Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto)/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Akatsuki (Naruto). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

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. ~Snapper T o 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. ~Snapper T o 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)

Itachi should have his own page period. Zabooza 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) I'll make two points: A) Tenten has an article, and she's one of the most minor characters appearing in more than one non-filler arc in the series. B) Itachi is one of the three characters that tranforms everything into the series BESIDES the first three Hokages, who were so long ago they HAD to be important. The three are the Fourth Hokage, Orochimaru, and Irachi.

I'll also say this: Itachi joined Akatsuki AT LEAST when he was 11. Proof: Orochimaru left the Akatsuki seven years before Part I ended, when Itachi was 11. In the flashback during the recent Sasuke-Orochimaru fight, both Itachi and Orochimaru wear Akatsuki uniforms, so this is before Orochimaru left Akatsuki and after Itachi joined. This is before he killed the Uchiha Clan, so not only does this disprove the thought he joined because he killed the clan, it also reveals jsut how powerful he is.

I also have a solution to the article: We create one, but do not post a link to it outside this topic. We constantly edit it until we feel it has enough information. This follows what both sides want. The article isn't shown yet but still exists. And don't worry, judging by the last chapter shown, then the article might have enough info very soon. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:16 Eastern Standard Time, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do belive that itachi should have his own article. He does play an important role in the series, he is tied into the capturing narutos demon and he is being chased around by sauske who is trying to kill him. --Had24get2ice 20:06, 18 May 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)

A quick check of the Japanese wiki entry confirms that this is correct. I'd say it warrants a mention. HisshouBuraiKen 18:30, 20 May 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)

Shut up isnt actually a personal attack. Its just a way to say stop talking.--Count Mall 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And saying "please stop" or being civil doesn't work for you? Your last statement was a personal attack. In any case, this topic was concluded months ago. There's no point in saying anything else. Sephiroth BCR 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Orochimaru Akatsuki

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

did anyone find it weird to see Orochimaru in an Akatsuki outfit???
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. ~Snapper T o 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)

I think that it would be better than the severed hand.Lightning Sword 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Orochimaru's ring, and the hand that it's on, is of more importance than his outfit, as demonstrated by the fact that his ring is the reason he has not been replaced. ~Snapper T o 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the ring dosent really show Orochimaru though. I think that you should just use a picture showing him from Naruto 1 or something. All the other members have their faces in the pictures.82.69.83.28 20:47, 22 May 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:Pokémon test. 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. ~Snapper T o 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:Pokémon test 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)

Just to throw in my two cents, most of what can be said about Itachi has been nicely summarized here. -- Seraphchoir 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And to throw in my own, i believe both itachi and deidara have enough information for their own page, provided it would be a somewhat small page, given the illusion of a bigger page via breaking up and discreetly repeating information. KKIPPES 14:06, 11 May 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. ~Snapper T o 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. ~Snapper T o 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)

This is true, but how do we know he's a cannibal? KKIPPES 07:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We see him eating the corpse of the man Kisame took over for the Akatsuki leader's shapeshifting jutsu in ch. 261. 121.44.229.19 02:59, 12 May 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

um i think he just wanted to add a pic of the panel with the AL looking out at the city in chp 329 (i think)so i dont see much harm in adding a simple picand im pretty sure no one mentioned creating an article about a place that has only been shown once and its not all that irrelevant considering thats where there headquaters is probably--Zetsuie 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And where would it go? In the section allotted to the Akatsuki leader that already has two images there? The only reason that it would be added would be that it gave a better picture of the leader, which it doesn't. Aside from that it's completely irrelevant, and should not be included. Sephiroth BCR 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion, not exclusion. Simply that adding something won't "harm" an article isn't justification in itself to do so. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This goes double for non-free content such as manga scans. –Gunslinger47 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

look i dont care about the pic i was just saying read something right before screaming at them on wikipedia about something they never said--Zetsuie 05:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You followed your attempted clarification with an attempted justification of his action, which was in direct contradiction of what people said previously. You were directly trying to start discussion, and now you follow a recourse going back against what you just said. That's what people are talking about. Be clear about your stance is before you write something. Sephiroth BCR 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about the pic. If you have something to say to User:138.88.30.56 ("Manga King"), then go to User talk:138.88.30.56. –Gunslinger47 06:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything related to Akatsuki should be added to the article, so the city picture should already be here.Zabooza 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

It's hard to say because timeline-wise, Sasuke's revolt could have happened concurrent to the Kakuzu/Hidan fight, and therefore the news of Sasuke's victory could have reached Konoha roughly the same time Naruto and co. got back. That'll mean Zetsu or someone else might not have had time to reclaim Hidan's body/head yet.

Besides, it's hard to say if Akatsuki is going to continue the practice of reclaiming rings before recruiting new members. Kakuzu's body, after all, is in Konoha. But excuse me, I'm speculating =P. -- Seraphchoir 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should say unknown instead of incapacitated. We do not know if he is even alive. Gune 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We know he's alive. He literally cannot be killed. You Can't See Me! 06:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know he is alive or not because it has not been shown in the manga yet. Gune 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hidan is immortal. By definition, he is alive and will survive anything. That he is just a head is of no importance. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(post-Edit Conflict): It pretty much has been confirmed that he is alive in the manga, indirectly. Kakuzu says explicitly that Hidan cannot die, Hidan's immortality has allowed him to survive multiple impalings, decapitations, and all-out nukings, and Hidan's head even speaks at the bottom of the pit. Hidan is immortal and is thus still alive. You Can't See Me! 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is true. However since we have not seen his head talking or a scene in the manga stating that he is still alive then it is entirely speculation. His head also talked before the rocks crashed on him Gune 07:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you fail to realize the obvious in this discussion, I shall endeavor to make it clearer. Hidan is immortal. I do hope this has sunk in by now, unless you just refuse to hear our side and can't grasp such a simple concept. Now, since he is immortal (key word, please pay attention), by default he will survive anything unless stated otherwise. It is speculation to consider him dead, because he cannot die. For us to assume he is dead would be speculation. For use to assume he is alive is not, because he is immortal. Immortality prevents death in all but the most extreme conditions. It is not up to us to decide him as dead, unless he has been definitively stated to be dead. Since neither Shikamaru nor Hidan himself assume Hidan to be dead, for us to assume otherwise contradicts them, and is thus even worse speculation. You can try your speculation arguments all you like. Fact is, you're the one speculating. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess you got the confirmation you were looking for since he was definitively stated to be dead by the AL in chapter 353. The AL who can contact these guys at any time so he should know. Zetsu seems to have witnessed the fight and might have finished what was left of Hidan. Remember, Kakuzu also said no one is immortal, so I guess Kishimoto was hinting back then. Kishimoto can do anything he wants and if he wants Hidan dead, then he will be dead. Dunnlo 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hidan is dead. It is really stupid to state him as expelled. Kishimoto specifically stated that he is dead. (Through the words of the AL) Gune 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The Japanese word used means "they were defeated". The translation you read just took some liberties with it. The Splendiferous Gegiford 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not. Its actually unknown what he said. Since what he said could have multiple meanings. However saying he is expelled is wrong. Where in the manga did the AL say that he is expelling Hidan from Akatsuki? Gune 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If Hidan was still a member of Akatsuki, then the leader would have ordered him to appear at the meeting via astral projection. Ergo, he is not a member of Akatsuki. Sephiroth BCR 01:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he expelled him. Gune 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not contacting him to come to the meeting qualifies as considering him not to be a member of Akatsuki, and therefore "expelling" him. Sephiroth BCR 02:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:expel. "To remove from membership." –Gunslinger47 03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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. ~Snapper T o 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

Thats true, zetsu may have a kekkei genkai similar to Shino's putting his head on a tree trunk and being able to tell there are 6 people fighting a kilometer away (see chuunin exams part 2 w/ anko). Just cuz the leader says use ur longest range doesnt mean it has to do with a body part. Maybe he does like shino and uses the environment. he can like go through solid surfaces right? KKIPPES 07:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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. I dont think the word "almost" should come into it. It is mentioned that Shishui was "like a brother" to Itachi. Stylishman 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's completely clear, since Kakashi gained it without resorting to any best-friend-killing, but the discussion of that is beyond the scope of this topic -- Seraphchoir 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Itachi admitted to Sasuke that he had killed Shisui to obtain Mangekyou Sharingan Zabooza 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Shouldn't we be able to find a better image for the "Clothing and appearance" section of the article?
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.
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)...
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)

A better image might be possible.
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.
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.
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)

That'll be the difference between katakana and kanji, I'd think... okay, I'm no expert at Japanese, but I'm okay-ish at Chinese, which in terms of Kanji, is more or less the same thing. So wouldn't that make cloud 雲?

...Or is something more authoritative in Japanese gonna come and shut me up? -- Seraphchoir 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Akatsuki means dawn. There's no debating that. Although it might be pronounced the same as "red moon" (That is, if "red moon" were to be written as if it was one word) the kanji "akatsuki" is written in gives us only one possible meaning.

By the way, cloud is kumo (雲) in Japanese. Moon is tsuki (月). --JadziaLover 00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, when speaking of Akatsuki as "red cloud", unless the "aka" part is used in a non-adjective sense, correct Japanese grammars would demand the spelling to be "Akaitsuki" (the added "i" significating that the noun is used as an adjective, bending the meaning of the phrace from "red cloud" to "red coloured cloud")... But, as previously stated, the kanji used for Akatsuki (暁) means "dawn"... Hope this cleared things up a little. 81.224.28.120 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Aka/Beni = Red/Scarlet, Tsuki/Getsu = The Moon. Akatsuki = Red Moon, and it's used to say 'dawn' in japanese. Zabooza 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Itachi's own article

Could someone make Itachi Uchiha a seperate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.205.94 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

No. See above. Sephiroth BCR 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Unnamed Member

It is a woman.

Probably. However, where is your evidence? Retlor 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Click here: http://i84.photobucket.com/images/leader%20akatsuki/ (Akatsuki Leader and the Unnamed Member)

That is fanart. It's not an official indication of the identities of either the leader or the unknown. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Her name is really "ジャインドー". X-D –Gunslinger47 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kishimoto did say that there was a kunoichi in Akatsuki... --JadziaLover 21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Promptly provide your source, and do make it a credible one. –Gunslinger47 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard people talking about Kishi saying that during an interview. I too would like to read a transcript of it. Ikani87 00:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kishimoto said that there was a woman in Akatsuki and we didn't know her yet. (I don't remember where I read it, but I read it somewhere) V-3 09:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find your reference, then it didn't happen. (according to policy) –Gunslinger47 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in an interview with Kishimoto during the Jump Festa 2006. You can find the transcript and a translation here[3].

Kishimoto says 「暁…これからいいキャラが出てくる。女の人も。かなり強いとか」 ("Akatsuki... A good character will come out from this. A woman too. [She'll be] quite strong.")--JadziaLover 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ~~that looks acceptable~~. –Gunslinger47 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, does anyone know who published or broadcasted this interview? Was it WSJ? –Gunslinger47 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One must also point out that the thing about Akatsuki and the thing about a woman are not necessarily related, considering it's dated by about a year. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You could make a fairly good case that the woman in question was Yugito. Personally, I'm fairly certain that the UM is a woman, but until there is real evidence, we shouldn't really add it. Retlor 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the interview is correct, then there's no doubt there's a woman in Akatsuki. Kishimoto literally states that one of the Akatsuki is a strong female ninja. --JadziaLover 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This all doesn't matter unless Dyroness reveals the anonymous source of the script. I can't just be transcribed. It needs to have been published or broadcast. –Gunslinger47 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fairly certain that the Unnamed Member is a woman. V-3 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we say something about the UM not saying anything at the gathering in the latest chapter? Because everybody got a chance to talk, and Itachi at least had some ...'s as a talk, but this member was only shown breifly at the bird's eye view of the meeting, and just existed there. JustShin 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Compromised/Article Error

Under the section of the article regarding the Akatsuki members' headbands, it says "they cut there headbands cause evry guy is emo". WTF? 1.) That's opionated. and 2.) That's totally false. Putting a slash through a forehead protector is a symbol of deviation, saying "This village is pathetic and doomed to die". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tybre (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Though you are correct, for future reference you may want to check the article history before bringing it up here. That was reverted almost an hour ago. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It was visible for less than a minute.[4] Likely it was already gone by the time you spotted it. –Gunslinger47 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When I saw it, I immediately went here. I never got the chance to see it changed until just now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tybre (talk • contribs).

Your web cache can make it seem to be there for longer then it actually was. Anyway, thanks for your diligence. :) Remember, you can update pages yourself and are encouraged to do so if you spot a mistake. If it's broken, fix it! –Gunslinger47 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but my comp wouldn't let me edit stuff yesterday. No clue why. I'm glad it is today. I just made a page for my school cause there wasn't one. Ah, I know why: Semi-Protection. This is day 2 for me. Under forehead protectors (headbands) it says Hidan's is unknown, but Hidan's is the Village Hidden in the Rain.

Research the hidden village's symbols. Then take a look at Hidan's headband. He is not from the Village of Rain. Retlor 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rings

It says there that Akatsuki currently has 8 rings. Because Orochimaru's body still has it, and Konoha has Kakuzu's.... shouldn't it say that they only have 7? Because it does not say they have Hidan's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.65.5 (talk • contribs).

Hidan's is buried under a mountain of rubble. No one outside of Akatsuki understands the significance of the rings at the moment though, and Konoha is going to make no effort to recover Hidan's body. Sephiroth BCR 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so that means Akatuski only has Seven Rings not eight like it says on the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.65.5 (talk • contribs).

It's on Hidan's hand, and Hidan (to our knowledge) has not been replaced yet, so Akatsuki still has eight rings. Sephiroth BCR 04:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Like they care about Hidan. All that's left of him is his head. They can't reconstruct his body even if they wanted to. It's all dismembered. If they ever find him will be for the ring but yea whatever I was just stating the obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.65.5 (talk • contribs).

We're going to assume the following until we're told otherwise.

Hidan is still alive.
Putting him back together is still possible.
The leader can still contact him using the telepathic jutsu.
He is still a member of Akatsuki.
Heck, as far as we know, Hidan's holographic head could still make an appearance.

Unless we're told otherwise. –Gunslinger47 07:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to assume anything. We know that Hidan...

Was defeated by Shikamaru
Blown apart by the blast
His body parts crushed by the mass of the rocks
Is getting eated by worms right now
Will never be seen again since he was minor villain who served his purpose to make Shikamaru look cool. I am not sure what wiki is waiting for Kishimoto to tell them. 67.82.150.227 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well putting Hidan might not be possible. putting him back together was Kakuzu job,and now that he's dead........,but other then that i agree hat since he's still alive he is still considered a member of akatsuki Allen Walker 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, putting Hidan back together is entirely possible. After all, they restored Deidara's arms, which both had sections entirely destroyed, beyond simply reattaching them. 121.44.205.20 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true. That was Kakuzu that reattached Deidara's arms. You know, the guy who did the same with Hidan and is now dead. 67.82.150.227 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Kakuzu may or may not have done the reattaching, but there wasn't originally anything to reattach - a section of around 4-5 inches either side of Deidara's right elbow was simply wiped from existence by Kakashi's Mangekyo Sharingan, and Deidara never retrieved whatever was left of his left arm, meaning that that was still somewhere in Sunagakure. So, they would have had to completely reconstruct the lost limbs, meaning that they would need someone with a lot of medical knowledge, which Kakuzu never demonstrated. Kakuzu may or may not have been responsible for the actual reattachment, but the point here is that he's probably not the only person in Akatsuki who could deal with Hidan's injuries. Of course, this is all moot, because Akatsuki consider Hidan dead anyway. 121.44.229.19 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deidara is seen recovering his arm after his fight with Kakashi, as he strangles Tobi when Tobi touches it. As for the arm crushed by Gaara, it's anime, so don't question it. Hidan remarks that Deidara's arms (note the plural) were reattached by Kakuzu, so both had to be in his possession in some fashion. Sephiroth BCR 06:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Go back and check if you can see Deidara's left hand ANY other time after Gaara crushed it, any other place after chapter 249... Face it, Deidara is a one armed terrorist, your usage of plural was in vane and only served as an evidence for pointing out how unattentive you are (no offense), you can blame it on your incorrect translation, but that won't change much, if anything. 217.208.26.136 20:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about inattentiveness, don't let people catch you being the same. Let's start with how he lost his arms. Left: crushed into paste. Right: cut off. Now that we've established that, let's describe how one reattaches arms in such a manner. You cannot reattach an arm you don't have. Therefore, left is gone. Now, you can reattach a severed arm. Let's move on to chapter 317, Deidara's first new appearance. He uses his right arm. That's all well and good. Now, let's move onto chapter 354. Specifically, see page 12. Notice that Deidara is using his left hand to drag Tobi away. Like I said, don't accuse others of inattentiveness, lest you cover your bases first. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

akatsuki leader? 4th hokage?

hmm have any of you looked in youtube?

if u type akatsuki leader 1-20 clips shows a comic book that tells about akatsuki leader as bieng 4th hokage.

maybe its true maybe its not. - Akizaki

The page you're referencing has been proven to be photoshopped, or at least not from the original manga... It cant be used as proof of the AL's identity. Until we get something more definitive from the manga or Kishimoto himself, the AL's identity will continue to be unknown. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely proven photoshop. And don't say it's Uchiha Madara. Masashi Kishomoto has released drawings of Madara and his silhoette/lower face look nothing the leader's. The leader is somebody new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tybre (talk • contribs).

Kishomoto has released no such pictures. There are no pictures of Madara and only one lower-jaw shot of the leader. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Madara is starting to get me mad, why Kishomoto adds piontless characters is beyond me I think he's just messing with us now. Anyway that stuff is photoshop because a friend of mine is one of the people who made it.Sam ov the blue sand, My Talk, And if you feel like spying on me 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

idk, ya got to take into account that in anime just about everything regardless of how pointless it appears, almost always has some relevance down the road... take into account the way they buried zabuza with his sword the way it is, to some it may be trivial, but in a recent chapter it proved to be of some importance... just a thought.....Ancientanubis, talk 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt Kishimoto planned that far ahead. It's more likely that he went through the early chapters one day looking for something he could reuse, and stumbled across Zabuza's sword. ~Snapper T o 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Akatsuki leader is not the fourth hokage. I have been doing research for a long time on this it must be someone Kishimoto as recently talked about like Madara Uchiha.Akatsuki0E 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Itachi Uchiha page

First of all, I agree Itachi should have his own page. After all, he's the only akatsuki member(active member)that hailed from the Hidden Leaf Village. And I would like to back up the fact that he played a major role in Sasuke's life. Aside from this, Sakura Haruno mentioned that he is their worst enemy. Most of all, he's obviously one of the most popular character in the Narutoverse.

Second, I believe that Itachi is an expert taijutsu user. He was once an ANBU team captain after all(all ANBU needs to be expert in tai, gen, and nin-jutsu to be able to cope up with the different fighting skills of the enemy. He may have started using genjutsu when he acquired the MS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.76.237 (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Some things:

Opinions do not a good page make, be they yours or those of the characters.
Popularity does not a good page make.
Speculation does not a good page make, which is what your second paragraph is.
Being an influence is not something that you can write volumes of.

Time and again it is explained, and time and again people choose not to listen. Itachi is a relatively withdrawn character, and his appearances are scant at best. There's nothing left to write about him that isn't OR or a summary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, as per discussion above. And your taijutsu claim is entirely original research and speculation and is entirely irrelevant. Sephiroth BCR 05:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Itachi is unquestionably notable relative to the series. The primary issue is there is not enough information to warrant an article fork. That said, he is that's going to change really fast from this point on. (see the recent chapter, 352) –Gunslinger47 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Itachi

If Orochimaru left akutsuki 7 years before the start of the series (after he tried to take Itachi) then does that mean that itachi was 10 or 11 when he joined Akatsuki? 66.68.245.197 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting your infomation from? Who says seven years? –Gunslinger47 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The article states it. 66.68.245.205 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Akatsuki's meeting at the end of Part I indicates that the group hadn't fully assembled since seven years prior when Orochimaru left. As for the topic, a functioning timeline is not one of Naruto's strong points, so I wouldn't put too much thought into how Itachi joined the organization at such a young age. ~Snapper T o 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Itachi was definitely not 10 years old when we see him in chapter 345's flashback. His headband was already cut, meaning it was after the Uchiha massacre. If there is a conflict, I say we lean towards the more recent material.

He was an ANBU captain at the age of 13, and flipped out soon afterward. –Gunslinger47 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some would call it a plot hole, but Itachi would have to have been 11 years old when Orochimaru confronted Itachi and he cut off his hand in order for the timeline to work. Given the fact that Itachi already looked 16+ and had the scratch through his headband, the whole thing is most likely a mistake by Kishi. There are theories that Itachi had two headbands with one scratched and the other not, or that he transformed his headband when he was in Konoha after making the scratch, but that's all just speculation of course.

As for Itachi flipping out and killing the clan, the only way the timeline makes sense is that Itachi had some contact with Akatsuki when he was around 11 years old. Then when he was 13 he killed his clan and left to join Akatsuki permanently. The Splendiferous Gegiford 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember, though. Itachi could have joined Akatsuki after the meeting. If Hidan is the second newest member, I doubt he was at the meeting as well. So, yeah, Itachi was around 11 when the meeting happened, 13 when he left the village and joined Akatsuki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarkRyan75 (talk • contribs).

"Remember, though"? Rather than relying on memory, please look at the meeting in question before suggesting something so obviously wrong. :( Itachi is clearly recognizable and referenced by name during the meeting in episode 135 and chapter 238. –Gunslinger47 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just because he's there NOW doesn't mean he was 7 years ago. He could've replaced an old member during that time. DarkRyan75 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fact that Orochimaru tried to take Itachi's body when both were in Akatsuki, which would be at least 7 years ago and obviously before the meeting. ~Snapper T o 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Leader

(conversation moved to User talk:4.255.204.18#Leader)

Itachi: a taijutsu user?

I think he's correct. He once wielded a sword, and remember the scene where little Sasuke was watching Itachi practicing with kunai's. That I think is enough proof of significant taijutsu skills. Another thing, the night he killed his entire clan, he mutilated them using taijutsu, and not spamming amaterasu.

Another thing, when three members of the Uchiha speculated him as the murderer of his best friend, he unquestionably battled them using taijutsu. He did'nt used exploding bunshin, or Tsukuyomi, or pupil techniques, or other ninjutsu. They were clearly battered physically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.76.237 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

We never see the battles, so we cannot assume that. No god-moding Itachi unless proof exists. What you have is conjecture. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Itachi is a genius, excelling in all fields. This was stated as much in the series. He might have specialized in genjutsu or whatever at some point in his development, but we should not assume that he is lacking in any fields unless we're told otherwise. –Gunslinger47 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That we don't assume. We merely emphasize his use of the other two. Itachi's not much of a close-combat fighter unless he needs to be. Obviously, he'd be as skilled as any Jonin, perhaps moreso, but it's only noteworthy when you've got someone like Guy or the Hyuga clan. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

remember when he caught Sasuke's chidori? or the immense strength of his kicks and punches? how he kicked Kurenai(which was effortless by the way, yet Kurenai was knocked back probably a good 15 feet). I would like to make a comment on how he caught the chidori: the speed... reminds me of Mito Gai... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.209.86 (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Itachi is skilled in many areas. He isn't specifically a taijutsu user. We have seen him use both ninjutsu and genjutsu at a high level. Retlor 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

actually swor wielding is called kenjutsu--209.159.197.82 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IRL, yes, but in Naruto it would fall under taijutsu. --tjstrf talk 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

we have yet to see any prove of that stament since about no one in the narutoverse has been seen using a sword and i say we call it kenjutsu --jj15

Firstly Hayate, Baki, Zabuza, Suigetsu, Kisame, Sasuke, Orochimaru, Itachi and Kakashi have all been shown using some form of sword. Secondly kenjutsu is ONE form of sword fighting among many. Thirdly, the databooks list character stats by Ninjutsu, taijutsu, genjutsu, intelligence, speed, power, stamina and hand seal knowledge. Which of those do you thing sword fighting fits under? So I, and common sense, and the databooks say that we call it taijutsu. Retlor 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The 3rd power of Mangekyou sharingan: Susano - O?

in the ninjutsu list, other media, where's the technique that itachi uses which somehow is very similar to kakashi's when he attempted to cut deidera's head and devour the explosion? in naruto shippuuden, itachi, under tsukuyumi aura, can use the same technique(PS 2) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.76.237 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

That's genjutsu, every bit of it. No jutsu exists under that name. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

template

yo all, ik this is not akatsuki related but i was tryin 2 figure out what template gave the talk page the nice new location for the ToC as i am thinkin of incorporating it to another page i work on... thanks Ancientanubis, talk 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

{{skiptotoctalk}} — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

does this only work on talk pages or can it work on other pages also??? Ancientanubis, talk 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

it appears that it only adds the "skip to table of contents" box on top, im also trying to move it over to the side because i think that it may help with the large article that has 42 sections as it'd help make the article flow better instead of havein the summary, the HUGE ToC then the rest of the article.... Ancientanubis, talk 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

{| class="infobox" style="background: #F8EABA;"
| __TOC__
|}

i dont see that on the page up top tho... Ancientanubis, talk 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Naruto/Archives. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Zetsu's village

We might need to revisit this fact. He doesn't wear a headband period in the anime. At the very least, we'll need a better scan or something showing his headdband. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm... i've got all the manga burned on2 a disk somewhere around here... give me a min and i'll look....Ancientanubis, talk 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In volume 27, when Kakashi takes Naruto, you can roughly see his handband on his chest. It's alittle foggy, but it seems to be from the Grass village. [5] This is it, but I'll have to find a better quality version. DarkRyan75 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find a better quality image than that? I don't see a headband or any evidence thereof in that pic. --Pentasyllabic 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be that the anime never noticed, and hence didn't know to show his headband. It is equally possible that the image showing his headband was photoshopped and the accompanying explanation that his headband only appears in the tankōbon was a lie. In any event, the validity his headband will be seen in December when Viz's translation of volume 26 comes out, unless of course someone actually owns a Japanese copy of volume 26 and can tell us now. In the meantime, what to do about the article? ~Snapper T o 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In my copy of volume 26, the volume in question, you can indeed see something that appears to be a Kusagakure headband. It was also present in the original SJ version. However, bear in mind that in the Hero Book, Kishimoto claims that Zetsu's village of origin is still unknown and that this instance is the only time we see anything resembling a headband on Zetsu. --JadziaLover 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blast, it is 26; my volumes are off by a chapter. In any event, what would you say is the likelihood that it is actually the Kusagakure headband? If it seems questionable, then so too is saying that Zetsu is from Kusagakure. ~Snapper T o 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

well ya kno what, if ya look @ the pic ya see that he isn't wearin one there either.... well gang, i think we have a mystery on our hands.:P...Ancientanubis, talk 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that Kishimoto didn't intend for us to know Zetsu's village of origin (for certain) yet. Although the so-called headband in that frame might be a clue, it's 'officially' still unknown. JadziaLover 11:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why does it still say hes from the grass village well you'll probably never be able to change it with the way people act about edits --Zetsuie 19:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Auto-Unsigned -->

An answer to the Itachi main page questions

Well, I just thought of an answer to these constant pleads to make an Itachi article: We make it. But we don't post it anywhere on wikipedia except this discussion page right here. We constantly edit it until it has enough information for a wikipedia article, then put it elsewhere.

And judging by our last chapter, it seems that mabye it would be filled soon if we go along with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

So you're going to create a page solely based upon popular appeal? Read WP:NOT please. And after that, read the reasons that countless people have given in the above topics for why there shouldn't be a page for Itachi at the moment. Sephiroth BCR 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But, if I remember correctly, people said that once he was in the manga again, he would get his page. And if we put what he did in Part 1 and the current chapters, we would have a fairly long artical. And why would it be such a big deal? No one would force you to read the artical. There are plenty of small articals. 24.229.191.54 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring all speculation, his article would be: a short character outline, his extremely short time under the limelight, and his abilities. Not substantial, nor is it conclusive. His effect on the plot can be summarized in two sentences. Anything that other characters have done because of him is better addressed on that character's page. Admittingly, once this arc really gets going, there's a high chance there will be a host of more material, but that isn't the case right now. Sephiroth BCR 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we do this based on popularity, (to be honest I don't like him that much compared to Kabuto, Kakuzu, Shino, and Dosu) but because Itachi is one of the more importnat characters, especially now that Orochimaru died, which makes him the 'main villian' by default. (Kisame and Deidara, the only two others active enough in the series to be worthy of the title aren't very important, and the leader has yet to be identified. Sasuke and Team Snake could also get the title, though) If we put enough into the article, then we could later provide links to it. But we'll only know when he really does have a long enough article is if we make a 'test' article. Once it does have enough, we'll have it shown outside the Akatsuki discussion page.

First, when constructing new pages, you make a separate draft or your sandbox. Next, Itachi's motives and nature are so grounded in mystery that anything put there will be speculation. Assigning the title of "main villian" is arbitrary and an example of such speculation. If you want to attempt to make such a page, do it yourself in your sandbox, but until this arc provides more information, I highly doubt there will be enough for a substantial article. Sephiroth BCR 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok time to end this, look here please to answer your questions, that's why we have it. Sam ov the blue sand 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But there are plenty of other anime characters who have done even less of a role in their series than Itachi and they have articles. (Tenten, and from One Piece Axe-Hand Morgan, Monkey D. Dragon, and Darcule 'Hawkeye' Mihawk) If so, shouldn't Itachi have one too? And I do agree, he doesn't have as much a role in the series as he should, and somebody should put more effort into his article than copy/paste.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk • contribs).

That some One Piece characters who have done nothing get articles (Seriously, Ohm? What kind of awful joke is that?) does not have any influence on what Naruto characters get articles. As for Tenten and a few others, we're exploring the possibility of merging them elsewhere. ~Snapper T o 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the relevant criteria you're looking for here is Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the clamor for Itachi's page! I wonder when they'll realize that there's enough info about him to make an article? Moonwalkerwiz 07:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder when people will get it through their heads that, if they actually put more effort than a copy and paste into Itachi's article, he might actually have one. But no, I just seem to keep saying that and have yet to see any progress... ~Snapper T o 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually could write one up, but it'd be missing both sources and the character box thing. The second isn't a big deal, but the frist would have it deleted quickly unless, of course, someone else does that part. If I have permission and someone is willing to do the sources part, then I'll do it.

Also, considering how now every article is jsut about history, personality, and abilities, this means that Itachi can have an article, because he has enoguh for all three subjects.Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:25 (Eastern Standard Time), 19 May, 2007

Character stats of Uchiha Itachi

according to the data book, what are the character stats of Uchiha Itachi? please share... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.97.227.120 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

ya kno, that is a great question... i've kinda wanted to see one of the data books.... Ancientanubis, talk 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

itachi: a taijutsu user

where can I find the data book that you just said...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.97.227.120 (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC). also, look to the above topic about itachi bein a taijutsu user:)...Ancientanubis, talk 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Hidan to Former Members now?

It seems pretty clear to me that the Leader doesn't really have any interest in bringing back Hidan's head based on the latest chapter. He just says "They've both been killed" when asked about Hidan and Kakuzu. I don't think Hidan has any more use for Akatsuki. The Splendiferous Gegiford 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He's dead to Akatsuki now. We should move him --Count Mall 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hidan's status also be changed from "Incapacitated" to "Deceased"? The AL didn't mince any words. He didn't say he was defeated, but alive. Like the way many people thought. Nor did he say he was beyond help and couldn't be repaired. He said Kakuzu and Hidan were both dead. Unlike with Orochimaru, the Leader is in constant contact with his subordinates. So while you can argue that the Leader might not be able to give us a definitive word about Orochimaru, meaning he could still be alive, there can't be any question that he knows about Hidan's status. It seems it would be best to go with what canon tells us. Hidan is dead. Dunnlo 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Hidan is "dead", considering he is immortal. However, the Leader has no purpose for him anymore. He's definitely a former member now.Ikani87 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the leader doesn't really say Hidan is killed. He uses a verb that can mean anything from "being attacked" to "being wounded" to "being defeated" to "being killed". It's rather ambiguous, as expected of the situation. --JadziaLover 00:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the verb was lost in translation (which is unlikely, since the word and verb death//to die is not ambiguous from Japanese to English), I agree wholeheartedly in changing Hidan's status to dead. People of semantics will continue to argue this, but what you forget is how Naruto usually operates. If they claim he's "dead", or as people who feel it's lost in translation, "incapacitated", "lost", "wounded", "whatever", it's been addressed as of manga 353 that he is considered dead. As people brought up, what is canon is right, and not our speculation. Thus, it is in need of changing. 74.12.4.111 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Joe Caron

What I tried to explain before is that the leader didn't use the verb 'to die' (死ぬ). He used the verb 'to suffer damage, 'to be defeated' (やられる). Hidan isn't dead. He can't die. However, he is as good as dead and it's obvious the Akatsuki aren't planning on retrieving his body or anything. This still doesn't mean his status should be changed to deceased. --JadziaLover 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Zetsu

http://groups.msn.com/NarutoMangaReturns/vol27.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13547 http://groups.msn.com/NarutoMangaReturns/vol27.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=13548

On Zetsu first appearance, he is talking with his another personality, but looks like that the another personality is that eyes and month like in his chest...

No, he just speaks in two voices. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

changed

ok so i changed this:

The amount of chakra Kisame possesses is apparently very large, even by Akatsuki's standards. Their leader commented on this; a Kisame body-double at thirty-percent power – made with the leader's Shapeshifting Technique – had as much chakra as Naruto while drawing on demon fox's chakra when he fought Neji during the Chunin exams, an observation made by Neji Hyuga when he observed Kisame's body-double with his Byakugan.

to this:

The amount of chakra Kisame possesses is apparently very large, even by Akatsuki's standards. Their leader commented on this; a Kisame body-double at thirty-percent power – made with the leader's Shapeshifting Technique – had th most chakra neji has seen since naruto thus meaning that kisame has tons of chakra. because he didnt say that he had as much chakra as naruto did while drwing on the demon fox's chakra that's just speculation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackjohnson15 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't know. Your versions seems kind of poorly written. I mean, "kisame has tons of chakra?" There must be a better way to put that. 24.35.33.81 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tobis new apearence

um shouldent some one add what Tobi does in the newest chapter?

http://groups.msn.com/NarutoMangaReturns/chapter353mq.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41003 24.205.255.129 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pisses off Deidara? This is new? :) –Gunslinger47 17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We've found out when Itachi joined.

According to the most recent chapter of Naruto, Orochimaru left ten years ago, after the incident with Itachi, when both were members. With this information, we now know he joined at age 10, or possibly earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

its quite unusual for a 10 year old to join akatsuki. so this means that itachi was already an S - rank shinobi by that age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.208.57 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

thats impossible. Itachi is 5 years oler than Sasuke, and he left konoha when Sasuke was 8 years old, meaning Itachi must have been at least 13 when he joined Akatsuki.24.185.163.37 16:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think that Kishimoto might be confused. We knew this figure back in chapter 238 (episode 135) when they mention that it was seven years since the incident. As it's around three years later now, this number was confirmed in the recent chapter, 353. That said, the number doesn't mesh with everything else we know.

Most notably, when we see the flash-back to the incident in 345, we're not seeing a 10 year-old boy. We're seeing a guy visually near Sasuke's current age, possessing the mangekyo sharingan and a crossed out forehead protector.

Itachi was an ANBU captain prior to the murder/suicide of his best friend. This event is reportedly the prerequisite to attaining the mangekyo. He became an ANBU captain at the age of 13. He killed his clan, defected from Konoha and scratched his headband shortly afterward.

Now, ignoring the details of the flashback, we still have a problem. A 10 year-old Itachi wouldn't have the strength to take down Orochimaru. He became a chuunin at that age and didn't yet possess the mangekyo.

All details point to the incident occurring roughly 6 years ago. Not 10. –Gunslinger47 17:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Itachi was about 11 when he killed Shisui and gained the Mangekyō Sharingan. Sasuke had just received the reportcard of his first semester at the Academy, which he had entered half a year after Itachi had become a Chūnin. This would make Itachi 10 + 6 months + 6 months = 11 years at the time.

Also, in the flashback where Itachi and Orochimaru fight, Itachi's bangs are long. His bangs are the same length as in the beginning of the Uchiha flashback, but they are much shorter at the end, when Itachi massacres his clan at age 13. --JadziaLover 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode 84 seems to confirm that date. Sasuke says he's the same age as Itachi was when he graduated, 7 years, just shortly before the massacre. –Gunslinger47 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Kishi wouldn't make the same mistake twice. Itachi was definitely 10 or 11 when he joined Akatsuki and forced Orochimaru out. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. It still doesn't make complete sense, but we can't ignore it anymore now that it's been mentioned twice. –Gunslinger47 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it makes a difference, but we don't have to assume that Itachi left Konoha before joining Akatsuki. It's quite possible that he was working for Akatsuki long before he massacred his clan isn't it?Retlor 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's actually looking increasingly likely. –Gunslinger47

I know when Itachi Joined he was 15 when he joined Akatsuki. See if he was 15 years old it would make perfect sense because now sasuke is acting exactly like itachi was at 15. See like Tsunade and Sakura Tsunade became a medical-nin at 15 because her brother and lover died. And sakura is now exactly like Tsunade. that you guys have to beileve!Akatsuki0E 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really make sense in terms of the timeline.Retlor 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really just a speculation that uses other, most likely coincidental, similar instances.

Why don't we add this to the Itachi section?

There is quite some controversy over when Itachi joined Akatsuki. Although logically it appeared that Itachi joined Akatsuki after he killed the Uchiha Clan, Chapter 238 revealed that Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before the timeskip. Do to Orochimaru briefly mentioning that he left Akatsuki because of Itachi, this left several questions. Recently, in Sasuke's fight with Orochimaru, Orochimaru's flashback revealed that Itachi easily defeated him, which prompted Orochimaru's leaving and caused more mysteries over when he joined. In Chapter 353, after the timeskip, Kisame briefly mentions Orochimaru leaving Akatsuki ten years ago. With the following information, it can be assumed he joined at either 10 or 11, but whether he joined at that age or not has yet to be revealed.

This is only just stating the evidence, so it is acceptable for a Wikipedia article.Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 15:40 (Eastern Standard Time, 14 May 2007.

He could have joined Akatsuki before he killed the clan, acting like an agent for Akatsuki in Konoha or waiting for the right opportunity to kill the clan and become a real member.Jacce 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tobi, a former subordinate, doesn't wear the Akatsuki clothing until he became a member. All three agents shown haven't been shown wearing the uniform. Itachi was seen wearing thr uniform when he fought Orochimaru. And from other evidences pulled together, this is what we know: 'Itachi, at the age of 10 or 11, had gotten too much stronger than Orochimaru for him to take Itachi's body, so he left the organization after Itachi had cut off Orochimaru's hand'. And according to chapter 355, Orochimaru left 10 years ago. Itachi is either 20 or 21 right now, so that would be 10 or 11. Orochimaru has said it's because of Itachi he quit, and the flashback shows the exact moment that sparked his leaving. (The fight between the two) Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:55 (Eastern Standard Time), 18 May 2007.

yummy puppet

hi I was wondering waht chapter did Zetsu eat Sasoris dead body?

p.s shouldent some one add that to the article? 24.205.255.129 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.255.129 (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

That is never shown. Zetsu and Tobi recover Sasori's ring at the end of 280. –Gunslinger47 06:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)