Itachi should have his own article. Kakuzu and Hidan both have their own articles, and Itachi doesn't have one! His story is really important if one wants to know about Sasuke's story and motivations. And as for the fights, Itachi already had many fights. He fought with Kakashi, Kurenai, Jiraiya, Sasuke (a very brief one), did some sort of clone jutsu and fought Naruto and Kakashi, and then he also appeared in Orochimaru's memories in the manga, where he apparently used his sharingan to deflect his jutsu. That is enough material to create a main article with. And being clearly one of the key characters that propel the plot, the reason for Sasuke's defection to Konoha, which in turn is the reason for Naruto trying to master a new jutsu, which in turn, basically, is the whole I'm-getting-my-friend-back plot of the story -- this guy long deserves to have his own article. Moonwalkerwiz 06:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite appearing for a handful of battles, Itachi has mostly watched from the sidelines during these battles and hasn't actually done much in terms of fighting. Whatever article there would be on him would focus mainly on what he did before joining Akatsuki. ~SnapperTo 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I agree that it would be impossible to create Itachi's main page and divide into arcs like others, but I think we still can write a fairly lengthy piece without dividing it into those sections. The first section could be his history with Sasuke and how he got the Mangekyo Sharingan, and the other half could be his participation in Akatsuki. Moonwalkerwiz 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be an adequate length, but that remains to be seen. As I've said elsewhere, all attempts at giving Itachi an article have consisted of copying and pasting his section in this article into a different one. If someone were to put more effort into giving him an article than that, he might have had an article long ago. Try it if you (or someone else) must, but I'd be very disappointed if I saw a near identical copy of his section in this article with maybe a couple extra paragraphs. ~SnapperTo 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, all im saying is hidan and kakuzu do not play as an extreme a part in naruto as itachi does, and yet they get their own page. snapper, you're right about the being disappointed if there was a copy of his section with a few extra paragraphs, but its just like that for some people. if it gets too long, he should have his own page. plus, moonwalker makes many good points about what to put in his article, so my vote on itachis own page stands. KKIPPES 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

charms on top of their hats

i just recently decided to re-read all the 2 year time skip stuff and now i've decided to read everything, and i've kinda noticed that some members of akatsuki have little charms[1] [2] (or w/e they are) hanging off of their hats while others do not... does anyone think this is of any significance or just something like how you can choose what you wear? i'll include a list below of everyone i've noticed has one

• Itachi
• Kisame
• Deidara

Ancientanubis 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is significant, which is debatable, at this point it would be just speculation. Until Kishi actually gives us more information, all we can do is give theories and ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blu Shu0 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Hes right. once Kishimoto-sensei details on it a bit we wont know for sure. but maybe theyve been there long enough to get one? ok idk. but that is just my opinion. KKIPPES 05:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ya ik... i was just kinda curious if anyone noticed any other connections between those characters that did have them on, compaired to those who didnt... just got bored and recalled that from a while backAncientanubis 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deidara in ep.135

• It seems he had a different seiyu in that episode. Did they list who it is? If so, it should be listed here too, hmph. ^_^ JuJube 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they didn't list any of them. The Splendiferous Gegiford 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing about Deidara

• I bumped into a Wikipedia mirror that states that Deidara's catchphrase "Geijutsu wa bakuhatsu da" (Art is a bang) was a "famous phrase of [Okamoto] Taro". If that's true (and I mean true as in the guy said exactly that), does it warrant a mention, or was it just vandalism? I couldn't find anything about it on the talk pages. ^_^ JuJube 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why this was removed as well. It used to be here, but it was removed...if it's false, okay, but if it's true, I think it definetly deserves a reference in his section. Viewtiful Rekk 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, off topic but i <3 how alot of stuff on there is basicalyl a C&P of the stuff we have here:P...Ancientanubis 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

to Neo Chaos X

You don't have to call my ideas garbage. I didn't post on the actual article because I said it was speculation. However, it was a good theory from decent evidence. I don't think you have a better theory yourself, but if you do, I will be glad to hear it. Otherwise, avoid the personal attacks and shut up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kukuzuthe9999 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

• I read it, and he wasn't calling you garbage. Theories and speculation aren't accepted in Wikipedia articles, and they shouldn't be discussed on talk pages either. Talk pages are for improving the article, not for forum-esque discussions. JuJube 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You just said no personal attacks and yet you tell Neo to "shut up"? I guess you're a killer of your own cause, eh? Sam ov the blue sand 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Orochimaru Akatsuki

ya ya, ik this isnt a "forum" type place, but i can make this work for it

1. did anyone find it weird to see Orochimaru in an Akatsuki outfit???
2. do you think we should add that picture to his profile?????

Ancientanubis 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would an image need to be added? He looks no different except that he has an Akatsuki outfit on. ~SnapperTo 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

oh hmmm, idk, maybe cuz it was part of his dissiperance from Konoha, to him starting the Sound village that has not really been covered and yaAncientanubis 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a picture of him in his Akatsuki outfit might be better than his original hand with a ring. 24.35.81.34 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Itachii uchiha history

since the new manga came out we see that itachi had a confrontation with Orochimaru (since Orochimaru tried getting itachis body). Itachi used genjutsu on him and when Orochimaru tried to use a jutsu Itachi cut off Orochimarus hand .... i think that should be added in itachis history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.84.124.203 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

This is mentioned under Orochimaru's section. –Gunslinger47 09:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ya but itachi did do it, after all. shouldnt it show up on his? KKIPPES 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His section is quite detailed already. Itachi seemed rather bored with Orochimaru at the time, and it doesn't seem like a significant event from his own perspective.

It's like if Itachi had swatted a mosquito at some point during his life. Swatting the mosquito is likely not notable from the perspective of his own biography, even though it may be very notable from the mosquito's. :D –Gunslinger47 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. well, in that case, whatever. who cares. KKIPPES 07:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be added. Maybe Itachi didn't care, but Orochi did! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.191.54 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hence why it's already mentioned under his section and not Itachi's…? –Gunslinger47 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

yet it does have an importance to itachi not only does he show how powerfull he was and is my beating Oro so easy it also shows his personal outlook of OroJKAP2KAP 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To the one above Gunslinger47: If orochi cared and itachi didn't, then why would it be in itachi's page? Orochi was like a mosquito, to use Gunslinger47's metaphor (or something like that). If you had an autobiography, would you put that you swatted a fly? if that fly survived, and it magically recieved the ability to write, it probably would, but you wouldnt. KKIPPES 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

no it is important to itachi...he is responsible for Oro leaving Akatsuki and to say Oro is a fly is a little wierd he is very important character to say there wasnt any relationship between Oro and itachi is just wrong and this is on a Akatsuki page and it effects all of Akatsuki JKAP2KAP 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on my original message. This is already mentioned in the article under Orochimaru's section. To include it a second time under Itachi's section would not only be redundant; it would also be indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. From the few scenes we've seen, it appears that this fleeting encounter with Orochimaru was irrelevant to Itachi's personal history. Not unlike the swatting of a mosquito. –Gunslinger47 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 agree with Gunslinger on this one, I mean yes when some major event occurs to multiple characters(for example how with Sasuke and Orochimaru's recent fight is mentioned in both their articles), but this is on a way smaller scale, I mean, I guess its like saying in Naruto's article that during Naruto and Sasuke's fight Sasuke stood there 'blankly' while he thought about all the events leading up to this, or vice versa, Sasuke stood there while Naruto remembered how hard it was for him growing up... it's just a bit redundant I guess...Ancientanubis 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

no itachi encounter with Oro is important in itachis history we have very little on itachis time in Akatsuki it shows part of his history when somone looks up itachi on Wikipedia its to learn about him and beating Oro the way itachi did is somthing somone would want to knowJKAP2KAP 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

so your wanting to say something silly like "itachi easily beat orochimaru while standing on the steps of some unknown place while on a nice spring day with ease"...... it's just not needed, i mean at the most we should say something like "itachi and orochimaru didn't get along well because orochimaru was plotting to take his body".... thats assuming it's worth putting in the article, which the latter one MAY be...Ancientanubis 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

JKAP2KAP, the information is important... to oro. take ancientanubis and gunslinger's thoughts to mind on this one. itachi did not care. itachi could hand oro's butt to him on a silver platter. To itachi, IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. To oro, IT. DOES. but its already listed there. can we stop this debate here? KKIPPES 06:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

personally, i feel that the debate is over as we have overall reached a general aggreement that it is pointless to mention the fight it's self in itachi's article.... but as long as JKAP2KAP wants to debate it we'll keep telling him.... now IF we were 2 add anything i'd be ok with saying something along the lines of "itachi and orochimaru didn't appear to get along well" BUT that is it....Ancientanubis 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be used to reference claims, such Itachi's relative power-level or whatnot, but it shouldn't be added just for the sake of adding it. That'd be indiscriminate. –Gunslinger47 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If it turns out that this event has major significance to Itachi himself, then it will be revealed in the upcoming chapters. As of now, it's simply a minor incident in which Itachi overwhelmed Orochimaru, and this likely led to his departure from Akatsuki. To Itachi himself, it has little relevance, especially considering that Itachi was quite aware of his inherent superiority in this fashion. Sephiroth BCR 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this debate is over, too. Whoever said that this match doesn't matter to Itachi's history or perspective? Did anyone ask Masashi Kishimoto and got the answer straight from him? Itachi have always worn that impassive face. Even when he was murdering his family and his whole clan, or when he's fighting really powerful ninjas like Kakashi or Jiraiya, he'd always looked bored and that it doesn't matter to him. And if these seemingly unimportant details do not matter that much, then tell me why it was mentioned here that Deidara tried to choke Tobi with his legs? I believe that this match is more defining than Deidara and Tobi's match. It illustrates how powerful Itachi is compared to Orochimaru. And since when did we judge that an information is irrelevant if the subject deems it irrelevant? I've never heard of that Wikipedia rule before. I say, let's give Itachi his own article and include these details there and others. Moonwalkerwiz 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:POKEMON. You want to use it as evidence for a claim? Go ahead. You want to mention it just because it's mentionable? No. That'd be indiscriminate. –Gunslinger47 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

if orochimaru wont be included into itachis history, then why should sasuke be? at least not that much of sasukes history should be in there, since its not revelant to itachi. Letuce 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Itachi's section is devoid of most things he does after joining Akatsuki. Until his role while "fighting" the Konoha Jonin, trying to capture Naruto, and stalling Team 7 is included in his section, there's no reason why his cutting off Orochimaru's hand needs to be mentioned. ~SnapperTo 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

then theres no need for this line : "He then departs, telling Sasuke that he wasn't "worth killing" and that if he wants to kill him he must spend his life hating him and acquire the Mangekyo Sharingan."

it might be revelant to sasuke, but not to itachi Letuce 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To Gunslinger, I don't get your point. I've read the links you provided and I think they even support my argument. In the article, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," there is nothing there that says you cannot add a certain info if that info is well referenced and have relevance to the subject. And the article about the Pokemon test actually proves my point. The Naruto enterprise is continually growing and the main article itself says that its popularity is comparable to Dragonball. Consequently, its characters, especially the key ones, deserve their own pages. I believe Itachi Uchiha is a key character (see my argument above on "Itachi main page"). I do not want to mention it just because it's mentionable, I want to mention it because I think that it's relevant. As I said, if you guys add things like Deidara choked Tobi with his legs, and then you don't add things like Itachi's Sharingan can seem to cancel all of Orochimaru's jutsu experiments, then I think you guys are really confused. Moonwalkerwiz 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#IINFO says "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Meaning, when you said you you can add something if that "info is well referenced and have relevance to the subject", you were not necessarily correct. Being relevant and referenced are prerequisites for adding information, not reasons in themselves. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
• WP:POKEMON is not a guideline, and from some perspectives, it's a logical fallacy. I pasted it in response to the assertion that other sections have indiscriminate information, therefor this information should also be added. I'm not defending this thinking, but am rather opposed to it.
• "Deserve their own pages". Pages are not people. They deserve nothing. They exist if they meet our guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability, otherwise they will exist as redirects to superpages such as this one. (note that the concepts of "aspect" and "set" articles can be used to overrule general notability guidelines) –Gunslinger47 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So what is "suitable for inclusion" for you? I'm not even sure why I bother debating this with you, and not just add it myself. You still don't answer my argument that you're adding seemingly insignificant details in the story and yet not adding this one. And what's with the "pages are not people"? Don't be cryptic. If you're arguing notability, then I think Itachi is more notable than Kakuzu or Hidan. They are dead in a single arc. Itachi had been there from the start, echoing in Sasuke's memory. Please be more clear about what you think is suitable to be added here and not, and also, what deserves its own article. Moonwalkerwiz 02:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"you're adding seemingly insignificant details in the story"

I've personally done no such thing. User:67.84.124.203 asked if mention of the event should be added to Itachi's section, and I've replied that according to Wikipedia policy... no, events shouldn't be mentioned simply because they happened. If the event somehow illustrates something you're trying to get across, then that's fine. I'm sure there are similar examples on Wikipedia, in this article and beyond, that fall under indiscriminate information. According to policy, perhaps they should not be included as well?

Overviewing Wikipedia:Notability for you and the many nuanced exceptions to it created through countless AfDs is beyond the scope of this conversation. However, forking Itachi's entry into will not change any criteria for inclusion. –Gunslinger47 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

orochimarus Defining characteristics

he is the only one to not have one on this page, why? Letuce 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

good point, it may have something to do with the fact that it wasn't known when we first were "introduced" to him that he was an ex member, and they just migradted a mini bio over to here.... but thats only my guess.....Ancientanubis 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

but then some characters like sasori and hidan have there own page but they still have defining characterisitscs here also...Letuce 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

but they had there mini articles on the akatsuki page prior to there own big articles being made... where as orochimaru had his own large article which was just linked over to here when he was found out to be an ex member of akatsuki does that make better sense then what i said earlier????Ancientanubis 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deidara

Someone fix the article to say he is in fact a guy.

...does it not? He's already referred to as "he". The Splendiferous Gegiford

Tobi battle?

what chapter does Tobi fight the three tailed beji?

thnakes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.173.43 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Trick question: The answer is never. :) However, for the battle you're speaking of, see the source of this image: Image:Sanbi.JPG, which I got from the Tailed beasts page. –Gunslinger47 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

lolz, gunslinger your such a atrickster:P....Ancientanubis 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Itachi and Deidara articles

Itachi and Deidara should have their own separate articles. Moonwalkerwiz 06:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not until they're dead or have survived a major battle in two seperate arcs.Sam ov the blue sand 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And whose rule is that? Moonwalkerwiz 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't say hi (I always say that to people I haven't have the pleasure of meeting), but I was in a rush. ^_^ So anyways it's no rule or policy it is just a guideline so we don't have articles that don't belong (such as stubs, though nothing against them, they're alright ^_^) and this way we can see if they even deserve their own article, for example if Zetsu was to drop dead then he wouldn't be deserving of his own article (I forgot to mention that in my first post). Oh and it also helps to keep the same discussions from appearing (like this one). Again sorry for not saying hi or explaining my reasoning further. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear response. I'm getting tired of Gunslinger's rules. Now I understand why these two still don't have their own separate articles. However, I still keep to my argument in the other sections above, that Itachi must have his own article despite the fact that it would be difficult to divide his into arcs. Akatsuki members each have their own different stories, and so it could be problematic if we stick to that guideline. I predict that some of them will not die and will survive long into the series, probably not doing any "major" battle for a very long time. Itachi, for example, already had many fights, albeit small ones. And being one of the major antagonists, his major battle might not come soon. However, he is a key character, and having his own article seems to me a must, since his role in the story provides motivations for the other major characters: Sasuke, Orochimaru and Naruto. As for Deidara, isn't his fight with Gaara considered a major battle? He also fought Kakashi and Naruto, and seen capturing a tailed beast. In fact, among Akastsuki and aside from Sasori, Deidara's character is very well explored in the manga, although his history is still not revealed. Moonwalkerwiz 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because Itachi affects things around him, doesn't mean he needs an article. Mr. Linderman is mentioned in basically every episode of Heroes, yet there is practically nothing known about him and thus no article. Same principle here. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Practically nothing" known about Itachi and Deidara? I know more about Itachi than I know about Hidan and how the hell did he become immortal. Moonwalkerwiz 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keyword: you. "You" are basing your entire argument around what "you" believe "you" know and don't know (enough quoting?). Try to catch on here, because you've already carried on at least two pointless discussions and the inability to listen becomes annoying very quickly. We know what Itachi has done, not about him. Hidan gets a hell of a lot of character development, as does Hidan. That and Sam is just as annoyingly persistent as you in this regard. Itachi doesn't need an article because we know very little about him. Simple as that. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing is, the same thing can be said of you guys that "You" are basing your entire argument around what "you" believe "you" know and don't know." Hidan gets "a hell of a lot of character development"? What are you talking about? All we know about Hidan is that he's an immortal, he has a weird religion, he killed Asuma and he got buried by Shikamaru. As for Itachi, we know about his history and he also had many battles. You're only saying you know many things about Hidan and Kakuzu because it's easier to write their articles because they only fight two major battles and then it's over. You're trying to cram the story into this "standard" that you made for yourselves. You're not the only editors here. What makes you think that you can set guidelines for everybody? I'm only speaking of this matter this way because you seem to think that I carry out "pointless discussions." But I give up. I'm tired of this discussion and of people like you who take control of articles, thinking that they know all about it, and are unquestionable about the matter. Do as you like, Wikipedia gods. Moonwalkerwiz 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

hey buddy, ik i have not posted much but i cant stand by and idly by and listen to your babble anymore... just because we think we know something about a character doesnt mean we should run off and add it... we post facts here, not suspicions... yes we understand that itachi drives the motivation behind ALOT of characters in Naruto... but tell me, how many episodes/chapters has he really been in???? episode wise(prior to the time skip) he was seen in about 4 episodes(not including flash backs in which maybe it bumps up 2 8(of which those 2nd 4 are just them explaining what happened in the past in which all we learn is that 'he killed his clan and basically forced sasuke to hate him and extract revenge on him' why did he leave him alive?, why did he seek so much power?, we dont know and were not going to post guess's...)) AND ANOTHER THING... people like sam, gun slinger and someguy are not wiki gods or anything, and they haven't taken over the article... anyone is free to edit this article BUT it's people like them who frequent this page and make sure that the information is not only correct, but has a good enough reason for being here... AND there's nothing wrong with doing this... hell i've recently taken a page 666 Satan that started out as basically nothing and have worked my ass off 2 make it a respectable page(ask sam if ya don't believe me) and theres nothing wrong with frequenting a page you've but ALOT of work into in order to make sure it stays respecable... i personally know that i'll frequent the 666 satan page for as long as possible inorder to make sure that all my hard work doesn't go 2 waste... it's a matter of pride and the fact that we've put so much time into something that drives us 2 do this... i mean, if it weren't for people like sam, someguy and gunslinger then people would go off and do w/e they want with this article and it'd prob go 2 crap and represent naruto in a bad light which would upset naruto fans, so instead of bitchin and moaning about how they're not agreeing with your opinion to give itachi or who ever there own article, you should be thankful for people like them who keep the article in such good shape... AND if you really want itachi or who ever to gave there own article, then you should do what the rest of us would do in any regular cituation and create a very convincing argument on why they deserve it... basically something besides "his actions drive many characters"...and im really sorry if that sounds harsh but i just couldn't sit by and watch you not listen to what anyone had to say... granted wikipedia is not a democracy, but we still try 2 have an overall agreement on what should be done prior to doing it... Ancientanubis 06:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the amount of effort you've put into creating articles. I'm an editor myself and I know how difficult it is to write a good article. I don't edit naruto pages that much, in fact, come to think of it, I've never edited any naruto article. And like I said, I give up on this discussion. If you don't want to consider my reasons to give Itachi and Deidara their own articles (and god knows I've done my best to make them clear, I usually don't debate this much except in the Reference Desk) then so be it. But I just want to make it clear that I appreciate all your work and I thank you all for it. Still, I find it hard to see this "overall agreement." Seems like the other voices here have been squashed out of existence. Moonwalkerwiz 06:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

how are they being 'squashed'... and to be honesty you haven't really given much of an argument about itachi, basically all i've heard is that he has effected other people and that's about it.... if you really want to convince us then you need facts, good reasons and maybe specific policy's as to why it should be created... i mean honestly i feel like yes itachi could use his own article.... BUT the only reason that it hasn't happened is because of the fact that even though he's effected the naruto universe in a large way he has yet to really appear in many chapters/episodes so i understand why we have yet to decide that he deserve his own article... you've got to look @ the big picture of what is good for the article as a whole instead of your opinion of just one character....Ancientanubis 07:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough. There's no article for them since there isn't a suitable amount of information to make a worthwhile article. For Itachi, you can discuss his abilities, his time with his clan before annihilating them, and his very brief fights during the actual series. Not sufficient, nor would it be conclusive. Out of all the members of Akatsuki, Itachi is most likely to recieve the greatest amount of development, as he is directly linked to several of the major characters. Once his role has been properly concluded, an article can be added that will certaintly have sufficient information. As for Deidara, you can have a brief synopsis of his abilities - considering that never any great discussion about them nor variety, and you can mention the fights he has been involved in. Compared to the present articles (Sasori, Kakazu, and Hidan), he has a pitiful amount of information available to write an article. There's little more to include than what is already mentioned on the page. Sephiroth BCR 07:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah let's see here, first welcome back Someguy, next, that guideline is mine not Gunslinger's and lastly at least I set limits for myself instead of asking for every akatsuki member to have his own article so i'm not as persistent as I used to be 8 or nine monthes ago. Again welcome back Someguy. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

someguy left for a while???? im sorry i didn't realize you've been gone for a while someguy.... i've been hellaz busy on some other article i dndt even realize:P so welcome back:)....Ancientanubis 02:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion wasn't "Death = Page", but rather that for "villain of the week" enemies, the point of their death or defeat is a good time to determine whether the character required a page of its own, since we know little more information is likely to come in. –Gunslinger47 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've never said Death = Article, I siad that Death + Enough info = Article. Sam ov the blue sand 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Regarding Itachi, he is undoubtably significant, from virtually all perspectives. However, we don't have anything more to say about him that can't be put into a single, well-phrase paragraph. He's was a genius from the Uchiha clan who entered ANBU before killing his best friend and clan because people in Naruto are psychotic. He left his brother alive because of reasons mentioned in the preceeding sentance, as well as to supposedly challange himself. He joined Akatsuki, after which he has had fleeting encounters with various individuals where he dispatches them while bored, demonstrating his strength as a genjutsu user and the overpowering might of his mangekyo sharingan. The use of this eye technique has caused his eyesight to degrade, as fitting with the reoccuring theme in Naruto that all surpremely powerful abilities are self-destructive. –Gunslinger47 03:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sasori, Hidan, and Kakuzu

Even though plenty of work has gone into the articles, do we really need them? They were around for like thirty chapters each, did nothing too notable in those chapters, really just served in "villain of the week" roles, and aren't important to the series itself. Nemu 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The seperate articles serve as an organizational tool. And in any case, other minor characters have similar amounts of content, and have their own articles. Once Akatsuki's role in the series is completed, a more concrete decision can be made concerning the article itself. Sephiroth BCR 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excluding the plot summaries, I'm surprised by the length of the three. I do agree that none are in the spotlight for very long, but I also think there's certainly enough information on each of them to warrant remaining. While there is a certain amount of bias in this belief, putting them back in this article would just recreate three lengthy article-sized sections. ~SnapperTo 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the Anime has yet to even truly reach these three, I expect there will be a need to keep them. The pace of shippuden is rather slow and thusly I think they will become the villians of major story arcs, rather then simply "villians of the week" as you put it. Considering Zabuza has his own article at under 15 episodes, I think these guys earn since they're going to take a fair bit more, have ties to a group of major villians, and may not be completely out of the story yet (you never know what flashbacks and plot twists may bring, hell, zabuza has been recently brought up once more even). -- Midusunknown 07:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

thats a really good point actually...Ancientanubis 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So Snapper are you finaly over the whole copy and paste thing (I noticed the hypocrite thing and wondered what you meant by it)? And thanks for sticking up for the articles, I get tired of being the only one doing it (even though it did sound kinda negitive). ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the three (sort of), so they aren't copy and pastes of what was in this article anymore. I'll likely always fight the creation of an Akatsuki member article, but will put up with it once it exists. ~SnapperTo 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal?

How is Zetsu a cannibal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.211.16 (talk • contribs).

Since he is presumably human, wouldn't consuming the corpses of other humans make him qualify as a cannibal? –Gunslinger47 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tobi = Obito

Sorry to put this on,(if tobi is obito) but i discovered why Tobi eye piece cover's his right eye. think if your in obito place thought to be dead wouldn't you want to get into Akatsuki and help you village and if his right side was rebuild (or something like that) and he dosn't want his sharigan going off so he uses his rebuild side as a why not to be know as an uchiha that is still alive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.36.181.5 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

This page is not a forum for speculation. And anyways, speculation is never put into the article in any case - note the months of removing such nonsense. The fact remains that you have no definite evidence whatsoever. Case closed. Sephiroth BCR 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. But I just want to say that that speculation is really, really giving me goosebumps. Moonwalkerwiz 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy sh*t! And the hairstyle is the same too. And it was mentioned in this article that he has several bolts and pins around his arms (surgical bolts?) And it also says here that his personality is like Naruto's. I'm really sorry to respond to this, but this is just one really cool speculation. Moonwalkerwiz 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculate all you wish, it's not going in the article. This point just needs to be hammered due to all of the ridiculous vandalism that this page gets. Sephiroth BCR 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently, this speculation is all over the web. I was not aware of that until now, since I don't really participate in Naruto forums. I'm not defending that this should be on the article, by the way. Still, you must admit that this illustration is really, really cool http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/49088210/ Moonwalkerwiz 05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't get out much, do you? It was literally proposed the first week we saw Obito. Doesn't make it true though, people have been claiming the Akatsuki Leader is the "Forth Hokgae" for just as long. --tjstrf talk 06:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah i don't want it to be an article until in the manga it clearly say obito is tobi and yeah who to say tobi may be someone put it would make a good plot twist. all i'm saying it just a thought about the Obito is Tobi ideas—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.36.181.5 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

no real need to apologise man, i mean whats done is done... Ancientanubis, talk 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tobi's mask doesn't center over his right eye, it centers over his left, as seen clearly in the image in his entry. It's right for the viewer looking at him, but it's certainly his left eye. I've amended this obvious info already before, but someone's switched it back so I'll post the reasoning here for discussion (I'm kinda new at this so I apologise if I should have discussed it here first before changing anything)Lyinginbedmon 17:05, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at a better image. It's definitely his right eye. ~SnapperTo 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, correct, it is the right eye. The question then becomes, why is it reversed in the present one?. EDIT: Unless his face is turned to the left, why on Earth didn't I see that before... Lyinginbedmon 10:11, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because you were seeing it too "clearly"? –Gunslinger47 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Akatsuki City

Someone should really add a picture of the akatuski city to the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.65.5 (talk • contribs).

We know nothing of this city, other than that the Akatsuki leader has been seen within it. –Gunslinger47 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think there should be one.

It's irrelevant. There's no point in including it. Sephiroth BCR 08:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't enough information on the Akatsuki to make an article on it. The article would be a one-sentence stub, something like, "A city that the Akatsuki Leader has been seen in, proposed city ruled by the Akatsuki." Wait until we have more information on the city to try and make an article about it. Manga_King

Hidan in the wrong section

Shouldn't Hidan be listed under "Former Members?" He's gravely incapacitated, and the Akatsuki obviously don't want him anymore seeing as how no one has come back for him. They could put him back together, but haven't. Manga_King

Until we hear official word form Akatsuki, we'll have to assume that he still remains a technical member of the organization. The Akatsuki leader should still be in contact Hidan using his telepathic jutsu. –Gunslinger47 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

True... it also just occured to me that no one has dug up Hidan's remains to reclaim his Akatsuki ring. What's your opinion, though? Do you think the Akatsuki still want Hidan, or not? I personally think that they don't want him anymore. Manga_King

Zetsu's abilities

First of all, allow me to apologise for my rude behaviour. I shouldn't have kept changing teh article, but instead start a discussion here.

Now that that's out of the way, where exactly has Zetsu used this Byakugan-like ability of his? Every time he spied on someone, he was actually very near to them. I'm not saying he can't possibly have some kind of Dōjutsu. I'm just saying that there isn't any proof of one.

I don't think the article should say Zetsu can see far-away objects, when he has never been shown to have such an ability. --JadziaLover 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The only instance I can think of where he does something of the like is chapter 255, though that seems to be more a creative use of his actual body than an ability with his eyes. Zetsu's appearances are so staggered, however, that I may be forgetting some other long-distance use of his eyes. ~SnapperTo 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The leader mentions that Zetsu's eyesight has an adjustable range in the same chapter, and were he close enough to actually see them, it would have just showed him watching them, not an eyesight zooming effect. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Leader says 「一番範囲のデカいヤツでだぞ」 ("Ichiban han'i no dekai yatsu de dazo"), which I would translate as "[and use] the guy with the greatest range". This doesn't hint at Zetsu having a Dōjutsu.

Also, the zooming effect is from his real body to his projected body. It might simply be there to show how the information from their real bodies is transferred to their projected bodies. If it was there to show Zetsu has a Dōjutsu, wouldn't it actually zoom back to his real body? --JadziaLover 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Given there's only one chapter to work with, I guess it's too early to say. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is that we've never seen him use any kind of zoom vision or X-ray vision. The zooming effect could easily be something else and the leader's comment about the range doesn't imply a Dōjutsu at all. (actually, in my opinion it would imply that Zetsu has clones of himself running around, or something, hence the "use the guy with the longest range").

I don't think the article should say he does have Byakugan-like abilities. There's simply no proof of them. --JadziaLover 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My knowledge of Japanese is pathetically minimal... but, by "guy" you mean yatsu (ヤツ)? Yatsu can be used to refer to people, true, but this is a rather vulgar way of doing so. Less offensively, it's used to point out things or objects. I believe the "yatsu" in this context would be "the perception level" with the hugest range. Both the Inane and Shannaro translation groups have assumed this meaning. –Gunslinger47 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean yatsu (ヤツ). I know it's vulgar, but the leader does talks very informally. It would be weird for him to mean it as anything other then "guy". Not to mention that it would probably have been written in kanji and not katakana. Also, I have never seen yatsu get used as anything other then guy before. Most certainly not in NARUTO, at least.

If he actually wanted to point out a thing, he would have used mono (物) or koto (事). --JadziaLover 04:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I defer to your wisdom then. Do you have any explanation on why the scanlation groups are apparently ignoring this word? –Gunslinger47 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Leader: "–and Zetsu, use your real body to be on the lookout. Make sure you use your longest range."

This tells us that Zetsu has some sort of extended sensory range. It does not say which sense, however. My personal speculation would be tactile or empathic connection through trees, foliage and other plants. Similar to Kidomaru and his web sense.

Later you see see a strange effect related to Zetsu. The view zooms in suddenly though his eye. It seems people are taking this to be some sort of special eyesight. It seems clear, however, that this sequence was meant to illustrate that what Zetsu was seeing was being transmitted to his astral body in the Akatsuki cave. –Gunslinger47 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Naruto: Shippuden, living in America (I wish I were Japanese, they take forever to translate the manga and anime into English!), but could the Leader possibly be referring to something that no one has thought of, like ranged ninjutsu or range he can throw a shuriken at? Those are two completely random examples which should be disregarded, but when Masashi had the Leader say that he was probably referring to a kekkei genkai that Zetsu posesses that has nothing to do with eyes and hasn't been revealed yet. Manga_King

Shishui Uchiha's death

I'm phrasing it as an "apparent suicide" rather than a "suicide", since it's all but confirmed that Itachi did it. If there's a better word for it, like "alleged", well, whatever works.

Seraphchoir 15:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, It's better to use a word like that, since he almost definately didn't kill himself. Manga_King —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.175.240 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

If Itachi gained mangekou sharingan, i think it is completely clear that he did murder Shishui. It is mentioned that Shishui was "like a brother" to Itachi.

May I pull a Van Gogh on you for a second?

Well, to short it down as much as possible...

1. Shouldn't we be able to find a better image for the "Clothing and appearance" section of the article?
2. Is it possible to cut out the "Deidara's gender is sometimes confused" part of Deidara's section, I don't think there are anymore people (who aren't delusional) willing to defend the "Deidara is a girl" theory any longer.
3. While still on the subject of Deidara's section, I took it upon myself to check a raw issue of chapter 281 and despite the fact that I'm no pro at Japanese, I'd say that the "Tobi asks if it's death by explosion again" part is rather incorrect... A more accurate translation of Tobi's question (どうせ爆死でしょ) would be "It'll be bombing death, won't it?" and the question in itself was more likely an on-topic remark to Deidara's then current inability to use said bombs (probably pretty much to Deidara's already adding frustration as he probably WANTED to blast Tobi really good at that very moment)...
4. I guess that was pretty much it then, save for the fact that I agree with one of the above topics which speculates on changing Orochimaru's picture. Seriously, it'll look much better with a picture of him from when he was in Akatsuki, rather then a picture of his severed arm... Well, that's all folks. Here, you can have your ears back now.

--81.228.148.65 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. A better image might be possible.
2. The confusion was significant among English readers, and the erroneous "she" scanlations are still floating around out there. People who read this article might be curious to know the reasons behind it. Besides that, the way it's currently mentioned works well with the overall paragraph. We might want to clarify that the gender confusion occurs only in the manga, however.
3. It wasn't quoted directly. "Bombing death" and "death by explosion" have the same general meaning and are practically interchangeable.
   1. *sigh* Jokes aren't really funny if you have to explain them. Deidara choked out Tobi for repeatedly stating the obvious.
4. We generally prefer usable screenshots from the anime over black and white scans of the manga. –Gunslinger47 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On your response to #4, could we use the shot of the leader from the preview of episode 10 as opposed to the black and white pic? Ikani87 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't think Akatsuki means "dawn" or "daybreak". Rather, I think it means Red Cloud. Aka translated into English means red, and if memory serves me right, tsuki means cloud. I think this makes WAY more scence since they DO have red clouds on their cloaks.

The Japanese word for dawn is "Akatsuki". It just also happens to be broken down into "red" and "cloud", hence the cloaks. Ikani87 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on that, 暁 means dawn. It is one character. 赤鋤 (I can almost guarantee you I fucked that kanji up) means red cloud. It is two characters. Just because the word breaks down doesn't mean its spelling does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's actually "red moon" (赤月 :P). "Red cloud" would be "Akakumo" or "Akagumo" or something like that. The word for cloud is nowhere in Akatsuki. And yeah, the word Akatsuki itself means Dawn, not red-anything. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Isn't cloud kumo (くも) anyway? That's what ja.wiki says. Or is somebody confusing cloud and moon? --tjstrf talk 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)