Talk:Anko Mitarashi

Land of the Sea arc
Is it really necessary to have information from this filler up despite contradicting with the manga canon? in my opinion, it should be removed or at least having a headline put on top, to make it clear that it's not official.


 * According to the manga, Orochimaru was still a "loyal" Konoha Ninja AT LEAST/CIRCA 6 years after Minato's death, thus Anko had "abandoned" village with him as 17 years old at earliest.... that contradicts with her being a child in anime during "that time"
 * Another proof is Jugo's age, hopefully I don't have to calculate as it's clear.

It brings two issues: This has been discussed a few times already, never concluded, often ignored. I think it's very important--Elveonora (talk) 22:58, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) false information listed in the article
 * 2) there's a chance that Kishi might explain the canonical circumstances of why did she leave etc. thus both the anime-manga version can't stay I guess. EDIT:

As the only (probably) Anko expert in this wiki, I did do the math, and because the Land of the Sea Arc is a filler, it does make things quite confusing and false for Anko's backstory. However, the idea of removing does not suit well with me. Despite it not being canon to the actual plotline, it still needs to be noted, seeing it is the first and (possibly as of now until Kishi-sensei decides to give her background, which he better or I'm going to be mad!) only inside look of her past. Besides, the article clearly lists "In the anime..." during the parts that lists what happened in the filler arc already. Honestly, I don't really know what do with the article. I do know we shouldn't remove from what we saw in the anime.-- Ninja Sheik  17:12, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

The filler picture has already been removed. That's good, but now I'm not sure about quotes... the last 2 are filler. I don't remember the manga ever getting into such detail about the relationship between her and Orochimaru. Shouldn't they be just canonical to define and showcase the character?--Elveonora (talk) 21:02, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I put them there a long time ago, but you can remove them, if you wish.-- Ninja Sheik  21:13, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

age again
No, I didn't miss the above topics. No databook = no age. But, she is clearly 24 in Part I. thus no 23-24 or 24-25. so we don't have to be afraid of making a mistake due to months. Another reason is, for her birthday being in October, just like Naruto's, thus once the latter turns 17, she will be 28 only 2 weeks later. Since Naruto is 16 at the moment in the story (unless Kishi updates and 4th databook or manga says otherwise) Anko is 27. Why don't we list it when it's a given? Funny as there's no problem with Mei being in her "30's "--Elveonora (talk) 16:21, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought about the same thing a while back, but rules are rules. As much I wanna change it, can't do that without everyone's agreement.-- Ninja Sheik  17:06, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Her age is 100% correct, I say hypocrisy since Mei's age is only "circa" and Killer B's only guessed/estimated... sounds like double standards--Elveonora (talk) 21:06, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you do have a point, but this subject has been debated about for a while now, so I don't know what to do...-- Ninja Sheik  21:15, November 6, 2012 (UTC)