Forum:Logical conclusions?

Right, this is something I've been having a problem with here for quite some time.

I understand that as a Wiki our job is to give accurate information about the series to the best of our ability. But I think that part of this should include presenting the logical conclusion to presented information.

For example, We've credited Orochimaru with the creation of the Curse Mark, but when it came to who made the Four Black Fog Battle formation, we didn't list him as the creator despite it likely being the case because there's the smallest chance Kabuto played a part in its creation.

Now I'm not suggesting we present theories in the articles or anything and I don't believe we should let things presented in unconnected media effect one another, so nothing from anime effecting manga data etc. So no change there.

But I find we're overly willing to avoid presenting the obvious with nothing to the contrary simply because it hasn't be explicitly confirmed.

Now I understand that what might be the obvious conclusion might not be the right one, but by the very nature of the manga and the ability to edit our information, we can always fix this later as we have done until now. I don't need to bring up Itachi's Villain status, Tobi's true identity or the other revelations that have changed what we thought to be true, even more minor things, like until recently I believe it was commonly accepted that Hashirama died before Tsunade was born.

I know I might not have presented this in the most comprehensive manner ever, but basically, I would like to open it up to discuss a change in policy to include a certain greater degree of Ockham's Razor here, especially in cases where we're unlikely to receive more information. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 02:21, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea the issue wit the Four Black Fog Battle Formation, but I myself have been having some serious issues with the lack of logical conclusions. Using a history lesson, before we knew the Fourth was Naruto's father, everyone speculated that yeah he was. We had absolutely no evidence to prove this, just that the two happened to look alike and acted alike. But we had to battle tooth and nail to keep people from adding to articles "He is most likely Naruto's father".
 * What came from this was the absolute refusal do anything unless it was spelled out in black and white. This kept everything we would have in articles as what we knew for sure. Ok that was fine, until I started to notice things that just didn't make sense. For example, we would sit and argue back and forth that Ink Creation wasn't a tailed beast skill. Why? Because it was never said it was a Tailed Beast Skill, but that would require us to ignore that the Eight-Tails is an octopus, octopuses create ink, safe from wrestling moves/lightning techniques all of B's abilities have been tailed beast related.
 * This became a wall of me ranting, but basically we've reached the apex of an issue that has begun years ago, we are literally trying very hard to not think and come up with logical conclusions about things and instead want Kishimoto to spoon feed us things that we don't really need him to.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 02:35, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thank god it's not just me. Now let's just hope some more of the big names around here weigh in in our favour. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 02:57, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The recent Scorch Release argument is one of those, in that it was blatantly obvious that Kishi was giving us a bone with the whole fire and wind thing, and there are walls of arguments because it wasn't specifically stated. Obito's reveal also stands out in my mind. I think, personally, that the rules should be tweaked; if there is a general consensus, more than X-number of people, who generally agree that a conclusion is common sense (logical conclusion), then it should be added at least as a trivia note, but depending on the situation, even to the article itself. There is nothing wrong with using your brain. That's half the fun of reading a story — putting things together logically. It should also be noted to the more hesitant users of the wiki (because I have a feeling I know who they will be), that Kishi (as was prior pointed out) will not "spoon feed" us everything. Somethings he's going to leave us to figure out on our own. We might as well do so, within reason. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 03:01, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this somewhat. Not because I disagree with the use of logical conclusions which we use plenty of here but our main focus as a wikia is to document the information presented to us by Kishimoto. I'm not saying we're to be spoon fed but that's like someone taking the sacred teachings of a religion for example and ad libbing what they feel a mind to then dispensing it to the masses as the logical conclusions of said deity. My major problem with what this is proposing is the fall out from it. Everyone and their mothers will believe their logical conclusions to be true because let's face it: that's just how people are. That only opens our articles up for people to add speculation and claim that "logic dictates that this is what would happen". With regards to what Hawkeye said, your examples do not make for the best ones simply because of one story making device called: plot development. What were we to do in those instances? Info was literally created to misdirect readers to create a story. Take a more recent example:
 * The guy saying he's Madara may be Obito Uchiha because of his hairstyle and the height and weight match and because other learned scholars in forums say so? Despite the fact that he was crushed under a rock?
 * Itachi killed his entire clan and from all intents looks like he's rearing Sasuke like a guinea pig to take his eyes but hey, logic dictates that he may not be so bad possibly?
 * Now Naruto is a good example; I would never at any point before its revelation agree to add a note saying "oh he might be Minato's son because they look alike and Naruto likes to stare at his face on the monument". Things like that are unnecessary and don't hinder the addition of info to the wikia in any way.
 * That B thing is dumb since persons should've had enough sense to know that was a tailed beady skill right off the bat especially since Kisame said do.
 * Scorch Release is another thing altogether, if that article had remained the way some people thought was a logical conclusion then any two persons or single person could use a kekkei genkai "without the kekkei genkai". The information was added to Scorch Release article and the doubt was also mentioned/referenced and so forth which I think it the best way to handle things like that.
 * in Sasori's article it was mentioned that although he saw the attack he chose to die rather than kill Chiyo. What? Now that, is utterly unnecessary speculation on our part born out of the fact that someone believed it to be a logical conclusion when I could argue that Sasori held little to no regard for his grandmother even when he was about to die. I understand that hey we're also fans of Naruto and we might have theories in our head that are all too clearly obvious but we didn't become an excellent wikia by interjecting logical conclusions everywhere. Things like mentioning that Katsuyu for example is possibly the only slug summon is the kind of conclusions I don't mind but otherwise, we stick to facts for one simple reason: there's no way to argue against them.--Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 03:28, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Cerez, I get where you're coming from, and honestly, I'm not looking for any extreme here,but my point is, primarily I think, that this is about evolution of information. Until a certain point, all we could say was that Tobi is Tobi and Obito was dead, despite loads of people having theories. Now, now we know for sure and have added it. What I'm looking at is just more an application of this logical thinking to handle information that is likely to be true through provided evidence as opposed to what is a possible but contradictory theory.

For example

Tobi is Obito

Before Confirmation - Obito is dead, his body was crushed, Kakashi and Rin saw it happen, he's listed as dead, for all intents and purposes the man is dead go away.

After Confirmation - Okay, Obito is Tobi because Madara saved his life. Carry on.

What I would be looking for would be something like Scorch Release.

Scorch Release is made of Fire and Wind natures

Before Confirmation - Enton and Futon combined to create a technique described as Shakuton, so until further notice, this is what we're going with.

Confirmed not to be the case - Sakuton is made of X + Y, but a technique described as Shakuton was created using Enton and Futon.

And in cases where we don't have enough evidence, we'd have something like this

4th Hokage is Naruto's father

Before Confirmation - You cannot say that they are related based solely on physical similarity, every blonde spiky haired person is not related.

After Confirmation - Turns out these two are, also Naruto and certain freakish redheads, but again, not all of them.

I would be looking at things more of this nature as opposed to our current format which seems to avoid like the plague everything that isn't explicitly stated.

But like I said, I'm not saying let people loose with the wild theories, especially when evidence is scarce, but as it stands, with the scorch release example above, there's nothing to the contrary, it's literally the best shot we have and with implementing some new form of policy we could control this change to allow for more comprehensive, and helpful wiki. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 03:54, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

But i cant see how what you're proposing helpful to the wikia though? We're supposed to present information as logical conclusions like Scorch Release to readers who will go off not thinking that its an assumption but that it is fact? Then when that changes and turns out not to be true we recant it and say whoops? And if its correct we get to tell people in their faces o.O? Things like that would threaten the entire credibility of the information of the wikia and if people can't trust the info they're reading here, then I don't know what we're all doing because this certainly isn't one of those sociable wikia. Using Scorch Release an example, the technique is identified as such in name but not as a nature transformation. The speculated component elements are mentioned along with a note that Minato called the technique Scorch Release based off the use of fire and wind. Those in my head are logical assumptions although it was never said in the manga. What more could you want from that situation?--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 04:14, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

But by that same logic, if someone read this wiki a year ago they'd think Tobi was Madara and Obito was still dead. This is what I mean by the evolution of information, we can only give what we know to a given point in time. If someone comes here once, reads something that becomes out of date or obsolete and then leaves, that should not be counted as a failure on our part. But if Scorch Release is in fact intended to be Fire and Wind natures, implied when Sasuke and Naruto created one by combining their own techniques perfectly, but we don't list that, then that is our failure. If it later turns out to be incorrect, it can be corrected as we have done a million times over, but it's these basic, reduced to their simplest idea points of logic that we're missing because no one has said it explicitly. I mean let's look at that barrier the hokage erected, does anyone have any doubts that that the Sound Four's technique is derived from this? It's mentioned to be stronger, but it's exact relation is never stated and yet I can't think of a single person who would doubt that like the Triple Rashomon it's an ability Orochimaru copied in a diluted form. It's these simple things that can be inferred and by all rights are likely correct given what evidence we have. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 05:08, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cerez: No, what he is suggesting is that it is both reprehensible and increasingly dumb that when we can make a logical conclusion regarding information that is provided to us within the series, then we should go ahead and make a call on it, even if its a Trivia point only.


 * Example:


 * Back during the Obito—Tobi debacle, when Obito was first revealed to be the Masked Man, there were those on this wiki who wanted to wait for even more confirmation. More confirmation than the chapter being called "Obito Uchiha". More confirmation, despite the fact that all but two pages were flashbacks of Obito Uchiha. More confirmation, despite the fact that the face at the end of the chapter was Obito Uchiha. Granted, much of this was due to outrage by some members that it was Obito, instead of "their guy". Regardless, it took, according to my memory of the incident, several days to convince our own members what had already been confirmed by Kishimoto himself, when the logical conclusion, based on the manga itself, was that he was Obito Uchiha.


 * That should not happen. Ever. You see, Cerez, there very well may be information on this site that we present as fact, based on our knowledge of what is presented in the series, that later comes up false. That's not our fault. That is just the drawback to running this site while the series is ongoing. Facts get retconned, better explained, or flat out forgotten by the author, and things changed. Regardless, it is our job to not only report what is explicitly stated in the series, but to also draw logical conclusions, within reason, based on common sense (such as the Scorch Release incident). For example, the databooks may very well reveal that Scorch Release: Halo Gale Jet Black Arrow Style Zero is an actual Scorch Release technique, and no logic you use based on what you know would change Kishimoto's decision. That's just a fact.


 * It really does get tiresome arguing with people who are afraid to just use their head and draw a reasonable conclusion based on the facts. If, at a later date, those facts change, we can change it then and there to reflect the facts. The Obito situation I mentioned, being prime suspect. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 05:15, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Logical conclusions are needed, otherwise lots of information would get lost/unlisted. As long as a blatantly non-stated information in articles is still based on manga/databook hints etc. it's safe. The Minato one isn't a good example, if we went with that then we would have to list Gaara as an Uzumaki by now. But even the canon "facts" themselves aren't very reliable as you might have noticed. For example the whole Hashirama's death/history stuff seemingly got changed. Also the reason for why I believed Tobi to be Izuna is because their: weight, height, blood type, birthday, hair color match... on top of that, a person more related to Madara would be his brother and Obito got crushed by boulders and we saw that. Everyone with half a brain must have come to the conclusion that Tobi is Izuna, right? ;D Oh, wait... sometimes even "obvious" and "logical" things aren't true T_T so we should find a middle-way. --Elveonora (talk) 11:22, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Elve, once again I can't tell if you're with or against us. :D Still, right now I'm talking about a change in policy to reflect something a bit friendlier to logical conclusions. Of course this needs to put in some guidelines like we did with the creation of relevant articles guidelines. In this case, things that are intentionally ambiguous, like Tobi's identity, Naruto's heritage etc. would be left alone without a clear answer because there were several popular theories, but more importantly there were contradicting theories and evidence. to make some more examples

Obito is Tobi

Evidence for - He's a seemingly one eyed psycho with the Sharingan.

Evidence against - He's listed as dead, we saw him seemingly die.

Izuna is Tobi

Evidence for - Same Height, Weight, hair colour etc.

Evidence against - He was said to be completely blind and to have died and would have no logical reason to have lived as long as he has.

With evidence in contrary or many popular theories, it would be a point where I wouldn't want things to be changed. But to go back to Scorch Release

Scorch Release is made of Fire and Wind

Evidence for - A technique combining fire and wind was called scorch release, The only known Kekkei Tota is Dust Release so the possibility of a secondary element in Blaze Release being counted towards this is slim.

Evidence against - It was an off the top of Minato's head name. There was no reference to Pakura or general scorch release to imply a connection.

I added what I could for evidence against, but it still looks pretty flimsy as neither point directly opposes the idea. Here we have something where the evidence against doesn't necessarily contradict the idea and until more information is gathered this is seemingly the answer. We're just not stating it.

Now Cerez brought up what if with our assumption we're wrong, and that does happen, but so long as we state what evidence we have, that what we have is the best singular conclusion with the evidence we have, either we're proven wrong and we edit, we're proven right and we're ahead of the curve or it's not proven at all and what we're left with is the best possible solution for the evidence. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 12:48, June 21, 2013 (UTC)