Talk: Itachi Uchiha

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Bias ?

I can't help but feel like this page is written with some anti-itachi bias in here. For example, in the Legacy section, it says "Inadvertently, Five Kages praised him as the hero who protected the shinobi world" even though we don't know if Onoki said that only because of Madara's end or the end of ET in general. Also, The Jiraiya thing in the abilities section is really mind-boggling. I get that it can be interpreted as a hype for Jiraiya, but why put it into Itachi's section, just so he looks weaker. If anything, put it into the personality section, as his humbleness has nothing to do with his abilities. I also feel like some of his major hype isn't even mentioned, for example: #1 student in history of the konoha academy, Kisame wondering why is a retreat necesarry for him, Itachi himself saying that only a sharingan user with the same blood can hope to defeat him, Kabuto saying he is the perfect Edo Tensei, yes, more perfect than Madara Uchiha (take that as you wish), Kabuto saying he is on a whole different level to the others (take that as you wish), Obito saying he would be dead if Itachi knew his secret, Obito saying that Itachi was the sole person that impeded his vendetta against Konoha all those years, Danzo saying the difference between Itachi's and Sasuke's genjutsu was like that between heaven and earth, Shikaku (who knew Itachi) believed Itachi could literally genjutsu-control an army, Kabuto saying that he can read his opponents soul and use it against them in fights and much more. Falkirion (talk) 21:14, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

How is the Five Kage praising him anti-Itachi? The Jiraiya thing has been discussed to death, there's a proper translation in some relevant archive. At least for me, having a character who knows how to wait and pick his fights is a strength. An intelligent character is a dangerous character. Same blood Sharingan had more to do with his Tsukuyomi. Don't recall Kabuto actively comparing Itachi and Madara, just praising both of them, separately, in different occasions. Itachi's last effort against Obito is mentioned in his ability section. Now, I should remind that bias works both ways. Even though this is Itachi's article, there comes a point where singing him even more praise would come across as forced. And besides, just because this is Itachi's article, it doesn't mean absolutely all information about him is here. There's info about him in pretty much every article that mentions him. There's also the issue of size. If we went to painstaking detail regarding everything everyone ever said about everyone else, articles would become unmanageably long. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:40, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

I admit for the 5 Kage hype, i didn't read it properly. As for Jiraiya, i don't think such an ambigious thing should be presented to the readers as a fact, considering that Kisame who knew Itachi was confident that he would beat the Sannin. I agree that characters shouldn't be praised too much, but i see the pages of other characters who are around Itachi's level like Nagato, Kabuto, Jiraiya, Minato, Killer Bee, and they are all praised to hell and back even though the vast majority of them have much less hype than Itachi. As for the Tobi part, it only says that Itachi impressed him even in death, but i don't see the part where he flat-out says Itachi would've killed him if he didn't keep a few secrets from him. Itachi's article is not even that big, considering how important of a character he is. Just look at Obito's, Madara's and Orochimaru's articles. Falkirion (talk) 12:30, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

On Jiraiya, he lived up to the hype Itachi gave him, thus it has to be included in the article. Both Itachi and Jiraiya were given the same stat totals by Kishimoto himself, and in Databook II Jiraiya was said that 'his ability to fight both Kisame and Itachi at the same time was not unfounded'. On Obito: Itachi never figured out how Kamui works, thus even his after death trap wouldn't work. We've worked hard NOT to hype up Itachi here as much as his fans want (trust me, its a neverending battle) because they want Itachi to be the best the Narutoverse has to offer in EVERYTHING.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 23:53, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

The Age displayed on the Wiki is wrong

The databook contains an error in Itachi's age. I can't edit it though.

Sasuke and Itachi are about 8 years apart in age.

Itachi kills his clan at 16-17. (Sasauke is 7-8.) Itachi in part 1 is about 20. (Sasuke is 12-13.) Itachi is 24 when he dies. (Sasuke is 16-17.)

After Itachi massacred the clan, Sasuke's ideals and personality changed drastically due to him suffering his clan's curse and became cold, indifferent, cruel, cynical, somewhat arrogant, unreasonable and devoted the next nine years of his life to kill Itachi. Naruto chapter 225, page 21

At age 7, Itachi graduated from the Academy at the top of his class after only one year. Naruto chapter 145, page 9

enrolled in ANBU half a year later[12] and became captain by 13. Naruto chapter 142, page 12

Oro said: So this is the Uchiha that slaughtered his own clan when Itachi joined!

That means Sasuke is 7-8 years old when the clan died, and itachi would have been 16-17.

If Itachi was 11 years old, then sasuke was 2 when they died. That is a baby! Those don't run around and talk, well not proficiently anyways.

We know Sasuke was in the academy, so we know he was 7-8 years old. We know this from other sources as well.

Also, it would mean he joined Akatsuki at least 2 years before he left the village. Which makes no sense, and is contradictory to the story.

There are many more things that don't add up as well. The whole story doesn't make sense with Itachi fighting orochimaru at 11!

I think the most obvious example is simply the art and voice acting. The author obviously drew Itachi as a 16 year old. You can screw up a complicated story easily, but you can't repeatedly misrepresent the age of a character over and over. You are obviously going to notice that he didn't look 11! Thus it is clear the author's intent was to make Itachi look 16, because he was in fact 16. —This unsigned comment was made by Mysticjbyrd (talk • contribs) .

Where are you getting that they're 8 years apart? If you look at the age at the pages, they're 4-5 years apart. I'm trying to keep up with what you're saying but where did you get that he was 11 when he fought Orochimaru? He joined Akatsuki after he killed his clan, meaning he had to be older than 13. Joshbl56 08:08, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yah, I am saying the databooks have an error in them. I am getting this based on math, and the story. As far as I know there is no way to specifically age Itachi within the story itself, but one can easily guesstimate based on appearances in the story, which is what kishimoto did. However, he didn't take some story elements into consideration when he made up his numbers. The best guesstimate based on the story and animation puts Itachi at about 8 years older than his younger brother, Sasuke.

On Naruto chapter 225, page 21 it is clearly stated that Sasuke's revenge on his brother took 9 years. We know for a fact that Sasuke is about 16 years old at this time. That means Itachi murdered the clan when Sasuke was about 16-9 = 7 years old. This makes sense, because this is when Itachi started, and graduated from the academy. This also appears to be the age represented within the story.

Naruto chapter 345, page 9 we see Orochimaru and Itachi have a small fight shortly after Itachi joins the Akatsuki. During part 1, it is stated that "we have not met like this in 7 years, ever since Orochimaru left". Orochimaru of course left, because he failed to get Itachi's body. Later, in part 2 Orochimaru is killed by Sasuke, and the akatsuki comment on the fact he left the organization 10 years ago. That means sasuke is about 7 when Orochimaru left, and about 16 when he killed Orochimaru.

According to the databook Itachi appears as 17-18 in part 1. That means he dispatched of a sanin 7 years ago at the age of 18-7 = 11. That is nearly nonsensical in itself, but there is much more. When he joins the Akatsuki Orochimaru mentions that "this is the Uchiha that killed his entire clan". Problem is we know he was in the leaf until he was at least 13 years old.

Another issue with Itachi's listed age is the 3rd Great Shinobi war. Kakashi was a jounin at the age of 13. If Kakashi and Itachi are 9 years apart in age, as the databook suggest, then Itachi would have only been 4 years at the end of the war. Clearly not old enough to even be aware of a war. Yet, according to the story he was incredibly distraught by it, and became an extreme pacifist because of it. Now if we increase his age by 3 years, then this becomes perfectly plausible.

When the kyuubi attacks and Naruto is born, you can see an image of Itachi holding and taking care of his newly born brother. You don't let a four year old baby take care of a newborn baby.

The final piece of evidence is the character animations and voice acting. It is easy to make a small mistake on a databook you do after the fact, but it is quite difficult to portray the age of your characters so incorrectly. As we can clearly see within the anime and manga, itachi faces off against Orochimaru as a young man of about 16-17, and no a small boy of 11.

Now what if Itachi did defeat Orochimaru at 11 and there was about a 8 year gap in Itachi and Sasuke's age? If Itachi was 11 years old, then Sasuke was 3 when they died. We know from the above sources this isn't possible. That means if there is an age gap of about 8 years, then it was impossible for Itachi to have beaten Orochimaru at 11.

—This unsigned comment was made by Mysticjbyrd (talk • contribs) .

Okay, to start this off, I've looked at each part of your explaination and I can't seem to find the first part. It's probably because of the different manga translations that we're using but chapter 225 doesn't have 21 pages, nor is there a part in the one I was looking at that mentioned 7 years. It is the original Naruto, correct? When Sasuke and Naruto were fighting and Sasuke was having the flashback?

I did find where they mention it being 7 years since they had met like that. I will admit that there is a weird problem with that part that should put Itachi around 20 in Part 1 instead of 17-18 (at least for it to make sense).

I will admit the age is weird for the War but you can be traumatized that early on. He might have seen people died/dying in a hospital or whatever (don't take this too seriously. I'm just trying to point of that you can traumatize anyone). You also have to remember that he was mentioned to have knowledge and understanding beyond his years, so he might have understood quite a bit and the shock made him hate fighting.

Four years old is not a baby. By the time a child is 4, they've already learned quite a bit and can usually do things on their own. The village is in a war and Itachi might have been the only person they could get to take care of Sasuke at the time.

They've always made Itachi look/sound older than he actually is. Thanks to the lines below his eyes, he could easily pass for 20 or so in the first part. I think that's what they were going for since it was stated that he had wisdom on par with a Hokage at 7 years old (chapter 619. Mangastream's translation has it on page 12). It's kind of hard to make someone seem worldly/wise if they look like a teenage and have a cracky voice. Joshbl56 13:09, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Dudes, both of you got so many things wrong I don't even know where to start... Itachi indeed was 11 when he defeated Orochimaru and the massacre took place when he was 13. It's not a contradiction, the massacre was to have taken place about the time he killed Shisui but Hiruzen postponed it by negotiating. Also Kakashi didn't become a Jounin at 13 for the millionth time.--Elveonora (talk) 14:13, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Elve, he couldn't have defeated Orochimaru while in Akatsuki when he was 11 because the massacre happened when he was 13. The page for Orochimaru already mentions that Itachi joined after the massacre, which is where that is coming from. Joshbl56 14:48, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Then the page is wrong and should be corrected asap. ShounenSuki himself calculated this at least twice so did I. Unless you can provide reference where it says he joined after the massacre--Elveonora (talk) 15:04, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Direct Quotes from both Itachi Uchiha's page (the first one) and Orochimaru's page (the second one):

“	Itachi subsequently joined Akatsuki in order to keep an eye on the organisation	”

“	However, when Itachi Uchiha joined Akatsuki after conducting the Uchiha clan massacre,...	”

Going by the translation from starkana:

“	He decided, all on his own, to commit a crime he would never be forgiven for, left his village... and joined Akatsuki to protect his village from the inside.	”

If we have a quote from someone trusted on the site, it would be better but these are the ones I found. Joshbl56 15:18, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I will postpone the edits until I find the things in archives.--Elveonora (talk) 15:32, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Itachi_Uchiha/Archive_4#Itachi.27s_Timeline here, this is only one of many topics about this. Every ended in conclusion that he was 11. On top of that, there's even more evidence thanks to Kabuto. He was 14 when Oro "saved" him and then they joined Akatsuki, hence 10 years ago. Itachi died as 21, 21-10=11 ... no problem--Elveonora (talk) 15:39, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

That timeline is based on the incorrect info in the databook. Its no better than this article. That is the only way to get an age of Itachi. Itachi was closer to 16. There are multiple obvious contradictions in the story if you assume Itachi was 11 at the time. Not one of them was addressed! You can't repeatedly misrepresent the age of the character through art and voice acting on 2 completely different mediums! That just isn't possible! Also, don't say he was drawing kids, when the whole first part of the series was 12 year old kids! Mysticjbyrd (talk) 05:13, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source outside of the Databook that can verify his age from the databook is correct, then the only logical conclusion is to assume the databook age is wrong! —This unsigned comment was made by Mysticjbyrd (talk • contribs) .

First of all, do not delete my post (or anyone else). That's extremely rude and is considered vandalism. Also, please remember to add 4 ~ to the end of your post so we know who you are. Secondly, most of the info on the characters usually come from the databooks. All we were trying to do was fix things up to make the databooks make sense, since it comes from Kishi directly. Joshbl56 05:08, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I deleted forum chatter. This isn't a forum! I proved beyond a questionable doubt that the databook is wrong. If you believe the data book to be a holy scripture that is infallible, then there is no point in you being involved in this discussion. That is a very narrow minded view however! I am hoping someone will see reason, and correct an obvious mistake. Again, unless you can find a source outside of the Databook that can verify his age from the databook is correct, then the only logical conclusion is to assume the databook age is wrong. Mysticjbyrd (talk) 05:12, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Just because it could be forum chatter doesn't mean you have the right to delete it. The post in question were not forum chat as 1. We were talking about his looks for his age, something even you commented on. and 2. It was also about editing articles. You need to stop deleting other peoples comments.

I never said the databooks were the 'holy scripture'. The fact that I said the age seemed off earlier (remember my comment about how he should be around 20 in the first part?) means that I don't see it some infallible text but instead as a basis for information on a character. Itachi's age has been discussed before and all I was doing was putting my 2 cent in. Joshbl56 05:26, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so you agree it is wrong? Why are you arguing against changing it? Actually, now that I look at the story on the main page, the whole story has been altered to accommodate this inconsistency with his age. Thw whole thing needs a massive overhaul!Mysticjbyrd (talk) 05:28, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

We go with the databooks. If the databook says he's an age, that's what we use. That's the end of it. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 05:42, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Who is we? Sorry, but the information has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false. —This unsigned comment was made by Mysticjbyrd (talk • contribs) .

I'm arguing with you because there are holes in your theory. The link Elv posted has quite a bit about his age at that point and even mentioning him being 11 and in Akatsuki. Read through it before deleting my post. Joshbl56 05:51, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

A wiki article that uses this wiki, or more precisely the Databook, as the primary source. Is that a joke? Odd, you have failed to refute any argument.

I'm not arguing it. Josh you shouldn't argue it either. Policy on this wiki states that we do not, under any circumstances, speculate (using math and a bunch of circumstantial evidence to guess an age) on age, especially when Kishi has flat out given us an age in a databook. It remains with what the databook says, until the manga, or another databook says otherwise. Period. You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but we're going to take a written out age from the author himself, over fan math that was configured via circumstantial evidence (when you yourself said that there is no standard for judging age in an earlier post) anyday, anytime. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 05:54, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude, but to assume a source is infallible is moronic. Kishimoto just guesstimated an age himself without taking the facts into consideration. Databooks are nothing more than filler for the manga. It could of easily even been a typo! To assume the source is infallible is ridiculous! 06:00, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Kishi is the author of this series. Are you trying to say that you know Itachi's true age, and Kishi doesn't? Don't be absurd. Kishi wrote an age, and that's what we record. Its as simple as that. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 06:02, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it is an error. Unless you think Kishi is a supernatural being, then the phrase to err is human applies to him as well. I have seen publications of numerous textbooks in my time as a professor and student, and you can always find errors even in extremely late editions. The sort of mentality you are portraying is not one of someone who should be involved in academia or managing an encyclopedia of knowledge. Mysticjbyrd (talk) 06:06, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Name drops academia.

Values "guesstimates" over published information.

The internet. ~SnapperTo 06:09, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Right. Come to me and claim to be a professor when you can get your grammar correct. Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed, but we're not in Harvard. Thirdly, I'm done arguing this now, so you can comment after this until you're blue in the face. This is the policy of our wiki. There are multiple flaws in your process, one of which is assuming that your model is the correct one, and not Kishi's, and therefore, our policy is to take Kishi's word over the math done by a random fan that has popped up out of nowhere. Good day to you. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 06:10, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, what you propose is that your personal opinion and subjective logic > canon. Sorry, but that's not how things work. Just because you find X absurd doesn't make it false or in reverse, just because you believe something because it makes sense to you doesn't make it true. There's no contradiction at all. Even if you ignore the databooks altogether, he is still the same age. Tobi himself stated in manga Itachi to have been barely 4 years old during 3rd Shinobi World War. 4+17=21 unless I fail at basic math.

In case you would be able to point out a contradiction between the manga and databooks, only then will it be taken into consideration, but you are yet to besides your bias on the subject. The Kabuto timeline also proves he was 11, so either refute facts or get lost--Elveonora (talk) 11:39, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I always laugh when fans try to act like they've written the story and that they know more about it than even Kishi-sensei when it comes to statistics on the wiki. :lol: --Speysider ^{Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel} 11:45, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Tho maybe we shouldn't be so hostile. He might have thought it was a narutofanonwiki that he had stumbled upon instead. That would explain this bizarre case--Elveonora (talk) 12:00, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

May you please stop vandalizing the page?--Elveonora (talk) 18:39, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Let's do the damn math then... Sasuke is 16 born July, 23rd in Databook 3 and Itachi is 21, born June 9th in Databook 3 and the age difference is the same in all 3 databooks.. and that age difference is this: 5 years, 1 month, 14 days.

If you want to make Itachi as old as possible and still be 13 before leaving Konoha as Kakashi(Manga) and the databook clearly states and, for Sasuke to be 7 as all the math makes him...

Then this > Itachi = 13 years, 1 month, 14 days, Sasuke = 7 years, 11 months, 29 days

is their ages at the date of the Massacre give or take a month and 14 days. Either way Itachi and Sasuke were 13yrs and 7yrs when the Massacre was carried out.. BTW the Uchiha PoPo's said it had been half a year/6months since Itachi joined the Anbu when they came to his house to question him.. we already know he became a Chunin at 10 and it was 6 months after that he became Anbu... so Itachi was officially 11 years old when he gained his Mangekyo and Shisui died. The Akatsuki meeting at the end of Part 1 where they said 7 years ago Oro left them is fishy.. it should of said 5, I believe he threw a ballpark number in right there... ItachiWasAHero (talk) 03:00, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

What Kishi says is law. Like it or not. Ballpark number or not. The end. When he changes it, either in the manga or in a databook, then so shall we. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 04:40, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Well according to his law itachi was 13 before leaving Konoha, and 10.5 when he became Anbu, 11 when Shisui died. Databooks 1, 2, and 3 put him at 17, 18, and 21. YOU tell me how the number 7 being said by Kisame at end of part one wins against Kishi's databooks and various other Manga evidence and numbers... Yeah his word is law alright and I would say he retconned that 7 years statement. Find an argument to debuff that and prove me wrong and if I can't tear it down then you are right, he changed it already in his manga and databooks with evidence and numbers. So I think you NEED to think more clearly on this. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 00:03, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, his word is law. Its staying the way it is. Period. Drop it. Nothing you can say, short of showing us a legit manga/databook entry that clearly shows his age is different, will result in a change. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 01:13, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Itachi entered Akatsuki as a double spy at 11, that's how. He was a member for 10 years by the time of his death but didn't become a missing-nin until 2 years later.--Elveonora (talk) 11:28, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Me and Shounensuki talked about this years ago and we came up with exactly what Elve said at that time. You misunderstood what I was talking about ten tails, I was saying the only thing that I still wasn't 100% on was if he joined Akatsuki AFTER the Massacre or when he was a double spy, because of databook info claiming he joined "subsequently" after the massacre and one or two manga pages saying that also, and the fact Akatsuki members stay together and sleep in the same place but in different rooms, the only member who was by himself was Zetsu because he was two people in one, Kisame and Orochimaru talked about how he had killed his clan when they saw him in Akatsuki and Tobi(Obito) told Sasuke he joined after the Massacre too, again going along with the word "subsequently". You see what I am talking about? ItachiWasAHero (talk) 12:46, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Another thing, his forehead protector had a slash through it in the Oro flashback and in Kisame's flashback.. and it seems you can only get one forehead protector and you get it when you become a Genin, but you can change it to another cloth at any time. So that further makes me think Itachi left Konoha, then clashed his protector, then Joined Akatsuki. Also page 8 of chapter 619 the Third makes it very clear what order of events happened - "We ordered him to kill his clan... then we branded him a traitor... we had him infiltrate Akatsuki and act as our lone spy..." and page 10 "So he slaughtered his entire clan to prevent the coup... and in doing so stopped an even greater bloodshed that would have ensued... he even agreed to join Akatsuki as our spy... all for the sake of the village... with the lone condition that I shield his younger brother from harm..." I clearly see the chain of events here... so Hiruzen clearly states he joined Akatsuki AFTER massacring the clan. He was 13 when he cut off Oro's hand and 13 when he met Kisame. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 12:46, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Is that so? Then you are correct and it may be a retcon or error. If a newer source says it was after then it was after I guess. Not sure what Obito said... for the Oro flashback, what chapter?--Elveonora (talk) 14:20, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

For the flashback in which Itachi's headband is clearly seen with a slash through it and he cuts off Oro's hand, the chapter is 345, pages 8, 9, and 10. I can't find Oro mentioning the order of events for Itachi in manga though I do believe it happened, but I did find the anime episode I think 115 shippuden? Oro says something along the lines of "you killed your clan why are you here?" in his head when Pain introduces Itachi to Akatsuki ItachiWasAHero (talk) 14:32, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Secondary infobox image for edo tensei?

Does anyone else find it appropriate for characters who have been reincarnated? --Mandon (talk) 06:20, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Is it better to open a new discussion about putting another image in the infobox for the reincarnated characters like Itachi, Madara, Asuma and Zabuza? http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a553/anaspet06/Shakhmootssign_zps2a261e68.png^(Contact) 06:47, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, a reincarnated shinobi looks exactly the same as when they keeled over and pegged it, apart from the eyes, so it'd be pointless. --Speysider ^{Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel} 06:49, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

I knew this day was coming. It is not necessary to add pictures of what persons look like when they are reincarnated. The point of adding secondary images is for persons who have had significant changes in appearance i.e. the Konoha 11, Inari and even Tazuna, not for people who come back to like with cracked greyed skin and black irides. It isn't necessary.--Cerez365^™(talk) 06:50, September 17, 2013 (UTC)