Talk:Akatsuki

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Naruto Gaiden

Regarding the dude wearing the Akatsuki cloak in Gaiden. Should we add that to this page as a sort of underground sect/revival scheme, or should we wait for more information to become available? --Jizo 悟 (talk) 18:36, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait since people are in wishes not to speculate about their affiliations.--Omojuze (talk) 18:38, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to use the talk to avoid getting into an edit war with SuperSaiyanMan. Just because Shin's father wears the cloak, we automatically assume he's part of the Akatsuki. That's a rather double-standard, considering how Konan still wears her cloak after she defected. I honestly don't think we should be jumping the gun here. Again, just because Shin's father wears the cloak, he's part of the organization? He could, for all intents and purposes, just be wearing the cloak for the heck of it. Who's to say that the renewed organization consist of more members than just Shin and his father? We hardly know anything about them.--NinjaSheik 21:57, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up Konan is a poor example, because we cover the entire series at once. Even though she defected, she was still an Akatsuki, so it's never getting removed. Having said that, I agree with your premise NinjaSheik. Wearing the Akatsuki garb isn't necessarily indicative of anything. In fact, since this place is soooo anal to a fault about leaving speculation out, listing him as Akatsuki is jumpping the gun to an extreme, given how large a role the organization played throughout the series.--Minamoto15 (Talk) 23:23, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I see no issue listing him as Akatsuki. Just because that's the group's name, it doesn't mean that the agenda is the same. Compare Akatsuki as we saw it during most of the series, with Akatsuki we saw in the flashbacks of the Ame Orphans. Both were Akatsuki, but their goals were completely different. This is no different from Obito using Madara's name to inspire fear, except this time it's a person using an affiliation instead of another identity. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:50, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

The major thing I'm hesitant about is we literally have no idea if they are Akatsuki. For all we know they could be part of some new organization and he only wears a Akatsuki cloak because it was the first thing he found next to him. Also noting, his son does not wear the red clouds.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 00:12, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Also true. I'd say we wait. It's not gonna kill anybody to do so.

★WindStar7125 00:16, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Konan wears the cloak because of it means to her personally, the group she started with Yahiko and Nagato. Officially speaking, though, she's no longer a member of either group. I just see her as an example in a different way. But whatever. Also, the same can go for people who are "soooo anal" about listing characters' deaths when it's not actually confirmed until several chapters later, right? Policy is there for a reason, and from what I saw, people have been wrong before about Obito dying about a dozen times until it actually happened. Back on topic, TheUltimate3 is right. Who says to that they ARE Akatsuki? Shin doesn't even wear the cloak. So, if he doesn't wear it, is he NOT a member, too, or is merely working as a good soldier for his father? Who can say for sure, because WE HARDLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. So, final decision: Is it all right to move the paragraph? I don't want want to start an edit war.--NinjaSheik 03:02, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Konan, the ame orphans wore Amegakure headbands because they could relate to Hanzo wanting to bring about peace, despite them not being shinobi of his village. So the same could be said about this hooded figure wearing an akatsuki insignia because he shares the same ideology as the akatsuki did. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 03:29, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point! If no one has a counterargument, then the info should be removed. WindStar is right. Let's just wait. It's not gonna kill anybody.--NinjaSheik 03:39, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That was my point.--Minamoto15 (Talk) 03:57, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Now that Shins Father has clearly stated his intentions of reviving the Akatsuki (1), should we add Shin Uchiha & Sharingan Spying Creature as an Akatsuki team, add Akatsuki agenda under Shins Father, & add a third Akatsuki group being the Akatsuki under Shins Father? --DC52 (talk) 04:17, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

New Image

I'm sure there some people will have an issue with the lightning, but here's a much better image to consider- [1].--KirinNOTKarin98 (talk) 21:17, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see why you'd think this one's better, given that everyone's face is visible in this one. But yes, the lighting isn't very good.--Mina ^{talk | contribs} 00:20, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Still leagues above the current one. Like you said, everyone's face is visible. Besides, it just looks much cleaner as opposed to the current one.--KirinNOTKarin98 (talk) 00:33, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

I would usually say go with the anime image buts its missing Orochimaru. --Kris.gilson.12 (talk) 00:39, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Obitos Akatsuki Group

The wiki lists Obito as a leader of the Akatsuki, & lists his goal/agenda as leader. Yet Obito's Akatsuki does not have an "Obito's Group" section, while Shin's Akatsuki does have a "Shin's Group" section. So should an "Obito's Group" section be added, consisting of Obito, Kisame, Black Zetsu, White Zetsu, and Taka as an affiliate? --DC52 (talk) 01:07, June 26, 2015 (UTC)