Forum:Fact policy

Hi guys.

Most of you probably noticed the discussion regarding the Blaze Release and how we handle it. I started it, even though I was aware that it has been discussed over and over again. Since I'm not a random Naruto fan, I allowed myself to bring it up again, anyway. The reason for that is not that I want to force my view of things into the articles, but that I think there's a bigger problem this wiki has: The way of handling and presenting information that isn't confirmed.

Whenever something remains unclear, there should be one way we handle it: We state that it's not been explained yet and don't make any conclusions based on opinions. That's all there is to it. However, what we really do is randomly deciding how we handle each case.

We have the Blaze Release case, where we state as a fact that it's an advanced nature, even though that was never, ever stated in the manga and there are more facts that speak against it. But we also have the Ranshinshō case, where we don't say that it's a raitonjutsu, we only have a trivia for it and a (presumed) in Tsunade's infobox. We don't even mention it in Tsunade's ability section.

As you can see, we don't have a fixed policy or why're we handling each case differently? Seelentau 愛議 13:37, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * This is probably going to end up well.
 * The problem,as I see it, insistence of accepting that we don't know something and refuse to try and make sense of it. We cannot except Kishimoto to hand everything on a silver platter. The man can barely keep his own story straight and seems to do a lot of things just to make them interesting.
 * Because we take such a broad stance on things we don't know, we unnecessarily pussyfoot around things and then just leave it and settle into a "hope for the best" resolution.
 * Using the Body Pathway Derangement, as that was a resolved case from years back, because the technique used electrical pathways many assumed it was a Lightning Release. This topic met, what I believe was a universal end of debate scenerio back in 2008 when Dantman said that because it didn't fit with any other lightning technique, that the use of the electrical pathways was used out of context (and it probably was, as the electrical pathways in the body are to my understanding nothing like actual lightning) and every conversation about it since then have kinda kept to that line of reasoning. Overall, it is both a good and a bad example to use in this discussion, mainly by the way we the editors at the time just kinda dropped it as a subject. It is good to bring it back though.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 13:57, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why are we handling this new subject so differently? I understand that there's been way too much discussion about it, but they all ended without coming to a conclusion. What we have at the moment simply isn't a fitting way for a wiki to handle things. We need a rule, which should obviously cover every potential issue that may arise in the future. I would define this rule as:
 * Every information that has not been provided by the manga or any other official source has to be considered as speculation and as such should not be stated as a fact in an article. If necessary, a trivia explanation can be made.
 * Wouldn't that be okay? Seelentau 愛議 14:16, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Because to put it very simply, we handled Body Pathway Derangement very poorly. Back then, because Dantman said "no" we accepted that as law and didn't challenge it and never did. We didn't make a rule or even an exception, we just didn't even try. If he had this same discussion like we are now, things probably would have ended up differently.
 * And only it is acceptable only when it is so far out of left field that it requires stretching to reach. Something like Blaze Release (to use the most recent issue) can be explained using every piece of information we have to reach the conclusion that is is a nature transformation. The ones that can't be reached through the information we do have is what makes it, but that doesn't discount what we can conclude. We aren't arguing that Explosion Release isn't an advanced nature, even though we don't know what makes its parts. We know it is because it isn't any of the main five.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 14:36, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * But what if, as it is in the most recent case, we can't explain everything? The way we explain it is now, it's half-assed. You said it yourself: We don't have proof that it's a nature and we don't have proof that it's not a nature. But instead of saying that we don't know, we pretend that we know that it's a nature.
 * What we do is not stating facts (= that it's not been explained), but stating our own opinions as facts. And that is something a wiki must not do. Otherwise, this would be absolutely legitimate: I worked on a theory regarding Inton, Sasuke's Genjutsu-eye and the form manipulation of Enton and it's based on manga facts. It's flawless and since we state opinions as facts, I am allowed to add it to the Enton article (and others).
 * But I doubt that you want such situatons to arise. And no, this is not a threat, I obviously won't do that. Seelentau 愛議 14:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * ....What theory regarding Yin Release and what about Genjutsu eye?
 * And if it actually leads to somewhere actual thought is used instead of "thumb-up-ass-let's-do-nothing" we've been doing so far, I'm all for it. I'm saying when we have legit information that can end to a solution (example: Technique is called "X Release", user used a move called "X Release: Y", X is not part of the five standard natures but must be made of at least 1 of them) then we can and should be able to use the giant organ in our heads and come up with the logically conclusion that (example: Because X Release fits every definition that current exists for Z, X = Z. For added fun, this entire line of reasoning, I used Explosion Release as the base. User had Explosion Release, used Explosion Release: Landmine Fist, is not a Fire, Water, Earth, Wind, and Lightning nature, components are unknown.)
 * The thing I stress, and stress hard is that I hope we are smart enough to take things and use them logically. If someone has to go through a great many jumps of mental gymnastics to reach a conclusion then that is probably bit to far. But when is able to basic things that has been established, look at the scenario at hand, we should be able to come up with a logical conclusion that we can present. And if, and this is a big if, Kishimoto finally decides to release a databook to explain this stuff then we can change it. But dancing around stuff like we are doing now makes us come across as being willfully stupid.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 15:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is here: "Technique is called "X Release", user used a move called "X Release: Y", X is not part of the five standard natures but must be made of at least 1 of them" - the bolded fact is the part that upsets me to no end. Just because of the word "Release" you assume that it's nature? Again, we have Tonton (no, not the pig, the Transparent Escape), but that isn't a release despite using the same Kanji, is it? Furthermore, you ignore everything that doesn't add up with what we know. Seelentau 愛議 15:19, February 4, 2014 (UTC)