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)