Talk:Nine Red Scabbards

Members
I think it's safe to conclude that the rest of the retainers are members:


 * The group was said to be comprised of the Kozuki Family's retainers, who were tasked with opening the borders of Wano. (chap 919 page 6)
 * The retainers we know were tasked the same thing. (chap 819 page 4)
 * Both groups are lead by Kin'emon.

Is that enough of a prove? Rhavkin (talk) 22:53, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

I would say no. We are sure to get more information in the near future, and we do not want to speculate. 23:05, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

"10th" Red Scabbard
There are only nine red scabbards. That "10th" one is obviously Kikunojo in her younger years. Mugiwara1994 (talk) 19:53, October 14, 2019 (UTC)

Oda confirmed otherwise in SBS 94. Rhavkin (talk) 20:03, October 14, 2019 (UTC)

No he didn't. He said that Izou and Kiku look similar and the answer will be revealed one day. He never said it was a different character either way. SeaTerror (talk) 06:23, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

That "10th Scabbard" was definitely just kiku. (GoldenOath20 (talk) 06:35, October 15, 2019 (UTC))

The only translation we have says "Huh? thought it was Okiku...but the person feels a little different..." Rhavkin (talk) 06:50, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

What does that even mean? (GoldenOath20 (talk) 08:29, October 15, 2019 (UTC))

That this a person different from Kiku. Rhavkin (talk) 08:30, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

He never directly said they were different. He hinted at it and said everything would be revealed later. SeaTerror (talk) 08:46, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

"Huh? thought it was Okiku...but the person feels a little different..." Rhavkin (talk) 09:21, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to post the definitions of feels and is for you. SeaTerror (talk) 18:11, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Feels a little different is the whole thing about Kiku being a guy or a girl.--Nightmare Pirates (talk) 19:34, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Oda also said in his answer "One day the answer to this question will be revealed, so just continue reading." He left the question hanging with zero confirmation that it's Kiku, thus we should not claim otherwise. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:17, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

That's fine by me. But at the same time, do we really need to add a single appearance character with no significance. If we add this character and it turns out that it is Kiku, then the wiki would have had wrong and misleading info of a secret 10th scabbard. On the other hand, us leaving it out would have no mistakes to it whether it is proved to be Kiku or not. We gotta stop adding random characters that appeared in one scene for one second.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 20:23, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

"Feels a little different is the whole thing about Kiku being a guy or a girl" That makes no sense whatsoever. Also Oda left the question hanging as in if it wasn't Kiku or it was so they shouldn't even be on the template at all. SeaTerror (talk) 09:17, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing them from the template. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 14:38, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

Why? If it isn't Kiku, the character should be included. And we had several case with the Charlotte Family\Big Mom Pirates and Wano Country characters where we had a character appear twice, once as mentioned and another as an unnamed character until it was confirmed otherwise, so even if it is Kiku, until confirmed we shouldn't assume it is. Rhavkin (talk) 14:45, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

Thing is we don't know if he is actually a Scabbard. It's kinda speculating to say that, there used to be ten based on the existence on what may or may not be a new character.--Nightmare Pirates (talk) 23:40, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

We don't know when they started to be called by that name, and they always appeared as nine people, at most Kiku replaced that person. Rhavkin (talk) 04:21, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my point. No one said in that chapter that that character was a Scabbard at all. And, as you said, "we don't know when they started to be called by that name," which means they might have only started being called that after Kiku joined (assuming that's not Kiku). This page is about the "Nine Red Scabbards," not "Nine First Followers of Oden." Even if that person was part of a nine-person group and was replaced by Kiku later on, he still wouldn't be a Scabbard and in the Scabbard gallery because, as you have said, "we don't know when they started to be called by that name."Nightmare Pirates (talk) 06:33, October 18, 2019 (UTC)

And it does make sense to say "Feels a little different is the whole thing about Kiku being a guy or a girl." That character feels a little different from Kiku, because the Kiku that we see right now looks nothing like him. Why? Because Kiku dresses like a woman now.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 06:35, October 18, 2019 (UTC)

The time of the naming is irrelevant, even if an official name was decided upon at a later date, the group history stays the same.

The whole argument of "feels a little different" = "Kiku's gender" is speculative at best, and insensitive at worst, and should be discussed on Kiku's page, if at all. Rhavkin (talk) 07:02, October 18, 2019 (UTC)

The naming isn't irrelevant because literally "Nine Red Scabbards" is the group with Kiku in it. It's an assumption to say that it can be extended to some random character (if it isn't even Kiku). Group history is of course the same because this page is about the Scabbards. But if that is not Kiku, then there is absolutely no concrete evidence that that character is part of the Scabbards. Maybe a retainer of Kozuki, but literally cannot be the 10th member of a 9-person group. Or the former 9th member - because this is speculative that some dude existed and vanished and was replaced by Kiku as the 9th Scabbard.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 01:06, October 19, 2019 (UTC)

Look at the Ninja-Pirate-Mink-Samurai Alliance, the group has a history and members before the naming or all current members being part of it. Rhavkin (talk) 04:32, October 19, 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to his point. By your logic if Luffy was actually called a Yonkou then he should be put on the template without accurately renaming it. SeaTerror (talk) 16:51, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

"Members before the naming" - those members became "members" specifically because they were part of the Ninja-Pirate-Mink-Samurai Alliance after it was officially formed. You can't be a member of that specific group if you didn't join it after it was formed. For someone to be a "member", we must actually know they were a member. We don't know if that random, supposed unknown, character became a member. Maybe he was in a different group called the "Nine Red Beetles" or whatever, he still wouldn't be a "Scabbard" member until it is actually confirmed.--Nightmare Pirates (talk) 08:18, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

That is true if you can find proof that they weren't named then. Rhavkin (talk) 08:28, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

I may not have proof that they weren't named then, but likewise, there is no proof they were named then (because they aren't called the Nine Red Scabbards in that scene). If we can assume that they were already named the "Nine Red Scabbards" then because it is a nine-person group that serves under Oden and that basically has all the members of the Scabbards we see today, then that is no different than assuming that that is actually Kiku (because that would make the most sense as it is a nine person group serving under Oden). Nightmare Pirates (talk) 08:36, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that was Kiku was what we did Until Oda said it isn't necessarily the case. The asuumption that that group, which include Ashura Doji and the minks, and the fact they were said to be Oden's followers in the flashback indicate that it happened after Oden took over Kuri, thus became its ruler and they are his retainers. Rhavkin (talk) 08:48, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

Well, who's to say Oden didn't have other retainers? Those other retainers wouldn't be Scabbards either. When did it say that the Nine Red Scabbards were nine retainers from the beginning of Oden's rule? Because it didn't and since we cannot assume that that is Kiku, we also can't assume that that person was part of the Nine Red Scabbards that Kiku is in. If we can't assume its Kiku, we also can't assume it's not Kiku either since Oda never said "There was a person that was part of the group before Kiku". Leaving it out avoids confusion and assumption.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 09:23, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

Here is what we do know:
 * There was a group of nine people that followed Oden.
 * Eight of the nine are also confirmed to be Scabbards.
 * The former ninth member is implied to not be Kiku.

The question is whether the official naming determine the start of the group:
 * The straw Hat Pirates were officially named after Luffy started his journey, Zoro was recruited, Nami joined, and the Merry acquired.
 * The NPMSA has a history of Law's past, long before the Straw Hat and Heart Pirates were formed, and before Momonosuke group arrived to the present.

Rhavkin (talk) 09:34, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

Well I would argue that it wasn't implied that wasn't Kiku, as all Oda said was "it feels a little different". This could mean anything because literally when you look at the young versions of the Scabbards they all feel (and look) different than they are now. And also, any history of characters before a group is formed is relevant because those eventual group members all become part of said group. So none of your examples to prove otherwise of "the official naming determin[ing] the start of the group" help to disprove this claim, specifically because those in your examples all actually become part of the group (Luffy, Zoro, and Nami all become part of the Straw Hats; Law becomes part of the NPMSA). That unknown character (if not Kiku) is not known to eventually be part of the group (if not already), so we can't say he is. For example, Koby hung out with Luffy and Zoro before the Straw Hats were founded, this doesn't mean he is a Straw Hat just because he was with them. You only become part of a group (and have your picture in the gallery) if you end up actually being in the group. And also, I would add on to "Here is what we do know" that the nine person group includes only the people we see today as far as we know. That is what we know. We don't know if it included someone before Kiku and frankly, thats a big assumption.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 09:54, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

how is this even a freaking discussion they lirteally called the nine scabbords not the ten when scabbords first mention a background picture shows nine people only kiku was one of those people there no one else hinted or ever mentioned there shred of evidence that there were other members of this group all the current inforamtaion revealed shows that current nine people are the og memebers and only memebers every been part of this group, all oda said " Oh... You guys noticed another small detail. Young Kin’emon and the others in the flashback scene. If you count them no doubt there’re 9 people. Huh? thought it was Okiku...but the person feels a little different...By the way, “Izo” is one of the commanders that appeared in the Summit War arc. It’s true that they look similar since Izo also wore a kimono. And in vol 82 chapter 820, it did said that some people from “Wano Country” joined Whitebeard’s ship~. One day the answer to this question will be revealed, so just continue reading. You’ll notice it, right" this not oda saying that was a totally differnt character those this cause some speuclation yes it those but thats all it is specualtion until he clealry shows or out right says so this pure speculation that is all .also this what i be talking about there clealry a rule that said until decision is made any edit and all edit must remain the same until concession is made the character group box for them was changed the discussion for them is still going on and most of people here disagree with this change so why is it allowed stay this wayTo love this (talk) 05:44, October 30, 2019 (UTC) To love this (talk) 05:56, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

There's just a clear majority at this point with only one person wanting the person to stay on the template. So no point in keeping this open any longer. SeaTerror (talk) 06:12, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

To love this, the Shichibukai at times had less then seven members, as were to Yonko for at least one year, and the Three Sweet commanders were once a group of four. Numbers in group name does not mean that much.

We are in the middle of a flashback of Oden history, so majority or not, we will probably have a real confirmed answer soon, and if not there are SBSs. Rhavkin (talk) 08:20, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

dude when admirals warlords and yonkou first introduce there numbers were compelte and set and established there wasnt no eight warlord no 0 yonkou no fourth admiral there were the 3 admirals 7 warlords and 4 emeperors just like there only nine scabbards the three sweet commanders orginal name was the four sweet commanders they list are member the fourth postion was got rid of doesnt matter if there once was another memeber the postion was abolished every time they have been mentioned they have been called the nine nothing else u have no proof there was a tenth member all u have is specualtionsTo love this (talk) 20:16, October 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Not a dude.
 * 2) The admirals never had a number in their title.
 * 3) We don't use the "warlord" and "emporer" translation.
 * 4) I'm not saying there were ten members at a certain point, and that the name was changed like the Sweet commanders, just that Kiku and the person in the flashback are not the same, and that the nine we know now weren't the starting nine.

Rhavkin (talk) 21:09, October 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * 1they are called the three admirals three at a time dude
 * 2 the lirteal tranlastion for the warlords are "Royal Seven Warriors (of the) Sea" the lirteal tranlastion
 * 3 the lirteal translastion for yonkou is four emperors yon means four and yes we do use that translation
 * 4 you have zero proof that isnt kiku as a child all u have is amboigous repsonse from oda that neither denies that is young kiku or confirms that it is kiku for right now all you are doing is trying make specualtion sound like fact do u have any real proof that isnt kiku anything?To love this (talk) 05:50, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

Stop calling me a dude.

The wiki do not use literal translation, accept it and stop talking about that here, this is neither the place nor the topic. The discussion ended with the person not confirmed to be Kiku nor a scabbard, don't get the two arguments confuse. Rhavkin (talk) 06:04, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

i am not about have this discussion with you the wiki use lirteal translastion for info boxes japanese 四天皇 Shi ten'nō romanized yon(4) kõ (emperor) english four Emperors those are lirteral translastions used and shown on the page flr them for example and yes the decison was made so stop trying change gallery boxs here and for wano character boxTo love this (talk) 06:21, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

Learn the difference between used on page, and page name. Rhavkin (talk) 06:45, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

learn what a trnalastion is and stop putting that info box under red scabbord sections and kozuki family pages07:06, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

Chapter 963
So either the Hakumi robbery was before the nameing or Izo is confirmed as member. Rhavkin (talk) 07:03, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

I guess I support, since it is Izo and he and Kikunojo joined at same time.--Nightmare Pirates (talk) 07:41, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

They have not been referred to as the Nine Red Scabbards at any point in the past yet. At this point only the ones confirmed in the present are part of the group. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 07:42, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

So the Hakumi robbery should be removed. Rhavkin (talk) 11:33, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

Why would Hakumi robbery need to be removed? Those 9 Scabbards that still exist still participated in them. That would be history of how the Scabbards came to be. It isn't affected by whether we need to include Izo. If anything, it would be "Back then yada yada yada, the (future) Nine Scabbards and Izo blah blah blah"Nightmare Pirates (talk) 04:18, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Because as Kaido said, the group was not confirmed to have been named, so that is part of their personal histories, not the group. Rhavkin (talk) 05:24, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's is part of personal history but it is also part of the Scabbards history. Because if it wasn't, then none of the "Past" section where they encountered Oden would be included, because your argument would be that the group was not confirmed to be named then. History is a background of the group. Plus, it is clear that the Scabbards evolved from that group plus Izo, since all of them are in it. If the Hakumai incident was just done by two people in this group, then that might be debatable as to whether it belongs here, but as I see it now, ALL members of the Scabbards took part of it.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 06:36, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly my original point. If the group, named or not, did something then it is relevant for the group. That is why Izo should be consider part of the group since he took part in the group activities. Also, we do not put individual's history on a group before formation (again, named or not) just like brook history before joining the Straw Hats isn't mention on their page until their meeting in the Florian Triangle. Rhavkin (talk) 07:25, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Brook's history is his individual history because he was the only one that experienced it. In contrast, everyone in the "Nine Red Scabbards" experienced what happened in Hakumai together. Sure, Izo was there and he is a retainer of the Kozuki Family, but him taking part doesn't mean he is part of the Nine Red Scabbards. Him being there doesn't conflict with every (current) Nine Red Scabbard being there, which does not conflict with it being part of the group history, because everyone in the Nine Red Scabbards was there back then. Now I think Izo should be included, but even if he isn't, this does not affect Hakumai incident being part of history, because these nine people experienced it with each other.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 09:10, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Kiku wasn't there, and joining one by one means that not everyone was at each recruitment\joining of everyone else. And to clarify, I only said Hakumi should be removed because Kaido said they were not confirmed to be officially named at that time. Rhavkin (talk) 09:36, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Izo is not a member of Nine Red Scabbards there not even sign of credible proof he is one every other member was clearly said to be a member of the groupTo love this (talk) 21:38, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

So far there is nothing that differ him from the confirmed members. He share their history, training, beliefs, and for several years home. Rhavkin (talk) 21:57, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

there is a big differnce one that you seem to just want to ignore every one else has been confirmed to be one izo has not he is a retainer just like them he is just. not part of the group why is that so hard to understand that? And really (history, training, beliefs, and for several years home) so because that criteria we should added him to the group of people who actually confirmed to be part of the group ok sense thats all that is need we mark the Charlotte kids Perospero Compote Daifuku Oven etc as sweet commanders sense they each share the same history, training, beliefs, and home as there three siblings actually confirmed to be sweet commandersTo love this (talk) 22:32, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

Why do I even talk to you. I edited the gallery and listed his as an ally until confirmation but you removed that based on nothing. This discussion started based on Izo (then unconfirmed) appearing with them. If the only thing that count on a group page is their history since being named, and we do not know when they were named, they can't have a proper History section. Izo is just an example of a problem that arise from that. When we saw the event from Yasuie point, no one doubt that they were the nine, and since the SBS and the recent flashback, every one say that they are not the nine, but eight plus one, yet it stays on the page despite not being the group's history, but a shared event of some of them that might occurred before there even was a named group, making it a personal history.

If this discussion will in "He\That doesn't count since it was before they were named" so until a naming point is confirmed, the past section should only read "At a certain point in time, the group was formed from among Oden's retainers, and Kin'emon was made the group leader" and Toki sanding to the future. Rhavkin (talk) 04:41, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

i am say this one last time and i am done because talking to u is harder then explaining to people luffys freaking teeth can strech as well they are called the Nine Red Scabbards when group first appeared in the manga nine people were said to be members and all were named no one was every said to have replaced any one or that a number was dropped there has been no hints or any thing like that you just specualating izo is retainer just like them the kozuki family had other retainers then the nine not every one was freaking member of the group if we go by your logic of oh well it said its a group of people who worked for the family if any more people appear who are n retainers of kozuki family were going have add every last one to gallery box so until more information or evidnce is shown let it goTo love this (talk) 06:15, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

You are the one over-complicating things. It is very simple: Izo was with the 8/9 Scabbards in Hakumi. Saying that doesn't count because "They were not confirmed to be named at that time" means most of their past in the history section should be removed. If it counts as part of the entire group history, so Izo was a part of them. Rhavkin (talk) 06:46, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

do they needed ally section ?
all of the allies shown are already listed under kozuki family section as subordinates or allie section under kozuki family page zo why is it needed to repeat thisTo love this (talk) 06:26, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

That was also my point. It is kinda repetitive. I feel like back then, we used "Allies" very sparingly, for like when there was a formal alliance.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 07:47, November 25, 2019 (UTC)