3

So just now I look some old question and I found that there is an answer that is written something like this:

The resurrected Minato is stronger than when he was alive, but that is due to the properties of Edo Tensei (unlimited chakra, near-unlimited stamina, and automatic regeneration of any damage taken).

Minato does not have Kurama's chakra inside him. The Yin-component of Kurama's chakra, sealed by Minato, is still inside the Shinigami's stomach. Shiki Fuujin does not seal the target's soul into the summoner's soul. They are both sealed together, but independently, in the Shinigami's stomach.

This can be confirmed since Orochimaru first recovered the soul of his arms and then the four previous Kage at once. If the Shiki Fuujin sealed the target's soul into the summoner's soul, he would have to first recover Hiruzen's soul, and then the souls of Hashirama, Tobirama and his arms from Hiruzen's soul.

Minato does seem to have Kurama's Yin part inside of him. As proven by the recent chapters. Which undoubtedly proves that he's much stronger compared to the way he was before his death.

Note: This answer is based on events seen till Chapter 623. The answer may become obsolete after subsequent chapters.

You can see that the answer have some line that "cut" through it. I would say that those sentence means is incorrect and should be removed it right? Why those it not become something like this?

The resurrected Minato is stronger than when he was alive, but that is due to the properties of Edo Tensei (unlimited chakra, near-unlimited stamina, and automatic regeneration of any damage taken).

Minato does seem to have Kurama's Yin part inside of him. As proven by the recent chapters. Which undoubtedly proves that he's much stronger compared to the way he was before his death.

Note: This answer is based on events seen till Chapter 623. The answer may become obsolete after subsequent chapters.

Can someone explain for me?

| |
4

It's a matter of stylistic preference, really, the way I see it.

Sometimes, I've written answers in which I'd write something I took to be a fact, and subsequently found that to not be the case. Depending on how egregious the mistake was, I'd either completely remove it from the answer, or keep it there crossed out for posterity. Sometimes people use the crossout when a later chapter/episode sheds some more light on previous suppositions too.

The posts have a revision history, though, so it's really a matter of preference and style: maybe the answer completely breaks if you remove a huge chunk of text; maybe you wanna show a now-debunked train of thought; or maybe you just want to give a bit of visibility to a portion of text with a visual indication that what it says is not really correct any more, even if it had some merit a while back.

| |
  • For me I would just like to remove it for more tidy but you have said that "show a now-debunked train of thought". That would makes sense but I see that the answer have proven right? So is it okay to remove it? – kit Sep 18 '19 at 9:43
  • 1
    You'll notice the answer is accepted, and non-CW — but the edit was not made by its author, but rather by someone else. As such, the idea there was to leave the original author's reasoning visible, while editing in some new facts. I would keep it there, in this case. – JNat Sep 18 '19 at 9:49
  • Ok, I will keep remind that thing. – kit Sep 18 '19 at 11:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .