Talk:Kisame Hoshigaki

Abilities
I have added the following information under the "abilties" category, as it appears greatly relevant to Kisame's strength.

Kisame himself proved powerful enough to successfully capture the Yonbi Jinchuriki after beating him half to death, despite noting his target's exceptional powers. Though a difficult task by his own admission, Kisame merely complains that he is "a bit tired". This is quite a significant feat, when taken into account how quickly Jiraiya's personal summon, Gamabunta was overpowered by Shukaku, the Ichibi (one tail).

I'm not very confident in how it flows into the next subject, though. Any suggestions and help would be much appreciated. --~Mizukage~ 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The last portion of said addition was removed for the following reason: "Not as signifigant as one would think because in many cases summons arent that all powerful."

This may be true in some cases, but should not apply to chief summons. Manda threatened Orochimaru's life on more than one occasion, oblivious to the fact that he had been handicapped at the time. Jiraiya and Gamabunta are called partners, but Jiraiya himself states that even he can't handle him very well. They are at least heavily implied to be peers in strength. --~Mizukage~ 21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit note isn't going to fit, so I'll leave it here.

I've changed this:

Kisame himself proved powerful enough to successfully capture the Four-Tailed Beast's Jinchūriki without much effort or damage on him, despite noting his target's exceptional powers. Though an hard task, Kisame merely complains that he is "a bit tired".

Back to this:

Kisame himself proved powerful enough to successfully capture the Four-Tailed Beast's Jinchūriki, despite noting his target's exceptional powers. Though a difficult task by his own admission, Kisame merely complains that he is "a bit tired".

It flows better - refering to the difficulty of the task twice is redundant. But not only that, it's inaccurate. It refers twice to the level of difficulty, but says something different in each case. "Without much effort" is at odds with "hard task".

The reason I'm bothering to post this here is to urge people not to edit just for the sake of editing - that section of text was fine as it was. It doesn't actually help us, but instead gives us more to fix. So be concious of the material you are editing. --~Mizukage~ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Earth
This-Earth Release: Underground Submarine Voyage. Where did this name come from? He didn't mention the name in anime, nor in manga, it looked more like Inner Decapitation technique.Paths 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The technique is explained in the third databook. --ShounenSuki 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank youPaths 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

akatsuki
is it notable that he is only member left akatsuki that doesn't have a major role in the organization
 * I wouldn't say that... Hakinu talk 21:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs citation / sounds biased
"Although Kisame does have his pride, he acknowledged Itachi as the stronger of the duo."

Cite this please.

its not biased, chapter 144(japanese version):

Kisame states "While you(Itachi) may be able to manage against him, I couldn't possibly...He's in a completely different level..."

by his own admission it was revealed that although he[Kisame] couldnt handle Jiraiya, maybe Itachi can...

Screentime
i personally beleieve that Kisame is the most recurring memeber of akatsuki appearing with itachi mid-way through part 1 and still alive as one of the last three members, if you feel you must change this tidbit in the trivia section, PLEASE discuss it here.--72.75.228.65 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

this referance makes no sense
it says that karin never saw so much chakra in one place... and as referance it has the 8th one - naruto manga 260 page 16

but checking that page, it's the one about kakashi vs itachi... karin wasn't even introduced back then... any explination? --89.122.145.106 (talk) 10:11, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone must have changed the numbers. Cause it happen. Jacce | Talk 10:15, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, that ref shows that Kisame just had 30% chakra, while his power was stated later. Jacce | Talk 10:23, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

About the seven swordsmen
it sais that they were using particulary big weapons...whereas Raiga...a former member...used 2 one-handed short swords...I think you should look to change that passage...--Yumetai (talk) 20:00, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Raiga is from an anime filler arc, which are hardly even canon... Mimixcarr (talk) 08:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * The second databook quite clearly stated that all the Swordsmen use large swords. --ShounenSuki (talk 09:10, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

the filler arc clearly states that Raiga was a seven swordsmen of the the mist i don look at the data books, and i dont know who makes them, but mashashito kishimoto has complete control over the anime episodes and i trust them more than the data books it is also possible that the data book had a mistake, and we know that us possible because one data book had zetsu as being from the hidden leaf village and we know hes not the data book prob had a mistake, or the person who makes them just assumed that they were all big swords (also, in the picture for the seven swordsmen of the mist, the guys on their knees as if bowing have thin swords like raigas, so that proves my point more) --Sauske-Blaze (talk) 03:08, November 14, 2009 (UTC)Sauske-Blaze

What is this?
Kisame seems to have a thing for a ninja S-Class title. As he sulked that Jiraiya's "Legendary Sannin" title sounded better than "Itachi of the Uchiha Clan" and "Monster of the Mist" - I don't get it... I was under the impression that what he meant was that if he and Itachi were to challenge Jiraiya, the names Uchiha and Seven Swordsmen would be put to shame. - MadaraU (talk) 12:20, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it makes no sense. There isn't even such a thing as an S-class title. I'm removing it. --ShounenSuki (talk 15:14, November 6, 2009 (UTC)