Talk:Seven Ninja Swordsmen of the Mist

Hello, Fenrir7139 here. Anyway, I was thinking... Shouldn't somebody put up a Romaji Translation of the Japanese Text? I would, but I don't know Japanese... I'll look for a reliable translator and do it myself, if I need to. Peace. Fenrir7139 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Fenrir7139

Content
This is a very meaty page, and though I personally love speculation and the information present here is plausible I don't believe that this article is alright in its present form. The main body is pure speculation. Good speculation yes, but still pure fiction. I believe that this should be corrected despite the limited information available on this group right now. Rayfire 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

History
Where on earth did most of the information in the history section come from? It certainly didn't come from the manga or databooks... --ShounenSuki 11:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

history
like someone said before, where did this info come from? also, please take out that Uchiha Madara is the mizukage who created the 7 swordsmen as that it currently just speculation. i also thought there was only 1 more mizukage after the one who created the 7 swordsman and that the kaguya clan doesn't exist anymore because of their attack on the village. also i don't think the village was starting...according to the mizukage page...they attacked during the 3rd mizukage's reign -July 4, 2008

...
Based on all the complaints here, I rewrote this page significantly and removed the blatantly false information, streamlined the structure, and got rid of the speculation. Stuff like Hoozuki Mangetsu being an ex-swordsmen... he was not. ever. We know that from the third databook. So, why was my edit reverted? It was not a joke edit or an attempt to be annoying. Are people just annoyed that I removed their bullshit, or is it actually the policy here to keep false information and speculation? Sure, my edit made the page a little shorter, but that's because that's literally the only information we know. 82.27.194.127 09:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying you rewrote the article is a bit much, the diffs only show you removing information from the article. But calm down with your comments a bit, those last two sentences comes across as hostile rather than assuming good faith.
 * An editor reverted you, likely because your original edit looked just like you were removing content from the article. Later on you made basically the same edit (which someone could view as a revert war) and reverted back to the original.
 * Thanks for coming to the talkpage about it. When there are topics like this, it's best to calmly discuss it with the other editors, sometimes they have other sources you may not have seen before. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Oct 5, 2008 @ 09:35 (UTC)
 * Also note that while we do go for facts, sometimes there are some small facts, but that don't amount to anything on their own. Basically the basis of speculations, while they can't be proven, and are many times false, they can sometimes offer nice subtle bits of info to the reader. In those kinds of cases we sometimes put speculations into a speculation section, or list facts on the page and give possibilities but mark them as unconfirmed. So flat out deleting speculation isn't always the best thing to do. For some examples; There's Minato Namikaze being Naruto Uzumaki's dad. Until it was confirmed that was never stated, but because there was a good bit of info in it, and it was widely believed, we put it in a speculation section. Same for Minato being Pain.
 * Basically the idea is to give all the facts to the reader, and let them make the assumptions. So even if something is speculation, we might put it in the article, but separate it from the facts, so that the reader can get all the info. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Oct 5, 2008 @ 09:50 (UTC)


 * With that in mind, I edited the page again, not removing anything but changing the speculated 'history' section to reflect that it is speculation. I don't think the page was really okay as it was (it was very hard to tell what was true and what wasn't), but I guess it didn't need speculation removed if that's just how things are around here. Thanks for your advice and I'll bear it in mind in future. 82.27.194.127 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and hey someone just came and deleted everything that made it clear that that stuff was speculation, effectively reverting what I did, again. They didn't even bother to pay attention to grammar and sentence structure. Well whatever. This page still needs changing, because it still has a paragraph of pure invention presented as fact in the middle, but it looks like I'm not the one to do it. 82.27.194.127 19:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's in the history section isn't speculation, it's fact. The information is taken directly from the databooks and manga. --ShounenSuki 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Name
Ok, looking over the name again, there is no need for all those extra versions of the name. Plain and simply the name here is "Seven Ninja Swordsmen of the Mist", or "Seven Ninja Swordsmen" for short. "Seven Swordsmen" is a shortened version likely popularized by fandubs, and "Seven Shinobi Swordsmen" as the literal translation is the same as "Seven Ninja Swordsmen" which is what is officially used in the dub. I sent a bot around to fix up the names. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Oct 13, 2008 @ 08:08 (UTC)

suigetsu
if suigetsu was trying to get all the swords, would Kishimoto add Raiga's swords to the manga just so it doesn't confuse us? also, we probably would end up seeing the rest of the swords and maybe some of the other members.
 * This isen't a forum, we have to wait and see. Jacce | Talk 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Raiga
Two questions: --ShounenSuki (talk 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In what episode (preferably with time index) was Raiga called "Thunder of the Hidden Mist"?
 * 2) In what episode (preferably with time index) were Raiga's swords named?

Hiramekarei
Did anybody note, that there's no double handled Sword to be seen in the pciture of the Seven? If the Swords are passed down, there should be one. Is the Info that he belongs to the seven confirmed?


 * The image is a) from the anime, and b) came out four years before Chojuro's debut. Don't give it too much thought to its finer details (or lack of). ~SnapperTo 22:03, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

i was watching something where kisame and itachi were talking. he said that if itachi died there would be no more uchihas which he diddnt know since sasuke was alive. kisame said if he died there would be no more seven swordsmen. shouldnt kisame know that the swords get passed down.

What chapter is this????

雷竜牙
Under the literal translation,竜 meaning "dragon" is left out. It is literally "thunder dragon fang", assuming this kanji is correct.

Origins
Taking in consideration this phrase: "According to Suigetsu, the swords of the Seven Swordsmen are passed down from generation to generation." (I dont know how true it is), I would say that The Seven Swordsman weren't created by Yagura (fourth Mizukage). I think you should add that it is still unknown who created them. - 17/06/2010 (17:24) - Arijon

Raiga's Swords
Does anyone know where Raiga's swords were named exactly? —ShounenSuki (talk 18:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Anime, I believe. It was a filler arc so I couldn't be bothered with watching it so I'm not sure, but it's been around long enough for me to doubt it's real.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 18:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the point. In a fit of insanity I decided to give the anime another chance, so I downloaded the arc that made me quit watching it: The Curry of Life arc.
 * I figured I might as well try and get the proper Japanese for the names of the characters and techniques and such, but I haven't been able to find where Raiga's swords were named. The official TV Tokyo site and the Japanese Wikipedia also don't name them.
 * I was hoping someone could give me an indication of where they were named, but if that doesn't come, I guess we should just consider it false and remove the name. —ShounenSuki (talk 19:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to scan the articles, and I was this close to clicking the episodes to watch online. But again, it's a filler arc, it's old and I don't want to sit through loading times. I'm going out at some point tonight but I will actually take to looking around tomorrow.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * But in my minor search, I checked Leafninja (yes the dark evil website nobody likes. But, they do have their uses) and they don't give it a name. It' very possible someone back at Wikipedia way back when named the sword after Fangs of Lightning jutsu he does with the swords. But again that requires actually watching the arc to be sure.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 21:44, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets just remove it, and if anyone disagrees, let them provide the evidence. S im A nt 20:17, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

where are their swords?
I just read the newest chapter and they get sumoned. But i noticed that they dont have their swords. Why is that?Scott sswag (talk) 08:28, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * They'll probably get it the same way Zabuza got his, through plot convenience, most likely to be explained as some sort of summoning technique. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 14:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Articles
Do we wait until each of them is introduced, or can we make articles on each of them already? I'm up for it. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 14:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets wait until their names given.--Deva 27 (talk) 15:06, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Kisame?
Could anyone tell me why kisame isnt here with the new chapter?
 * Kabuto summoned Kisame's master instead of him. Kabuto likely didn't have some of Kisame's DNA.--Deva 27 (talk) 17:33, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they even know he's dead yet? —ShounenSuki (talk 17:53, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * i don't think so or else when Kabuto went to the island he would've (or did get) gotten dna samples--Cerez365 (talk) 18:09, December 26, 2010 (UTC)