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)

Jesus Christ. How many times are you going to bring this up on different talk pages? The term was in the manga and it is going to stay no matter how many times you try to bring it up in different places. SeaTerror 04:11, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm only trying to discuss this rationally ok. You don't need to get worked up. All I'm asking is if the hierarchy has ever actually been confirmed by Oda and if anyone has a reference. If somebody could do that I would actually appreciate it as it would help resolve this issue. Otherwise I just don't understand why it's treated as a matter of fact. 194.66.175.82 04:22, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Still. If it's already been settled on one talk page, you don't need to bring it to another just because you still harbor minute skepticism. Asking about it on a different talk page won't bring you a different answer. 04:25, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well to me I don't feel like it was resolved. Every time I try to discuss this I'm met with unnecessary criticism for even starting the debate. It may well be that your all right about this but nobody has provided links to put it to rest. Once again the term Monster Trio is not the issue in my eyes but rather that it's written that these members are above the others with absolute certainty rather than something that is just generally agreed amongst the fans. 194.66.175.82 04:37, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Just by the crew calling them the Monster Trio, it shows that they acknowledge them as stronger. If Franky and Chopper were included then it would be the Monster Quintet. 05:28, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone other than Nami called them that so that’s hardly the whole crew. Even so acknowledging certain skills doesn’t make it a fact that should be used to generalise the whole. Anyway I don't think any of you are willing to see things from a different angle and I’m starting to doubt you even have any solid reasoning to support your views. I've given you ample opportunities but you seem to be happy making up your own excuses. Oh well I tried. Just so you know this is the only issue I’ve had with the Wiki which has otherwise proved very reliable and mostly true to the manga. It’s too bad I couldn’t convince you on this matter. 194.66.175.82 05:42, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

@Anon... 'Monster Trio' is a title that was given by the weaklings of the crew (Nami, Chopper and Usopp).. They just compared their strength with Luffy's, Zoro's and Sanji's... Even tho its on the manga, its an unofficial term.

I think if Jinbe really joins, the Monster Trio will be composed of Zoro, Jinbe and Sanji. Luffy is now on a different level... IMO

Kinemon
Kinemon should be added to the They will Join! list.04:49, June 28, 2012 (UTC)Hordy4040

Bartolomeo
Along with Kinemon and Rebecca, Bartolomeo has become a recent fan favorite to join the Strawhats. We should add him to "They Will Join". AsuraDrago 01:14, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Monet is Brutal
I added the fact that Monet was unlikely to join the Straw hats due to her drugging children and eating off body parts from marines, a level of brutality much higher than Robin's.

However SeaTerror said that this "it's not a fact, she did not do that" even if I referenced him 686 where she clearly does this.

The page has been locked till this can be "confirmed".

Grievous67 (talk) 19:31, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Trying to establish a set limit for acceptance of villainy is speculative. Luffy has formed alliances with people who have hurt his friends, caused major destruction, and done other "brutal" things, even considering some of them friends. Examples include Robin, Crocodile, Hachi, Franky, and Kyros. Luffy has never refused to let someone join his crew based on their moral positioning. 19:39, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

The only part that would be valid is the drug part since the "cannibalism" never happened. SeaTerror (talk) 19:48, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Kaido. Even Luffy is seen by others to have done many "brutal" things as a pirate. It's all a matter of perspective. 19:51, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

^agree 19:53, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

While we can accept the fact of not really being brutal, the fact she ate a marine shoulder is canon https://youtu.be/pOlxLIMSYCw?t=30s You can clearly see she rips his shoulder off, which is then nowhere to be found "what happened to my shoulder"?

Also there's a difference between killing people and killing kids, which is a thing Oda has always kept at bay (for example how with Sugar they always try to faint her and not kill her, which could be even easier)

Grievous67 (talk) 20:16, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's speculative to say that Oda won't add any "brutal" people to the SH crew, no matter how "clear" it may seem, because 1) "level of brutality" is subjective, and 2) we can't say that unless Oda specifically stated somewhere that he refuses to add certain kinds of characters to the SHs. He hasn't, so no matter how much "proof" we can gather from what has happened so far in the series, it's still speculation until confirmed. 23:22, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do confirm that we don't know what really is the real level of brutality, I was just referring to what ST said is wrong. The reason why I originally added is because a sadistic person doesn't enter with the morals of the crew. There's a limit between violent and sadistic. I know it's not speculation but we can all assume that nobody who is bloodthirsty and sadic will join the crew, as it goes completely against their ideals. I mean, Luffy never even killed anybody.

Grievous67 (talk) 08:41, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

"They will join!" Overhaul
This section is a goddamn novel. It's soooo long. Many of the sections are mutliple bullet points and some are FAR longer than others. Here's what propose:

1) Write ONE answer that states given the unpredictable nature of One Piece, speculation about who will join is purely speculation until they are asked to join the crew. One answer instead of an endless list.

2) Include only reasons why characters are NOT joining the crew. We don't need separate bullet points for "Rebbecca has a tragic past" because things like that undermine the point we are trying to make. Multiple reasons why they don't join also aren't really needed when we can say the SHs left the island w/o asking them to join, or other clear reasons why the speculation is stupid.

Other sections of this page need massive overhaul, but let's start here. 19:51, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 19:52, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to ask if we should do one or both of those things. 19:55, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm in favour of simply the first option then. 20:01, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

I agree, include only the points that debunk the theory without the points supporting it. But honestly I would leave a very very small part that explains why fans speculated about it in the first place (such as in Monet's case because of her appearance and being a Logia female)

Grievous67 (talk) 20:18, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Option 1. It's obvious that these characters haven't joined from simply following the series, and we never know if they actually will end up joining 10 years later or something. 23:28, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well after all something like Bellamy could happen (I don't think he will join but maaaaaaybe he could) but I think for now we should just leave them as speculation. I think it's more obvious that if new info comes out this will change but for now it's speculation. Except certain cases like Monet (you know, being dead) anybody possibly coming back later should be considered speculation.

Grievous67 (talk) 08:43, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the problem lies with selection, or lack thereof. Just because someone helped the crew in some way or looks cool doesn't mean they're an instant candidate. Even that would be better than the criteria we have now. When thinking logically, and not like a fanboy, Monet shouldn't even be on there. A little more discrimination will do us a world of good here. 21:49, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

That's why it's called "Speculations" DP. This is a list of all characters heavily speculated that would join from multiple One Piece fans. SeaTerror (talk) 22:14, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

So if people could be more clear about if they support option 1, 2, both, or keep things the same, that would be super.

Otherwise, we might have to poll this soon. I'm a big option 1 guy, myself. 23:48, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

If option 1 is what I think it is then I'm definitely against it. We need to list each character but not give endless reasons why they aren't joining. SeaTerror (talk) 00:29, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need to list them? "Who fans thought might join the crew" is pretty subjective anyway. A single paragraph explaining all the reasons people think characters will join (i.e. good looking, likeable, etc.) is enough imo. Option 1. 03:36, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Because that's the name of the article. It also isn't subjective since we only put the heavily speculated ones on the article. SeaTerror (talk) 18:12, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Who was heavily speculated to join is subjective. And this article exists to objectively counter speculations. One paragraph is enough to get the job done. 18:58, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Yet again it isn't subjective. Also if this article existed to "counter" speculations then it would be named something else. Might as well delete the entire article by your logic. SeaTerror (talk) 21:44, September 1, 2015 (UTC)