Talk:Mythbusters/Speculations

Luffy's bounty increase
This topic has caused such an uproar, it merits a spot on this page. If not under speculation, would you agree that may be more sufficient under the rumors tab? --Kingluffy1 18:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is neither speculation or a rumor; it is, at best, suspect information, and even that is a stretch. Compare:
 * Myth: Luffy's bounty was increased to 400,000,000 during the timeskip, the Fake Luffy specifically mentioned it.
 * to
 * Myth: Dragon appeared in Loguetown and Luffy was able to hear the dragon talking in the Apis Arc. The D must mean DRAGON.
 * Note the difference between the first and second. The second is utter randomness, the first is an actual fact being claimed as a myth, which is just absurd. The simple truth is this: barring a statement to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that Fake Luffy, whose express intention is to imitate the real one, would lie about a fact that could be easily checked by anyone. It would damage his credibility. Fake Nami got hers right, so why suspect Fake Luffy? Of further note is the fact that no one, at least that I can recall, has ever lied about their bounty. Bellamy thought Luffy was lying, but he was just an asshole. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:29, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Luffy's bounty didn't increase. While it is likely Fake Luffy is telling the truth, it should be taken with a grain of salt. I made note of it on the speculation page becuase of the DISPUTES it has been causing. Even if the bounty is confirmed, that part of the page would remain because of the disputes it caused. It will be noted in the Fact: portion whether the Myth: is true or not (ignoring the paradox that if a myth is actually true, it's no longer a myth), when it is either confirmed or denied. The same situation arose when Kaidou was first mentioned; I immediately assumed he was a yonkou, which eventually was noted on the speculation page. Even after it was confirmed that he is in fact a yonkou, it remained noted but was revised to say it was confirmed specultion (atleast the last time I checked it was). Revise the wording I used for if you want, but I stand by my argument that it should remain noted on the mythbusters page. Honestly though, the best course of action would probably be to get an admins opinion on the subject. --Kingluffy1 18:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I see your new edit (it took some time to write out that last comment, lol). I'd say that's an acceptable compromise; different wording, but gets the point I was going for across. --Kingluffy1 19:00, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My main issue is that trying to call the claim itself speculation is wrong; it's obviously true, since it's in black and white. The dispute itself is the speculation, which I made clear over on Rumors. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:07, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

No harm done or meant. That was why I added it; I guess I put it as speculation first because of all the debates I've seen. --Kingluffy1 19:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Bonney's past and realtions
I really don't know if this goes into this section or another, so I want to ask before adding anything: In several forums several topcis has came up since Koala has appeared and renewes a few old ones. People are saying that Bonney is Koala and/or Bonney is daughter of Akainu. There is no proof of any of this. In Oda's srawings of characters as children and as late teens/adults, we can see a resemblance, they eyes may be slightly wider than an adults, but still had general eye shape, face was chubbier but still same shape.For instance, young Zoro had wider eyes but they weren't the perfectly round eyes of Usopp. This Koala has a rounder face and eyes than what a young Bonney has, lets not forget we saw her in a younger form at SA http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/File:OPYoungBonney.jpg and her eyes were not the same as Koala. So my question is, does this topic go under speculations or rumors?Katzztar 19:49, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Add the thing about Bonney possibly being related to Akainu, but expand it to inclue the Gorosei, I've heard versions involving both of them. Leave Koala out of it for now. She's been in the story for only a few pages, it's too soon to tell. Just be careful how you write it. Make sure you mention that it is a widely popular FAN theory, otherwise people will think that someone is simply speculating on the mythbusters page. 20:10, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Crocodile was a woman speculation
While I do have my doubts that Crocodile was a woman at one point (I was more for the idea that he was actually a midget and Iva-chan helped him with that), I'd like to pick at this one. The picture from the SBS that Oda drew for us does have Crocodile looking like a boy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is a boy in that picture. If you're open to the idea that maybe he was a girl when he was younger, you could easily see that younger picture of him as a girl, and a bit of a tomboy.

"In fact in the latest SBS Oda drew the shichibukai as children and showed Crocodrile as a boy, not a girl."

Unless Oda has stated in the SBS that it was in fact a picture of Crocodile as a little boy, a wikia shouldn't be making such declarations. Can anybody tell me that this was confirmed? We don't need another Koala. One is cute enough. 173.206.167.87 23:16, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ~Serva.

Deleting Jimbei's section?
Okay, I just thought of something. Jimbei has a huge segment in this article, because there is a chance that he will join. Not saying he will, in fact I don't think anybody will at the end of this arc. But IF he joins the crew, would we have to delete his segment on the article, since he actually joined?  le MEME GUY  Troll  06:16, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

IF he joins, then we are gonna delete the section or say to the bottom something like 'HE FINALLY JOINED!!' ..

No. Since it is hugely speculated it stays. Just add something like "However Oda made him join" or something like that. SeaTerror 19:52, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Portgas D. Rouge didn't start a new era?
In the myth that says D.s will start a new era, the fact "Portgas D. Rouge's only (confirmed) significant act in life was giving birth to Ace." was written as a counterexample. Why is this so? Blackbeard's capture of Ace which eventually led to the Marineford war woudn't have happened if Ace wasn't born in the first place. Omegazion 12:16, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

And if Luffy were never born we wouldn't have a series. Ace could just as easily have not become a pirate. Rouge had no influence on his actions, such as deciding to go and look for Teach. 22:40, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Monster Trio
 I know people will probably get angry or just ignore this but is there any actual solid basis for the term monster trio being an indication of strength above other crew members? I think I remember the term being used very early in the series when the only other members were Nami and Ussop since which four other members have joined (if there is another occurrence of the term being used, links please) Even if it has been used more recently is this really conclusive evidence of their superiority. I don't want to start a ‘’who's stronger’’ debate because I don't think this is the issue. The issue is whether this canon or just popular fan belief and if it's the latter should it be included in articles as fact? 194.66.175.82 03:29, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

 There was a discussion about this a little while ago. It was used in the manga. I want to say it was during Thriller Bark but I don't remember exactly. 03:35, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

 No offense but that's not exactly the conclusive answer I was looking for. I guess there could have been an incident in Thriller Bark where one character with an opinion of their own, may have used the term in a particular translation of that chapter but is that really the same as saying Oda confirms a Hierarchy? Again all I'm saying is that if it's not confirmed then why include it in the wiki? 194.66.175.82 03:43, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

