Board Thread:Naruto Discussions/@comment-1514283-20140829001753/@comment-25349026-20140830100155

Seelentau wrote: And what if there can't be evidence for or against it because we do not have enough information on the topic? The TSB and SPS for example. There's clearly some information missing, but both parties act as if they'd know everything for sure.

And what if there's a statement such as "Tonton can fly"? You can't disprove that it can. It was never shown flying, but if I recall, the abscence of evidence is no evidence of abscence. So do we add Tonton as a user of the Flight Technique simply because there's the theoretical possibility that it can fly?

Technically speaking, Oonoki could make Tonton fly. I don't know what rules you guys had used in the past since I only participate in discussions, but from an editorial standpoint for encyclopedia usage I'd go by this.

1. Explicit information : i.e. Fact, its happened before, therefore there is precident, its a real thing. 2. Implicit information : extrapolation, information logically concluded to, e.g. Its the year of the Horse, therefore it CANNOT be 2011. This is not to be confused with extrapolation from idioicy e.g. 'That person is a cop, he must love donuts.' Or, 'oh hey a black guy, if we throw fried chicken and then run the opposite direction he won't come after us'.

The point is that this is a work of fiction. Many of the laws of physics don't apply here. Also, its kind of humorous that most of this flame war is due to the author's numerous inconsistencies, things left unresolved, and over all poor writing.