Talk:Trafalgar D. Water Law

Dr. Law
Why does this page say that he is a doctor? The manga has never stated this and it is beyond me why someone constantly changes it every time I edit it out.

80.126.84.138 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)a concerned anon


 * No idea but his nickname is "Dark Doctor" so I guess thats where it comes from. One-Winged Hawk 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but doesn't this nickname come from the fact that he's pretty much cutting people up with his power? It's only a nickname, not his profession 80.126.84.138 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)a concerned anon


 * There is no stated evidence that Law got this nickname because of the way he cuts people up. It maybe a possibility but unless someone states it, it's more likely he is called that way because he is a doctor. In fact, the nickname itself suggests more of him being a doctor than being a slicer of body parts. If the reason he got the nickname was because for he slices body parts up, why call him a Dark Doctor or Surgeon of Death (based on which translation one uses), wouldn't it be more politically correct to call him Slicer, Battousai, or something related to body slicing? True surgery means to slice people up in a sense, but it conveys more to the medical sense than to random chopping up.


 * If this doesn't explain things enough, take this in mind. Doctors have intensive knowledge on how a human body works and is structured. They would know best the human anatomy. Wouldn't it thus help a guy who can split people apart if they knew such knowledge. Anyone bloke with a sword can hack away at people, but it takes a doctor to know which parts of the body would be weak enough to easily cut away and leave an opponent struggling in pain.Mugiwara Franky 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I can go with that explanation. 80.126.84.138 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)a concerned anon


 * Still not convincing to me, though. Luffy was able to come up with Gear Second and Third on his own without having any kind of medical knowledge, so it's likely Law can figure that kind of thing out just through knowledge of his own Devil Fruit power. Also, his tendency to cut people up and reassemble them with his power is the only explanation for his nickname that can actually be proven so far; he has shown no signs of being a doctor thus far, so making claims that he is one here on wikipedia is misleading at best.


 * In general, I think that Trafalgar Law's character hasn't been explored nearly enough for us to all be assuming anything. Since we can't go switching back and forth between differing opinions on his occupation, we'll just need to stick with one. There are good reasons why both arguments can be true - however, until his character is further established I think we should just leave it as is. If the title of Doctor ends up only being associated with his manipulation of body parts, it's not like we won't change it - we'll obviously accept that you've been right and change it accordingly. However, it's best to go by his current given title until further notice, and going around changing it again and again isn't productive. He is a very interesting character and it does look like he'll be more built upon. :) Sephirona 04:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I still think that leaving the 'Doctor' title is assuming; I am open to the possibility that Law is actually a doctor; I just think that randomly stating that he is a doctor when no solid information has been given to support that is working against this site's purpose of providing proven, credible information to fans. However, I have not registered on this site and have no intention to do so, so I'll just drop the subject now and leave it to those who have.


 * His title actually is "Dark Doctor" as translated - that isn't assumed. It's the closest to proven, credible information that we have. But it's good to see that there are many who care about the validity of the articles here. :) Sephirona 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I said I'd leave this topic alone, but I just have to mention this. Based on what we've seen so far, I'd say that taking a title *that* literally isn't exactly the best thing to do when coming up with character info for One Piece characters. Look at Zoro: he is called 'The Pirate Hunter', yet he has never actively hunted pirates; he just brought down anyone who happened to have a bounty so he could eat. Zoro has even said himself that the title had nothing to do with him. In addition, even you yourself just said that Law's title is 'the closest to proven, credible information that we have', not that it actually is solid, credible information. On other pages, speculated info has been deleted due to a lack of solid evidence; I just can't see why those rules change so drastically for this. Sorry for dragging this subject on; I read Sephirona's post, my mind immediately came up with a response, and there was no way it was going to leave me alone until I posted it.

And like I said, until his character is further established, we can't conclude anything either and should just stick with one decision - the one that seems most credible. If he's called the Dark Doctor by Oda himself, we should stick by it till it is disproved. Speculation is not preferred, but as the arc is new there's no way we'll know everything. His title, at least, isn't speculated to be Dark Doctor - that's what it is. You yourself tried to add yet unproven information to the Mythbusters page, which was uncalled for. I don't speak for everyone on this site either; please don't use my words in an effort to discredit everyone. Thanks :) Sephirona 05:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I admit I did that; I didn't notice this Discussion Panel by that point and was just operating under the assumption that some stubborn fan was dead-set on keeping 'his fantastic theory' from being deleted, and I figured I'd take a different approach and attempt to get the word across on a different page that Law's 'doctor' status was speculation and not a proven fact. I'm not defending that move in any way, though, and I admit it was a dumb one. Though it may seem otherwise, I'm not trying to discredit anyone, I'm just saying there's no reason to come to the conclusion that Law is a doctor this quickly; I kinda figured that it's possible to just leave all talk of whether Law is a doctor or not out of his page altogether, or at least state that it's merely possible that he's a doctor and is not actually given. Then again, when you jumped the gun and immediately assumed that the Mythbusters change was my doing, you were right; maybe this wild guess will be dead on as well. Well, there we go; all the evidence I can think of has been given and any further arguing from me will just be repeats of what I've already said. You all can rest easy, I'm outta here; I can promise you that any further edits to this site regarding Law won't be my doing.

I didn't immediately assume it was you who added the information to the Mythbusters page - I knew it was you, it was in the history with your IP address. That said, I'm not disagreeing with your points either. You do present valid arguments, and it is definitely possible that the Doctor title could simply be referring to his abilities. I only said we should keep the original until further notice. A bit of what seems like speculation is inevitable when it comes to such fresh developments, but it'll all be resolved later. Thanks for your input. :) Sephirona 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Its one of those rare cases we can put it off as a theory - see Speculations for more. --One-Winged Hawk 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm..i still dont see how he is a doctor....this site is supposed to state facts. Just because his name "Dark Doctor" it doesnt mean he is a doctor. When editing it says to leave the doctor on his occupations until further discussion, but i think it should be the other way around. Until it is absolutely proven that he is doctor, we should leave it out of his occupations. Oathkeeper of oblivion 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's almost probably not a 'nodachi'.
Ignoring the fact that what's almost clearly meant is 'odachi' (the term for a japanese-type greatsword), the fact is his weapon's a katana; if nothing else, you can see how fuggin' short the handle is in the picture there. Somewhere between this and the over-all wishy-washy description of Zoro's swords (also katana, damn it), i'm getting annoyed at all the nit-picking over how much not-katanas these swords are supposed to be.

Anyways, i'm going ahead and changing it 'cause i'm feeling justified after this little spiel. Odds are it'll be reverted just as quickly, but as a man, i can't just do nothing. KojiroZERO 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A nodachi is a real type of Japanese sword, as well. That picture wasn't the only picture in which the sword shows up - in Chapter 505, on page 11 there's another picture of the sword in which the handle clearly looks much longer along with the rest of the sword. Oda's awesome, but he's not perfect; it's probably best not to only judge based on one specific panel.


 * Katana are traditionally held at the waist, but Law does not do this. Whether it is an Odachi or a Nodachi may be up to debate, but it seems most unlikely to be a katana, at least. In fact, in my opinion, labeling it as a Nodachi was correct, based, at least, on this reference page about


 * Odachi: http://japantrip.tripod.com/nodachi/odachi_gallery.html
 * and a site with clearer pictures of different Nodachi here:
 * http://www.hyoho.com/Nkage1.html.


 * Traditional Odachi handles, on average, seem much longer in ratio to the blade, though this is said to be varied. Especially on the bottom left of the Nodachi page, you can see that the Nodachi in question has a wrapped hilt, much like Law's. Many of the Odachi have no binding around the area. With that said, it's still wonderful that you cared enough to bring up this issue; however, I'm going to revert it back to Nodachi, based on the aesthetic references I've found. Thanks for the input :) Sephirona 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Feh, fair enough. Although i'd still like to complain that how a sword is worn is the only real difference between a katana and a tachi, and as such it's place at rest is little more then a trifiling difference when deciding what a sword is, that's not exactly topical.


 * Still, i don't like the use of 'nodachi', either. The term is supposed to refer to swords used on the battlefield, including tachi; anything involving great swords should, itself, be referred to as 'odachi', since that's the term used for large blades. Rather than change it myself, though, i'll let you alter the page, assuming my arguement has persuaded you to do so. KojiroZERO 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)