There is a clear conflict between the databook and both the manga and anime; no one can dispute what was shown to us all, but the databook is clear as well. On the other hand, who is to say that they are the same jutsu? -Thomas Finlayson (talk) 23:33, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Kishimoto said it was a tongue, the anime made a mistake.--Deva 27 (talk) 23:45, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
It was Fighting Tongue Slash. Everyone who read the manga and read the databook knows this. The anime failed on this one.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
You don't say. Then perhaps you could explain to me how this, especially the first 2 panels, looks like a tongue. An interesting 'mistake.' Thomas Finlayson (talk) 02:24, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
If you look closely you can see the bubbles and spray of water when it is unfocused. And since this comes before the databook and from the same source... Thomas Finlayson (talk) 02:26, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Then at most, the tongue is shot out with water, then the water stops and it's just the tongue. The bubbles you see, could easily be the warts on the tongue I see. Regardless is regardless, the jutsu used was Zessenzan, no matter what the anime ended up doing to it.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:42, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

1) Skip the anime, I have not seen a single whole episode; this is all from reading the manga.

2) 'the tongue is shot out with the water!?' Why would he do that?

3) What you call 'warts' are on a tongue that you can see are on a cone that expands to be wider than his tongue

4) You actually see the drops of water here on the mid-panel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thomas Finlayson (talk) 02:48, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Or they could be something entirly different.--Deva 27 (talk) 02:50, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
And that would be? Drool perhaps despite the fact that none is seen on the 'tongue,' and that it is a lot from such a small toad (do they even drool for that matter?). Maybe water that burst from the ground. Rain even though it is not raining? What!?!?!?!?!?
I get that you guys want to follow the databook, that is why I set up this alternate page to consider the possibility of other jutsu.
The databooks comes from Kishimoto, who also writes the manga. If he says its a tongue then its a tongue.--Deva 27 (talk) 02:55, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
And if he draws water, BEFORE he even wrote the book!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Although (in the spirit of compromise) does it say that it was the tongue that was used at the time?Thomas Finlayson (talk) 02:57, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

As far as this wiki is concerned, Kisihimoto is God. Yes that's right. Whatever deity you do or don't believe in does not exist here. In his/her/its stead, we have Kishimoto and he said it was a tongue.

I should also point out, most people don't last very long when they make me delete the same article three times. You get off because I know you're not a troll. But do remember this, it's bad form to make conflicting edits and what not when there is a discussion on the talk page. And if one is to start, then the article will will remain the way it is BEFORE the conflicting edits, and then the discussion will remain on the talk page.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 03:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I will grant that you have an impressive list of edits, but I have to ask what right you have to do this without even one other person getting involved. Plus, what is written first is usually taken as 'correct' in the scholar world. And I am TRYING to a discussion, but people keep deleting the relevant article!Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a damn about my edits. Or yours for that matter. I only care about what's right. Retcons happen all the time in the world of fiction and media. And Kishimoto can't be wrong, it's his story. Like with Shinra Tensei or whatever it is where he said two magnetic polarities or some nonsense repel each other when they should attract. We all know that's wrong and we mentioned that in Trivia. But in the article proper, we say that. Why? Because Kishimoto said that's how it works.
If you wanted to get a discussion going down on it, that's good. But don't use the wiki itself as a soapbox for it. The article already mentions the inconsistency between what Kishimoto said the jutsu is, and what the anime showed. If you want to further discuss that, making a random article that serves little to no purpose is not the way to go.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 03:10, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I am having some pronoun trouble there (and I think you mean Iron Sand World Order), and I am also looking for the truth (your authorative tone earlier made you seem like you had senority over me on this)

But how can I have a discussion on this if their is no article to go with it? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC) It does have an article. You just refuse to accept it. If you want to discuss things, you can either continue the discussion here, as I have not deleted the Talk Page, or there. Pick your battleground.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 03:17, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

...If you insist. No matter, I still have a copy of the origional.Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:19, May 24, 2010 (UTC)