Talk:Haku

First appearance
I believe it was Episode 9 that Haku first appeared as a Hunter ninja. If someone remembers him showing up before then could they fix the episode number?

Also, can someone put in when Haku appeared in the manga. Be it as a Hunter-nin or as himself, whichever is first. I think it was Chapter 10 but I have no clue if that's correct. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 8, 2007 @ 11:29 (UTC)
 * Chapter 16, page 15 from my references. Putting that in now. --Dubtiger 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia addition
I've been trying to find a good wording for the trivia bit to note on how some fans speculate on Haku's gender.

Jhbartlett suggested "Due to Haku's androgynous appearance, and his tendency to lie to protect his identity and Zabuza'a in the past, further coupled with his very close relationship to Zabuza, some fans speculate that Haku may actually be a girl.", but it's a little to big for a trivia note. Any ideas for revising it? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 10, 2007 @ 02:55 (UTC)


 * Ok, the old dispute isn't helping the article at all. Believe it!'s been temp blocked because he attacks every comment that someone makes on this talkpage. So it's ok to contribute some feedback on what you think should be done with the article. I'm going to post the ones put on my talkpage below to help with the discussion. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 10, 2007 @ 03:17 (UTC)

Omg, I don't want to dattebayo that that argument is even happening... My stance: Haku is a boy. On page 12 of chapter 21 "Oh...and...I'm a boy." Also, without fail, Zabuza refers to Haku as "he". Now, it is true that Haku has an androgynous appearance. Nonetheless, whether Haku and Zabuza are lying about his gender or not, we are only given those few circumstances as evidence, and so speculation needs to be put aside. It is a fact that Haku has a very close relationship with Zabuza, it is a fact that they are running from the shinobi hunters, it is a fact that he has lied before...but it is also fact that he claimed to be a boy. If we are going to say that everything he said was a lie, because he lied once, then it could be that he enjoyed a comforatble life with both parents still alive.

Unfortunately, we are not given absolute proof of Haku's gender. But, for that matter, neither are we for anyone except Naruto and Sai's friend, given the various comments that Sai makes about Naruto's vital male organs. After all, this manga is not a pornographic work, nor should it have to be.

So, I would say that in this case, it is truly necessary to go with the character's words on this matter. You should put a note in that says, "Due to Haku's androgynous appearance, and his tendency to lie to protect his identity and Zabuza'a in the past, further coupled with his very close relationship to Zabuza, some fans speculate that Haku may actually be a girl." But no one can reasonably deny Haku's claim that he is a boy, nor should he be referred to as anything but male pronouns in the article.

Sorry for the huge statement. But hopefully my opinion helps you. Jhbartlett 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal, Jhbartlett. Many fans of Naruto only believe what has been clearly stated in the manga/anime itself, rather than piecing individual evidence together to figure it out. I myself did not believe that Tobi was Madara until sufficient evidence was provided (the use of possessive kanji in the untranslated version in the example). Also, the dub leans towards a masculine tone, rather than the original, more feminine, voice. This would support Haku's male gender too, since different audiences have different views on even the smallest of things, such as voices.. --Dubtiger 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Zabuza arc is over, Zabuza and Haku are dead, and Haku's gender doesn't matter. (It's not like Naruto's gonna date Haku in the next chapter.) Even so, it's a talk page, and my opinion of talk pages are that disputes belong there. Sure there are disputes about the stupidest things ever, but if Haku is a boy or girl is something to debate then it should be debated. However, it is not something to debate, but even so it is a debate. Even though it is already shown right in front of your very eyes, it's simply fun for people to disprove something. I do agree that it is disruptive, so it should be put in another page because it's not really worth the effort to debate something like the gender of someone like Haku. It's like asking if Sasuke REALLY turned to Orochimaru. I will say this-HAKU IS A BOY!!! He looks like a girl, but he's a boy. Like Deidara. If Kishimoto, the Buddha, or Rikudan-sennin yelled out from the heavens, "HAKU IS A BOY!!!!" then there would be no debate. That is my opinion. Madara uchiha99 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Madara uchiha99


 * Yup, I agree discussions on things related to the article do belong here. But there are two important points on that. Discussions on how to improve the article are good. Which means that there's a degree of to the point that needs to be part of the discussion. Like Jhbartlett said, "...in this case, it is truly necessary to go with the character's words on this matter." is a point I agree with. However this was never included as a point in the last debate, it was primarily focused around "These FACTS(speculation) say that Haku is a girl..." rather than figuring out, what type of source information about Haku is valid and valuable to the wiki to determine how to treat the article. A discussion on how to improve the article is good, but a strait debate on what uncitable reasons there are that Haku could be of a different gender belongs elsewhere because that has little bearing on the article. Discussion is a process of gathering information, explaining viewpoints and reasons behind those, and finding a method to best reflect those in the article.
 * Another point is on the case of Edit wars. Even just looking at Wikipedia on how they deal with Edit wars its different than what was thought by one user. They don't say anything about removing all bits of info from the article that pertain to the discussion. They say that "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version." In other words, edit wars don't mean that an article should be put into a state of absolute neutrality just because something is being discussed. In cases like this, IMHO as an administrator I think that the version that an article should be left at when discussion is ongoing should be a reflection of the previous consensus. Any other thoughts? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 11, 2007 @ 04:02 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Japanese Wikipedia dedicated an entire article on the theory that Uesugi Kenshin Uesugi Kenshin (上杉謙信) might be female. The article is organized as followed:
 * * Overview
 * * Female theory
 * ** Evidence supporting theory
 * ** Possible reasons why, if theory is true, Kenshin would have disguised as being male
 * * Criticisms to the theory (counter arguments)
 * * Related topics
 * * External links
 * The main Uesugi Kenshin article links to the female theory article in multiple places: when naturally mentioning notable characteristics (family life, cause of death, etc) that happened to support the female theory, and in a "Related topics" section. The main article does not go out of its way to talk about the female theory at all.  This might be a model for you guys to use, and give extensive space for the people who wish to explore the topic a place to express themselves without affecting the main article. -Afker 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, that is a possible thing to do... In time... I don't think we're at the state where that is a good idea yet. There's only one person here who would be writing for the other side, and from the looks of the past discussion trying to actually organize the article calmly may not work out so well at the moment. Trying to come up with what stuff is valid that could be put there when actually considering speculation as part of the content could prove troublesome with only the current community.
 * But it does give a potential idea for a future project. Once we've actually grown more, have more users, and we've actually done enough of the official stuff (we're still no-where near through anything). The idea would be a bit of a speculation run. Finding the topics that fans who don't stick to official citeable sources like to debate. And then creating pages like that on them. Tag them with a template at the top noting that everything on the page is speculated and is not a reliable resource, and we track down different points of the debate and see which ones are good (Aren't assuming far to much, etc...), and also find the counterpoints to each one. Then put them together into a good article.
 * But that's something for the future, we're only a small selection of users at the moment, we're not diverse enough, or large enough to work on something like that yet. Plus, there's plenty of other actual content we need to work on before we try adding interesting side articles to the wiki. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 12, 2007 @ 08:24 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if you open up to allow speculation now (in well-contained space), you might be able to attract more people, who like to debate and dig up random still frames of the animation and stuff, and then get them to help out with the main focus of the wiki. I mean, what better way to organize all the rampant speculations and theories people may have, than a wiki?  People do speculations stuff on forums, and it is super disorganized.  Wiki articles allows evidence/arguments from multiple people to be collaboratively organized so that people don't repeat old arguments over and over and over again.  Get the ppl who love to do speculations and theories hooked on to the wiki-collaborative style, then trick convert them into helping out with teh rest of the wiki. Step 3: ????.  Step 4: Profit!  It's not about spreading your manpower for another direction of content.  It's about using another direction of content to recruit more manpower. -Afker 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

= Taking a break = I recently contacted an admin of Wikipedia, and he told me that this website has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In other words, this is just a non-official fansite. A fake. A blog. Lacking all merit and credibility. Therefore, I don't care about the article page at this time. It can be left incorrect for all I care.

However, during this break I will continue to review and translate the digital texts of Haku's databook information, which I have come to possess thanks to a friend of mine. I will mull over these texts and translate them by myself or with the friend who gave them to me.

I am not going to share them here as I intended to since DanTMan decided to abuse his privilages by breaking the rules with the reverts and editing as well as banning my account. Well, at least not until I am certain as to what the texts say. As it stands, there is a good chance that one text states that Haku was a girl. I am trying to confirm the sentence structure now. If so, then you can believe that I will return. See you around. --Believe it! 04:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And you'd be surprised how many feel the exact same way about Wikipedia Prime.--TheUltimate3 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You were told that the Narutopedia had nothing to do with Wikipedia already, we're both wiki, but we have different goals and topics. Wikipedia isn't official either, neither the Narutopedia or Wikipedia is officially recognized by those creating Naruto, so neither is more official. As for rule breaking, as I've said Wikipedia's rules, which are actually principles, do not apply here, because as you now understand, we are not part of Wikipedia. The community here is what defines what policies to go by, just as how Wikipedia did when it started up. If anyone had an opposition to the temp block, then they would have told me. But no-one has opposed it, so it looks fine by what the community feels. What matters here is community opinion, not ill written rules pages. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 13, 2007 @ 08:07 (UTC)


 * Would it be inappropriate if I ROFL at Believe it!'s original misconceptions about this site? -Afker 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to "Please Respect Neutrality" found in http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Narutopedia:Rules which is from this wiki. Doesn't matter now though. I'm not surprised that someone who is above the rules wouldn't follow them. --Believe it! 23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Don't mock Believe It! Afker. It's not nice. 2) If it doesn't matter, why bother complaining about it?--TheUltimate3 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutrality can be defined in multiple ways. Here it's a style of writing decided by consensus. And don't try to quote those rules, I wrote those a long time ago, they're just a placeholder with little value which needs major updating. In fact, they weren't even meant for the wiki, just a general baseline. All the rules we go by are more common sense on the wiki than ones which are written down. I should probably put that note on that page stating that the rules page is old and outdated and may not necessarily be completely valid. Anyways, no matter what is written, community consensus is always more important than a rules page. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion  Dec 14, 2007 @ 02:49 (UTC)