Talk:Haku

First appearance
I believe it was Episode 9 that Haku first appeared as a Hunter ninja. If someone remembers him showing up before then could they fix the episode number?

Also, can someone put in when Haku appeared in the manga. Be it as a Hunter-nin or as himself, whichever is first. I think it was Chapter 10 but I have no clue if that's correct. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 8, 2007 @ 11:29 (UTC)

Trivia addition
I've been trying to find a good wording for the trivia bit to note on how some fans speculate on Haku's gender.

Jhbartlett suggested "Due to Haku's androgynous appearance, and his tendency to lie to protect his identity and Zabuza'a in the past, further coupled with his very close relationship to Zabuza, some fans speculate that Haku may actually be a girl.", but it's a little to big for a trivia note. Any ideas for revising it? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 10, 2007 @ 02:55 (UTC)


 * Ok, the old dispute isn't helping the article at all. Believe it!'s been temp blocked because he attacks every comment that someone makes on this talkpage. So it's ok to contribute some feedback on what you think should be done with the article. I'm going to post the ones put on my talkpage below to help with the discussion. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 10, 2007 @ 03:17 (UTC)

Omg, I don't want to dattebayo that that argument is even happening... My stance: Haku is a boy. On page 12 of chapter 21 "Oh...and...I'm a boy." Also, without fail, Zabuza refers to Haku as "he". Now, it is true that Haku has an androgynous appearance. Nonetheless, whether Haku and Zabuza are lying about his gender or not, we are only given those few circumstances as evidence, and so speculation needs to be put aside. It is a fact that Haku has a very close relationship with Zabuza, it is a fact that they are running from the shinobi hunters, it is a fact that he has lied before...but it is also fact that he claimed to be a boy. If we are going to say that everything he said was a lie, because he lied once, then it could be that he enjoyed a comforatble life with both parents still alive.

Unfortunately, we are not given absolute proof of Haku's gender. But, for that matter, neither are we for anyone except Naruto and Sai's friend, given the various comments that Sai makes about Naruto's vital male organs. After all, this manga is not a pornographic work, nor should it have to be.

So, I would say that in this case, it is truly necessary to go with the character's words on this matter. You should put a note in that says, "Due to Haku's androgynous appearance, and his tendency to lie to protect his identity and Zabuza'a in the past, further coupled with his very close relationship to Zabuza, some fans speculate that Haku may actually be a girl." But no one can reasonably deny Haku's claim that he is a boy, nor should he be referred to as anything but male pronouns in the article.

Sorry for the huge statement. But hopefully my opinion helps you. Jhbartlett 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal, Jhbartlett. Many fans of Naruto only believe what has been clearly stated in the manga/anime itself, rather than piecing individual evidence together to figure it out. I myself did not believe that Tobi was Madara until sufficient evidence was provided (the use of possessive kanji in the untranslated version in the example). Also, the dub leans towards a masculine tone, rather than the original, more feminine, voice. This would support Haku's male gender too, since different audiences have different views on even the smallest of things, such as voices.. --Dubtiger 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Zabuza arc is over, Zabuza and Haku are dead, and Haku's gender doesn't matter. (It's not like Naruto's gonna date Haku in the next chapter.) Even so, it's a talk page, and my opinion of talk pages are that disputes belong there. Sure there are disputes about the stupidest things ever, but if Haku is a boy or girl is something to debate then it should be debated. However, it is not something to debate, but even so it is a debate. Even though it is already shown right in front of your very eyes, it's simply fun for people to disprove something. I do agree that it is disruptive, so it should be put in another page because it's not really worth the effort to debate something like the gender of someone like Haku. It's like asking if Sasuke REALLY turned to Orochimaru. I will say this-HAKU IS A BOY!!! He looks like a girl, but he's a boy. Like Deidara. If Kishimoto, the Buddha, or Rikudan-sennin yelled out from the heavens, "HAKU IS A BOY!!!!" then there would be no debate. That is my opinion. Madara uchiha99 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Madara uchiha99


 * Yup, I agree discussions on things related to the article do belong here. But there are two important points on that. Discussions on how to improve the article are good. Which means that there's a degree of to the point that needs to be part of the discussion. Like Jhbartlett said, "...in this case, it is truly necessary to go with the character's words on this matter." is a point I agree with. However this was never included as a point in the last debate, it was primarily focused around "These FACTS(speculation) say that Haku is a girl..." rather than figuring out, what type of source information about Haku is valid and valuable to the wiki to determine how to treat the article. A discussion on how to improve the article is good, but a strait debate on what uncitable reasons there are that Haku could be of a different gender belongs elsewhere because that has little bearing on the article. Discussion is a process of gathering information, explaining viewpoints and reasons behind those, and finding a method to best reflect those in the article.
 * Another point is on the case of Edit wars. Even just looking at Wikipedia on how they deal with Edit wars its different than what was thought by one user. They don't say anything about removing all bits of info from the article that pertain to the discussion. They say that "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version." In other words, edit wars don't mean that an article should be put into a state of absolute neutrality just because something is being discussed. In cases like this, IMHO as an administrator I think that the version that an article should be left at when discussion is ongoing should be a reflection of the previous consensus. Any other thoughts? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 11, 2007 @ 04:02 (UTC)