Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Naruto's Rasengan

I've never seen the anime, but Naruto's Rasengan is yellow, as he has yellow chakra. The Kyuubi has red chakra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.21 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive never read the manga, but the rasengan (along with all of his chakra except the foxes) is blue, as you can see in the pictures. or are those gone? idk. Anyway, sombody fix all that vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

in the manga, all normal chakra is yellow, in the anime its blue--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Parents

In chapter 367, Namikaze Minato (Fourth Hokage) is confirmed as his father and that his mother is a kunoichi from the Whirlpool Country named Uzumaki Kushina.

I believe this was already mentioned above in Parentage. NinjaRooster 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They actually didn't confirm that the Fourth Hokage is his father, they merely implied such. Implying=/=confirming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Holy Ono (talk • contribs) 03:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick of people assuming Namikaze-san is his father, even though no solid evidence was given! For all we know, Jiraya could be his father. And also, i know 'kaze' is wind, but what does 'nami' mean? 88.110.144.196 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But...Tsunade said he looked a lot like his father, Minato. And, they said that the fourth Hokage is Minato. So, yeah, I think it should be mentioned that the Fourth Hokage is his father. And, they said that his mother was a red-head. Not that I believe this teory, but now, a lot of people will go on with the "PEIN IS NARUTO'S BROTHER!" talk. Oh the joy. NazaliaSan 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No she didn't! Tsunade said that he looked like Yondaime. AFTERWARDS, she said that he looked like his father. While it MIGHT mean Minato's the father, it could JUST AS WELL mean that Naruto looks like both Minato and his father! FallenAngelII 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's VERY HEAVILY implied in the latest chapter though. They said Naruto looked like the Yondaime while his personality was like his mother's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.15.73 (talk) 00:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

note: three weeks pass between the above comment and the following one. -G47

If any of you read Shippuden chapter 370, Jiraiya repeatedly claims that THE FOURTH IS NARUTO'S FATHER. So stop saying that he isn't. TinselTunes 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.190.99 (talk)

WHOOOOOOOOOOO! CHP 370 finally confirmed that the Fourth is Naruto's father! Yesssssss! Score one for all the people who thought the looks were too coincidental and spent time battling it out with non believers! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have ourselves some closure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.154.25 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Iam late to ask this but what happened to the plot overview for naruto and why the shippuuden plot removed.

Take the confetti to a fan site. :) At Wikipedia, we have a responsibility towards Wikipedia:Verifiability. Of course everyone knew that the Fourth was Naruto's father from the first chapter of the manga, but not mentioning it in any Wikipedia articles until there was confirmation was the proper course of action. –Gunslinger47 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys should the spam out of here and show some evidence sure I believe the 4th is probably his father but there is still no evidence and I noticed the one say that the 4th is naruto's father are immature and don't even sign their posts Shroudnin (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you not read the manga? Both chapter 367, pages 10-13 and chapter 370, page 13 pretty much say outright that Naruto is the Fourth Hokage's son. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, whole-heartedly. That page from Chap. 370 absolutely confirms Naruto's paternal parentage. 367 did so as well, but for those who want to constantly be naysayers, this clinches it. DestradoZero 08:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only does Chapters 367 and 370 confirm it, but Chap. 382 actually shows the Fourth Hokage and Kushina Uzumaki as his parents.

Abilites similar too...

Tsunade and Jiraya, note that Naruto's fighting style(and personality) is similar to his mothers. Would it not make sense to at least mention this in the abilities section?74.226.75.69 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Naruto Namikaze?

Since Naruto's father's name is Minato Namikaze, shouldn't we refer Naruto as Naruto Namikaze? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.80.93 (talk) 22:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No. From what it looks like, Naruto was either the bastard child of the Fourth and Uzumaki, or they kept his last name Uzumaki so he wouldn't know he was related to the Fourth. Regardless, Naruto, the characters in the show, and the series at large refer to him as Uzumaki Naruto, and as such so do we.--TheUltimate3 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He is much better known as Naruto Uzumaki and unless the name Namikaze becomes used on regular basis at most all we need is a brief mention of the name. --69.156.206.142 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It can easily be a cultural thing, like the married couple takes up the name of the female side of family. Uzumaki was Kishimoto-san's intention, and it will remain so, unless stated otherwise by the creator himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubtiger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NO!..NO!NO!NO!If you remember an episode when the third hokage was fighting orochimaru you can see naruto as a baby and someone was holding him?Im not saying that it was his mother 100%.Im just saying that he has uzumaki because his mother lived a bit longer than minato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.214.162 (talk) 07:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Isn't name is far from being published in the US? Anyway I can site chapter one for Naruto's last name: Uzumaki. Its been like that since the beginning.Anthonzi 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was probably just something that happened before his parents were married, so at birth he was just given his mother's surname. Cause didn't Sasuke (or someone) say that he's been alone his whole life? his mother most likely died during the attack and someone took care of him or she lived a few years longer then died, leaving Naruto to be taken care of by someone else/other people. Alexyasha 07:50 pm, september 1, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyasha (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect... JUST DROP IT!!! His official character name is Uzumaki, so there. Besides, when you think about it, it doesn't really matter what his name is. Sorry for being Shakespearish, but, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". In-U-Face 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation:He was given the name Uzumaki because, assuming that the Fourth was his father, if he were given the name of a Hokage, surely people would attempt to try and kill him.

Plus, Uzumaki just sounds cooler than Namikaze. 71.53.82.182 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If he had his fathers name, there still wouldn't be any other "reliable" source to connect thier relationship. Just having Namikazi as a last name wouldn't bring about countless assassins. And if, for reasons unknown, assassins could make that connection, wouldn't the people of Konoha also make that connection? If that were the case, he'd most likely be protected.

Besides, when do you here about Konohamaru being killed off?[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]] 23:20, 10 November 2007

Abilities error

Erm... sorry to point this out, but in Naruto's abilities section, it says: "Naruto cannot achieve this when he first learned it". I don't have an account, so i can't change it. Could someone do that? tnx. 88.110.144.196 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the plot overview removed?68.248.194.118 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Minato and Naruto

It has yet to be specifically stated that Naruto is indeed Minato's son. It's been danced around a few times in chapter 377, it is stated:

• "The resemblance [between Naruto and Minato] is undeniable"
• "Naruto's personality resembles that of his mother's, though"
• "Naruto resembles his father more than his mother when it comes to his appearance"

Because of this, we shouldn't state that Minato is Naruto's father (just yet).

If allowed, I'll edit out all mentions of the parentage later today. ~FallenAngelII 17:53, 28 August 2007 (GMT+1)

you call that danced around? Thats basically saying "Yes, the Fourth his the father."--TheUltimate3 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was never stated that Minato is his father. They might as well have been discussing three different people, all three of which Naruto resembles. Also, we only know what we know through a translation. According to HisshouBuraiKen, the original text is vague and dances around the subject. ~FallenAngelII —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs) 17:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it was. A sharp reader such as yourself doesn't need to cling on outwardly stating that's his father. Denied your reverts unless you come up with better judgement.--ChibiMrBubbles 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NO IT WASN'T. It was danced around! A fact does not become a fact until it's clearly stated or proven! Dancing around the matter and using strange wording is not stating it clearly! The burden of evidence falls on YOUR side of the argument, not MINE because unless you can prove that it's true (other than with strangely worded conversations that could mean a lot of things), it is not yet a FACT but only SPECULATION and as such does not belong on Wikipedia. FallenAngelII —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs) 17:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I call that "Denying the obvious." cause similar to the whole Tobi/Madara thing, they pretty much said "the Fourth is the father". But whatever deny away I've got more important things to worry about. I'll let the others handle it.--TheUltimate3 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same thing as the Tobi/Madara thing. What Tobi said in Japanese can ONLY mean that he's talking about his own power being Uchiha Madara's power ("My, Uchiha Madara's power"), not anyone else's. So either he's himself Madara or he wields the exact same power as Madara once did. There, the way the sentence built cemented what it means. Here, the way the sentences are built are ambiguous (on purpose). While I no longer have a strong foundation to base my disbelief in this theory and I'm not deny that it's being heavily implied, it is not said directly and danced around. ~FallenAngelII —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs) 18:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Claim that all you want, it doesn't make your position any less nonsense. The Fourth is his father. The conversation is explicit about that. You just don't want to accept it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless they literally say "Minato is Naruto's father" they did not confirm it. They only hinted at it strongly. Accept it.Lord Holy Ono —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Holy Ono (talk • contribs) 21:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

They did literally say it. You just didn't listen. Jiraiya thinks of Fourth as son, which makes Naruto his grandson. Naruto = Fourth's son, plain and simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They never literally say "Kurenai is pregnant with Asuma's child". They only hint at it strongly. Does that mean you are going to suggest she was seeing someone else in secret while she was seeing Asuma in semi-secret? ~SnapperTo 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally impartial disinterested opinion. Hi, gang. I've just blocked your edit-warriors, so I'm hoping that among you you can come up with a good consensus before they return. For whatever it's worth, here's what I think, and bear in mind that I've never watched or read Naruto. If the parenthood is strongly hinted but not actually stated, I think that's how it should be phrased- that parenthood is implied. See Xena and her never-quite-stated lesbianism for an example of a similar fictional character. If, on the other hand, the source does clearly state that Jiraiya is Fourth's father, and as clearly states that Jiraiya is Naruto's grandfather... that still doesn't add up to a clear statement that Fourth is Naruto's father, unless it is also clearly stated that Fourth is Jiraiya's only son. That's just my totally disinterested opinion, but I have faith that y'all will come up with a perfect phrasing that makes everyone happy. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I stated in the edit if someone doesn't like it I'm not going to play the revert game. I think my edit is adequate and is a fitting compromise to both parties.--ChibiMrBubbles 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)--ChibiMrBubbles 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate that full protection was the result, but this can be resolved anyhow. ChibiMrBubbles' version is fine at the moment as a compromise between the two parties. We can wait for a more definite scan, or a future chapter before making another decision, but I endorse this current revision to lift the protection, and I hope a consensus can be garnered in favor. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What MrChibiBubbles added as a "compromise" is almost identical to how I phrased it. I'm happy with the current phrasing, as it was how I wanted it from the beginning, except that it still says that Minato is his father in "Relatives". Please edit Minato out of that. NOW; could someone go to the List of Konoha Ninja page and edit in the same type of compromise? The people there keep definitely stating that they're father-and-son and I don't want to carry on the war. Point them towards this talk page. As it stands now, Minato's article says they're father and son while Naruto's says it's heavily implied. --FallenAngelII 13:33, 30 August 2007 (GMT+1)

Because they are. It's made quite clear. I'm of the opinion that even "heavily implied" is underscoring the fact. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask. There is a division of views, and I think that unless they literally say the exact words "Minato is Naruto's father" in no uncertain terms, making it perfectly clear so that there can be no one whatsoever who questions it, it should not be called confirmation. His royal majesty, Lord Holy Ono —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Holy Ono (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if I want to argue against the idea that Asuma is the father of Kurenai's child, we should throw common sense to the wind and say it isn't clear? ~SnapperTo 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Asuma and Kurenai had a child is irrelevant, as is whether or not Naruto is Minato's son. There's a pretty good chance that they did and that he is but the problem here is whether or not it was confirmed, which, in the latter case at least, it was not. You can say what you want but the fact remains that "he reminds me of his father" is not 100% clear. "Naruto is Minato's son" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Holy Ono (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So then you intend on adding an uncertain tone to Kurenai and Asuma's entries as has been done to Naruto and Minato? ~SnapperTo 23:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly give a flying frick about Asuma and Kurenai, you can put that they were really Captain America and Iron Man in disguise all along for all I care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Holy Ono (talk • contribs) 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't concerned about communicating uncertainties, why fuss over Naruto and the Fourth? ~SnapperTo 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll summarize: That's just the kind of person I am.

• sighs* you guys are just overreacting, then its annoying how the author never directly states that Naruto is the Forth's son. If he did then we could all just stop this never ending argument. Till then we kind of just gotta suck it up and realize that theres still a chance and nothing more. Alexyasha 8:03 pm, September —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyasha (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A good example of why it is not final just because it's heavily implied: Anyone remember the Asuma <-> Konohamaru connection? For years, it was just assumed as a fact that they were father and son. But it turns out Asuma's Konohamaru's uncle. Minato might be Naruto's father. Minato might be Naruto's brother. Minato might be Naruto's parents' dog walker. As long as it's not explicitly stated to no uncertain terms, it's just heavily implied (if anything). ~FallenAngelII 14:59, 7 August 2007 (GMT+1)

That's just about the dumbest comparison I've ever heard. Asuma is never even hinted to be related to Konohamaru. Use accurate comparisons if you're going to do it at all, because that was just a long non-sequitor. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you can do with this because I don't quite believe it myself, but one of my college buddies said that Naruto is not Minato's son, it was just that the resemblance was pasted on Naruto by Kyuubi, as a way for Kyuubi to get revenge on Minato for ealing him up. Again, my source is not exactly a good one, you know how those friend-of-a-friend-of-the-author things work, but here it is. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... this relates to this conversation how? See WP:CBALL. Let us end this discussion on the term that Minato bears a strong resemblance to Naruto, and wait for subsequent chapters to determine if they are related or not. σмgнgσмg 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The current chapter confirms it 100% (Chapter 382, pages 9 and 10). Page 9 - Minato names Naruto after the main character in an early novel of Jiraiya's. Page 10 - Minato and Kushina are on the same page, with Kushina actually confirming the name to be Naruto. DestradoZero 06:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I have fully protected this page for one month. I expect that this time will be used to come to a compromise. I am personally very disheartened by some of the edit summaries that have been left on this article, and implore the parties to come to a compromise. When you do, please use {{editprotect}} to request changes. - Philippe | Talk 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please edit out the part where it says "Relatives" and lists Minato Namikaze as Naruto's father? FallenAngelII —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs) 17:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, so why does the lock say semi? I was getting frustrated to hell haha.Anthonzi 06:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know the feeling, i tried to edit the page and it led me to an copy page and i was totally lost. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyasha (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

death

Naruto dies in movie 4, shouldn't there be so measion of his passing here? Kanga-Kucha august 30 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.108.175 (talk) 20:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

If what I've heard is true the death depicted was actually some chick's vision of the future, Naruto then proceeds to defy destiny and survive. Again, this is just what I've heard as I have yet to actually see the movie. :P His royal majesty, Lord Holy Ono 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be more concerned with what's going on in the English version of the series? If people want to know about the latest Naruto stuff, shouldn't they read the Japanese article?Anthonzi 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why we got rid of the vast majority of plot. Some things can't be helped, for the sake of completion. Aside from that, we need to be as complete as we can. You Can't Review Me!!! 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The movies are complete filler and there are articles for them. We're not gonna add everything that happens in filler in the character-specific articles because that would take ages and include really stupid stuff ("Naruto can now throw the Rasengan"). 2) I don't understand why the articles have to be conformed for English viewers/readers. They're behind, and? Everything has to be conformed for the Americans (and to a lesser extent the rest of the English-speaking world). When American shows have been aired in the US, people add all of the plot summary to Wikipedia because they've aired in the country of origin. Well, the CoO here is Japan. So why should we care how behind the US is? Make it as complete as the summary of any article regardless of how many years (5?) behind the US is. FallenAngelII 12:28, 31 August 2007 (GMT+1)

Movies are complete filler (Its clear watching the intro of the last three episodes to know that Naruto does not die) and as such shouldn't in all fairness be added to the article. Also, almost none of the articles conform us Americans needs. If I was an average U.S. Narutard and came online I would see spoilers all over the place. The reason we got rid of the plot was because having plot in it gave all the Naruto articles less room to stay, made them easy targets from what I could gather.--TheUltimate3 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The movies are fillers and thats why he probably won't die in the movie. Then if you make the Naruto page at the point of the American manga/anime, then we'd have to change the bleach page, the claymore page and a million other pages. (Can't just pick on Naruto, can we?) I think the only anime we don't have to worry about is ghost in the shell and Ranma 1/2. Then don't forget that all the americans that are at the point of the japanese naruto are going to be agruing with the japanese about their pages being wrong. Personally, I see it as a complete waste of time that'd just cause uncontrollable problems, leading to the japanese page being in part english and part second grade level japanese. ~Alexyasha 8:29 pm, september —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyasha (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the article should be cleaned up to look like a respectable article. Focusing on the english versions would make that much easier.Anthonzi 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How would it be easier? It'd just create more of a workload as more of the English version gets air. In a few years, it'd still be the same. The best way to clean up the article would be to actually just do it. Tighten down on information given, use smaller words and shorter ways of saying things. FallenAngelII 10:58, 10 September 2007 (GMT+1)

Article Lock

Can someone tell me why I can't edit this article under my account? The lock says its a semi-lock so anyone with a longstanding account should be able to edit it.Anthonzi 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected by an administrator due to recent edit warring, and the rather uncivil edit summaries that came with them. As such, no one except an administrator can edit the article as of now. See above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw it.Anthonzi 06:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just what were the conflicts, BTW? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, people kept comming in and debating if the Fourth was really Naruto's father, and instead of doing it in the Talk Page, they instead did it through edit warring.--TheUltimate3 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

.....They apparently haven't read chapter 367, or this was before they released that chapter. He's Naruto's father as much as Tobi is Madara, simple as that. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's just the problem. Most admins have not read that section of the manga. Plus, it is only implied that Minato is Naruto's father. It could be that Naruto just looks like Minato because that's the last person that Kyuubi saw before he got sealed. You never know until it is confirmed.ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, there is a disagreement over whether the manga explicity stated that Minato is Naruto's father(which it didn't) or whether it heavily implied such(which it did).71.53.82.182 22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But Minato is Naruto's father! Halstrom 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We figured that out in the nine days between 71.53.82.182's post and yours. You Can't Review Me!!! 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of Primary Sources

Plenty of articles have a lack of sources, but this is the first I've seen that has more than it should, well at least the wrong ones. This article relies entirely on Primary Sources which makes this article a hot bed of Original Research. For example the article claims that "Naruto's most dangerous trait is his ability to draw chakra from the demon fox", who is saying that and how is it encyclopedic? I'm not arguing that Naruto lacks Notability, but is there any way that we can find some more secondary sources for this article? Burzmali 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure a number could be found. At the moment, however, nobody can edit the article to add them. ~SnapperTo 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then list them here and an admin can add them. Burzmali 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary sources will have to do for now. Any source is better than none at all. Once we search through the internet to find episode reviews and such, we'll be able to add them (the parts of the series that relate to parts of Shippuden that have yet to be shown in the anime, however, will just have to deal with being primarily sourced). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed: Minato Namikaze is Naruto's father

Confirmed in Chapter 370 (Mangahelper's Naruto 370 Spoiler Pics and Summaries - BEWARE SPOILERS), by at least 3 [major] translators.

Dispute resolved, may we move on? --ren 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page unprotected and entry changed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New chapter

its confirmed about the 4th, so thats over. in the latest chapter, jiraiya makes significant statements about the kyuubi's sealing, and about the "key" to it as well as madara possibly summoning the kyuubi. look it up. could someone please add the this article all relevant developments? and other non-relevant information goes to other articles i suppose.N Dot W 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it would also seem by a few translations that NAruto only holds a portion of the demon fox's chakra. that bit is a bit confusing for me to be able to write and rewrite sectins about it, but i think it important to note that he doesn't have the whole demon fox inside him if that is the correct implication. someone with real good writing skills should probably look into fixing that tidbit since we are now missing a part of the demon fox chakra if only half of it is within Naruto. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed. its too vague to properly understand just what it means by splitting up the chakra. i think all of the kyuubi is in naruto, but just that the chakra is split up. in any case, i think its better to just make a mention, such as "jiraiya mentioned that the 4th intentionally split the kyuubi's chakra in two and only sealed the yin chakra with the shiki fuujin, sealing the yang into naruto". something along those lines. i think that will do until we learn more about yin yang chakra, and kakashi does state there is something to it.N Dot W 03:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the yang chakra is in that toad staff because its the "key" to the kyubbi fox's seal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.126.2 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what they're saying, is that Minato cut the Kyuubi's chakra in half, one half went to the death god/reaper, and the other half went into Naruto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.68.46 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at it like this the Yin and Yang chakra are two parts of one intity so if the demon fox spirit is inside Naruto then it logically makes sense that both are in Naruto. As to being seperated this could be so to give the abilitry to at least try to stay in controll of the fox. Even though he is the container he may not have access to both parts of the chakra because if the fox were take controll then Naruto would be able to controll it to some extent. And it shows that the more he uses the demon fox chakra the more he can controll it so basically I am saying that the two parts of the chakra are seperated to work as a limiter on what the demon fox can do through Naruto. Also to further progress my point look at the four tails cloak, Jaraiya says i this form Naruto looks like a miniature demon fox. It can also stand to be assumed that the fox has dominant controll but not complete controll of Naruto so it cannot have access to its full chakra because if it did then it would be able to completely take over naruto and use his body to transform into its full self.

Another point is that this seperation could be a normal part of making a Jinchuriki. G is ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.215.5.244 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Naruto's Manners pertaining to people

We mention that Naruto is very blunt, showing respect in a different way. He calls Tsunade "Granny", not only to jab at her age, but it's also a sign of closeness. This is actually one of the motifs in the show - after Naruto's change (wherein he is able to make friends, regardless of who the person is) Naruto gains the ability to befriend just about anyone: Gaara, Neji, even Tsunade. His affection is shown in his names - His affection for Tsunade in particular is reflected in how he calls her as well. Something of the sort should be added to the article, reflecting on his calling Tsunade (which is a microcosm of how he addresses everyone else) baachan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.11.152 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add a section like that if you'd like, but keep in mind our Wikipedia:No original research policy. –Gunslinger47 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

??

Here's a question from a wikipedia/naruto fan, why is the plot summery about naruto removed? The other characters still their's, so why is the summery of event surrounding Naruto not around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.67.168 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why was the summary of the events for Naruto deleted in the first place? Halstrom 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability and copyright violation problems. There is no way an article retelling the plot of Naruto will ever meet the notability guidelines for fiction, which asks for an article to talk about the real-world notability of the subject; and the detail of those plot summaries were making them replacements for reading the manga or watching the anime, which are copyright violations and thus are not allowed on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see here and here for the full AFDs, complete with arguments for and against their deletion. As for why Naruto does not have any plot details on his own page: the plot more-or-less revolves around him, which makes it hard to do a plot overview without making another Plot of Naruto article. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

so shouldnt that mean the bleach summaries should be deleted (not that i want them to)Threatening force 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Editors often stick to several specific franchises at a time, so asking here about what to do with Bleach isn't too effective. I do believe, though, that there are quite a few Bleach Task Force members in the Naruto Task Force; perhaps they can help you with that? You Can't See Me! 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Threatening force, it was judged by the Bleach task force that the plot is to be shortened. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

?

Why, at the end of the page, does it say "my ass". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemonaruto123 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I don't see that anywhere in recent page history... You Can't Review Me!!! 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's apparently an ass worthy of narration. Seriously, though, it's just vandalism. It's cleared. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One tailed picture

I have a problem with that new picture in his fox form. I think we should wait until a better one comes out before changing it. In this new one, you can't see his face at all, just his back.Darth G 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected it. Clear your cache. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And that means what exactly?Darth G 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's fixed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Demon Fox Cloak

stop reverting info about the "Demon Fox Cloak" it is real--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a term made up by the anime that you did a p[oor job of trying to integrate into the article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Naruto Pictures

Why are we using the pre-time skip pictures of the characters in their profiles? I think we should use newer ones. Naruto doesn't look like that anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.55.226 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should use post time skip pics as thats how the character lookes. Nuff said./// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.146.111 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Because for all intensive purposes, Part II and Shippuuden are "spin offs" of Part I. Because its standard practice to use the main (a.k.a. Part I) series, we have pre-time skip Naruto and other characters.--TheUltimate3 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries are ideally written from an absolute perspective, outside of the Naruto universe and outside of Naruto fandom. Naruto is a fictional character, and his younger appearance is the most globally recognizable. –Gunslinger47 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

question

do only jiraya and tsunade know that naruto is minatos son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.55.7 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All the adults from Konoha who lived through the Kyuubi disaster should know, theoretically. –Gunslinger47 02:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Im still finding it odd that nobody managed to slip that he was the fox in the first place, so that whole plot hole is pretty confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

From Deathlive1, if The 4th Hokage used the same technique as the 3rd, wouldn't The fox-demon have died?

Naruto Uzumaki and the Yang chakra

I edited this entry the other day to correct it. Naruto has the Yang chakra of the demon fox contained within him. Minato, his father separated it from the Yin chakra and sealed the Yin chakra within himself, leaving the Yang chakra as an "inheritance" for Naruto. The pervy hermit talks about it with the frog in chapter 370 of the shippuuden manga after questioning a captured ninja before the fight with Pain. Buttcheeks 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jiraiya mentions that only part of the Kyuubi was bound to Naruto. We don't need to change the phrasing in every article to account for this. Saying the Kyuubi was sealed within Naruto is still accurate enough. There should be a small mention of it in the appropriate section until we know more details. –Gunslinger47 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Every translation at MangaHelpers indicates that only the yang chakra was sealed within Naruto, and Minato sealed away the yin with the same seal the third used on Orrochimaru's arms. Chapter 370 of the manga discusses this in great detail. If you think about it logically it makes sense. If the demon fox's chakra is near limitless, and Naruto had complete access to the Yang chakra he'd be unstoppable. This isn't the case, so one can presume that the Yang chakra is stored within Naruto and the seal keeps it contained so that it won't overwhelm Naruto. Buttcheeks 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that in every instance of that conversation, they speak of the fox as a singular entity within Naruto, not two different things in two different places. Plus, having half a piece of chakra doesn't make chakra. When they mix, he gets both, and having only half sealed keeps the evil Kyubi from affecting him. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In every instance in chapter 370 they refer to it as "the demon fox's chakra" because the Yang half IS the demon fox's chakra. The chapter specifically mentions that the frog is the key to the eight trigrams seal on Naruto's stomach, and that Jiriaya messed with the four symbols seal (The Hakke and shishou fuuins). Jiriaya HIMSELF also says that Minato Sealed the Yin chakra with the shiki fuuin. We all know that Shiki fuuin seals whatever its sealing in the users body, this can be seen when the third used it on orrochimaru's arms. Knowing all this, the only thing that can be deduced is that the fourth, Minato Naruto's father, used the Hakke and shishou Fuuins to seal the Yang chakra inside Naruto after separating it from the yin chakra. Then sealed the Yin chakra within himself. Every translation on Mangahelpers coo berates this hypothesis. Buttcheeks 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As you interpret it, but you're focusing on the Yin and the Yang to the exclusion of everything else. If he didn't have the whole thing, the fox escaping wouldn't be an issue. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Theres no interpretation involed. Jiraiya says plainly that Minato separated the Yin from the yang, sealed the Yin with the shiki fuuin(which seals whatever its sealing within the user) and sealed the yang within Naruto. The seal on naruto being released prematurely would be disasterous because Naruto wouldn't be able to control it, and he'd have complete access to half of the near limitless amount of chakra. The four tailed state is tremendously powerful and uncontrolled, and theres still 5 more tails to go. Buttcheeks 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming irritating to argue this on two fronts. Let's keep the discussion here so others can throw in. As I said before, several times on your page, they say the fox is sealed within him in the same chapter, right after their conversation about the Yin/Yang. Read two more pages past before continuing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this interpretation is that it would require Naruto to not have the symbol of the Shiki Fūjin on his stomach, which he does. The large swirl pattern that is evident on Naruto's stomach is present on all three of the Third Hokage's bodies after they perform the seal. Given that the Third did not use the two additional seals during that battle, the swirl and some of the surrounding graffiti is a sign of the Shiki Fūjin. ~SnapperTo 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at naruto's seal (the first link) its different than the shiki fuuin seal (in the second link). Naruto's seal is Not the shiki fuuin seal. Its the hakke and shishou fuuin seals.

http://groups.msn.com/NarutoMangaReturns/rvolume11.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=31690

http://groups.msn.com/NarutoMangaReturns/rvolume14.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=38166

Buttcheeks 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The swirl and the surrounding marks are never the same, even on Naruto's body. Kishimoto only pays attention to the fact that the swirl is there and that there are fancy symbols surrounding it. The finer details are always inconsistent. ~SnapperTo 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To prove my point, compare this and this. The swirls aren't even going in the same direction, yet they are undoubtedly the same seal. ~SnapperTo 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How they look isn't important. They're called different things for a purpose. If they were the same kind of seal they'd be called the same name. Naruto's seal is refered to as the hakke fuuin(consistently throughout the series) and NOT the shiki fuuin. Admittedly it does look a lot like the shiki fuuin seal, but then again, if you look at the fire suppression seal, and the evil suppression seal etc they all look a lot alike. Buttcheeks 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, it's two different seals which combine to form a singular one. Hakke is just one part of it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Seal on Naruto is not the shiki fuuin. Its never refered to as the shiki fuuin. When ever it is mentioned its called the Hakke fuuin and the shishou fuuin. Jiraiya himself says the yang is sealed in Naruto with the Hakke and shishou fuuins, and that Minato sealed the Yin with the Shiki fuuin. If the Hakke fuuin (which naruto's seal is always referred to as) is the same as the shiki fuuin, then why did he make the distinction in chapter 370? Why not just say the yin was sealed with the hakke + shishou as well. He didn't because they're different seals. Buttcheeks 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And this is where your argument becomes complete bunk. He did not seal the chakra "in" the shiki fuuin, he sealed it "using" the shiki fuuin. The shiki fuuin is a technique, not a seal in and of itself. You're misdefining terms in an effort to prove your point. The seal on Naruto's stomach is the seal created by the technique. He has both parts, and no amount of harping on two or three pages will change that fact. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, The shiki fuuin is a sealing method just like the hakke fuuin is a sealing method. The shiki fuuin seals whatever its sealing within the user. This is shown when the third seals the first and the second's "spirits" in his clones, and orochimaru's arms in himself. One of the "biggest" confusions is about how naruto got the fox in him, I assumed Naruto had it sealed within him with the shiki fuuin too, but the fact that the shiki fuuin kills its user confused me. Before we knew Minato was naruto's father It had been suggested that naruto was the fourth, but ressurected after using the shiki fuuin. (an explaination as to why the fox was sealed within naruto, naruto being an orphan, and the assumption that the shiki fuuin was used to seal the fox). The fact that the chakra was divided into yang and yin, and the fact that different seals were used to seal each type clears up any confusion as to why Naruto is still alive and why the fourth is dead. The fourth used the Hakke and shishou fuuin to seal the yang chakra (allowing it to leak and mix with naruto's chakra) and sealed the yin chakra within himself with the shiki fuuin, sacrificing his life in the process. Buttcheeks 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It never says he sealed it within himself. That is your original research. He sealed the fox within Naruto. This is made clear. Every instance he's mention, every time the seal's brought up, that is how it's explained. Until you can provide evidence, not your opinion, that the Fourth sealed it within himself, stop making up these long reasoning chains in an attempt to make yourself right. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The only time we ever see the shiki fuuin in use whats being sealed is sealed within the sealer. 3 separate instances. The first's spirit is sealed, the second's spirit is sealed, and Orochimaru's arms are sealed. In all 3 cases the thing being sealed is sealed in the sealer. Its stated that Minato used the shiki fuuin to seal the Yin chakra of the demon fox. Empirically speaking, based on the evidence it would suggest that the demon fox's yin chakra was sealed in Minato, Since the shiki fuuin seals whatever is being sealed in the sealer, and that the shiki fuuin was used to seal the yin chakra. Nothing about this is original research, its not "long reasoning chains". Its a few simple facts. Shiki fuuin seals whatever is being sealed within the user, the yin chakra was sealed by Minato, therefore the yin chakra was sealed within Minato.Buttcheeks 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's drawing a conclusion based on your own interpretation of facts: original research. He sealed it in Naruto. This is stated outright in every single instance. Nothing went to him. I will tell you again, find a passage saying outright that half went inside Minato and you have an argument. Right now, you're just making up your own ideas and claiming them as facts. The seal is on Naruto: same design, same source, same everything. 00:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We still debate endlessly about in-universe topics? *Sigh* In any case, for all parties - the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Whoever can cite their argument wins. Everything else is construed as original research. Anyway, can people comment at the FLC nomination for List of Naruto chapters (Part I)? It's been sitting there for way more than ten days now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Dead Demon Consuming Seal (屍鬼封尽, Shiki Fūjin?, English "Reaper Death Seal") is a seal created by the Fourth Hokage that invokes the powers of the death god (shinigami, dubbed "reaper" in the English version). Once called upon, the death god hovers behind the user and remains invisible to the opponent until it has grasped their soul. Once summoned, the death god reaches its arm into the summoner, signifying the hold it has upon their soul. After the sealing is completed the death god consumes the user's soul almost immediately. Once a soul has been eaten by the death god it resides within the god's stomach, destined to do battle with its fellow souls for all eternity."

This is the first bit taken from the wikipedia article, the rest of the article is speculation that suggests it was used to seal the fox inside Naruto. I don't think it was ever stated in the manga that the shiki fuuin was used to seal the fox in Naruto. Though it is said that the seal on Naruto is the Hakke fuuin and the shishou fuuin. In chapter 370, in several translations it says Minato sealed the Yin chakra with the shiki fuuin. It also states that he separated the Yang chakra and SEALED it within Naruto.

http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18265

"Jiraiya: Minato had no choice but to use the Dead Demon Seal to contain the Nine-Tails' evil chakra.

Page 13: Jiraiya: He went so far as to separate its chakra into light and dark halves, and only sealed the light half inside Naruto."

light = yang dark = yin

http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18284

"Jiraiya: Minato only sealed the Kyuubi's dark chakra with the Shiki Fuujin. [TN: "Shiki Fuujin" = "Dead Demon Seal"]

13 Jiraiya: Minato made sure to separate the Kyuubi's chakra into yin and yang. // The sole reason for sealing the "yang" half into Naruto was so that Naruto could possess the Kyuubi's chakra."

http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18339

"Jiraiya: It was only the Kyuubi's Yin chakra Minato sealed through Shikifuujin.

Page 13. Jiraiya: The reason he took the trouble to split the Kyuubi's power into Yin and Yang... Jiraiya: And seal the Yang side in Naruto, was because he wanted him to have it. "

http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18266

"Frame 4:Minato only sealed the Nine-tails Yin chakra using the Shiki Fuujin**. (**ShikiFuujin is the death-god sealing jutsu used, for instance, by the Third in the fight with Orochimaru)

Page 13

Frame 1: The very reason Minato went to the trouble of splitting the Nine-tails chakra into two, only sealing the Yang chakra into Naruto, was so that he could leave it for Naruto."

Buttcheeks 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't proved anything. You're only repeating yourself in an effort to wear out the other side. The seal is on Naruto There's only the one seal. One for the Yin, one for the Yang, and both in the same place. There is no proof that Minato took half with him, and even less that it's anywhere else but on Naruto. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The fox was sealed with the Shiki Fūjin. The symbol on the Third's stomach is identical to the one on Naruto's stomach because they are remnants of the same seal. Don't dismiss visual proof to support a theory. ~SnapperTo 02:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The fire suppression seal looks a lot like the shiki fuuin and naruto's seal (but more like Narutos). You don't claim that is the shiki fuuin, because you know its the fire suppression seal. Why? because it says its the fire suppression seal. How do I know that Naruto's seal isn't the shiki fuuin? Because Jiriaya says its the Hakke fuuin and the Shishou fuuin. Knowing how the Shiki fuuin works even dismisses the idea that Naruto had the fox sealed in him with the shiki fuuin, because it seals whats being sealed in the user. How do we know that? Because each time we saw it in use, it sealed something inside the user. The seal was on the 3rd or the 3rd's clones. The arm of the shingami goes through the user, and pulls whats being sealed into the user etc. If the shiki fuuin was used to seal the fox into naruto then HOW did it happen? It doesn't make sense that way. What does make sense is what the manga says. Minato separated the yin and yang chakra of the fox. He sealed the Yang chakra in Naruto with the Hakke fuuin and the Shishou fuuin, then sealed the Yin with the shiki fuuin in himself, then died. "where is the yin chakra then?!" In the shingami's stomach fighting with the soul of Minato for all eternity.

Show me where in the Manga it says the fox was sealed with the shiki fuuin and then I'll stop.Buttcheeks 13:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we'll just have you blocked for edit warring. Either works. The burden of proof lies on you. We have our proof. The seal is on his stomach. It is you who is making up theories that it is a somehow identical looking yet completely different seal. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (WP:POINT) Regarding your point, it is reasonable, but there seems to be reasonable doubt. You are certain, but others are not. –Gunslinger47 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The fire seal does not have the swirl pattern characteristic of the Shiki Fūjin. Pay attention to that rather than the surrounding symbols. ~SnapperTo 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is reasonable because the manga itself says that the chakra was split and the yang was sealed within Naruto using the Hakke fuuin and the shishou fuuin. It also says Minato Only sealed the yin with the shiki fuuin. Its in chapter 370, I've quotes several translations of the instance when its explained. We know how the shiki fuuin works, I've also cited wikipedia's article regarding the shiki fuuin. Their doubt isn't reasonable, its unreasonable. I've clearly cited references in the manga where the characters themselves explain the situation. I've shown that the seal on Naruto is similar but different than the shiki fuuin seal shown on the third. I can confidently say that no where in the manga does it say that Naruto had the fox sealed in him with the Shiki fuuin. Each time Naruto's seal IS talked about its ALWAYS refered to as the hakke fuuin/shishou fuuin. This is both in the chapter where Orochimaru adds the odd seal on top of it to further seal the fox's chakra, when Jiraiya takes off the odd seal, and in chapter 370 when Jiraiya discusses the nature of how the fox was sealed with the frog key.

It was assumed that the shiki fuuin was used to seal the fox because we know the fourth died sealing it and that the only seal we knew of that looked remotely like the one on Naruto was the Shiki fuuin, which kills the user. Saying the shiki fuuin was used to seal the fox in Naruto is Original research because it states a theory which is never mentioned in the manga as fact. My edit isn't original research because it states pretty much word for word what is said in chapter 370. Buttcheeks 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from the Third's battle with Orochimaru: "This is the technique the Fourth used to seal the fox inside Naruto." Wanna try again? You've shown nothing. You've pointed at a seal with four arrows and claimed it's the same as one with a swirl. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you'd like to read the first few pages of the manga, where it also says the Fourth sealed the fox into a child. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No actually it doesn't, the 3rd says "this is the jutsu a hero once used to save the village" then orochimaru says "you mean this is the jutsu that sealed the kyuubi". The 3rd confirms this, but never does it say where it was sealed, just that it was sealed. It also says that the sealer and the sealed battle eachother forever in the belly of the shingami(death). Buttcheeks 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise. Instead of posting either version, Why don't we just state what the manga says. That Minato split the chakra, only sealed the Yin chakra with the Shiki fuuin, and sealed the Yang in Naruto with the Hakke fuuin and shishou fuuin? That doesn't specify where the yin chakra is sealed and leaves it open for speculation, that would satisfy both arguments. Buttcheeks 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not using vague Japanese terms. The seal is in one place: on Naruto. This is a fact. You just won't accept it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we can use the English versions, Hakke fuuin = Eight trigrams seal, Shishou fuuin = Four symbols seal, and the shiki fuuin = Dead demon seal. A seal is on Naruto, yes this is a fact. What is also a fact is that its always refered to as the Hakke fuuin/shishou fuuin when talked about in great detail. I won't accept your version of events because its not based on the manga. Its based on your interpretation of the manga, I'm citing several references and quoting the characters themselves. You just won't accept it. Buttcheeks 20:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As explained in Part II of the manga, the fox's chakra is split into to halves: Minato sealed the Yin chakra when containing the beast and gave Naruto access to the Yang chakra. A special scroll in Jiraiya's possession can either unlock or restore the seal, giving Naruto access to the full extent of the fox's chakra, but he is unable to control the power in such situations. The instance where Naruto first used his four-tailed form was triggered by an attempt at unlocking the seal. However, before battling Pein of Akatsuki, Jiraiya decides to leave the scroll with Naruto in the hopes that he can complete an as-yet unidentified jutsu.

The manga doesn't say Naruto has access to the Yang chakra. In fact in chapter 370 it says that its sealed within Naruto. It also says nothing about restoring the seal, it says reinforce it. Also, the first time Naruto used his four tailed form was when Jiraiya convinced the frog scroll to "open the seal just a crack" Not an attempt to unlock the seal.Buttcheeks 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're just mincing words now. "Open" = "unlock", "left it for Naruto" is the same thing as giving him access to it. Also, Naruto does have access to it. He draws upon it willingly on several occasions, as noted earlier on. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Theres a difference between leaving something for someone(like in a will) and them readily having access to it. He doesn't have access to all of it, the chakra leaks through the Hakke fuuin/shishou fuuin and mixes with his own chakra(as explained in the manga). If he had full access to the Yang chakra he'd be unstoppable. Hes not, so he doesn't.Buttcheeks 20:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No one said he had full access, but he does have access nonetheless. This is proven and verifiable. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit was exactly what was stated in the manga in chapter 370. "Minato Only sealed the Yin chakra with the Dead Demon seal(shiki fuuin)" and that "Minato sealed the Yang chakra in Naruto". Never in the Manga does it say that the fox was sealed in Naruto with the Shiki fuuin. When the 3rd and Orochimaru fight, its said that the fox was sealed with the shiki fuuin, and technically that is true, the yin chakra was sealed by the shiki fuuin(as stated in 370). But it doesn't say it was sealed in Naruto. You assume it was.Buttcheeks 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we know it. The fox was sealed in Naruto. Singular. Whole thing, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If the seal breaks, the fox is freed, an explicit fact in every mention made. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. In chapter 370 it says Minato separated the Yin and the Yang. It also says ONLY the Yin was sealed with the Dead Demon seal. It says the Yang was sealed in Naruto. If the seal breaks on Naruto then he'd be overwhelmed by the Yang chakra. If its "explicit fact" and its "in every mention made" then it shouldn't be hard for you to reference some quotes to support your edit. Otherwise I insist on the compromise I previously mentioned. Buttcheeks 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're never going to shut up about that, are you? Pull your face off that one page for five seconds and read the entire chapter. "It's safe to say that opening the seal more and causing Naruto to fully [key word] become the nine-tails would be strictly against them." If you cannot be bothered to read past the page, then don't bother trying to argue your point. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Froggy:　The kid can't control the Kyuubi's chakra, period!

Froggy: Opening the seal just a little bit resulted in his chakra being suppressed, the Kyuubi's gushing out -

Froggy: - and Naruto being taken over by it!

Froggy: Messing with the seal until the kid turns into the Kyuubi is the *last* thing the Fourth wanted, Jiraiya!

Jiraiya: It was only the Kyuubi's Yin chakra Minato sealed through Shikifuujin.

Jiraiya: The reason he took the trouble to split the Kyuubi's power into Yin and Yang...

Jiraiya: And seal the Yang side in Naruto, was because he wanted him to have it.

here is the link to the translation

Thats what it says, and then Jiraiya adds in the bit about Minato ONLY sealing the yin chakra with the shiki fuuin, and then sealing the Yang within Naruto. So yeah, where was your REFERENCED quote again? Buttcheeks 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here or even in your translation, which again you've failed to properly read: "Messing with the seal until the kid turns into the Kyuubi". Don't get all put-off just because your translation seems to support you, when in fact it only supports my point. I say again, and I'm getting tired of hearing your roundabout speculation in response, prove that the seal on Naruto isn't the one made by the Fourth Hokage to contain the fox. You're spouting hot air over and over and it's fucking tiring to read. The chapter clearly indicates that he'd become the fox were the seal to break. So does the very first chapter for that matter. Until you can disprove that, quit this incessant tirade of long-winded original research. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I agree. It cannot be verified that Minato took any of the fox with him, though there are indications that he might have. WP:V says default to exclusion. –Gunslinger47 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from swearing, its impolite. You're totally ignoring what Jiraiya says after the frog says "Messing with the seal until the kid turns into the kyuubi" because it conflicts with your version of events. You're also unwilling to reference your own citations and quotes. When you do quote something its incorrectly quoted and skewed to fit your interpretation. Then when I do prove you wrong or present evidence thats contrary to what you believe you distort things or make arbitrary claims like "the shiki fuuin is a technique not a seal" or that because "the seals look different not because they're different seals but because the artist doesn't always draw them the same" even though they're referred to by different names (Hakke fuuin/shishou fuuin and Shiki fuuin).

Again, let me say I'm willing to compromise. Rather than continue this little argument of ours I suggest we state exactly what the manga says regarding the Yin and Yang chakra, and not add upon it by saying where the Yin chakra is sealed. Since the manga doesn't specify.

I propose we change it to

As explained in Part II of the manga, the fox's chakra is split into two halves Yin and Yang. Minato only sealed the Yin chakra with the Shiki Fuuin (Dead Demon Seal) and sealed the Yang chakra in Naruto. A special scroll in Jiraiya's possession can either unlock or restore the seal. When Jiraiya use the scroll to open the seal just crack the kyuubi's chakra poured out and Naruto was taken over by it. Before battling Pein of Akatsuki, Jiraiya decides to leave the scroll with Naruto in the hopes that he can complete an as-yet unidentified jutsu.

Buttcheeks 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What you just wrote is no different than what is already written. It only makes the passage more confusing and further in-universe, which this article already suffers from in spades. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mine is very different from yours. Yours claims that Naruto has the Yang chakra, and the yin chakra is sealed within him, and that the shiki fuuin was used to seal it. Mine Just says that the two were separated, only the yin was sealed with the shiki fuuin (not specifying where it was sealed) and that the Yang chakra was sealed in Naruto. Mine is pretty much what the Manga says. Yours isn't. Buttcheeks 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's where you'd again be wrong, because yet again you lack the ability to pay attention to anything but three pages of dialogue. Minato sealed the fox (whole thing) within his son. It says that in this chapter, the first chapter, several other chapters, and god knows how many times in the anime. You're trying to make your point valid through misleading compromises. The fox was sealed in Naruto plain and simple. This fact is established at the start of the series and nowhere is it fully contradicted, only expanded upon in its nature. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No where in the Manga does it say "the demon fox was sealed in naruto with the shiki fuuin". If you can find and reference a quote where it says that, then I'll give up. This is because the only time the sealing of the fox is ever discussed in great detail is in chapter 370 in the discussion between Jiraiya and the scroll frog. Buttcheeks 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet again you do not bother reading ahead. "Why would one seal the nine-tails in his very own child?" Page 13 in black and white. No part, all. You've convinced yourself that the seal is somehow different from the technique, and this is why your argument is wrong. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another misquote by you. It actually says "Jiraiya: Still, why seal the Kyuubi's chakra in your own son, of all people?". The Yang chakra IS the Kyuubi's chakra, so it doesn't say what you think it does. Buttcheeks 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed "chakra", I'll give you that, but it doesn't say just yang, and the seal is still on his stomach. That's the part you still haven't addressed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say "just yang". Saying "the kyuubi's chakra" can refer to the yang, the yin, or both because in any variation its still chakra that belongs to the Kyuubi. Just because it doesn't specify what chakra it is doesn't mean its all of the kyuubi's chakra.

The chapter also says that the Yang chakra was sealed in Naruto and refers to Naruto's seal as the Hakke Fuuin/Shishou Fuuin. The seal on Naruto's stomach is the Hakke/shishou Fuuin that contains the Yang chakra (it says so several times throughout the manga, I've cited references earlier on in our argument). That explains the seal on naruto's stomach.

In addition, the chapter says the Yin chakra was sealed with the shiki fuuin. So if you're going to ask "well where is the seal for the Yin chakra?" I'd say that its probably on Minato's corpse, because knowing how the shiki fuuin works, I'd assume thats where it was sealed, in Minato.Buttcheeks 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reindent) And that's your problem. You assume they're different seals, completely ignoring the fact that they look exactly alike in both cases. You're trying to justify your position by ignoring the obvious. There is no seal but the one, and the one seal is where the fox went. Naruto doesn't have half the fox, because it couldn't be released like that. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up chapters that show each seal, and they're visibly different. The shiki fuuin seal looks more like fire and dots(kinda like the black marks on sasuke when his level 1 curse seal is activated) where as Naruto's seal looks like thin squiggly kangi. I "assume" they're different seals because they're referred to by different names. Never is Naruto's seal referred to as "the Shiki fuuin seal" its called the "hakke fuuin seal". Yes yes I know you're going to say "well the shiki fuuin is a technique Not a seal" even though its called a seal. Buttcheeks 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're honestly going to make the sad claim that these are not the same thing? You're grabbing at straws and you know it. They are the same seal, both in design and appearance. Your refusal to accept this shows that it's the only thing keeping your argument afloat. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd care to look closely you'll notice that the top and bottom have differently shaped squigglies around the swirl. That visual difference compounded by the fact that they're referred to by two different names leads me to believe they're two different seals. heres Naruto's seal and here is the shiki fuuin seal. I also showed the fire suppression seal to illustrate that most of the seals look alike, I would have gotten the seal used to seal sasuke's cursed seal but I couldn't find it in the manga.. Buttcheeks 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, a different shaped squiggle. I guess my toaster must not be a toaster because it's a different color from one of the same brand. It's a drawing. It's not going to look exactly the same each time. The primary design elements are the same, which makes them the same seal. It's only your original research that says otherwise. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your toaster is different than a toasteroven even though the basic design elements are the same. It probably wont look exactly the same each time, but then why does the shiki fuuin seal's squigglies here, here, and here Look almost identical?

Also Naruto's seal, here and here look almost identical..

Both sets are similar yea, but they're different from eachother. oh I found sasuke's sealed seal too similar squigglies, but not the same.Buttcheeks 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now explain the snake in the middle. No other seal uses that. They're the same seal. You're just arguing over the minutia so you'll have a point. Slightly different squiggles are artist variations. You cannot draw the same exact picture twice, no matter how hard you try. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats because of what is being sealed. In both cases chakra/a spirit is being sealed. So naturally they would all have swirls. I also acknowledged the fact that it would be near impossible to draw the same thing twice(he seems to do it when drawing the characters though). Which is why I pointed out the differences in the squiggly's shape. I'm sure any artist would be able to keep to the same shape design when drawing something like that. I'd point out that he black marks on sasuke(stage 1 curse seal) are probably different each time but they always look like fire.

What I'm saying is, the first three are almost identical in design and different than the second three which are also almost identical in design. You claim they're the exact same thing visually, but then also say they're different but thats only because the artist can't draw them the same each time. I'm not basing this on visual evidence alone though. The seals themselves are referred to by different names throughout the manga. The term "shiki fuuin seal" (dead demon seal) is never used when talking about Naruto's seal. The Terms "Hakke fuuin" and "shishou fuuin" are. That and the fact that the shiki fuuin seals the sealed in the sealer leads me to believe that Naruto's seal is Not the shiki fuuin. Buttcheeks 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that any rewrite of this article will exclude these in-universe details because they're utterly irrelevant. Unless they're commented upon by third party sources, then they really shouldn't be included. Formatting the article like Batman would be ideal, noting the "publication history" section specifically. From here, the "fictional character biography" section can elaborate on all of these in-universe details. Given how long Naruto has been serialized for, I would say that this format is entirely plausible, and offers an attractive out-of-universe style. In relation to this argument, it would remove details such as the Yin/Yang chakra, as we would have a reduced plot summary. Abilities would still be present, but that should be gutted as well. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that's something I can agree with, at least until this nonsense is explained in proper detail. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess thats another way to go. I suppose it not being mentioned at all is better than it being mentioned incorrectly. Buttcheeks 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The big old toad...

Said that a pupil of Jiraiya's will have the potential to destroy the world or save the world, whoever said they were talking about Pain? Mabye they were referring to Naruto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.207.32 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jiraiya believed it was a reference to Pein. That's all we have to go by. ~SnapperTo 02:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the prophecy is that Jiraya has two students. One would destroy the world and one would bring peace. One day he'd choose between them. –Gunslinger47 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The prophecy clearly states that Jiraiya will have a pupil, and jiraiya will be his master, and the pupil will be a harbinger of revolution, that either destroys the world or brings about peace. It says "a pupil" but then goes on to refer to the pupil as they, but I think thats just a part of how the japanese speak and not literally 2 pupils Buttcheeks 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't want to use the word "clearly" when talking about prophecies or speed translations. –Gunslinger47 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the prophecy is talking specifically about Pein because of the powers of his Kekkei genkai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Naruto's fox powers? Jiraiya had stated the nine tails has one of the highest levels of chakra and maybe it has the power to destroy the world or save the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.26.173 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

in chaper 382 jariya said its naruto not pain though he did think it was pain before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.115.124 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

SENNEN GOROSHI!!

Yes, it may be the worst technique, but naruto uses in a very intelligent way, with kunais, clones and bla bla. It should be good citation. –Tintor2 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why his imitation of Kakashi's joke technique warrants mention. –Gunslinger47 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rasenshuriken

Isn't the Rasenshuriken a completed Futon: Rasengan? The manga never actually shows us how Naruto made the crater (could have been the Rasenshuriken since that's the move that beat Kakuzu and it's the move that made the big crater Kakuzu wound up in), and when he uses Futon: Rasengan Yamato say's that it's only half done, but if you look at it you see four small projections on it, like the Rasenshuriken, indicating that Rasenshuriken is probably the full power Futon: Rasengan. Not to be disrespectful, but Naruto doesn't seem like the type to think "Hey I'll make it look like a shuriken cuz that'd be cool" I think it just came out that way. Adding nature changed the jutsu a great deal, but examining the Rasenshuriken's hit, it looks like a normal rasengan but only completes Jiraiya's analogy of "having a typhoon in the palm of your hand". If someone has an official source to say that I'm wrong then site it, but I think Wikipedia's making too many guesses with the completion of Rasengan. I may not be right, but if you can't prove me wrong you're not right either. ~FFFX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.41 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Its safe to bet (since it was stated in the manga itself) that the Rasenenshuriken is a very powerful add on to the Wind Release: Rasengan, similar to how Great Ball Rasengan is a add on to Rasengan. That being said, because the Rasenshuriken attacks on a celluar level I would say its more than just a super charged Rasengan.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To what 67.142.130.41 mentions the futon: rasengan is only half done, Naruto first did this jutsu in the training and after he defeats Kazuku, Yamato mentions he could do more rasenshuriken than in the training so the rasenshuriken is only half done (note that Yamato is not surprised when he makes it.

Tintor2 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Rasenshuriken is not simply a supercharged Rasengan, and I don't think it's actually an 'add-on' to Rasengan. Oodama Rasengan is an extension of the original jutsu, and Rasenshuriken is the result of combining the unfinished product (itself a fully usable and effective jutsu on its own) with Naruto's elemental affinity. Remember, the reason why the Fourth couldn't complete the jutsu as he intended was because he was unable to combine his elemental energy with the already nearly uncontrollable chakra of the Rasengan. Rasengan uses base chakra only, Rasenshuriken uses base chakra and elemental (Wind) as well. Oodama Rasengan is an extension of Rasengan. Rasenshuriken is a completely different animal, not being like a typhoon, but more like a poison, since it attacks at a cellular level (according to Tsunade, Chapter 346) For any Dragonball Z fans who remember, it would be like comparing Gohan's standard Kamehameha to his Masenko The two have similarities, but are still completely different.

Also, the article needs to be changed regarding this. It is written that Naruto used Rasengan to incapacitate Kakuzu, when as stated this is not the case. Rasenshuriken was used, and even if it was an extension of Rasengan (which it isn't), it is its own jutsu, and should be referenced as such. DestradoZero 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect the accurate information, including Tsunade's statements regarding its effect on Naruto. DestradoZero 06:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Story Plot

You know how a long time ago we took out descriptions of the plot in character profiles? Well I don't see the plot described anywhere else. I think we should put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a WP about but, but I'm not sure. Regardless no plot here. You are welcome to go to the Naruto wiki and add plot there, thats all about plot and whatnot. But not here.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kyubi.jpg

Image:Kyubi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

I think it's about time we trying getting this article up to GA quality; it would be a nice moral booster for all the mergings that have been happening as of late. I've gone ahead and rewritten the article, removing minor in universe information, improving the conception section, and am in the process of reffing things. The article is currently in need of other media and reception information, but additional trimming and out-of-universing couldn't hurt. I'm confident this article can make it to GA standards with relatively little effort, giving us a mold to follow for other character articles. ~SnapperTo 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, but being new to the whole "Grade" system and what needs to be done to get a better grade, I may need a *tiny* bit of help figuring out what needs to be worked on. If anyone can point me in a direction, it would be much appreciated. DestradoZero 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is a good article? for one. It should also be in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). ~SnapperTo 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. The in-universe content can still be reduced a tad bit though. It also reduces the burden of sourcing, as most if not all will have to be sourced for passing a GA review. In any case, the in other media section can include video games, movies, the CCG, and anything else that I've missed. Reception includes merchandising, and critical commentary (which can come from anywhere really, but I suppose Anime News Network, IGN, and assorted sources would be the place to start). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I added IGN info, but I couldn't find anything on ANN. I only checked 5 minutes, though, and was looking for an article about him instead of a game or series or movie. It would also be really nice if anyone could find a list of websites with info on him like IGN had. Something about merchandising especially would be nice. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have created User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares/Naruto Uzumaki GA!, which can be used as a headquarters for the GA-status search as well as a place to list users participating in improving this article and sites with info, among other things. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I added info about movies and OVAs. I havent watched the 2nd and 3rd movie so I didnt write about it. I used the IGN article that you gave the also help in Sasuke and Sakura article and copying the new format of this page to the others characters. Aboout merchandising I cant put as I dont live in USA and there is no in my country (crying inside, lol). Tintor2 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rasenshuriken vs. Rasengan

For some reason, SnapperTo/Snapper2 has seen fit to completely change the information I've entered regarding Naruto and the Rasenshuriken. If he can dispute what I've written, I'd ask him to discuss this here before blatantly removing entire sections of *accurate* information. I would rather that this be discussed before someone removes large ammounts of information without any notice.

As I have said before, from what the manga has told us, Rasenshuriken is NOT the Rasengan. That is made clear in the manga. It doesn't even attack in the same manner as the Rasengan, the Rasengan being brute force while the Rasenshuriken attacks on a cellular level with a multitude of immeasurably fine blades of wind chakra, and is more along the lines of a poison than anything else. They attack in completely different ways.

The Rasengan wasn't even Minato's intended finished jutsu, but a half-completed one. As such, the Rasenshuriken would at the *least* be considered the dominant version of these techniques, and not simply an addition or modification to the Rasengan. The Rasengan is base chakra ONLY. The Rasenshuriken is both base and wind chakra, combined in a way that only Naruto has managed to figure out. It is refered to SPECIFICALLY as the Rasenshuriken, something that his modifications never mention, simply saying that he forms the Rasengan into a shuriken, which is not correct. It is NOT a Rasengan, and the shuriken form is the natural form that Naruto created it with. He isn't molding a Rasengan, he's using a NEW JUTSU.

I'm sorry if this seems a bit angry, but I don't like having my work hacked out without notice or explanation. I would much rather get things sorted out accurately and not have another fiasco like the vehement denials that Naruto's parentage had been confirmed when it clearly had. It took having both parents in the same panel after a previous page of *specific* dialogue before some people would accept this. We'll eventually have a much clearer picture of this than we do even now, but the evidence clearly points to Rasenshuriken being a unique jutsu. Lumping it in with the Rasengan would be like putting all of Itachi's genjutsu under one heading of 'Sharingan', or refusing to acknowledge the difference between Kakashi's ordinary Sharingan and his Mangekyo Sharingan. DestradoZero 09:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can talk by him but the Rasengan seems the base version of the Futon: Rasenshuriken. If you pay attention to the Futon: Rasengan it has the form of a little SHURIKEN. The futon: rasengan was never explained. The rasengan was the same as the futon rasengan while the rasenshuriken points to be a bigger version of the futon: Rasengan. This is my opinion.Tintor2 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember that, but even if we assume that, it still doesn't change the fact that the Rasenshuriken is at least a unique jutsu, similar to what Minato originally intended, but was never able to do. The Rasengan was never intended to be a base jutsu for anything, it is the result of Minato's inability to complete a jutsu that combined his base chakra and his elemental chakra. Naruto did this, which created a jutsu completely different from the Rasengan in both form and attack type. Even if the Rasengan has taken the form of a shuriken in the past, the VAST majority of the time it takes the form of a ball. It is a ball of rapidly spinning chakra. The Rasenshuriken takes the form of a shuriken, and is a unique combination of base and elemental chakra. The Rasengan is a brute force attack. The Rasenshuriken is akin to poison.

Also, remember that the Rasenshuriken is the result of Naruto's attempt to make a UNIQUE jutsu. One that no one else could create. The whole point of creating the Rasenshuriken was for this purpose, and as such more than warrants classification as a unique jutsu. DestradoZero 09:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rasengan and the Rasenshuriken is NOT the same jutsu. The fact that you said "Futon: Rasengan" is incorrect because never in the manga or anime has the jutsu been addressed this way. By sayin Futon you are saying that the Rasengan is a Wind Element jutsu, when it isnt, the Rasengan is clearly and purely relied on chakra. However the Futon: Rasenshuriken is based on the combination of the Rasengan, Shapeshifting, and Wind Element. While the Rasenshuriken is a heightened form of the Rasengan, I wouldnt classify them as the same in all aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yung n educated (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 337: Naruto uses an attack called "Futon: Rasengan". Odd, you just said it's never been addressed this way. Go figure... ~SnapperTo 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not change anything that I have stated previously. The two jutsu are separate. On another note, there is entirely too much editing and re-editing of information that was perfectly informative. The most recent incarnation actually now contains less information on Naruto's abilities than it had before. Something needs to be done. DestradoZero 10:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to change anything you stated previously. Yung made a clearly incorrect statement, and I corrected him. As to your point, Rasengan is the base jutsu; it has no elemental properties and is what Naruto works off of. Futon: Rasengan is a variant of the Rasengan; it has a wind property and was created by working with the Rasengan. Futon: Rasenshuriken is a variant of Futon: Rasengan; it has the same spinning wind properties and was only created after Naruto got the hang of Futon: Rasengan. As a result, Futon: Rasenshuriken is a variant of Rasengan. If you take issue with it being "new": fine. That does not stop it from being an offshoot of the original Rasengan. ~SnapperTo 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are using faulty logic for your argument. Please show proof that there IS a Futon: Rasengan (other than a mis-translation). Do they mention wind chakra being used in the jutsu? Please show where. As I have said, and as mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the manga, the Rasenshuriken is a COMPLETELY UNIQUE JUTSU. Not just new, but UNIQUE. The Rasengan was the result of a failed jutsu creation by Minato Namikaze, as he was not able to fuse his base chakra with his wind chakra. They look nothing alike, they attack in completely different manners (brute force as compared to cellular/poison-type damage, Chap. 346, Pgs. 9-13), and it is NEVER said that the Rasenshuriken is a variant/offshoot of the Rasengan. As I have said before, if you can PROVE this, then by all means do so. Show us where in the manga OR anime that it is specifically said that the Rasenshuriken is a variant or offshoot of the Rasengan. Otherwise, this is your speculation. DestradoZero 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the obvious in an inexplicable attempt to make Rasenshuriken entirely separate from Rasengan. Behold chapter 337's Futon: Rasengan, both kanji and translation for your viewing pleasure. Rasengan was created as the ultimate example of form manipulation (chapter 321). In that sense it is complete. The Fourth was unable to infuse it with his nature manipulation before he died, and thus it did not completely fulfill its purpose. In that sense it is incomplete. Had the Fourth been able to complete his work with the Rasengan it would not be called "Rasengan". Instead it would be "Katon: Rasengan", "Suiton: Rasengan", or what have you. As to its variant status, just look up the definition of the word. Even if the manga hasn't called it a "variant" or some other synonym, it fits the classification perfectly. ~SnapperTo 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we could be dicussiong this a lot. However, check the abilities section. It does not confirm any of the 2 theories. So we can end the discussion.Tintor2 09:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Abilities section wouldn't be the place to confirm or deny information for the article. The manga *would* be the place. I have referenced specific chapters and pages which back up my claims. DestradoZero 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DestradoTensai (talk • contribs)

The Rasengan is not a fialed jutsu, but merely imcomplete. The fourth hokage purposely created the rasengan and then tried to infuse it with elemental chakra. The rasengan was not just the leftoovers of a failed jutsu, it was created purposely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.188.31 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jiraiya in the infobox?

Ever since last week, when it was revealed that Jiraiya helped name Naruto and was called his "godfather", I see people keep adding him to the infobox as a relative. However, I don't think that godparents really count as a relative and thus Jiraiya doesn't belong in the infobox, but new users insist on readding him. I don't think he does; my view is that the relative infobox should be for blood relatives (or adoptive relatives if it applies). So I ask my fellow editors - should we include Jiraiya in the relative entry as Naruto's godfather, or not? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be there. Relatives don't have to be blood related. Godparents are as much family as normal ones. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been reverting its readdition since Naruto has remained in the infobox in Jiraiya's article. So long as the two are consistent with each other, I don't care it their relation is listed or not. I will say, however, that Jiraiya being Naruto's godfather is of minor significance to either, as the teacher/student relationship is considerably more prevalent throughout the series. ~SnapperTo 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree regarding godparents. I have known many people to almost casually name someone a godparent, simply because they're friends. I myself have a friend who considers me his son's godfather, when I want nothing to do with raising *anyone's* child. I am nowhere near the importance to that child that his grandparents, aunts and uncles, and even more distant relations are. The importance of godparents is relative, while the importance of blood relatives is bound by law.

In regards to *this*, I think it's strange to list him under relatives. A godparent is not a relative. This may be slightly different in Japanese culture, but I would think that the relationship as student and master (as said by Snapper) is much more important. The 'relative' comment shouldn't be necessary, since they aren't related. DestradoZero 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

i think he should be in the info box because jiraiya isent a "blood reletive" but he is a guardian to naruto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.157.219 (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Card Game Troubles

Well, it seems we're starting to make this article more out-of-universe. As for the Other Media, there's one major problem: the trading card game. For one, I can presume a large number of us here don't even play the TCG. Second, how are we even supposed to list the information? Like the Pokemon articles and mention anything? Or list only a few things and move on to other improvements of the article? This is going to be difficult. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say just by saying generally how are the cards of Naruto Uzumaki in a few sentence/s. However I dont play that game.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

http://narutocards.blogspot.com/2007/09/naruto-cards-eternal-rivalry-n-us002.html –Gunslinger47 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I play the cardgame fairly extensively, if you'd like I can write up a couple sentences conserning his cards and how they play. Dragonranger (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I wrote a minor blurb conserning the barest of basics on Naruto's cards without going into extensive detail about what each card does or all of their stats. Hope this works. Dragonranger (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I have just noticed how all references that aren't in the Reception section are tagged Masashi Kishimoto. Unless it is an extra in the volumes (like Kishimoto explaining a disasterous trip he had to Monkey Island as a child in Volume 8, or him explaining how he got each character) it isn't Kishimoto, it's just a first party source from Naruto. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are the popularity polls. They come with some manga chapters. Should we change that?Tintor2 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think writes the chapters and volumes? Since it's obviously Kishimoto, he should be placed in the reference per {{cite book}}. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean as the polls are originally made by Shonen Jump.Tintor2 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're included in the volume, then including Kishimoto as the author is still appropriate, as you're citing the volume, not the Shonen Jump magazine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Naruto volumes are first party sources. Kishimoto and all of the works he makes besides Naruto are a third party source. We should only label them as Kishimoto if it is an extra in the volumes, not the actual storyline. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

...whether it's a primary source or a secondary source is irrelevant because Kishimoto wrote the damn volume. The book carries his name as the author, and thus all content in the book, regardless of the source, is attributed to him, and carries his name in the reference because he is the book's author. Again, you're citing the volume, not the Shonen Jump magazine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what Whocares is saying. The volume isn't distributed by Kishimoto personally, so it isn't necessarily that all 100% of the information is written for the volume specifically by him. However, since it is attributed to him as author of the series (unless otherwise noted somewhere in the volume), it should be attributed to him here. The words aren't necessarily his, but the information used for the volume is. Authorship is more than just words on a page. DestradoZero 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So what can Naruto do on his own?

I am concerned about several lines of what I believe are inaccuracies. Or to be more exact, one subject that is mentioned several times, that being the frequency that Naruto relies on the Demon Fox's power.

First off, let me state that I have never read the manga in either Japanese or English. My disagreement is based upon the show only. That being said, unless the manga specifically mentions a difference, I have to work under the idea that they are both the same in this aspect and that the writer of the article made a mistake. In the anime, it is stated that Naruto has a deep well of chakra that is all his own, separate from the fox's chakra, and that if it had a color it would be blue (unlike the fox's red chakra) and in the anime his chakra is portrayed as such.

It seems to me that the writer of the article expressed the idea that basically all of Naruto's successful techniques from part 1 were through the assistance of fox chakra. That is not the case in the anime. The first time we are given a glimpse of the fox's power is during the fight with Zabuza and Haku at the bridge when he defeats the crystal ice mirrors (though we are shown its healing effect on Naruto earlier in the series). The next time we see the power is the Forest of Death where they first meet Orochimaru and Naruto protects Sasuke from the giant snake. After that we only see red chakra when Naruto summons Gamabunta the frist time after being thrown off a cliff, when he fights Neji in the arena, when he is trapped on top of Shukaku after waking up Gaara, and after that a lot of episodes pass by until he fights Kimimaro and then Sasuke. Learning the shadow clone jutsu, saving Iruka sensei, saving Kakashi sensei from Zabuza's water prison, learning to climb trees, creating enough clones to blow up a giant snake, defeating the 3 rain ninja in the forest who used genjutsu on them, beating kiba, summoning Gamakichi, creating 1999 clones, summoning Gamabunta the second time, learning the rasengan, the entire tea country arc, and most of the Sasuke retrieval arc were all done with blue chakra, with his own power and not the fox's help.

I bring all this up to say that even though the writer of the article leads the reader to believe that all of Naruto's success with his abilities stem from the large amount of chakra he has from the fox, based on the anime I say that, other than the moments that I mentioned previously (and others from later episodes that aren't mentioned), other then healing, Naruto uses the demon fox's chakra very little if at all. Therefore, if I am correct that the manga agrees with the anime in this respect, then the article should be changed to reflect that. Naruto is a ninja not to be underestimated, fox or no fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.156.107 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You do make many valid points, and I realize that this is something that should be taken care of because many fans that read this article, watch the anime, or read the manga tend to think that certain characters would be powerless without the aid of their supplements. (i.e. naruto without his demon fox chakra, sasuke wothout the curse mark or sharingan, and many more). Albeit this isn't wikipedia's problem, nor is it their priority to rectify this, something should be done,(perhaps with the way the article is worded).209.247.5.233 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is neither a problem nor a priority for wikipedia. I would gladly reword the article myself. Unfortunately, unlike other articles, I cannot find the edit option for that section and therefore cannot make the required changes. If anyone could make the edit option available or tell me how to do it myself, I will make the changes right away. Until then, the previous writer, as far as i know, is the only one who can make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.153.115 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot/part section naming

Alright, enough of this. I'm sick of seeing half the recent edits simply changing the name of the plot section, so I've requested the page be fully protected so there can be a discussion and consensus on what the title of the section should be. These changes should be talked about instead of simply edit-warring over them. Let's figure out which title would be best for the article, shall we? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for full protection. If there are further reversions without discussion on this talk page, offending users will be blocked. — madman bum and angel 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I had already started a discussion here. You can contribute your take here or there if you'd like. ~SnapperTo 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I kinda think Plot Overview sounds better than Part in the Story, but that's just me... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Length

I'm starting this section to encourage discussion over the amount of plot in the article as there appears to be edit warring brewing over the tagging of Plot Overview as being too short. I myself tagged the article as having too much plot, as the entire Character Outline section is also plot material. I'm unclear on the reasons for why Plot Overview was tagged as being too short, but perhaps one solution would be to meld in some of the Character Outline information? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The tagging is a result of the above discussion (or, more specifically, the same discussion I started elsewhere). I do not like the heading "Plot overview", as it suggests that the section would be longer and more in depth than it is. Because User:Sesshomaru wants to use "Plot overview", he has taken my argument as a call for making the section longer, ignoring my suggestion that a different heading be used instead.

As for the article having too much plot-central detail, a suggestion on what to cut out would be appreciated; I have made three separate attempts to slim down the information and am at a loss as to what else to remove. ~SnapperTo 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, I recommend turning to the MOS. :) In this case, the recommended action would seem to be to merge both the Character profile and plot overview into a single Profile section which includes subsections on his appearance and personality, history, etc. So Character outline could be renamed to Profile, the contents of Plot Overview moved up to be the start for that section, with the rest of that section remaining as its sub-sections. For my concerns on the plot being too long, in giving it a closer read I think most of it is stemming from the sentences in the personality and abilities being a little to verbose. Several times three sentences are being used to say something that could be said more succinctly in one. I must say, though, it is nice to see such a nicely referenced character section! AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad AnmaFinotera. I too have made attempts to improve this page. What other steps would you suggest for plot improvement? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The only other thing, other than tighten prose and come to an agreement on the sections in a way that, hopefully, follows the MOS would be to see if additional sources can be found for the real-world sections like the Creation and conception section, and the reception section. Perhaps check some of the off-line anime/manga encyclopedias to see if they have some more useful info. The series should be both old enough and big enough to be in most of the recent ones. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

After another stab, is the plot material at an acceptable length yet? ~SnapperTo 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting better :) Maybe see if a copy editor would be willing to give it another once over once the section issue is resolved (which would be the next step before going for GA anyway *grin*). AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what kind of length are you looking for? Current animanga GAs make the amount of "plot" in this article seem meek by comparison. Even FA sections of comparable content are longer than the outline section in this article (though, to be fair, that section has a better degree of out-of-universing). ~SnapperTo 06:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it needs to balance out. We don't want to have undue weight on the plot while ignoring the more real-world aspects needed to show this character is notable in his own right. Your last edit took case of quite a bit of stuff, the main thing now is a prose check to clean up any more wordiness. Sometimes its hard to spot in our own work (lord knows, I'm wordy as all get out so I always need someone else to come behind me to cut down my happy sentences :P ) AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That the article needs more out of universe content is clear, especially given the relative amount of plot-central material. I also don't doubt some amount of simplifying could be done; I find myself to be very, fond, of, comma, lengthening. There comes a point, however, where something can only be reduced further by cutting out vital organs. In the absence of such things as a liver or kidney, the thing becomes unhelpful, necessitating an organ transplant or simple euthanization. Medical analogies aside, I don't think additional "slash and burns" (much like JerkFace's edits) would be in the article's best interests. ~SnapperTo 07:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and don't think any actual content needs to come out anymore. Now it just copyediting left, and filling out the rest of the out-of-universe context to support it :-) I've removed the length tag and gave the article a general copyedit tag. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So back to the issue of the sections *grin* Thoughts on my suggestion for dealing with the header issue or other ideas? AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First, just to make it clear, the Zelda series is multiple games, while Naruto is only two series (Shippuden should be a second one for simplicity). As such, and this goes for movie characters as well, if a character is in multiple stories, than a plot section for each story is permitable. Second, simply copy and past to microsoft word and check all the green and red lines (I'd do it, bu I'm about to get off, but I'll be back on in 30 mins). Third, the plot section is fine currently, it doesn't give an article's worth of words while telling how Naruto is important rather than what he does. Finally, more out of universe info!!! This can't be expressed hard enough. Google/Yahoo/Ask-Jeeves searches can help here, because not all sites with Naruto info are just gaming/official-Naruto sites. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

demon fox naruto image

The picture now shown only shows Naruto from the back giving no indication to what he actually looks like. I believe we should use the previous picture of him forming the Rasengan.72.24.20.100 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The previous image was more informative. I'll flip it back. –Gunslinger47 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

naruto's age

someone remove naruto's age in part 2...but that is not what i am about to talk about....in the most recent naruto manga it says that the kyuubi attack 16 yrs ago so i guessed that makes naruto 16 instead of 15--Bow before me (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Race to GA

Well, we've gotten much closer to our GA-goal, but we aren't quite there yet. Using Sasuke Uchiha, which was just accepted as a GA-Class article, as an example, my suggestions for improving this article to GA-Class are:

• Like Sasuke, a picture of either Naruto in a video game, a picture of one of his Collectible Cards, or of another collectible (figurine, plushie, etc.). Mabye two, but no more.
• Reception looks emptier than it really is. Some more to put there would be a nice addition.
• Putting more about the CCG.
• (More) references for the plot, other media, and reception sections, and anywhere else they can fit. Especially reference his appearance in Gintama.
• Copy Edit (of course)

While I can't help with the image (I'm not really concerned yet with learning how to load images) or the CCG (I don't play it), I can help with the others. Right now I am Ask Jeeves searching for reception on Naruto, and will add anything that seems notable.

So, any other suggestions. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Yes I also believe that the age of naruto in part 2 should be added suh as now he is 16 in part 2 So it should be 15 1/2 - 16 in part 2. By Mutaqi January 21:39, January 27 2008

I don't mean to sound like an idiot here, but what part of this article needs copy-editing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire article. :) Having the article copy edited by someone, preferably from the League of Copyeditors, is pretty much a requirement before the article should be sent up as a GAC or FAC. Copy edit catches a lot of those little things most of us would never notice. Kinda like when writing a magazine article...you wouldn't want them published without an editor giving them a final going over to check grammar, cohesion, flow of phrase, and to ensure the article does indeed meet the MOS requirements. That's what a copy editor does. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was unfamiliar with the League of Copyeditors. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the request. Now, lets wait.Tintor2 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some problems

After reading some concerns from AnmaFinotera's talk page, I noticed that there are a few instances in this article that need changing:

1. The sentence, "According to Viz Media, Kishimoto, while creating Naruto, kept in mind to keep Naruto's character "simple and stupid" while giving him many attributes of Son Goku from the Dragon Ball franchise ..." should be edited back to this or something similar.

1. The areas in the article where it refers to some parts of Naruto as "Part I" / "Part II" needs to be emphasized so that everyone (including those unfamiliar with the franchise) understand what "Part I" and "Part II" means. I suggest we change "Part I" to "Naruto" and "Part II" to "Naruto: Shippūden"

Anyone disagree and/or would like to make another proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the first. Since Kishimoto is the one who said it, the "According to Viz Media" is off. For the Part I/Part II I'm not as certain. From what the main article says, the Shippūden label is an anime only thing. As we should emphasize the original (in this case the manga), over other forms, and someone unfamiliar to the anime would be confused. Perhaps for the first use of Part II, add a ref note to indicate that in the anime, that part of the story was released as Naruto: Shippūden? AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Problem is, I have no idea how we could reference the Part I/Part II stuff. As a note? We need something that can make it clear. Suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a note, wrapped in refs, would work. Its been used successfully with some other articles. Additionally, it can be noted in the text the first time Part II is mentioned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate, how 'bout just Naruto: Part I and Naruto: Part II for whatever's in the infobox and the current sections Personality, Abilities, Plot overview, and Reception? I think the anime image that depicts the character in Naruto: Shippūden should remain captioned the way it is. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work, and agreed on the anime image since it is from the anime. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! {^_^} I'm wondering if "Part I/II" need to be italisised like it is here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to italisise it because it is a title. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything else that should be taken into consideration? I've asked the user Snapper2 to comment here but it seems he doesn't choose to do so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the italics, but simply Part I or Part II is suitable, as Naruto: Part I and similar is never used as a title. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need a title that the layman can understand. Saying just Part I and Part II can be confusing for them. Anything particular in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-indent. If that's the case, then simply "Part I" and "Part II" sans italics are best. Saying Part I of the manga or Part II of the manga is fairly self-explanatory. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you do the edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be fine, so long as it is clarified for the first use and/or lead. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

revert?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naruto_Uzumaki&curid=585896&diff=190560453&oldid=190278245 --The Last Uchiha 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um...are you asking if it should be reverted? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, i havnt been here long enough to revet it my self (the page is protected)--The Last Uchiha 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. In looking at the category description, Naruto would seem to fit, but if not, one of the editors more familiar with the property will revert it soon I'm sure. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the category. Recently, I asked Sephiroth BCR for his opinion and he couldn't help me decide what to say here. Maybe we should look for a reliable source confirming, or what? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Naruto not using Demon Fox chakra for Shadow Clone

At the very beginning of the second paragraph of the Abilities section, it is stated that Naruto uses the Kyuubi/Demon Fox's chakra for his Shadow Clone jutsu. This isn't the case, and as a matter of fact he only uses the Kyuubi's chakra as a last resort. Many people seem to think that Naruto is powerful only because of his status as a Jinchuuriki, but it has been stated in the past that he wouldn't have been used for the sealing jutsu if he didn't have a likelihood of having an immense amount of natural/base chakra. This is, of course, backed up by his lineage (being the son of the Fourth Hokage). If anyone remembers where this was mentioned, I would greatly appreciate it as I don't have a lot of time to search for this (I know, it sounds lazy). As it is, I will change the information unless someone has an argument against changing that they can back up. DestradoZero 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't say he needs the fox to make shadow clones. It said that when he uses the fox's chakra it is usually for the purpose of creating shadow clones. I've reworded it regardless. As to the bit about the sealing jutsu, I don't remember that being said, nor does it sound very likely; how are they to know an infant's base chakra level? ~SnapperTo 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It Part I that was the case, but since his training during the later half of Part II he relies on his own chakra reserves. It's been stated by both Kakashi and Yamato numerous times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.250.173 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly using the fox's chakra during his post-training fight with Kakuzu (note the slitted pupils). He has not outlived his need or usage of the fox. ~SnapperTo 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not the issue. Yes, he uses the fox's chakra at times, but the ONLY time he uses it is when it is SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. He does NOT use it for the purpose of Shadow Clones. If you have proof of this, please show it. DestradoZero 08:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Episode 46 of Part II specifically states (by Yamato) that he would not be able to withstand the fox's chakra inside of him if he himself did not have a chakra strong enough to withstand the Kyuubi's power. As we know, the anime quite accurately mimics the anime, and if someone could also find the specific manga chapters, it would be appreciated. The anime is just as much canon as the manga, however, so this shouldn't be a disputed issue. DestradoZero 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this section to yet again reflect the accurate information that we have. The reference is accurate (I checked it just now - Chapter 346, Pages 9-13). If anyone feels that this is incorrect, please tell me where you have proof, or show it. Otherwise, this should stay as it is. DestradoZero 08:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said, the section did not state that he needs the fox's chakra to create shadow clones. It said that when he does use the fox's chakra it tends to be for the purpose of creating shadow clones. Chapter 299 is the manga equivalent of episode 46 and is the same as what is said in the episode. But that says nothing of Naruto's lineage nor the amount of Naruto's chakra; only that Naruto's chakra is potent enough to match that of the demon fox's. ~SnapperTo 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can not remember a single time when it was stated that he was using the fox's chakra to make shadow clones. If it states this during his development of the Rasenshuriken, please state it. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it, but I do not think that I am in that regard, or in any other. Also, the episode doesn't say that Naruto's chakra can match the Kyuubi's chakra, but that Naruto's strength comes from his own chakra and its ability to withstand the chakra of the Kyuubi.

Whether or not Naruto has used the Kyuubi's chakra to create shadow clones at any time, it is *not* true that he uses it primarily to create them. He uses it primarily as a reaction to a life or death situation, whether it is him that is in danger or a friend. When fighting Gaara, Deidara, Orochimaru, and Kakuzu, he used the Kyuubi's chakra to fight them. Just those are more than enough reason to refute your claim. If you can name more than four instances when Naruto has used that chakra to make shadow clones, fine. Naruto has used that chakra more than four or even five times for purposes other than creating clones, but for now I'll just stick with those four examples. DestradoZero 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He uses the fox to create clones during his fight with Gaara. Since that is the lone example that comes to mind I did not restore your removal of it; it was a poor use of transition on my part to include it. My point, however, is that it did not state that he needs the fox to make clones. ~SnapperTo 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. My issue was that it seemed misleading, that's all. DestradoZero 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DestradoTensai (talk • contribs)

Which is a perfectly legitimate issue to have. If something is misinterpreted then there's probably something wrong with it. Oh, and I thought of another example of über demon clones: Naruto's fight with Kimimaro. That's so glaringly obvious I should have thought of it immediately. ~SnapperTo 03:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Key information taken out of Rasenshuriken

I can see why someone might think information should be streamlined for the Rasenshuriken - the fact that it has only been used once. However, this is obviously a key move for Naruto (if not now, then in the future). Even Minato couldn't create a jutsu of this caliber, and it has serious dangers for Naruto if he continues to use it. This is not trivial information, and leaving the information out is in fact doing a disservice to someone who reads this article and thinks that he knows everything about the Rasenshuriken.

If this is to be encyclopaedic, the information should stay. I have never seen an instance where key information was ever considered trivial, but it seems that some people are trying to make that claim. DestradoZero 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we as editors should not attempt to determine if something will be important in the future. Also, this is about telling everything there is to know about a subject, but simply enough that someone can grasp the basics and get more detailed information from the source itself. King Zeal (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the above, undue weight should not be given to any one aspect of the topic, especially not over belief of its so-called "importance" to the plot, which is speculation in any case. Excessive detail is not warranted or necessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mission Failed, not still following Sasuke

People, did you read the manga? Seriously did you? Look at this: Their mission failed, they lost Sasuke again, case closed. --Naruto134 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not link to copyright violating websites. The link you posted has been removed as a violation of Wikipedia policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they still aren't trying to trace him. Until they actually call it quits and return home, they are following Sasuke. Your statement is speculation if anything. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera you dont have to remove links in talk pages--The Last Uchiha 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes she does. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here on Wikipedia, and legal action would be justified (although trivial, irrelevant though) since such scanlations are illegal in the state of Florida, which is where Wikipedia's servers are based. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Would it be a good idea to add information about the in-plot origin of Naruto's name? Specifically, that it came from the main character of a novel that Jiraya was writing. Because Naruto's parents liked the name they used it for their Child's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookythemagicalbear (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That's notable enough. I s'pose that can go in character history, or something like that. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Age in part 2 now confirmed.

By Madara Uchiha, in chapter 399, by saying that the Kyuubi attacked 16 years ago. Is this adequate, and if not, why? Sasuke9031 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very specific, maybe we could add "16 (approx.)". As far as I heard we need something more specific such as those databooks.--Tintor2 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Just thought I'd run it by you guys before I did anything. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the author states that 16 years had already past since the ninetails attack,when the ninetails had attacked the village naruto, and all the other 7 genins were just born, not even a full years old yet, prior to part 2, they all were 13 by the end, in begining of part 2, the author states that 2 half years had past after part 1, meaning they were all 15 years and a half old, In chapter 399, madara just states that its been since 16 years after the attack of the ninetails fox, meaning it now a full 3 years that has past! meaning that in the start of part 2, all the rookie genin were 15 years and a half old, and now they are all 16 years old. How can the manga chapter be uncredibale source if the guy who made naruto wrote the chapter, how dense can you all be not to figure such a thing out! the manga chapter is reilable because its canon and plus the author wrote the statement, what the author says and write for the story is credible. if you want to put 16 years as approx then thats fine but dont act so dense about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.42.22 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't ignore things people tell you because you don't like it. You've been blocked before for doing that. Until the manga or some other piece of Naruto media specifically (note the emphasis) says that Naruto/Sasuke/Sakura/Gaara/Shikamaru are 16 years old, a Part II age will not be added. Using chapter 399 (or the much earlier 386) as a source is fine for forum discussions, but it does not suffice for Wikipedia. ~SnapperTo 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear on the ages, we would have to know the birthdays of the charecters, and the current date when madar said that. but it changes days constantly. without consent from kishimoto, we can not ive the exact ages of all charecters. end of disscussion. -Tobi4242 (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Itachi Gave Naruto Some of his Power

In chapter 403 Itachi makes Naruto swallow one of his crows and then tells him he gave him some of his power. What do you think of this? 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i also am a little bewildered by this, but should be included into the article. -Tobi4242 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i hope naruto gets the sharingan or better yet the mangekyo if possible.72.27.120.91 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking Itachi did to Naruto what he did to Sasuke; gave him a one-time Mangekyou ability. Kind of a fail-safe for his earlier fail-safe: if Sasuke's Amaterasu didn't kill Madara, and the latter got Sasuke to join him, then he'd give Naruto a Mangekyo ability (I'm hoping it's Susanoo) to stop Sasuke in case he attacked Kohana. But tht's just speculation on my part, and will remain speculation utill the manga confirms or denies it. It'll probably the latter, but I can dream, can't I? 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The power Itachi gave Naruto should reveal itself when he fights Sasuke, Pein, or Madara one of those three and it should be soon.--Amp99 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Itachi gave Naruto some of his Non-Ocular Jutsu, the Sharingan (possibly only two tomoe like Sasuke started with), his seal weaving speed, and his knowledge of the Uchiha Clan real demise.(talk)

Naruto: Part I?

Could we make this link "Part I" instead of writing Naruto: Part I. The manga never uses that title.Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some vague memories of a discussion about this, but darned if I can remember on which of the Naruto pages it was at the moment. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think this has been discussed before and the changes were made to make common readers understand it, but with a link its easier since we are not creating titles.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Found the archive. Never did we come to a conclusion did we? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not fully, but it looks like the leanings were toward just using Part I, no italics, and with the first mention probably clarifying what Part 1 is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What do the others use? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The main and the volume list both use Part 1 and Part 2, without the "Naruto: " part. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So, shall we make the change?Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It was never supposed to be "Naruto: Part I". I think that was User:Sesshomaru's weird change that had made a while ago. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can we make the change?--Tintor2 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is how the other articles have it, then it must be the correct way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Part I" or Part I?Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first instance could be linked. The rest should be just Part I, Part II, etc. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I ll make that in every article.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finished with the main characters.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent, and if you need some help on the minor villain and character lists I'd be glad to help. StardustDragon 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN

The articles about Sakura Haruno, Sasuke Uchiha & Kakashi Hatake are all good articles, and after reviewing the article for about a month, I find that it reads just like them. Therefore, I feel that this article meets the Good Article Criteria just as the former do, and deserves to be elevated to such. Busboy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Reception section is garbage right now, the other media section needs work, and the lead needs sprucing up as well. You know, you can make a note here that you want to bring this to GA status and ask others to help you in bringing it up to par, but nominating an article you've never worked on is plain rude. I'd recommend you withdraw the nomination, as it shouldn't pass as it stands. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. As the nomination was never even transcluded at WP:GAN, I've removed the notice at the top of the page. Please don't nominate it again. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I thoroughly[sic] disagree with you. I wont nominate it again for the sake of peace, but do mention exactly what the problems are. P.S., I HAVE worked on it. Please don't make such crass statements without first assessing thier validity, its just plain rude. Busboy (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You have edited it twice. Use this tool. I hardly consider that having worked on the article when other people have dozens or even hundreds of edits to the article. And I've already mentioned what the problems are, and why drive-by nominations are plain rude. The impetus falls on you to inform the people who consistently edit the article that you want to nominate it, not the other way around. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for the trouble. busboy (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Im just throwing this out, but busboy... u got owned. -Tobi4242 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, man. Busboy (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Abilities

shouldn't people mention that naruto can summon toads? --Sanji_1990 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has been mentioned. :) Hyakurei (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Ads Removed

Just to bring this to the general attention, I recently found advertisements leading to the following links on this page (as well as other major pages about Naruto):

-http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/naruto/goods/game.html -http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/naruto/goods/game2007.html

These links were hidden and accessible by clicking any part of the right hand side of the page. They also gave the page extra blank length (so scrolling was a nightmare). I've deleted all of these on the major Naruto pages. Should someone find another one on any page (or find these again on the major Naruto pages), please delete them. If you don't know how, post the page here so someone can have them deleted. Thank you. 98.110.164.162 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall Popularity Poll

In the latest Databook released in Japan, there was a compilation poll which gathered the results from all the popularity polls and produced an overall popularity ranking. I'm just wondering should it be documented or not? 131.247.244.234 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

wind release: rasenshuriken or wind release: spiraling shuriken

Both english sources use "Rasengan." Using common sense it would logically follow that they would use "great ball rasengan" and "rasenshuriken" as well. Yet some dude reverts me saying that "we can't predict what they will use," even though it seems obvious. Discuss, because I really am not in the mood to edit war with someone who really feels the need to revert something this trivial. (Normally I would.) Suigetsu 19:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Use the translation ("Spiraling Shuriken"). Until the English manga uses "Rasenshuriken" (and that part of the manga won't come for a while), then we'll stick with the translation. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See, but by that logic, we'd use "Great Ball Spiraling Sphere" for "Odama Rasengan," which I don't think we do. Either way, we're getting closer to Rasenshuriken's first use (sort of), so I won't bitch too much about it, but it seems like this is WP:OBVIOUS to me. Suigetsu 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're on that note, I got another related question. I don't recall the english manga ever translating the "<x>ton" elemental techniques to "<x> release." The anime uses "<x> style>," which is mentioned on the jutsu page, but we're still widely using "<x> release." Am I just blind to the fact that the English manga used "release" and I'm just an idiot, or are we using it as a literal translation or what? Suigetsu 19:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't use anything for Odama Rasengan. If we did, it would probably be "Giant Rasengan". Viz has started giving both romanizations and translations, so we mix and match whichever is easier on the reader. And the manga uses "style" for elemental techniques. "Release" is just the literal translation of the term. ~SnapperTo 20:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

so shouldn't we use "style" per wp:ue? Suigetsu

In theory, yes. I personally don't think it makes that much of a difference. ~SnapperTo 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably should change it in that case, but I hate the "style" translation. With an overriding passion. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kanji?

Shouldn't we use the Kanji(渦巻) for "Uzumaki" instead of the Hiragana(うずまき)?Moocowsrule (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Considering that Naruto himself writes his name in Hiragana (see Episode 54 of the anime, analagous to chapter 92 of the manga (counting the pilot as chapter 0)), I'm disinclined to agree with a change to Kanji. 141.166.234.196 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why not use both hiragana and kanji? Dany 123 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because that's how he writes his name doesn't mean that's how it's written... that didn't make much sense... but I mean he's a kid, how many kid's know they're full name in Kanji? Not that many... well maybe a lot... but anyways, his name is written as "渦巻ナルト". Plus Naruto is a kid's show, and kid's probably don't know how to read "渦巻" unless there is furigana, which would make it weird writing your name in Kanji then furigana, so he probably just wrote it out as "うずまきナルト". His real name is "渦巻ナルト". I have the Japanese version of "Uzumaki: the Art of Naruto" and it's written out as "渦巻" then with Furigana indicating "うずまき". If Kishimoto uses "渦巻" we should too. Moocowsrule (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Sage Training

In the plot shouldnt we metion he is being trained by fukatsu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.99.104 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should, but what about Gamakichi telling Naruto that he has to die to be one with nature? We all know that if Naruto dies so does the 9-Tailed Fox, but maybe this is all part of Jiraiya's plan, Remember, he gave the key to one of his toads to give to Naruto, it has some kind of purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.253.216 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add this bit of the plot, since it is significant especially after Naruto was told that he had to die. But after I did, it was edited out again. Did I do something wrong? Hyakurei (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You could try reading the comment at the end of that section. You know, the one that's been telling all of you not to add week-to-week updates every time a chapter comes out? Wait until something significant comes out of all of this and then we can add it to the plot overview section. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, there's already a mention of it: "After learning that Jiraiya has been killed by the Akatsuki leader, Pain, Naruto begins training to better prepare for future conflicts with Akatsuki." That should suffice for however long Kishimoto draws out his toad-training. ~SnapperTo 19:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that. But should that sentence be at the end? It sounds like Naruto goes off after Sasuke after Jiraiya was killed and his training was complete.Hyakurei (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be in chronological order. It's grouped by topic: conflicts with Akatsuki and then search for Sasuke. The mention of Kakuzu, for example, comes before any mention of Sasuke, which is not the order that things happen in in the series. ~SnapperTo 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it should be chrono order. In Sasuke's plot you don't read Sasuke working with akatsuki after learning the truth about itachi before sasuke betraying orochimaru and forming his own team to kill itachi. --Sanji_1990 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Except Sasuke's article isn't Naruto's article Suigetsu 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair call, but having 2 different pages so closely linked showing no corroboration could be confusing. Frequen-Z (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Recently, on Naruto chapter 414, he has shown aptitude at using natural energy, in picking up a giant frog boulder. This is NOT fancruft, and should be added to powers and abilities. 70.64.39.82 (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, he's mastered natural energy with toad oil. This should go somewhere in powers/abilities. Anyone agree/disagree? 70.64.39.82 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. While Fukasaku does confirm that Naruto has mastered it with the use of the oil, that step is not pivotal in the series or in regards to his abilities. It's a stepping stone, not an end result, and by all indications it is a phase that will be bypassed in a matter of weeks. The addition of natural energy to his techniques shouldn't be added until his training with it either ends or goes on a much more definitive hiatus (read: he stops training and leaves Myobokuzan). 141.166.234.196 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I just read the Scanaltion of this week's chapter and the preview details state that of the following chapter as Naruto's complaining is complete so this should be crucial point for the decision of when the information should be added. The only reason I held back on these discussions was I knew it wasn't the right time to communicate. -71.193.181.210 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't include stuff that you read in scanlations. They're more than likely incorrect. Moocowsrule (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Hey is it me or does this just seem like another version of the kuuybi chakra, because so far it does the exact same things except give a cloak around his body could someone tell me if there is a difference because so far i haven't seen one.--Amp99 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The Nine-Tailed Fox's Chakra is completely different than Sage Chakra. Sage Chakra draws it's energy from the body, and from nature. ムー・カオーズ・ルール 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Nine Tailed fox

Shoudent we add a pic of naruto in his 4 tails trans formation Poohman0 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you draw one? Or find one for free? Otherwise no. Moocowsrule (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

http://endless-naruto.com/Naruto-Tailed-Beasts.html theres a pic here. Poohman0 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

However, using it would sort of push us over the limit - it may just be too many fair use images for similar subjects in an article. Scapler (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ok..... i guss I also think this sould be nominated for a ga reveiw Poohman0 (talk)

It still needs some copyediting, but it is improving. Maybe soon, I would think. Scapler (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception could also expanded seeing the other characters.Tintor2 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, he is the main character, after all... Scapler (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception Section

I would ask anyone who can expand the reception section of the article to do so. This section need some more to it, and is the biggest section that needs work before Naruto Uzumaki can even think of Good Article status. Scapler (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed battle with Gaara is often mentioned in Reception section. However, it is not explained in the main article. Maybe it'd be better to add short explanation in Plot overview or elsewhere to avoid confusion. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Still mentioned x) -- DEERSTOP (talk). 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot Overview Seems Misleading

I'm aware that a long plot overview is unnecessary, but the current one not only fails to mention the Chunin Exam Arc (Arguably the second most important story arc in part 1) I'm not suggesting a paragraph, more like a half a sentence noting it occured and its significance in establishing a relationship with Gaara. Other than that, the plot summary seems rather misleading- if someone was given the summary alone, they would be hard pressed to conclude that Naruto was the main character. It does a poor job of explaining Naruto's interactions in part 1, which were incredibly important in his character development and the series plot as a whole, and goes so far as to state that he doesn't really do anything important until the final arc of part 1. Then, the part 2 section claims that his role is even less than his already minimalized role in part 1. (That his role is less is true, however coming after the horrendous part 1 description it suggests he is practically forgotten) I'm satisfied with the part 2 paragraph, however, the part one paragraph needs revamping. 65.4.218.6 (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an overreaction perhaps; when I first wrote that synopsis crap like this was still fresh in my memory. Since Naruto's the main character, his "Plot overview" section would be a summary of the entire series that is a) too long, or b) overly vague. To avoid that I focused instead on his interactions with Akatsuki and Orochimaru/Sasuke (the overarching plot lines), which he has only negligible amounts of for most of Part I. In truth the whole article needs a revamp, as it still suffers from the cuts made because of January's joke of an AfD. ~SnapperTo 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the article is not in bad state right now. It seems the afd was angry with some deletions of warcraft articles and started pointing this was fancruft while we were starting to use conception and reception sections to every article (as well as some merges). You can even see those discussions in his talk page. In my opinion the article does not suffer from this right now.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Personality section is extremely short for the main character, especially when compared to other articles. The cuts from that section are what I'm referring to. ~SnapperTo 20:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

who wrote this?

they did a crappy job. Kishi didn't change naruto's costume to appeal to western audience? wtf? naruto TS happened long before naruto started in america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.223.215 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, nice civility. Secondly, who said it was about his TS appearance, it is about the first that Kishimoto draw Naruto in drafts and in the one-shot from the series. Then in the manga it was redesigned.Tintor2 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kishimoto probably changed the costume to show growth in the character. He seems to be a long way from giving up orange, but he is getting there. ~~Kepy~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.39.86 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA?

Based on Rock Lee and Sakura Haruno (both GA articles with less info than this one) I think that Naruto Uzumaki is ready for GA, anyone else have any thoughts on the subject? Scapler (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

why the heavy spoilers?

I'm wondering about whoever wrote this article, why the apparent OVER EMPHASIS on spoilers without so much as a warning? In the "Personality" section, there are millions of things that should be mentioned AHEAD of "his father, the Fourth Hokage", who would start a personality section with something like that?! It's so out of the blue and impossible to avoid reading. This article needs serious editting by someone who isn't so intent on spoiling (like the writer of the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raging goddess (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler. Besides, assuming things are to be addressed chronologically, Naruto's parentage would obviously be first. ~SnapperTo 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it HAVE to say his father was the Hokage because it would be strange if we left the bit out and just added it later on. Sumhtun (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

Plot section

Situation is still the same, as it was months ago. :) Several sources praise Naruto's battle with Gaara, but nothing is said about it in plot overview. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a lock to prevent Vandalism

I've been going over the older versions of the article and I've been noticing an increase in vandalism by new users and anonymous users. This article should be locked, only allowing established users to edit, to stop the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSaiyaMan (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it is good faith edits though, mostly undone because many editors do not read the article before adding duplicate information. Scapler (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe that would be a good idea, per this version. which I just reverted. Scapler (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Protect it, just make sure to leave the talk page open to IPs, not all of us are vandals. 189.4.250.18 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of vandalism on this article, discovered today. Can someone correct it all? Zhane Masaki (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is "weird ass gay kid" on it. Benos. Obvious trolls are obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.62.152 (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Naruto Four Tails picture

I think this artical should have a picture of naruto in his four tails state or transformation(I dont know which one). Beacause he usses it in serveral battles. Poohman0 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget the 4-tails! Naruto's using the 6-tailed fox-cloak now that Pain's killed Hinata. 75.157.126.31 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Hinata is dead and you are correct but the four tails pic is in color Poohman0 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention sage mode as well and the picture of hi min sage mode?Haseo445 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Several battles? Naruto only used his Four-Tailed Fox-Cloak three times, and the manga shows two of them. Once vs. Jiraya, once vs. Orochimaru, and once vs. Pain. Count 'em. Three. And where would we put the picture in the article? We already have a picture of Naruto using the Rasengan in the One-Tailed Fox Cloak, so would we replace it with the Four-Tails picture, or wait a few weeks until the Pain Invades Konoha arc in the anime winds up to get a picture of the Six-Tailed Cloak or Eight-Tailed Cloak? Personally, I say stick with the One-Tailed Cloak for now or the article will either become overcrowded or begin to resemble the Naruto Wiki. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nine tails

we should add that naruto has broken one of the seals and allowing him to use all 9 tails, but that the fourth hokage (aka naruto's father) would appear in his conscience if 8 tails appeared.Haseo445 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If we add that, we should add at least a few details on his battle with Pain and confrontation with Nagato to the plot summary. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Uh that's not what happened. First off, theres only ONE seal. Naruto was just getting angrier and angrier, thinking things were helpless and the fox was using his anger to unleash his power to free himself. At the eighth tail, Naruto had to physically remove the seal to get all nine tails, but that would kill him and unleash a fully reborn Kyubi. Minato appeared because it was a SAFEGUARD to keep the Kyubi from breaking free. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

the plot overview needs editing

The plot overview is confusing. It's not even written in chronological order. Can someone fix this? Alphapeta (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I've tried. Someone kept reverting it because they don't like the way canon order follows. Calling it 'original research' thus inadmissable. SuperSaiyaMan (talk)

A lot of relevant things have happened to Naruto since he last met Itachi, and while I agree that chapter-by-chapter updates are not kosher, we should include his training with Fukasaku, fight with Pain and meeting with his father.

Two of the three are already mentioned (one more explicitly than the other), albeit not at the end of the section. In case that leads to a question of "why?", the Part II paragraph is organized by topic; first Akatsuki, then Sasuke. ~SnapperTo 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Such a format is outdated and leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired. If someone reads the article as is-they'll think Jiraiya died before Naruto completed his Futon: Rasenshuriken and that Naruto defeated Pain before defeating Kakuzu. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that now, but his meeting with his dad's ghost is still an important revelation for him, and what about his begging the Raikage not to order Sasuke's execution (probably trivial)? Although nothing's come of it as of yet, I get the feeling something big's gonna happen. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

His meeting with Minato did had a explicit change on his personality with the exception of being a bit happier. He only received a hint of how he can bring peace and had sealed the fox once again.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we include that he is now training to control the Nine-Tailed Fox? I included it, but it was reverted. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The training did not even begin.Tintor2 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He has removed the seal on the Kyuubi, though. Or at least he ate the frog that has the key to the Kyuubi's cage. Should we include this? 75.157.115.154 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Naruto has finished his "training" - defeating the hatred within him - and is now fighting the Nine-Tails. I added this to the article, but it was reverted. I take it that it would be prudent to wait until the battle with the Kyuubi has been concluded to add it? 75.157.78.82 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated the Plot

Now that Naruto's beaten the Nine-Tailed Fox, I've updated the article to summarize the basic events of chapters 490-499. If anyone thinks what I've added can be improved upon, please do so. 75.157.125.234 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naruto controlling the Fox is already in the abilities section, so it does not need to be in the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what about his mom being the Fox's prior host, the one who destroyed Konoha and was killed by Minato? She doesn't have a section on the character page, so where should we add that? 75.157.120.15 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for this section. May be more notable for Fox's section.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fox doesn't have much of a section, and what's there leaves little room for additions. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a format is outdated and leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired. If someone reads the article as is-they'll think Jiraiya died before Naruto completed his Futon: Rasenshuriken and that Naruto defeated Pain before defeating Kakuzu. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the article tells in that such things happen in some order? Besides, you appear to find current events in the manga more important than previous ones, and that's no reason to change images.Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Given its a PLOT OVERVIEW, and we basically have the part 1 plot in order, yes, we have to have the Part 2 part in order. Otherwise, it's confusing. And yes, current events in the manga sometimes retcon things. We have to keep this article up to date and make things not confusing to the readers. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the Sasuke Uchiha article's plot overview is in order, why not have Naruto's in order? Why leave Naruto's as a confusing mess that screws up events?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid making changes without consensus. I rearranged the plot overview section to remove the ability parts which are misleading. References have to be formatted with cite book to be more specific rather than just giving the chapters. The Part II image is blank and white making it less informative than the Part I, which also shows his Rasengan which is also discussed in the article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How will we make a 'consensus'? There are only TWO of us here discussing this. And how are the 'ability parts' misleading when I put them down? How is citing just the volume more specific than the actual chapter itself? And how is the Part II image less informative than the outdated Part I one? Just because Naruto is using a Rasengan in it? It doesn't reflect current data. Tintor, stop sticking with the outdated and confusing parts of the article please.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The abilities parts are for the section from the same name. Current is important for real world information, not fictional. Giving unformatted refs for an article is not encyclopedic as read will have no idea where is such chapter from, and will only work in a wikia.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Voice Actresses

How come in the entire article there is no mention of who voices Naruto himself in both the Japanese and English dubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.130.136 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean about the infobox, it was part of vandalism. There are mentions of Maile Flanagan and Junko Takeuchi in the article but not many.Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I have made some corrections but someone better than me should go over it "with a fine toothed comb" looking for non sequiturs and any other errors. – Allen4names 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"... causing it to resemble it as time goes on"??? ambiguous it ".. he is able to maintain his human form while using it." No clear mention that he changes forms from human to fox or vice versa. Confusing "... leaving Naruto without a family" what about his mother???? Confused Konoha/Konohagakure: stick to one spelling "... more chakra in the form of tails appears" Confused??? "... the soul of his mother Kushina Uzumaki that has been within the seal." Shouldn't the mother be named when birth is mentioned? The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga. "...utterly unquestionable whether or not" questionable??? "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series?? "She noted difficulties in voicing the character for the first [time] after " Missing word "Takeuchi met [with] hardships" missing word and extra s
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ref 39 is dead. Replace
	2c. it contains no original research.	added
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is no clear boundary where Part I ends and Part II starts in Appearances. What about the anime appearances? Are they covered too? Not clear. "Description" is too abstract. May be you have a full-fledged section on "appearance". Describe his hair, costume (blue patches etc.), the head band (symbol on it), eye colour, shoes etc. How it changes from Part I to II, anime, video games. Naruto seems to use multiple fighting techniques. A detailed section on it is needed. [1] "various stages of the demon fox's manifestation" : explain Naruto's non-human manifestations See Barbara Gordon for a good layout. Reorganize sections as "Appearance" (physical appearance), "Personality", "Life", "Abilities and fighting techniques", "Conception", "Reception".
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Infobox image needs a caption stating stating if it is from Part I or II. Add description on image page in fair use rationale.
	7. Overall assessment.	The articles needs a through copyedit and more clarity in the life summary. Also give more context to explain jargon like chakra. Include more manga as well as anime, video games related information, as suggested in 3a.

This is not a fansite. There's no need to add section of about all his abilties or personality traits, or it will be wp:fancruft. Part II is actually from the same manga, while anime appearances are actually the same as the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond (character), FA Batman also have these sections. Besides a copyedit, the article also needs to clarify the sources: Part I, Part II in the article text: are you referring manga/anime etc. You are free to ask for reassessment. All the best. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The series' primary media is the manga, that's why all sources are from the manga volumes, while the anime adapts them.

So you say that adding in-universe information will make the article better? I still don't see how would adding details like "Naruto makes all his clones launch each other in one attack, or that the Rasengan can only be made with Naruto's clones" be important to the general reader. If I were to follow other stuff, how GAs Samus Aran, Lara Croft and Cloud Strife avoid using these types of subsections. You also pointed few sentences that I was going to try fixing, but did the nomination automatically fail due to the lack of in-universe sections?Tintor2 (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The sections are not the only reason of a fail. The language and inadequate clarity of jargon like Part II, chakra is also a major reason of fail. Thus, it needed a rewrite in this aspect too. If you think that the article can be a GA as it is. Please approach GA reassessment. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That was what I was going to do as you noted in the issues, but you still claim that the article needs to follow Wikia standards with new sections, which I fail understand why having wp:plot and wp:fancruft in mind.Tintor2 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose

All the points in section 1a have been addressed, except for the following (quotes taken from this version):

• "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes; it has become so common worldwide ever since Naruto's debut that it is utterly unquestionable whether or not the main protagonist is purely Japanese due to his appearance, therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes."

I would have tried to re-cast the sentence, but I wasn't sure what it was getting at. Something to do with cross-cultural appeal, or diversity? Or merely that it's too late now to give Naruto brown eyes and black hair, even if Kishimoto wanted to? Anyway, the first clause is not cited—I was tempted to just delete the whole thing.

He refers to Naruto's popularity across international readers and the questioning whether or not he was Japanese considering his hair and eyes.

• "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series??

Replaced with "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version".

Someone who has seen the series will have to address this.

• The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga.

I'm with Redtigerxyz on this. I had to infer the distinction between Part I and Part II based on context clues. I think this should be spelled out unambiguously in the lead, along with what TV shows and movies he has appeared in, and how they are related to each other. Just a couple sentences would really clear things up, but I think someone with more Naruto knowledge should do it.

Added to the lead.

It seems reasonably clear and concise to me, but I've read the article a bunch of times now. Someone else may want to give it a quick speed read just to make sure I'm not imagining it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes and copyedits.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(beginning)

lede

• "This has also occurred within the start of Part II, the storyline's part which starts two-and-a-half years after the conclusion of the original series Part I." - this is clumsy wording. Also, perhaps you should explain that there are two parts, etc.

Reworded to incorporate it within the previous sentences.

• "Several anime and manga publications have expressed acclaim and criticism of Naruto's character." - have expressed mixed views?

Reworded.

Description

• "Naruto wants people's attention as a result of the way villagers have set him apart" - Because the villagers have set him apart, Naruto seeks the attention of others?

Reworded.

• "While becoming a ninja" - so he doesn't start out as one? Should this be stated in the lede, as there it sounds like he has always been one?

Reworded in the lead.

Appearance

• "Team 7" - is there significance to this?

It's Naruto's primary group, but it's never mentioned again in the section, so removed.

• "He later learns the Rasengan, a concentrated orb of spiraling chakra capable of grinding whatever it touches." - could this be explained better? He learns to use ... a concentrated orb ...?

Reworded.

• "discovering that the Fourth Hokage was actually his father." - is actuall his father?

Yes, removed the actual.

• "This portrayal of Naruto later appeared as a secret character in the game " - later appears?

Reworded.

Creation and conception

• "The orange in his costume makes Naruto "pop" and blues are often used" - and blue is often used? Or do you mean one orange and more than one blue?

Reworded.

• "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes, something rarely seen in Japanese." - why is this in the present tense? - did he say this somewhere?

Reworded.

• There is an alternation between present and past tense that is confusing.

Fixed.

Comment

• I will add more. Altogether I think it's clearly written. So far I've made a few edits which you are free to change.[2]

Voice actors

• "as she had to record the first episode after the time skip only one week after voicing the character from before the time skip." - this is the time between the parts referred to in the lede?

Reworded.

Reception

• I'm noticing the alternation between using past and present tense continues in this section. You need to be consistent. I think only the "in-universe" stuff should be in the present tense, unless there is a compelling reason to put other information in the present tense.

Reworded.

• "In every official Weekly Shōnen Jump popularity poll of the series, Naruto ranks in the top five characters and has been in first place twice." - should add time frame, like "as of the beginning of 2012, ... been in first place twice."

Reworded.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

• I have made further copy edits. Please check for accuracy.[3]
• "a concentrated orb of chakra" - sorry, but I don't get this. (should I take it on faith?)

Reworded

• "Because Naruto is associated with spirals" - is this because of chakras?
  • Reworded. It's because of several things such as his headband which looks like spiral, his name, the ramen, etc.
• "on the cellular level" - is that meant literally?
  • It is. Would it make it simpler to state it cuts?
• "He sealed the Fox so Naruto could use it against Tobi" - could this be clearer?

Reworded,

• use of Amazon.com - are you using that just to prove the object exists? (as otherwise, it's not a relaible source).

Replaced two and removed two with official website.

• still a problem with verb tense - e.g. in "Reception", the comments of critics should be in the past tense - I went through and tried to check, but please be conscious of tense.

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(continuing}

• I have made a few more edits for you to check.[4]

Looks pretty good.

• "To prepare himself, he takes full control of the Fox's powers, discovering that the Fourth Hokage was his father. He sealed the Fox so Naruto could use its power to defeat Tobi, Pain's superior who was responsible for the Fox's attack to Konohagakure." - I don't understand about the seal and "sealed the Fox". Or the Fourth Hokage.

Reworded. The seal is the Fourth Hokage made to place the Fox inside Naruto also mentioned in the first sentence of "In Naruto".

• "Therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes. Moreover, the editor of the American magazine Shonen Jump implied that these traits may have made the characters more appealing to Western audiences." - not sure what "it has gained" refers to - what is "it"? Also, why the italics? Can't you just leave that part out, as the editor's statement says the same thing.

Removed the italics. Reworded it as it meant the series.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a few more things

• "simple and stupid" - this quote needs to be given a source

Added refs.

• there are some sources that are not accessible, except by subscription and should be labeled as such. e.g. the source for the Washington Times critic goes to [5]

Replaced the Washington Times site with a more accessible one.

• Thank you for your cooperation in being so responsive to my points!

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! Good job! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Merchandising

[6] and [7] are only ones I found about that. Im not sure what kind of merchandising we need to put.Tintor2 (talk) 9:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated the Plot

Now that Naruto's beaten the Nine-Tailed Fox, I've updated the article to summarize the basic events of chapters 490-499. If anyone thinks what I've added can be improved upon, please do so. 75.157.125.234 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naruto controlling the Fox is already in the abilities section, so it does not need to be in the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what about his mom being the Fox's prior host, the one who destroyed Konoha and was killed by Minato? She doesn't have a section on the character page, so where should we add that? 75.157.120.15 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for this section. May be more notable for Fox's section.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fox doesn't have much of a section, and what's there leaves little room for additions. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a format is outdated and leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired. If someone reads the article as is-they'll think Jiraiya died before Naruto completed his Futon: Rasenshuriken and that Naruto defeated Pain before defeating Kakuzu. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the article tells in that such things happen in some order? Besides, you appear to find current events in the manga more important than previous ones, and that's no reason to change images.Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Given its a PLOT OVERVIEW, and we basically have the part 1 plot in order, yes, we have to have the Part 2 part in order. Otherwise, it's confusing. And yes, current events in the manga sometimes retcon things. We have to keep this article up to date and make things not confusing to the readers. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the Sasuke Uchiha article's plot overview is in order, why not have Naruto's in order? Why leave Naruto's as a confusing mess that screws up events?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid making changes without consensus. I rearranged the plot overview section to remove the ability parts which are misleading. References have to be formatted with cite book to be more specific rather than just giving the chapters. The Part II image is blank and white making it less informative than the Part I, which also shows his Rasengan which is also discussed in the article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How will we make a 'consensus'? There are only TWO of us here discussing this. And how are the 'ability parts' misleading when I put them down? How is citing just the volume more specific than the actual chapter itself? And how is the Part II image less informative than the outdated Part I one? Just because Naruto is using a Rasengan in it? It doesn't reflect current data. Tintor, stop sticking with the outdated and confusing parts of the article please.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The abilities parts are for the section from the same name. Current is important for real world information, not fictional. Giving unformatted refs for an article is not encyclopedic as read will have no idea where is such chapter from, and will only work in a wikia.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Voice Actresses

How come in the entire article there is no mention of who voices Naruto himself in both the Japanese and English dubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.130.136 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean about the infobox, it was part of vandalism. There are mentions of Maile Flanagan and Junko Takeuchi in the article but not many.Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I have made some corrections but someone better than me should go over it "with a fine toothed comb" looking for non sequiturs and any other errors. – Allen4names 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"... causing it to resemble it as time goes on"??? ambiguous it ".. he is able to maintain his human form while using it." No clear mention that he changes forms from human to fox or vice versa. Confusing "... leaving Naruto without a family" what about his mother???? Confused Konoha/Konohagakure: stick to one spelling "... more chakra in the form of tails appears" Confused??? "... the soul of his mother Kushina Uzumaki that has been within the seal." Shouldn't the mother be named when birth is mentioned? The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga. "...utterly unquestionable whether or not" questionable??? "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series?? "She noted difficulties in voicing the character for the first [time] after " Missing word "Takeuchi met [with] hardships" missing word and extra s
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ref 39 is dead. Replace
	2c. it contains no original research.	added
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is no clear boundary where Part I ends and Part II starts in Appearances. What about the anime appearances? Are they covered too? Not clear. "Description" is too abstract. May be you have a full-fledged section on "appearance". Describe his hair, costume (blue patches etc.), the head band (symbol on it), eye colour, shoes etc. How it changes from Part I to II, anime, video games. Naruto seems to use multiple fighting techniques. A detailed section on it is needed. [8] "various stages of the demon fox's manifestation" : explain Naruto's non-human manifestations See Barbara Gordon for a good layout. Reorganize sections as "Appearance" (physical appearance), "Personality", "Life", "Abilities and fighting techniques", "Conception", "Reception".
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Infobox image needs a caption stating stating if it is from Part I or II. Add description on image page in fair use rationale.
	7. Overall assessment.	The articles needs a through copyedit and more clarity in the life summary. Also give more context to explain jargon like chakra. Include more manga as well as anime, video games related information, as suggested in 3a.

This is not a fansite. There's no need to add section of about all his abilties or personality traits, or it will be wp:fancruft. Part II is actually from the same manga, while anime appearances are actually the same as the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond (character), FA Batman also have these sections. Besides a copyedit, the article also needs to clarify the sources: Part I, Part II in the article text: are you referring manga/anime etc. You are free to ask for reassessment. All the best. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The series' primary media is the manga, that's why all sources are from the manga volumes, while the anime adapts them.

So you say that adding in-universe information will make the article better? I still don't see how would adding details like "Naruto makes all his clones launch each other in one attack, or that the Rasengan can only be made with Naruto's clones" be important to the general reader. If I were to follow other stuff, how GAs Samus Aran, Lara Croft and Cloud Strife avoid using these types of subsections. You also pointed few sentences that I was going to try fixing, but did the nomination automatically fail due to the lack of in-universe sections?Tintor2 (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The sections are not the only reason of a fail. The language and inadequate clarity of jargon like Part II, chakra is also a major reason of fail. Thus, it needed a rewrite in this aspect too. If you think that the article can be a GA as it is. Please approach GA reassessment. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That was what I was going to do as you noted in the issues, but you still claim that the article needs to follow Wikia standards with new sections, which I fail understand why having wp:plot and wp:fancruft in mind.Tintor2 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose

All the points in section 1a have been addressed, except for the following (quotes taken from this version):

• "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes; it has become so common worldwide ever since Naruto's debut that it is utterly unquestionable whether or not the main protagonist is purely Japanese due to his appearance, therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes."

I would have tried to re-cast the sentence, but I wasn't sure what it was getting at. Something to do with cross-cultural appeal, or diversity? Or merely that it's too late now to give Naruto brown eyes and black hair, even if Kishimoto wanted to? Anyway, the first clause is not cited—I was tempted to just delete the whole thing.

He refers to Naruto's popularity across international readers and the questioning whether or not he was Japanese considering his hair and eyes.

• "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series??

Replaced with "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version".

Someone who has seen the series will have to address this.

• The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga.

I'm with Redtigerxyz on this. I had to infer the distinction between Part I and Part II based on context clues. I think this should be spelled out unambiguously in the lead, along with what TV shows and movies he has appeared in, and how they are related to each other. Just a couple sentences would really clear things up, but I think someone with more Naruto knowledge should do it.

Added to the lead.

It seems reasonably clear and concise to me, but I've read the article a bunch of times now. Someone else may want to give it a quick speed read just to make sure I'm not imagining it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes and copyedits.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(beginning)

lede

• "This has also occurred within the start of Part II, the storyline's part which starts two-and-a-half years after the conclusion of the original series Part I." - this is clumsy wording. Also, perhaps you should explain that there are two parts, etc.

Reworded to incorporate it within the previous sentences.

• "Several anime and manga publications have expressed acclaim and criticism of Naruto's character." - have expressed mixed views?

Reworded.

Description

• "Naruto wants people's attention as a result of the way villagers have set him apart" - Because the villagers have set him apart, Naruto seeks the attention of others?

Reworded.

• "While becoming a ninja" - so he doesn't start out as one? Should this be stated in the lede, as there it sounds like he has always been one?

Reworded in the lead.

Appearance

• "Team 7" - is there significance to this?

It's Naruto's primary group, but it's never mentioned again in the section, so removed.

• "He later learns the Rasengan, a concentrated orb of spiraling chakra capable of grinding whatever it touches." - could this be explained better? He learns to use ... a concentrated orb ...?

Reworded.

• "discovering that the Fourth Hokage was actually his father." - is actuall his father?

Yes, removed the actual.

• "This portrayal of Naruto later appeared as a secret character in the game " - later appears?

Reworded.

Creation and conception

• "The orange in his costume makes Naruto "pop" and blues are often used" - and blue is often used? Or do you mean one orange and more than one blue?

Reworded.

• "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes, something rarely seen in Japanese." - why is this in the present tense? - did he say this somewhere?

Reworded.

• There is an alternation between present and past tense that is confusing.

Fixed.

Comment

• I will add more. Altogether I think it's clearly written. So far I've made a few edits which you are free to change.[9]

Voice actors

• "as she had to record the first episode after the time skip only one week after voicing the character from before the time skip." - this is the time between the parts referred to in the lede?

Reworded.

Reception

• I'm noticing the alternation between using past and present tense continues in this section. You need to be consistent. I think only the "in-universe" stuff should be in the present tense, unless there is a compelling reason to put other information in the present tense.

Reworded.

• "In every official Weekly Shōnen Jump popularity poll of the series, Naruto ranks in the top five characters and has been in first place twice." - should add time frame, like "as of the beginning of 2012, ... been in first place twice."

Reworded.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

• I have made further copy edits. Please check for accuracy.[10]
• "a concentrated orb of chakra" - sorry, but I don't get this. (should I take it on faith?)

Reworded

• "Because Naruto is associated with spirals" - is this because of chakras?
  • Reworded. It's because of several things such as his headband which looks like spiral, his name, the ramen, etc.
• "on the cellular level" - is that meant literally?
  • It is. Would it make it simpler to state it cuts?
• "He sealed the Fox so Naruto could use it against Tobi" - could this be clearer?

Reworded,

• use of Amazon.com - are you using that just to prove the object exists? (as otherwise, it's not a relaible source).

Replaced two and removed two with official website.

• still a problem with verb tense - e.g. in "Reception", the comments of critics should be in the past tense - I went through and tried to check, but please be conscious of tense.

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(continuing}

• I have made a few more edits for you to check.[11]

Looks pretty good.

• "To prepare himself, he takes full control of the Fox's powers, discovering that the Fourth Hokage was his father. He sealed the Fox so Naruto could use its power to defeat Tobi, Pain's superior who was responsible for the Fox's attack to Konohagakure." - I don't understand about the seal and "sealed the Fox". Or the Fourth Hokage.

Reworded. The seal is the Fourth Hokage made to place the Fox inside Naruto also mentioned in the first sentence of "In Naruto".

• "Therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes. Moreover, the editor of the American magazine Shonen Jump implied that these traits may have made the characters more appealing to Western audiences." - not sure what "it has gained" refers to - what is "it"? Also, why the italics? Can't you just leave that part out, as the editor's statement says the same thing.

Removed the italics. Reworded it as it meant the series.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a few more things

• "simple and stupid" - this quote needs to be given a source

Added refs.

• there are some sources that are not accessible, except by subscription and should be labeled as such. e.g. the source for the Washington Times critic goes to [12]

Replaced the Washington Times site with a more accessible one.

• Thank you for your cooperation in being so responsive to my points!

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! Good job! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback: You could put more images.

83.42.224.121 posted this comment on 3 May 2013 (view all feedback).

You could put more images.

Any thoughts?

Nonfree images are difficult to list unless they are prominent in the article and have a small resolution.Tintor2 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Importance scale evaluation.

I noticed that Mika1h raised the importance rating of this article to mid on the bases that the character is from a series rated as High-important.[13] However, the criteria is that the character is a cultural icon outside of the series. And frankly, I'm not seeing much in the reception section as of yet to justify an upgrade in the importance rating. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I was looking at the High-importance criteria, Mid-importance only requires that the character is well known. —Farix (t | c) 20:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Character's Name

So, am I getting this correctly? In Japanese, the pronunciation is Nah-roo-toh, like Nah-roo-toe, but in English, some people pronounce as Nare-uh-toh? Like Nare or nar rhyming with the letter R, like the word "are"? Should we put pronunciation on this article? I don't think so, right. I mean, I do, if that's the right thing to do, but I was just asking about the pronunciation. Like nar-ooh-toe, right? Okay, thanks, and I'm sorry. From:

12:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbyAndTheRockets07 (talk • contribs)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170909234452/http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/09/230012 to http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/09/230012

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)