Huh ?

When was it ever decided to make pages like this ? This just appears to contain c/p'd data from other articles and is overall pointless. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 16:56, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Even tho I disagree with Spey's opinion on article relevance and deletion by accordance to it's supposed insufficiency, I share his sentiments when it comes to this one--Elveonora (talk) 17:14, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily has to be deleted. Redirect to Shinobi Organisational System or something more relevant if it can be found and the entire history of the shinobi world can be found in one place/flow into each other.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 17:18, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

It is a notable (canon) event. That appearently has someting of an influence on the current plotline. We list events, canon material (and non-canon for that matter), and things that have influence on the current plotline. Like Cerez-shi said, we can add more to it and make it a respectable page.--Yomiko-chan (talk) 17:30, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. It is specifically named and we have enough information, it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. This is a historical era, it would not fit on the Shinobi Orginisational page in my opinion.--Deva 27 17:50, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, the contents of this page are mentioned elsewhere on more prominent pages (eg, character pages), a page to centralise it is unnecessary. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 17:51, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
That would be just like if we put all the different vaiations of Rasengan in one page.--Yomiko-chan (talk) 18:09, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Why does it have to be decided, Speysider, to make an article like this? From what looks like the coming chapters, this era will be gone in thorough detail. 'Its in other articles' isn't the excuse not to have this main page. We have a pain page for the Fourth Shinobi World War and the Third Shinobi World War, so we need this topic to add more information. There is absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 18:51, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Because we have never made articles for any other events like this. If one is made for this event, then we have to set a precedent and do it for every other event. And you can't compare this to the Arc overview pages, nor can you assume that Kishi will discuss this in great detail spanning a ton of chapters. It's obvious that when people make articles like this one, they don't realise the implications that it creates and don't realise that a precedent is set for it. Food for thought there. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 18:58, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
We haven't? We made articles for the Third Shinobi World War because of Kakashi Gaiden remember? We made articles about the First and Second Shinobi World Wars to mention the rise of the Sannin in the latter and the deaths of the first two Hokage in the former. This event impacts the current storyline big time given it goes down to the central conflict the series had made. From the way you're writing, Speysider, its like you don't like new articles being created at all and if there is one created, its a bad thing. No matter what the topic.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:02, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

This is my last post in this topic, honestly people need to grow up and stop attacking me for just about everything I do here, it's childish and immature. If you want to talk to me about it more, go to my talkpage.
@SuperSaiyaMan: We've never made articles about two clans warring together. Those other events do not count and are irrelevant to this discussion. Also, stop accusing me of stuff that isn't true. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:06, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

But the point is we've gone into other Wars, which set a precedence. This is a war that precedes the entire story and is being put in great importance. And can you blame me for calling you out? All last night you were trying to get new articles deleted, even if they were a named character. And I checked your talk page, TheUltimate3 even gave you a heads up about doing exactly what you're doing here. I didn't mean to sound confrontational, but you were advocating deletion hard work on an event that is being elaborated on finally in canon. Before, we didn't have enough information about the Warring Clans Era. Now, that we do, you advocate deletion even though it seems Kishimoto is staying in this era for two more chapters at least.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:12, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
I don't really give a damn anymore, do whatever the hell you want but don't come to me complaining about any problems this articles creates. You lot need to back off and stop being so defensive just because someone put a delete tag on the page. Anyone here ever heard of good faith ? Clearly not, enlighten yourselves to this section of a policy. The way everyone goes ape crazy over a delete tag is pathetic behaviour. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:16, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're not seeing it from the point of view of the editor here. What 'problems' exist from this article existing? DO we have problems with the other War articles, yes or no?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:19, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Read what I said again. Don't come to me complaining about any issues that may come up in the future from this article, like other warring clans articles being created because of this one. Anyway, discussion closed. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:21, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
...except that this the Warring Clan event of the manga. Which was alluded to plenty of times. Do you fear that each clan will have to get their own individual article about this one, huge conflict or that clan wars from anime fillers will have to get their own article?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:23, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Do you fear that each clan will have to get their own individual article about this one, huge conflict or that clan wars from anime fillers will have to get their own article?
FINALLY someone manages to spot the EXACT reason why I put a delete tag on this page! It only took a whole freaking day >_> --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:24, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that happening. We have one entire article about a canon event where hundreds of clans are in open warfare with each other. I'm using the logic of the previous prominent War articles on why this one has to stay Speysider.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:27, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of any conflicts between clans that this is likely to set a precedent towards. Even if there are any, this one strikes me as an exception because of how many articles already allude to it. This article links those articles together and is only going to become a larger topic over the next few chapters.
The only weakness of this article is that, as it is currently written, it is very Senju and Uchiha-centric. I know most of what is known of this era comes from members of one of these two clans, but they were far from the only ones to be active at the time. ~SnapperTo 19:37, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

There's also some (I believe) incorrect/assumptive information in the article. It claims Madara's and Hashirama's pre-Valley of the End battles all ended in draws, something not stated. All that we know is that the combatants survived those battles. However, Rock Lee survived his Chunin Exam fight with Gaara, but that battle certainly wasn't a draw. Skitts (talk) 19:41, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Spey, by ur logic we shouldn't also get rid of Tragedy of Yosuga Pass--Elveonora (talk) 19:45, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the article is a good addition. For one, based on the current direction of the plot it would seem to be a time in the series' history that a good amount of information will be revealed. Secondly, it is the era leading up to the Founding of the nation-village system and the events that led up to it. While this wasn't a definite war, like the wars we currently have articles for, it was a time of widespread conflict, just much less concrete in regards to alies and enemies. Skitts (talk) 19:51, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having an article on this, it is a an important point in history for the Naruto Universe that shapes the world.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol (talk) 20:48, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
If it was actually named then I'd have to recant my earlier statement and have it stay. I thought this was just an article that popped up but it would be the same as any other battle articles we have.==Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 22:14, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Other Clans?

i think you guys that the Hyuga Clan must be mentioned there since it was an ancient clan. --Cassie122 (talk) 18:48, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

We would if there had been any mention of pre-Founding Hyuga Clan activity. :-) Skitts (talk) 19:42, February 27, 2013 (UTC)


Should there be a list of clans known to be fighting at this time with rivalries/alliances attached? Example is the hagaromo clan against the senju and allied with the uchiha. I do realize it may be temporary, though. MangekyoSasuke (talk) 21:55, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

At this point I don't think a list is necessary, or even viable. The only clan names we can confirm outright at this time are the Senju, Uchiha, and Hagoromo. Kishimoto did an illustration showing a handful of crests belonging to clans active during that time (chapter 398, page 17), but those are currently the only three which are readily identifiable. Many of the modern clans probably do date back to this period (any known to be active during the First Shinobi World War, for example), with the Uzumaki and Hyuga being among the most likely, but we've got nothing concrete to base this off of. FF-Suzaku (talk) 08:02, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Akimichi, Yamanaka, Nara, Sarutobi and aren't Hyuga stated to be the oldest clan?--Elveonora (talk) 14:29, February 28, 2013 (UTC)


The revised chapter 622 says the clans name is Hagaromo not Hagoromo. Just thought I let you guys know.. —This unsigned comment was made by (talkcontribs) .

Not how the kanji used for the clan is read. Clan name is read as is. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:31, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.