Talk:Jinchūriki/Archive 1

Article titbit
"The Jinchūriki, or hosts, exhibit extraordinary powers, and in some cases are stronger than their Tailed Beasts for the very fact that they are able to control their power. In addition, if a Tailed Beast goes too long without a host, it can lose its intelligence and become nothing more than a giant animal thus making it weaker. The hosts usually show some physical characteristics of the Tailed Beast within them (likewise Naruto's foxlike 'whiskers' on his cheeks and Gaara's raccoonlike 'rings' around his eyes) and the Tailed Beast's traits can become infused with the host's personality. According to Akatsuki, the Jinchūriki tend to be lonely people who loathe humanity, which was proven true when the first two Tailed Beasts that were sealed by the organizaiton was done with almost little effort from their ninja villages. In fact, they were glad to be rid of their Jinchūriki. The Tailed Beasts are also very protective of their hosts for the sole reason: if the host dies, so does the demon inside. Likewise, if the Tailed Beast is removed from the host, the host would die. So far, there are only two known methods to seal a Tailed Beast into a host. One was the Dead Demon Consuming Seal, which Minato Namikaze, the Fourth Hokage, used to seal the Nine-Tailed Demon Fox into Naruto, and the technique that Chiyo used to seal the One-Tailed Shukaku into Gaara. The only known technique to extract a Tailed Beast is the Akatsuki's Illusionary Dragon Nine Consuming Seals, a three day long jutsu that with the combined effort of all the Akatuski members, forces the Tailed Beast out of its host and into a nine-eyed statue. The Akatuski has so far captured seven Tailed Beasts." ''Extracted from Tailed Beasts before conversion of the section into an include from this article. Merge if anything is missing. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jun 16, 2008 @ 06:26 (UTC)

Page name
I think this page should be called "Jinchuriki" and not "Jinchūriki" becuase we dont say "Jōnin". We say "Jonin". ~Kakashi Namikaze (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jonin is English. Last time I checked the word Jinchūriki has not been used yet inside the English series. We use Jinchūriki because its Japanese, Jonin however is in English. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jul 15, 2008 @ 01:18 (UTC)

Now we know what alll the hosts look like. Each one is holding up a number of fingers meaning how many tails the beast has. Update the post please.~Anonymous

page name
its been reffered to as "Jinchuriki" in the dubbed Naruto Accel 1 game aswell

they also called Jinchuriki in the dub--Linkdarkside (talk) 20:14, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

more jinchuriki pages
we have pictures and more information Vikc1 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rōshi
"Roshi has an odd tatoo or plate running from cheek to cheek and across his nose." Tatoo? It's definitely not a tatoo... Geohound 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

lets talk more taied beast info
hey,why isnt there more on the speculations/trivia thingy on jinchuri 4-7....until there introduced,you could make some guesses here,like on there abilities...ex:6tails is shown blowing bubles,so maybe he makes "buble art"& tht scrole must be some kinda somoning(the beast within/mabye eletricle rods)...I say rods cause,maybe he traps ppl in those buble & the send them a eletricle shock....5tails:he has gourd on his back(like gara)& some white chakra was seen floating above it,so maybe he uses tht chakra,like gara uses sand,& each tail uses 1/5 different elements...he must be able to acess all 5 at ounce & canperform many different elemental fusions than roshi(lava reles(fire & earth))...speaking of him,that lava relese gives me a big clue of his tailed beast(no not a fire breathin dragon).....i say,he's a pheonix,which is one hot bird=) 65.189.150.66 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Anyonymus65.189.150.66 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We're an encyclopedia, not a fansite, we don't go making speculations like that. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 21, 2009 @ 05:18 (UTC)


 * A phoenix may be close, but so far all of the Tailed Beasts have been creatures from Japanese folklore, and you're talking about Western folklore. Try a basan. It's sort of like a phoenix, but it looks more like a giant fire-breathing chicken.
 * We don't allow fan made info and speculating on this wiki. Jacce | Talk 05:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Naruto
I think naruto should be listed as "Assumed captured". if you have read the latest chaps, pain has naruto stabbed to the ground through his hands. i think that is "captured"
 * While that may be true he isn't unconscious yet as he's going to try and fight back once given the chance and there are still others around to help him. Also please sign your posts. SuperN 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, "captured" means that Akatsuki has completely defeated someone (to the point there is no chance of them escaping) and is about to undergo the process of extracting their tailed beast. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 25, 2009 @ 04:12 (UTC)

Renaming the unnamed jinchūriki
Would it be better if the unnamed jinchūriki were named "Three-Tails Jinchūriki", "Five-Tails Jinchūriki", "Six-Tails Jinchūriki", and Seven-Tails Jinchūriki"? 209.232.153.98 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

out of curiosity, why are there nine ninja on the poster when the three tailed beast was running around like a wild pokemon, and not sealed in anyone?


 * Cause, that was its former host....-- AlienGamer--Talk-- 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Zero Tails
What about the Reibi? 71.99.96.174 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about it?? If u mean the name of it, since its movie only, no info has come out on it...-- AlienGamer--Talk-- 06:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

we should mention in the trivia that the zero tails is not hunted by the akatsuki probably because they don't even know what it is--Bodock (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question?!

 * I know that two Jinchurikis (possibly Fu, Han or Utakata) where captured before Gaara. They were the first two Jinchurikis to be captured off screen!
 * Then Deidara and Sasori captured Gaara
 * Then Kakuzu and Hidan captured Yugito
 * Then Tobi and Deidara captured the Three Tails
 * Then Kisame and "Itachi" captured Roshi
 * Then Sasuke and his team tried to capture Killer Bee
 * Then Pain tried to capture Naruto

In total, that make only 8. And so far, i can't remember another mention of a Jinchuriki being capture... so, if anybody could tell me what happen to that other Jinchuriki that i'm not counting, i'll appreciate! :S

Btw, this is just a comment, it's not an speculation or a fact but i think that Fu and Han where the first 2 Jinchurikis to being captured. Deidara said that the first two Jinchurikis were despised by most of their village and few people carry about them; and also from what i could see, Onoki (Tsuchikage) doesn't care about the losses of his Jinchurikis; so Han might be one of the two to that despises his village. Fu because from being to Takigakure, a little village, everyone might be scared of her so she also despises the people.And well, i don't think Kirigakure despises Utakata because like Kishimoto said, he's charming! And i don't think people would despise someone that is charming! Hehehe. But like i said, it was just a comment and i would like to see what do you think?! :)

Also thanks for those who read this and answer my question about the capture of the Jinchuriki! --Kiba91 (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They had sealed another tailed Beast between the One-Tails and the Three-Tails and none of the jinchūriki look particularly hated. Also, this is not a forum. The talk-pages weren't meant for small-talk. --ShounenSuki (talk 08:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It should have been already known to Akatsuki that most jinchūriki were hated even without capturing them, and it would have involved a lot of effort keeping them prisoner while they capture the preceeding jinchūriki (is that the plural as well as the singular?). TomServo101 (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey I wanted to know as stated by Granny Chiyo that like Gaara there were two other Jinchuriki from the sand that were taken is this just a mistake of the beginning that Misashi was not to sure and later change its concept or do they mean that tailed beasts chakra were spreaded to more than just one person. Tobiunmasked1 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks ShounenSuki ^^ and sorry, i know it's not a forum, but i dunno, jeje, i want to say that! Jeje, Really sorry! --Kiba91 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Amaru
Randomly, since while the Reibi (Zero-Tails) is not on the Tailed-Beasts list but added as a Trivia Point, I think we should put Amaru back onto the page, but as a Trivia point as well. Technically, she would count as a Jinchuriki in a way, though that was just movie. But still. --Juubi no Ryuu (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant. I admit I haven't watched the film, but only skimmed through a few scenes. However, what I remember is that there are even less similarities between Amaru and the jinchūriki than there were between the Zero-Tails and the Tailed Beasts.
 * Not only was Amaru never called a jinchūriki, she also never had the Zero-Tails sealed into her, let alone while sacrificing another human; she was simply possessed. I also don't remember her having the ability to transform into the Zero-Tails, or even having any control over it.
 * If I'm wrong, please correct me, but for now I don't think she qualifies for inclusion in the article, even as a trivia point. --ShounenSuki (talk 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I, or anyone it seems, know the full extent of the Zero-Tails relationship with Amaru, I think it best she still be mentioned as a trivia point. Heck I still think the Zero-Tails should be listed in the Tailed Beast page (cause, as far as I can gather, it wasn't mentioned it WASN'T a Tailed Beast. As far as I could gather someone just put that there and I saw no reason to remove it.) but until we can figure some things out it should still be listed in the trivia.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't oppose Amaru's trivia point. As I said, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to judge. I want to say one thing about the Zero-Tails, though. Perhaps it was never said that it wasn't a Tailed Beast, but remember that it has been said multiple time that there are only nine Tailed Beasts, all of whom are accounted for. The Zero-Tails simply cannot be a Tailed Beast without directly interfering with both manga and anime canon. --ShounenSuki (talk 00:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which was why (again if I had my way) it would have had the "Movie Only" thing next to it. Again, if it was removed and I didn't notice it then there ya go.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Zero Tails was never sealed inside of Amaru. It was in Ancor Vantian, and it's control extended to whoever nearby was willing to use hatred and/or dark chakra. Diamonddeath (talk) 04:28, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

WHy did my edit get deleted?
The damn chapter is out on manga Fox. Seriously...--99.58.41.237 (talk) 01:35, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they also deleted my edits talk 22:43
 * Because you people will not read the damn first page.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 01:57, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I read the damn page. IT SYAS OVERSEAS. The chapter was released early and translated. Jesus fucking christ. WHY CNAT WE EDIT the pages? What fucking "proof" do you need? Why is Manga share suddenly not a reputable site?


 * Patients pay off. Run wild.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 04:00, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Jesus Fucking christ allowed on this talk page. U should take that off, people might find it a little insulting. -thank you --Ccj290 (talk) 21:28, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

NMHidan13 (talk) 21:23, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * CCj290, we don't edit comments users have posted. That's like editing history itself pretending it never happened. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Oct 10, 2009 @ 05:55 (UTC)


 * Something to Note... If someone in the U.K. reads the chapter, and it is 1am on friday there, its still thursday anywheres in the U.S. May want to put a time zone or something on the front page, so that "friday" means the same to everyone.--SkyFlicker (talk) 07:02, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

An icon?
Okay, so those icons in the upper right-hand corner of articles showing character affiliations; should we have one of those for the nine jinchuriki articles (and perhaps the Sage of Six Paths)? Just as a suggestion: perhaps the Dead Demon Consuming Seal (my mistake; I thought the seal shared its name with the jutsu used to create it) Eight Trigrams Sealing Style? Obviously, it's not the only jutsu used to seal Tailed Beasts into jinchuriki, but it's the only seal we've seen so far. I just thought I'd throw this idea out there, especially since I myself don't have a clue of how to make one of those icons. Teamrocketspy621 (talk) 23:33, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

The two jinchuuriki
The first two jinchuuriki that was captured by Akatsuki, I believe it was Fū and Han since Utakata wasn't captured yet according to the current arc. What do you think, should we mention it or no? KazeKitsune (talk) 04:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't assume who was first captured, and it was only in the anime that the Six-Tails wasn't captured yet. As of the raid on Kumogakure, in the manga Akatsuki had all but two beasts.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 04:37, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Jinchūriki's abilities
Didn't Deidara metion twice the name for jinchūriki's special abilities ("Naruto", chapter 248, p. 10, chapter 277, p. 7)?--LeafShinobi (talk) 19:52, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, this is out of date now.--LeafShinobi (talk) 14:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-Jinchūriki
Ok, I have to ask why do we have two seperate sections in the Article for Jinchūriki and Pseudo-Jinchūriki, I thought that Sora would just have Pseudo-Jinchūriki next to his name and we'd be done with that little problem, just as well Amaru is also in that section of the article, and we just added her as a trivia point as we are not completely sure on her status as a Jinchuriki, let alone Pseudo-Jinchūriki. --Juubi no Ryuu (talk) 20:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

And I guess we shall just leave the page like this as someone seems to have removed my edit dispite this present page being questioningly unaccurate and unnessesary. --Juubi no Ryuu (talk) 17:27, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Naruto's control
Shouldn't we include Naruto in the jinchuriki who has control over their tailed-beast since he has fully released the fox's power?98.15.144.28 (talk) 18:40, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to prove this.  ¥ S uper N ovice ↔ T alk 2 M e  ¥ 18:41, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * he did not release it he just signed the contract to be able to use the key when he needs itFawcettp (talk) 01:10, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Kage Relation
In the latest chapter, number 593 I believe, it was stated that, to prevent betrayal, all of the jinchuuriki have had some relation to their respective Kage. While I fail to see any particular relationship between Yugito and A, or Utakata and his Kage; I believe that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article aside from the trivia, since it has been cleared as a mere coincidence, and has been officially stated as a standard for jinchuuriki.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round ~ 21:42, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

You mean 494. And agreed, it has to be added. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:05, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. And it already has been added. So has the trivia that strangely, 5 of the 9 hosts are not known to have any special connection to their Kage (except Fū, who has no Kage).--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round ~ 21:07, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kage relation only applies to Kumogakure.

Motoi never said it was specific to Kumo, he said it was common practice, not Kumo practice. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:40, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Previous Eight-Tails Jinchūriki
I now TheUltimate3 removed him from the page, on him not having an effect on the plot, but that would mean we have to remove Fū and Han on account of them never being mentioned in the manga, even though they were mentioned in artbooks. On the argument of Shukaku's former hosts, nothing is known about them and they were never shown, but this one was shown, so I think he should be listed, even if in a trivia or note section. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:35, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed him because in comparison to the other jinchuriki, he was just the last guy who had the job. While Fu or Han are only marginally more important, that marginally comes from the fact that they were, as of now, the only known jinchuriki of their demons and were captured and killed by Akatsuki. I would relent to a trivia note, but unlike the other jinchuriki I just don't see him as important enough to get listed.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:53, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The previous has an appearance over them. We need more input. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:38, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

How about we put up a list of jinchūriki under a tailed beast, like this:
 * One-Tailed Shukaku
 * First Shukaku Jinchūriki (Extracted and sealed within second jinchūriki; Deceased)
 * Second Shukaku Jinchūriki (Extracted and sealed within Gaara; Deceased)
 * Gaara (Captured and extracted by Akatsuki; later resurrected by Chiyo)


 * Eight-Tailed Giant Ox
 * Previous Eight-Tails Jinchūriki (Extracted and sealed within Killer Bee; Deceased)
 * Killer Bee KazeKitsune (talk) 01:44, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Naruto's Control
As of the latest chapter, of Naruto defeating the fox and taking it's chakra, people are starting to put that Naruto is now a jinchuriki that has control over his tailed beast. However, I am a bit hisitant to support this until Naruto displays control over it. Yagura is a different matter altogether, as he is specificly said to have control over his beast, but Naruto hasn't shown any control over his new-gotten power. Should we change it to add him, or just wait until he shows his control? --Juubi no Ryuu (talk) 22:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it entirely. Save it for Bee's and Yagura's abilities sections to avoid headaches. ~SnapperTo 22:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Tailed Beast Traits on Body
Should we include in the article that only the hosts that had contact with a tailed beast before they were born exhibit the beasts traits on their body? Naruto's mom didn't have whisker marks, but Naruto got them in her womb by the fox. Gaara had the beast sealed in him before he was born and has raccoon-like mark. But Naruto's mom herself has no traits and had contact with the fox after she was born, the same goes for all the rest to our knowledge.
 * That's rather speculative isn't it? Gaara's marks have been said to come from his insomnia and when Kishimoto-sensei drew a picture of Naruto and his parents as if they had never died, Naruto still had the whisker marks, despite the fact that he shouldn't have the Nine-Tails there. —ShounenSuki (talk 00:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * true, however gaara has still retained his trait even after the one-tails has been extracted and doesn't have to deal with insomnia anymore. the picture i don't really think is cannon, but even if it somehow was, that could just be the naruto image, or the beast could have been seal in a different non-life ending way, such as chiyo sealing in the one-tails. i think that what he's trying to get at is that it might be trivia that those with contact with a tailed-beast before they were born display certain traits, not a undeniable fact. --Dragon Hacker (talk) 04:37, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well looking at all the Jinchuriki, most tend to share some trait as the last jinchuriki of a particular beast, however other hosts of the same beast tend not to have these traits. I personally think it's just an artist thing. Naruto has the whiskers to connect him to the whole fox thing, Kushina and Mito don't cause they show up later. Gaara's eyes have an explanation, but do make him look like a raccon. Similarly Roshi's bright red hair matching his beast, Yagura having a damaged eye like his beast etc. etc. It could be presumed that the latest Jinchuriki were designed alongside their particular beast, resulting in their similarities so it might be the case that all the latest Jinchuriki share traits, but like you said, not an undeniable fact. On a side note, even without the insomnia, Gaara's eyes have been like that so long it's more than likely permanent due to lack of blood flow. --213.122.97.122 (talk) 05:23, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was that there's no proof whatsoever that those traits are derived in any way from their tailed beasts. No proof = no mention. —ShounenSuki (talk 11:56, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth a trivia note. Kishimoto explained the rings around Gaara's eyes from insomnia, but that doesn't remove the fact that that is like a tanuki. Same with Naruto's whisker marks.For better or for worse, Kishimoto decided to give them characteristics of their demon.--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 13:34, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the Jinchuuriki's abilities, specifically, Naruto. I added him being able to sense negative emotions but I don't know to link it like the others (like Killer Bee's ink--N 21 (talk) 17:25, January 26, 2011 (UTC))

Questions
Everyone thinks it was fuu and han who were captured off screen. how did you find this out and can you give me a link? Also, which episodes did they show akatsuki sealing roshi, yugito, and the three-tails? I want to see as much of the tailed beasts aas possible that weren't mentioned that much.
 * You can find more information about those other characters in their articles. About Fū and Han: both in manga and anime, Shukaku was the third beast to be sealed. Considering the others which are sealed later, the two first could be Five-Tails, Six-Tails or Seven-Tails, one of those being sealed later either before of after Rōshi, don't remember now. Because in the anime there was the arc on Utakata and the Six-Tails, by default, that means Five and Seven were the first to be sealed. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:13, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Deidara's comment
Despite the description left behind by Deidara that the first two jinchuuriki Akatsuki captured hated humanity, judging by the order of the anime showings, Han and Fuu were those two jinchuuriki in question. In contrast to Deidara's statement, Fuu is often represented with rather happy facial expressions.

I'd also like to note that almost half the jinchuuriki we've been shown arent miserable like we've been lead to believe, Yugito, Bee, Naruto, Gaara and Fuu are presented either smiling or content with their lives.

I think this need noting because it would suggest the order the anime took differs from that of Kishi's original idea.


 * Don't we already do that? "Fū was mentioned by Deidara to be one of the first jinchūriki to be captured in the anime ." ~SnapperTo 18:06, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Reason
Is it probable for us to add a category "Reason for being made a jinchūriki" to add to the list of jinchūriki?--Cerez365™ 19:10, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Eight Tails Jinchuuriki
From the latest chapter, the "previous 8-Tails jinchuuriki" stated nor he, his father and his uncle were able to control Eight Tails. Can we assume that he is 3rd jinchuuriki and Killer B is 4th? I know, there is not said if there were any other jinchuuriki before, but still it could be noted, hmm? Something like "Killer B's uncle" (if Killer B is Previous jinchuuriki's cousin, wont he be Killer B's uncle? )) But still, its really complicated to think about, as if Previous, his father and uncle were jinchuuriki, and Killer B is Previous' cousin, does it means these four were connected to 1st or 2nd Raikgae? Just some thinking aloud.

To the point, shoudl there be added these two jinchuuriki? VolteMetalic (talk) 17:51, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. --Ilnarutoanime 17:55, June 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone really believe that the uncle of the B's cousin is just some random brother of this cousin's random mother or father that are unrelated to B? Or that B and previous Hachibi's jin are cousins by some random mother of this jin? Shouldn't we make it straight - change Killer B's Cousin's Father and Killer B's Cousin's Uncle to more simple and clear Killer B's Father and Killer B's Uncle? The connection must be strong enough for B being chosen as next jinchuuriki Faust-RSI (talk) 10:08, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I agree it's unlikely that B's cousin's uncle is anyone other than B's father, there is really nothing that proves this. Without proof, nothing is added. —ShounenSuki (talk 10:50, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Chapter Term
In what chapter is the term "Jinchuuriki" first used? 64.30.65.80 (talk) 20:23, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the exact chapter, but it was first used by Sasori or Deidara when they were on their way to Sunagakure, in the beginning of part II, so around chapter 250, my guess is 247, when Deidara and Sasori made their first appearances. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:10, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Forms for the revived
I just want to know, are we doing articles for the revived jinchūriki forms? It just seems like an elephant in the room situation to me.--Cerez365™ 18:52, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would assume so. Expect them to be blurbs like Yugito's but yes. I assume they will be done.--TheUltimate3 ~Keeper of Lore~ 19:10, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the only reason they haven't been properly made so far is because there's little to add. And there's also the issue I raised for the name of Fū's page, and how would her transformation page be linked right due to the parenthesis in her article name. See her talk page for more. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:33, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to request that it be worded in a way that it is clear that they've only displayed these transformations post-resurrection, which shouldn't be hard. Skitts (talk) 21:50, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Is or was?
We usually refer to the deceased hosts as "so and so was the host of the X-Tails". Cerez brought up a point about the tailed beasts being resealed into them, technically making them into hosts again. That sort of clashes with the usual past tense use for deceased characters. How you think we should proceed? I think we should keep it as was, because they're still deceased. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:56, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Is, theres no new Jinchuriky for the bijuu, and there were resealed. --Elveonora (talk) 00:01, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

O Lhordy, I think either one would be fine actually. Though a sticky topic I don't think we're necessarily wrong either way but for the sake of uniformity I say we use present tense .--Cerez365™ 00:07, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * But then there's Gaara... So and other dead ones so past tense in the initial statement and then the explanation that the beast was resealed into them. So we get both sides.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 00:11, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) One thing I have against using present in this case is that makes it look like they're still alive. They ceased to be hosts when the beasts were extracted. Kabuto himself called them former hosts when we say they brought back didn't he? Considering that the resealing is already mentioned in their history section, I don't think it's necessary to include it in the opening sentences of the article. I already added that the beasts were resealed into them a few days ago. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:14, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if the Eight-Tails is to be believed, they are still jinchūriki despite being deceased. Although I agree it is a difficult issue, I think we should respect remarks which are taken directly from the manga, at least for the time being, as I doubt it will be too long before using past tense becomes the only option. Blackstar1 (talk) 00:15, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Use of present tense for me sort of implies that they never ceased to be jinchūriki, which isn't true. They stopped being hosts when the beasts was extracted, were resurrected as non-hosts, because they had no beasts, and only after that did they have the beasts resealed. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:18, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that but conversely, the use of just past tense to me implies that they ceased to be jinchūriki and that was a circumstance that didn't change, which again isn't true. Despite your reluctance to include it into the introductory paragraph, given that the use of just a single tense isn't really reflective of what is currently occurring, it might be the best and only way to proceed for the time being. Blackstar1 (talk) 00:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally still see some uncertainty on whether the Bijū were physically resealed into the former jinchūriki, so I would suggest keeping things in the past tense until further clarification. —ShounenSuki (talk 00:43, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * "Upon his/her resurrection, ??? was again made into the jinchūriki of the ???-Tails." - To me a simple isolated sentence to this effect seems to be the most appropriate approach, as it's not only reflective of current events, but is something which can be removed without consequence once they cease to be jinchūriki for whatever reason. I don't think it would need to be anymore explanatory than this, because as Omnibender states, the history section is best suited to disclosing the exact details. Blackstar1 (talk) 00:50, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * That sort of sentence is already in the first or second paragraph of the Shinobi World War Arc section in each of the hosts, I added it. ShounenSuki's reluctance stems from the fact this has yet to be confirmed from the raw. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:07, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that ShounenSuki's reluctance stemmed from the fact that the details surrounding how the tailed beasts were returned to the jinchūriki has yet to be explained in much detail, meaning the method used may not actually fit the definition of a 'jinchūriki'. Anyway, I was aware of your additions, but I don't think that it is correct of us to indicate in the introductory paragraph that they are no longer jinchūriki, when the most recent remarks of Eight-Tails implies that this is not true. Adding that short and easily removable sentence, would respect those remarks until further clarification is provided, while still meaning that the remainder of the article could be written in the past tense. Blackstar1 (talk) 01:20, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this, given we now have a confirmed translation? Blackstar1 (talk) 19:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * What I got from that translation is that the beasts were resealed, but feel different. Nothing that careful wording such as "appears to have been resealed" or something along those lines shouldn't cover. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:24, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

"Upon his/her resurrection, the ???-Tails appears to have been resealed within ???" - So, a separate sentence to that effect in their respective introductory paragraphs, would that be ok? That way we respect what has been revealed, but are able to easily remove it when circumstances change, as the sentence doesn't impact on the rest of the article. Blackstar1 (talk) 20:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any objections to the suggestion posted above? Blackstar1 (talk) 15:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a sentence like that. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:29, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't want to put it in their introductory paragraphs as it already says they were killed and we would just have to go back and delete it. How about making it a new line in their background section? Joshbl56  15:36, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a line like that should go in the background section. This happened chronologically after they were introduced in the plot, after they were resurrected. It happened off-panel in the Shinobi World War Arc, but still during that arc. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Joshbl56: Please read through the entirety of the above discussion, it has been clearly identified and accepted that the sentences would be a temporary addition so that we reflect the current status of the characters, rather than stating that they are not jinchūriki, when the exact opposite may be true. The deletion of the sentences isn't an issue, given it has no implications on the rest of the article, therefore it would be a very simple matter to do so. Blackstar1 (talk) 15:56, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was under the impression that Omnibender had just said he didn't object to the sentence (I skimmed over most of the conversation) and wrote my part to hastily. Joshbl56  16:31, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that everyone is seemingly appeased, I'll begin adding the suggested sentence. However, as I've said many times previously, this can always be easily amended and/or reverted as and when the information we have changes. Blackstar1 (talk) 21:32, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Bones?
Hey I just noticed something; even when the revived jinchūriki transformed into their highest possible Version 2 forms they formed no bones, do you think only the Eight and Nine Tails are capable of doing that? 119.154.5.35 (talk) 16:28, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

They form claws, horns, wings etc. though --Elveonora (talk) 16:31, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

B didn't form a skeleton until he wanted to use the Lariat. It seems more of an optional thing, than "does A" and "B occurs"--Cerez365™ 16:36, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, they most likely can form any part of their beast's body. And as Cerez said, B formed the skull to increase the damage of his Lariat. --Elveonora (talk) 16:39, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Another question, suppose if someone like Naruto, forms a chakra shroud shaped like a wing while in version 1 and then changes into Version 2 so will that wing all materialize? 119.154.8.17 (talk) 16:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Their chakra shrouds resemble their Tailed Beasts, Naruto can't form the chakra into wings since Foxes have no wings. It looks like partial transformations is changing into Tailed Beast, chakra shrouds is using chakra of The Beast. In Version 2 the chakra is compressed and formed around the host basically replacing their skin. The Claws, Horns, Wings, Carapace etc. are partial transformations to that.

But if your question is why B used a Bull/Ox skull and not something else, only torso is that of an Ox/Bull and Octopuses have no bones, so using Lariat with an octopus tentacle would not have much additional effect on its strength. --Elveonora (talk) 17:21, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 567
Should we mention in the trivia that Kishi retconed some part of his original jinchuuriki conceptions? Like Utakata's hairs are lighter, Fuu is significantly taller and Bee somehow is taller than Han which was the biggest jinchuuriki back then? Or should we just ignore it because it is more "art" than actual part of the story?Faust-RSI (talk) 14:52, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * That could simply be a combination of scanning errors, strange angles, and Kishimoto's infamous inability to keep perspectives straight. —ShounenSuki (talk 15:06, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, and of course in Bee's case you can say it's just strange perspective and/or angle. But in Fuu's case your clearly see she is almost a head taller than Naruto. Also, Utakata's hair colour is way lighter and it doesn't depend on the perspective, though it maybe scanning issue. All in all, I'm just pointing it out Faust-RSI (talk) 16:23, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Naruto/Fū height thing might be an angle thing as well. Looking at it, Rōshi who is supposed to be shorter than Gaara looks taller than him. It's just a perspective thing. As for Utakata's hair I'd chalk that up to the colour scheme.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 16:33, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Perspective only works one way (i.e. the size of an object appears to decrease as it approaches the vanishing point), so if Fū and Naruto are around the same height, then Fū should be smaller than him because of the greater distance from the observer. Although this could still be a simple mistake, it would be Naruto's height which has been altered, given that he was originally level with B's shoulders. Blackstar1 (talk) 16:44, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe its the color and angle but Roshi looks a little younger.Umishiru (talk) 17:03, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

As Blackstar1 said, Fuu should be even smaller than Naruto, if the perspective is right. Also, about Roushi. On the original spread he is leaned back that's why he appears smaller than Gaara, but in fact he isn't. So Rosuhi is pictured way better on the new spread than Han, Bee, Naruto and Fuu, though he really appears younger.Faust-RSI (talk) 18:53, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

More than likely that Kishi simply wasn't paying as much attention to detail as he should have. Skitts (talk) 18:56, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that he thought/realised that readers would put so much technical thought into it.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 19:10, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * It could also be that Naruto has actually grown since the last jinchūriki image. No matter what, I don't think it's really worth pointing out. I'm sure you could find even worse inconsistencies and errors when comparing different images. That doesn't mean they're worth pointing out. Sizes and colours have never been truly consistent in the manga. —ShounenSuki (talk 19:50, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the truth. Joshbl56  20:06, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Just on the Roshi thing, he may look younger, but the new spread is from further back and he's not wearing his head piece and there's no band across his nose. That's probably why he seems younger. Gaara is at the end, but could still easily be taller than Roshi. Yagura's height seems to be even shorter as before there was less than a head difference between him and Roshi. Fu is the only one I can say who's height by comparison to the others has markedly changed from what it was and just having noticed, where the heck is Utakata in the new spread? --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 22:12, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

http://mangastream.com/read/naruto/97848931/3 Other verisons must hav had a scan error.Umishiru (talk) 04:39, December 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Does Utakata still have his bubble blower??? Is he the only one who has had the same weapon/item in both Jinchuriki pictures?


 * EDIT: Never mind, Gaara has his gourd beside him. Joshbl56  05:11, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

@ShounenSuki - of course Naruto could have grown, but it's not his height that is messed up, it's Fuu's, and she couldn't grow that much because she is dead :) Just saying, actually I agree that it is better to not consider this inconsistency canon Faust-RSI (talk) 06:32, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Imagemaps
We could add this imagemap to illustrate who is each jinchuuriki :)

OR

User:SKnight 03:05, December 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, you scroll over and you can see their names. While I think that's cool and all, I don't really think it's necessary because we have a list of names. I'm not entirely against it though, I think this is indifference.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 03:11, December 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a little more than being able to see their names. It gives links to their respective pages as well as showing an image and name of who they are. Personally, I love image maps and would love to add more :D Joshbl56  03:15, December 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just think that missed to illustrate who is each jinchuuriki, but if not is necessary... User:SKnight 03:19, December 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I kinda like it now that I realise it serves another purpose. But you'll have to get feedback from more people for something like this.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 12:45, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure an image map is required in this situation. There are links in the page already, and this isn't like the image map in the nature transformation page or the geography page, in which there are symbols that not everyone might understand. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 13:05, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right Omni, i just like imagemaps. There any page needing imagemaps? :) User:SKnight 23:46, December 20, 2011 (UTC)