Talk:Izumi Uchiha

Itachi's Lover
Obito mentioned Itachi had a lover. Was it her?Cloudtheavenger (talk) 23:55, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Until the book is released, we don't know. --JouXIII (talk) 23:58, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * If they were lovers, wouldn't that be incest? Itachi and Izumi were part of the same clan.Lilixflower (talk 24:02, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * In Japan, I believe that it's only taboo if the relationship is with siblings. First cousins are already game. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:36, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Flower, by that definition, any breeding we do is incest. We're all from a common ancestor. Being a bio major, I don't exactly know what the cut-off is for it to not be considered incest, but in the end, once our genetic codes become distinct enough, we can have children without it being incest.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 03:44, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think it is said that she has feelings for him but he can't understand and/or answer them. Oh and I also think Izumi's family left the clan and they came back later or so... • Seelentau 愛 議 07:46, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Thought these are non-canon anyway,--Elve Talk Page 17:23, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Fanmade
This isn't Masashi Kishimoto, he hasn't confirmed and a lot have said, he hasn't wrote this. It's just fanmade.
 * Read the light novels mate. Also remember to sign your edits with the four tildes (~) (UTC)) Munchvtec (talk) 18:41, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

Novel vs Anime
Novel is canon, anime adaption is not. So why exactly are we putting the novel version of Izumi's death in Other media? --Mandon (talk) 16:46, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Cause novel ain't canon. • Seelentau 愛 議 18:02, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * novels are canon lol.--AskinNakkLeVaar (talk) 20:55, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done by Kishimoto = not canon, until they are specifically said to be such (like the Boruto series.)--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 20:57, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * But it was even said in the manga that Itachi killed her, supporting the novel version.--Elve Talk Page 21:04, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * ^Was it? What chapter and page? --Rai 水 (talk) 21:07, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it was after Itachi vs. Sasuke when Obito said that Itachi killed his girlfriend. Is that what you mean, Elveonora?--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 21:10, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does everyone think that just because Kishimoto does something, it's canon? Kishimoto designed the Susanoo from the games, that doesn't make them canon.
 * And no, the manga said "lover", not "girlfriend". Itachi could've been gay, for all we know. • Seelentau 愛 議 21:12, April 9, 2016 (UTC)

^ o.O Why wouldn't that just fufill people's fantasy. --Rai 水 (talk) 21:16, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh for crying out loud.. this is such an oxymoron. If the wikia consensus is that the novels aren't canon, then why are they treated as such on the wiki? I'm of course referring to Naruto and Hinata's wedding in the Last being detailed by the novel's perspective, rather than the movie. In any case, this is merely an adaption of the novels. Canon or not, the adaptation shouldn't take priority over the source material on the page. --Mandon (talk) 03:03, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Because just like the anime, the novels expand on the canon story. There's no harm in describing what's happening there as long as it's made clear that it's from the novels (eg In the "Itachi Shinden" novels, blablabla"). If all else fails, we can put these things in the trivia as well. • Seelentau 愛 議 03:25, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point. This arc is an adaption of a novel. It goes without saying that the source material should take chronological priority. Izumi Uchiha is a character that emerged from the novel. I mean doesn't it make sense that her history section should be composed of plot points from the novel she originated in? I think it does. The anime differences should go in trivia, not the other way around. --Mandon (talk) 06:26, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * This wiki does not just report exclusively on things the fans have decided are "canon" (ie the manga), that's not how it works. We report on all Naruto based information that comes from official sources, except fan fiction and fanon. It is not our job to dictate canonicity and I don't know why so many people feel it is necessary to bring up a fan term to decide what content gets to be put on the wiki.
 * Case in point: we report on the novels just like we report on the anime by using "In the novel, blah blah blah" in the appropriate paragraph.
 * And why would it matter if a character's background is based on just novel information? It just means that only the novel decided to expand on the character's background. --Sajuuk 07:26, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I view the novels as "more canon than filler" because it's as close to canon as we'd ever get. Shock Dragoon (talk) 14:45, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't mean that fans can't think of canonicity, my point was more that the wiki should not be making decisions based on personal canonicity definitions, since a wiki is about reporting all the information, not just selectively reporting only the canon stuff. --Sajuuk 15:03, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

Take all canonicity aside, and the novel should still be prioritized in the article. It's where Izumi originated. Imagine if the wikipedia page for Jon Snow used the storylines from the TV series and stuffed the plot overview from the novels all the way at the bottom. Doesn't make sense right? They put the TV series' story there because the books take priority over the show. --Mandon (talk) 17:17, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree here, Izumi came about thanks to the novel that HER canon story, animation is what tweaked her story. It's how we deal with things when they are altered from the anime. Shock Dragoon (talk) 17:25, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Im not sure why it was ever moved to other media, but just intertwine the novel and anime backstory. Anything that contradicts the novel, just label it like we do with anime and manga stuff. Eg "in the anime, Obito caught Izumi like a pokemon". --Sarutobii2 (talk) 01:02, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, if this is the general consensus, why hasn't any steps been taken yet to rectify this? Shock Dragoon (talk) 22:28, April 17, 2016 (UTC)