Talk:Horcrux/Archive 3

	Archives
	Archive 1 ; Archive 2 ; Archive 3 ; Archive 4; Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Horcrux. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Created 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

mechanism

I think we have been doing a really good job of keeping the fan speculation and personal opnions out of this article. That is a good thing, but I think some of us havebecome over enthuastic to that end. While it is true that we are not given a highly detailed descrition of all of the mechanics of how Horcruxes work, that does not mean that the books do not talk about the subject at all. I just reverted User:Deathphoenix revert of a series of edits which form looking at the history is consisten with other edits removed by other authors. The edit summary for the removal was that it was hyperbole and discussed the mechniasm which we don't know. The problem is that every single bit of removed text is almost a direct quote fomr the book. Not close enough that I would worry about copyright violations but I dare say its a close thing. Chatper 23 of HBP does say:

"Then, even is one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undammaged" (HBP page. 497)
See the other conversation on this talk page about weather the destruction of the Horcrux results in the destruction of the fragment within it.
"'But how do you do it?' 'By an act of evil—the supream act of evil. BY committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the dammage to his advvantage: He would encase the torn portion —' 'Encase? But how—?' 'There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!'" (HBP p. 498)
Later there is a discussion about Toms psychology and his resulting choice of objects, during which the use of living animals is discussed.

I am all for keeping this encylopedic but lets make sure things are out of line before reverting them. Dalf | Talk 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the revert was overethusiastic. However, it is also not the job of people to disprove things they are removing - but it is the job of people to provide reference for things that they add. I realize that the person who added it is new, and they can be excused for knowing that yet.

The revert was a mistake, but I think given the history of the edit wars on this page, and the fact that no refernces were given, it's an understandable revert, even if it should be undone.

Since you found all the relevant sections in the text, do you think you can add the reference templates to the article itself? - Vedexent 12:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If some of these are from the book, that's fine. However, as mentioned above by Vexedent, I would really have preferred if the editor had provided a citation. Some of the stuff we've had to remove was simply uncited stuff so it's very difficult to seperate chaff from the wheat. If inline text in this article contains direct quotes, you must put them inside "quotation marks". How do we know what text is directly quoted from the book and what is a Wikipedian's paraphrasing? However, I'll admit that I only gave it a brief thought rather than the extended analysis that I have to give here. That said, here's what I think about some of the specifics from Dalf's re-revert:

The "earth-bound and undamaged" is fine. My mistake (and apologies) for not recognising the direct quotation from the book.
"the ultimate act of evil" and "is so evil that it" is the hyperbole I was talking about. The article can be informative without having to resort to this dramatic phrasing, which is perfectly fine for a novel, but not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
1. I agree. The wording of the Creation section is clumsy and tends to hyperbole. The use of the same adjective ("evil") four times in rapid succession is a sure indicator of poor writing. --Anthony Duff
Changing "a spell" to "unspecified spell", well, this is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't think it's necessary to mention unknown things, but since is really just a matter of personal taste, either one is fine by me.
1. "unspecified spell" is redundant, inefficient and silly. Every spell is unspecificed unless specified.--Anthony Duff
Adding "even animals can be used", this expansion seems redundant with the phrase "There is no apparent limitation on the nature of items that can be made into a Horcrux", but once again, this is just a matter of personal taste, so using it or not is fine by me.
"because of his own arrogance" seems to be a POV statement and OR that should be removed unless someone in the books actually said that Voldemort would choose these sorts of objects "because of his own arrogance".
"objects 'worthy of the honour' as Albus Dumbledore put it" seems to be redundant and unnecessary, but on further reflection, this is another matter for personal taste.
1. (Both points 5 &6) It should be moved or removed because it is a tangent on a tangent. The section should be confined to Creation. An individual's motivation in the choice of the object is too much of a ramble. --Anthony Duff 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In summary, I agree that I made a mistake with 1. 2 and 5 should be removed unless 5 is a direct quotation from the book, and the rest (3, 4, and 6) are matters of personal taste. Since you reverted my edits, I'll take that as a sign that you endorse 3, 4, and 6. I don't, but I don't go edit-warring over matters of personal taste, so be my guest. --D e ath phoenix 13:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

2 is also a near direct quote. I think rewoprking the sentence and actually including the quotes for 1 and 2 is what we should do. I was not actually singling this edit out and I hope that you don't feel I did. I was using it as an example. The total text discussing Horcruxes in HBP is only in the area of 15-20 pages, spread out over a few chapters. I was just wanting to make the point that a lot of the 'regular' editors here who like to take firm stances on things would save save a lot of posts on the talk page if they just took a minute and double checked. Actually just re-reading the one chapter and skimming for other mentions goes a long way.

As for the others:

unspecified I think is not redundant as it answers the question "what do we know about the spell?" In this case the word unspecified actually does contain useful information about what we know (or don't know).
4-6 is also I think significant as most of a chapter in the book is devoted to a discussion of Voldemorts reasoning in the selection of Horcrux opbjects. His pride and psychology play a major part in that discussion which lasts I think several pages. Further since a significant portion of the next book is necessarrally going to be about Harry searching for the Horcruxes, and since we are (with very good rason) excluding fanspeculation, this becomes the only from the book source for information about cluse to the rest of the horcruxes. Infact rather than remove that section I think it should be expanded. Dalf | Talk 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, Dalf, do so, as long as it is firstly about horcruxes as opposed to Voldemort, otherwise it belongs on the Voldemort page. A separate section on Voledmort and his horcruxes might be good.--Anthony Duff 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well since the only Horcruxes are the ones in HP and the only ones in HP are Voldemorts, and the only point that they exist at all is the quest to figure out what they are where they are and how to destroy them, then I think its worth including here and not in the article on Voldemort even if the section focuses on the specific Horcruxes and the psychology behind thier creation. Dalf | Talk 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's such thing as too many quotes, and that quotes should only be used if they add value to an article. Is there any value in explicitly stating at murder is "the ultimate act of evil"? Does it add value to an article to go away from Wikipedia's longstanding tradition of neutral point of view to state that Voldemort chose these kinds of objects "because of his own arrogance", or is it enough to simply state that he likely chose objects of sentimental and monetary value?

As for whether a paragraph or section of text should be in the Horcrux article or the Voldemort article, I think it depends on whether that paragraph or section talks about Voldemort's horcrux, or Voldemort himself, and that's all I have to say about that. --D e ath phoenix 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part though I don't think the article is claiming that murder is the ultimate act of evil only that apparently from a magical perspective in the Harry Potter universe it appears to be. From that perspective and the implied possibility that it will become significant in teh next book I think its worth not removing (though I am not sure I woudl have added it myself). The part about Voldemort on the other hand I am almost 100% sure is going to be very significant in the last book and was already made a significant deal of in the 6th book. This sort of argument for not including these details is to me a good argument for why there are too many Harry Potter articles in general. We remove these thigns that do not exist fomr the context of the books and then eventually our thinking starts to imagine them as real ideas or objects in their own right and we start to question the relavence of the materail that they come from. That is to say, I think the material most significant to this article is how horcruxes are mixed into the Harry Potter universe. The Half-blood Prince was almost totally focused on Harry learning about Voldemorts past, about how he thinks about what motivates him. The Horcruxes aside from being the device Voldemort has used to protect himself also serve to teach Harry about him. Information that that books (and JKR) makes perfectly clear will be intruamental in Harry's eventual defeat of Voldemort. The way the info is written in the article is not that good, but just because tis written poorly does not mean it does not belong. If someone wants to go dig up some critques of the books I am sure they will find a large section devoted to discussing this very topic short of that the only verifiable refrence we have is the book itself. Dalf | Talk 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry is a horcrux theory

Hey ... In the book when voldermort created 1 of thoes horcrux he didn't want it around him anymore and he hid it (except with the snake (whome i dont belive is 1)) ... when harry is close to voldermort his scar starts to hurt is it possible that the reason that he dosn't want the horcrux's near him is because they dont want to be near him and therfore this MAY provide evidance for Harry being a horcrux ... hmmm

Yes, very interesting. If you want more responses to your theory, you might want to try to post your theory in one of the fan forums. You'll get more responses there because Wikipedia is NOT a fan forum. --D e ath phoenix 13:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What he said and: Well gosh "hmmm" (is that your name?) - Voldemort sure got up close and personal with Harry in Goblet of Fire - touched him on the face even (after he had some of Harry's blood of the enemy, forcefully taken in him). And then he tried to kill Harry. Now please explain why Voldemort would want to A-K the life out of "Harry the Horcrux" - thus destroying his own soul fragment? Preposterous. The Harry / Scar is a Horcrux fan forum fanatics need to rethink their faulty theories, and for goodness sake keep them off of the Wikipedia. --T-dot 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lock the page?

The article seems stable. There hasn't really been any meaningful major edits in a while. The facts seem all hammered out - at least until the next book. All that seems to happen is that the same old tired noise of "Harry is a Horcrux", and "The One Ring is kind of a Horcrux" keep getting added by anonymous contributors that think they're being original and helpfull.

So - is it worth locking the page for a bit? - Vedexent 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the persistence of these tired old edits, I don't think it's appropriate to lock the page. It clearly doesn't receive the edit warring or persistent vandalism (which these editsare clearly not) that other articles receive prior to being protected. Take a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy for more information on what types of articles are appropriate for protection. --D e athphoenix ʕ 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Riddle's diary image

The image of Riddle diary is from what has been depicted in the CoS movie, and hence, I feel, is not suitable enough to illustrate the diary as is depicted in the novels. I feel it should be removed, or at least the mention that it is a movie screenshot be made. --Soumyasch 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly makes it "Unsuitable"? It is a picture of an open book that is mostly blank... which is what the diary was. It is also explictly stated on the image's page (click on the image) that it is a screenshot - read the copyright notice. Did you have a better candidate picture you wanted to replace it with? - Vedexent 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This screenshot demonstrates an example of the diary, which is the only horcrux that has been seen in a movie. I don't see how this is unsuitable at all. --D e athphoenix ʕ 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lich?

I'm not part of this thing, but i notice that the lich isn't mentioned here at all. while the horcrux being equivalant to the phylactery is unproven, it at least deserves mention

No, it ~~does~~ doesn't (oops, my bad - V) really deserve mention. Neither does the "one ring" or a handful of other "borderline similarities with my favorite fictional universe". The article is written to make reference to Harry Potter material only, with the only external examples for clarification being to a serious, published, work on mythology which is available (and linked) in Wikisource. This is an Encyclopedia; you can't expect the average reader to be familar with "Dungeons and Dragons". - Vedexent 11:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Vedexent means doesn't ;-) I was one of those folks who immediately thought of the lich and phylactery as being analgous to the Horcrux, but in the interests of consistency, the examples given in the "mythological inspiration" section are really that: items in historical mythology that are similar to the concept of the Horcrux, and they were included for illustrative purposes only. While I used to play D&D a lot, I don't think things in D&D or Lord of the Rings really count as serious historical mythology, and therefore don't need to be included. Read the HTML comments carefully. The examples we give are for illustrative purposes only, and therefore don't need every single example of something trying to cheat death. --D e athphoenix ʕ 15:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a fan forum? Harry the Horcrux

Okay, when I came to this article, I was very surprised to see that no mention was made of the possibility that Harry might be a horcrux, smply because it is one of the most popular fan theories in HP fandom. On viewing the archived talk page, I saw that there had been plenty of discussion over whether Harry might be a horcrux or not, with people on both sides spouting the same tired arguments. "He might be one because..." "He can't be one because..." etc. Now, last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a Harry Potter fan site, and even this talk page is not the place for an issue that is largely unresolvable until the release of the final book. Because it is unresolvable - there is no concrete proof either way. Can anyone, without resorting to discussion of the text (because that way lies assumption and subjective interpretation), tell me exactly why this hugely popular theory is inappropriate for inclusion on the page. I'm talking about a one-liner "There has been much speculation among fans that either Harry or his scar may be one of Voldemort's horcruxes.", with maybe a couple of points about where the theory arose, and what the arguments against it are.--Victim Of Fate 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Any such discussion would have to focus not on the theory but on the people who have the theory in order to meet Wikipedia policies about original research, verifiability, and references. That would open a can of worms of including every variant of the theory and counter argument that is out there simply by linking to someplace in the fandom that supports the idea. Don't think that simply mentioning it would not open such a can of worms because if we did some people would insist that the mention violated NPOV unless they could include their refuting the theory and then others would insist that to be NPOV they needed to have their say in the article too. Look at the mess that is a in a lot of the HP articles where fans want to include every little conversation a character had that they think is significant to the characters personality. It would get out of hand quickly, further I actually think it WOULD violate NPOV to include any speculation and not all speculation (no matter how well referenced) since including any implies that we have looked at the speculation and judged some theories reasonable enough for inclusion and others not. As you stated this is not resolvable to everyones satisfaction until the next book comes out so not including any speculation, except a mention that speculating about the Horcruxes is common, leaves the reader aware of such speculation but prevents Wikipedia from being a source of it. There are links to places in the fandom where they can go for that. Dalf | Talk 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, this article and others on various aspects of the book do refer to popular theories, most notably the Regulus Black article. Is this not speculation?--Victim Of Fate 09:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is, however, it was notable enough to be mentioned in an interview between Rowling, Emerson, and Spatz. We had a lot of problems with Regulus Black being mentioned as a "most fans believe" until someone (Superm401, I believe) had the brilliant idea of citing the interview in response to the theory. Until the "Harry is a Horcrux" (and the related "Harry's scar is a Horcrux") is notable enough to be mentioned by Rowling, there's no reason to be put in. --D e athphoenix ʕ 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, additionally this is ment to be an encylopedia and most encyclopedias do not indulge in the sort of litrary analysis we are talking about here. A lot of the edits in the HP space move in the gernal direction of making CliffsNotes. Dalf | Talk 03:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We can easily make it NPOV. How about "Some fans also believe that Harry's scar is a Horcrux, while others disagree". This is surely NPOV. As for your other point, well surely Regulus Black being mentioned in the MN/TLC interview is just proof that Spartz and Anelli found it notable, not necessarily that Rowling did. After all, she is answering the questions, not asking them. Regardless of their position of influence in the Harry Potter fan community, Melissa and Emerson are just fans like the rest of us, and the fact that they think something is notable is only as important as hundreds if not thousands of fans debating the "Harry/Scar Horcrux" theory for hours and hours on fan forums. Furthermore, I'm sure if Melissa and Emerson had brought up the theory in the interview, Rowling wouldn't just have said "Sorry, that's not very interesting, lets talk about something else." Kidburla2002 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and is original research. Until Rowling mentions it (likely to disprove it), it doesn't need to be mentioned here. we've been pretty strict in removing fan speculation. Right now, the only possibilities mentioned in here are those mentioned in the books (mostly by Dumbledore). Even if Rowling mentions it on her site, we still have to discuss its notability before mentioning it. Is it encyclopedic to mention a fan theory? Right now, definitely not. If it becomes notable enough to be explicitly disproved by Rowling, perhaps, but it still needs to be discussed if she does. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Wikipedia is not obligated to host every little pet theory and hypothesis - even in the context of "some fans think this and some do not". We already have an "authorized" and "canonical" list of all 6 Horcruxes (7 soul fragments) from Rowling, via the Dumbledore-Potter conversations and Pensieve memories. Any other theories and fan speculations are not encyclopedic. Otherwise: goodness - I have a reddish rock in my back yard - Evilphoenix and I believe it could be a Horcrux because it also has a sort of lightning bolt shaped crack on it (and sometimes seems to glow), while Deathphoenix and Serendipodous both think it is just a cracked rock with some shiny minerals, in a sunny spot. By Kidburla2002 standards, we must post that on the page under "Possible Horcruxes", because some fans think it is and some don't? Ahh - no. When Rowling says "Yes - Harry's scar is another Horcrux" on her web site, or in an interview, or in Book 7, then we can post it. What she HAS said is things like "The Sorting Hat is a Horcrux? No, it isn't. Horcruxes do not draw attention to themselves by singing songs in front of large audiences." [1] While Harry himself has not yet stood up and actually sung or recited poetry in front of large audiences (that we know of), he has done almost everything else imaginable in front of large audiences (Quidditch, Tri-Wizard Tournament, etc...) --T-dot 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Horcrux Spell

Is that section about it being the Horcrux creation spell being what kills the victim in the books? It was my impression that the sequence of events ran: Commit murder (evil act tears soul apart) -> Cast Horcrux creation spell on physical object -> soul fragment is transfered/trapped in object. However, my impressions are not always right. It is possible it explains it differently in the books, although I don't know where. - Vedexent 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't explain it differently. But there is something wrong about the explanation. I have been influenced by a theorist: see this page (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html). But in brief: Riddle did not directly murder Myrtle. Or Hepzibah Smith. He manipulated a basilisk and a house-elf into doing it. He wasn't even around when the old witch died. So it is unlikely that Riddle, who doesn't seem to feel much remorse about his behaviour, would have been particularly bothered by something he had not directly done.

Slughorn mentions a spell to create Horcruxes, regarding this as most terrible. Yet, why would the simple utilisation of pre-existing damage be more terrible than the act of killing?

Harry may have indirectly killed twice, or more. Quirrells death may be suspicious: the film regards him as having simply killed him (in self-defence) at the age of eleven. He was guilty about having led Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black to their deaths. And his assistance to Dumbledore in drinking Voldemort's potion in the Horcrux cave certainly weakened Dumbledore sufficiently to make him unable to properly defend himself. Is his soul now shredded?

If you kill in self-defence and feel remorse, is your soul divided? Can you then make a Horcrux, to be put to good use?

How could Lily Potter's sacrifice block Avada Kedavra? It is an unblockable (by magical means) curse. And Lily's charm is certainly known about Voldemort at sixteen years: he says that he 'should have considered it'. But why then has nobody else done so? And we are only basing our opinion that Avada Kedavra was used on Harry on the presence of Green Light and the word of an impersonator! The explanation of the Horcruxes is either not full, or botched, or deliberately misleading.Michaelsanders 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I must admit I hit a "red flag" as soon as I hit "I have been influenced by a theorist". Let me make Wikipedia policy in general, and this page's more "unofficial policy" in particular, very clear:

If it cannot be referenced in a publication by contributing authors (in this case only J.K. Rowling) it is classed as original research (or in the case of Harry Potter "Fan speculation - you make reference to "a theorist") and according to the Wikipedia guidelines has no place in Wikipedia articles.

I apologize if that sounds a bit harsh; it is not meant to be, and I'm not trying to "jump down your throat" for putting material in an article. Wikipedia thrives on contributions, and your desire to help out is appeciated. I'm just trying to explain why we tend to take out things that aren't traceable back to one of the novels, interviews of J.K. Rowling, or "official" material on her website.

Fan theories are fine; they're part of the "fun" of the Harry Potter novels for many people, as can be seen by the large amount of speculation on fan discussion sites :) But such speculation doesn't really have a place in an Enclyclopedia article.

If you keep the guidelines in mind, we're more than happy to have yet another contributing editor. Good luck :) - Vedexent 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! (I seem to be making a habit of treading on peoples toes). You are completely in the right here. However, would I be able to say, "Some fans of the books have pointed out that the authorial explanation appears incomplete or flawed, because...etc. However, JK Rowling has stated nothing on the matter, making this speculation, etc." ? Or is even that being too flawed? In the matter of what is canonical, however, we do know that we can't trust Crouch Jr, and that Avada Kedavra is not the only spell which emits green light (Ron's non-verbal slug curse also emits 'a jet of green light'). And if the effects of Voldemort's presumed Avada Kedavra on Harry are to be taken as standard (which is implied when several characters refer to the curse as having been repelled onto Vold.), it doesn't seem to be AK. Michaelsanders 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Soul

I have a few questions.

Why is it that if a persons soul is destroyed, they die, but if a Dementor sucks it out it is still possible for that person to live?
What does the soul actually do? Does it contain memories, powers, personalty?

Can someone please answer these questions?  Thanks.  (11987 12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

Re - Q#1 - Did you try reading the article on the Dementors?

Re - Q#2/3 - Did you try reading the article on the Soul? --T-dot 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Horcrux Identified in rereading

I feel a horcrux is easily identified. Reread Chamber Of Secrets. A quote from Sorcerer's Stone "Gringotts is the safest place in the world fer anything yeh want ter keep safe -- 'cept maybe Hogwarts." So the Horcrux is at Howarts itself something senemental to Voldemort Ron Identifies it"I know that name .... T. M. Riddle got an award for special services to the school fifty years ago."

And after that they got to look and discover

"Riddle's burnished gold shield was tucked away in a corner cabinet."

"However, they did find Riddle's name on an old Medal for Magical Merit, and on a list of old Head Boys."

I definatley Feel that Either is a missing Horcrux. It truley would make Voldemorts' day by hiding a Horcrux right under Dumbledores' nose.

(the prev. posted on 20:02, 21 May 2006 by Tateer28 / contribs)

Wonderful! A terrific example of speculative Original Research - which certainly belongs on all HP fan pages and personal blogs on the subject of Voldemort and his Horcruxes - but it is absolutely forbidden in the "just the facts please" Wiki encyclopedia. Dumbledore provided us in Book 6 with all the authorized "canonical" possibilities for Horcruxes - and has told Harry what he needs to do about them. JK Rowling has "backed" Dumbledore's "guesses" by saying he is "never very far wide of the mark". Anything beyond Dumbledore's list is pure speculaton, at least until Book 7 is released, or until JK Rowling herself releases more information, inadvertently or otherwise, in a verifiable documented interview. Thanks for your commendable original research efforts though! --T-dot 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have to say the reason that I chose to reread the book was per the Recomendation of JK Rowling. As quoted on the Leaky-Cauldron. "ES: It seems like it would be impossible. If Harry had gone to the cave, he never could have done it on his own, it seems like.

JKR: Well, I'm prepared to bet you now, that at least before the week is out, at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books. " This Particular statement was what led me to reread and come to my conclusion.

Yes - and most speculators have interpreted that statement by Rowling to refer to the "unopenable locket" discovered at the Black mansion while Harry and the others were cleaning up the place. Besides that presumed (but still speculative) Horcrux, which may have been Slytherin's, we have Hufflepuff's cup and Ravenclaw's necklace or something else once owned by the Hogwarts Founders, and then Nagini rounding out the top four "most probable" remaining Horcruxes, as suggested by Dumbledore. It makes little sense that Rowling would have stated that Dumbledore is never far wide of the mark on the matter of Horcruxes, and then thrown in something as remotely far from Dumbledore's speculation as Riddle's old medals and other items left behind at Hogwarts, as you say "under Dumbledore's nose". That is right up there in with the Harry's Scar, Harry himself, Ginny, and other frequently suggested but equally absurd Horcrux candidates. You might as well speculate that your toothbrush is one of the Horcruxes. --T-dot 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The known relics are a pentacle from Slytherin, a cup from Hufflepuff and a sword from Gryffindor. Given that these are three of the four suits of the minor arcana, I think it strongly suggests that Ravenclaw's relic is a staff or some sort of special wand. Just my two cents. grendel|khan 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh!!! The Locket in OP. What a strange thing that a locket located in The Black House. A locket that "a heavy locket that none of them could open" would not be identified. A locket that would be marked with a snake most likely. But yet nobody notice it and it is tossed to the trashed. I find that very odd for all the wizards in the house to attempt to open this locket. And It is disregarded so easily.

Well we are moving quite far and waide of the point of Wikipedia here into the land of fan speculation. But, lets just say that given the most common idea for R.A.B. in fandom being Reglus Black, and given that #12 GP was his house it makes sense. Your objection that essentially, "wizards would have noticed" does not adaquatly account for the fact that they were sorting thouth literally hundreds of hold musty, cursed, dark, decaying, or otherwise unplsant (and unintresting) items. One of the aspects of JKRs univers that does not always make it into fanfiction is that decent wizard folk do not generally exprss that much intrest in dark objects and they were all pretty much assuming everything in the house was dark the only time anyone took much notice of any pspecific item was when Kretcher tried to save it (which is incidently probbly where the locket is). Dalf | Talk 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In Chamber of Secrets (JK Rowling,1999) Chapter "Dobby's Reward", Dumbledore states the following to Harry: "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore clamly, "because Lord Voldemort ... can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..."

It seems to me that this is a clue that could be referring to Harry, or Harry's scar as being a Horcrux. After all, Harry is in Gryffindor, so it could be said that "Harry" is the "something of Griffindor's" that Dumbledore referred to. [DAB] [17 August 2006]

Yes, Harry's scar is the Horcrux has been mentioned before, but how you got to there as a result of rereading is very interesting. Perhaps you should post your findings to one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Locket Location

In the Order of the Pheonix when they are cleaning Number 12 Grimwald place they found “a heavy locket which no one could open.” (pg. 116) If R.A.B. is really Regulus, then this could very well be the Horcrux. Should this theory be listed or no? I wouldn't be the one to know. (posted by anon. User:63.22.208.139 at 17:48, 15 June 2006)

The locket and it's possible location has been discussed and debated all up and down this page and over on the R.A.B. article and discussion page and elsewhere. There has been general agreement that the Slytherin Locket is (or was) probably a Horcrux, mainly because Dumbledore said so, and it was "seen" by Harry in the Pensieve and thoroughly discussed with Dumbledore. Whether the unopenable locket at Number 12, Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin Locket is debatable. There was no indication in the text of there being a Slytherin seal on it, or any sort of snake, or "S", or other symbol that would suggest it was Slytherin's. Furthermore Dumbledore was present at 12 Grimmauld Place from time to time, and it seems he would have noticed the magical locket and detected that it was a Horcrux, and either taken care of it himself, or mentioned to Harry to check on it, rather than adventuring off to the Cave with Harry to get it. On the other hand we have the locket sort-of perhaps re-appearing at the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade after being in the apparent possession of Mundungus Fletcher, who had some goods stolen from 12 Grimmauld Place, and the bar man who is evidently none other than Aberforth Dumbledore. The point is - all of this is speculation and/or original research, and not undeniably confirmed or denied by J. K. Rowling, either in the canonical text or in any of her interviews. Generally speculation and original research is strongly discouraged on the Wikipedia, although admittedly some is allowed in moderation, if there is a strong consensus among the "veteran editors". Thank you for asking! --T-dot 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. see: original research for further information. --T-dot 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of a horcrux

I have removed the statment that JKR implied that destroying the soulfragment involved mroe than destroying the horcrux. The basis of that being added was an unanswered FAQ poll on here site. The question was: - Does the destruction of a Horcrux involve more than the destruction of the object? First of all I don't think this question being on the list imlies anything as it ends in a questionmark and I understand msot of those questions are generated out of the fandom. That is they are questions people want answered not clues. Further even if they raised a legitimate question (which this one anyway does not) including an answer to the question in the article as if simply asking the question were enough to imply the answer is especially bad. Look at the next runenr up question: - Why did Voldemort want the Philosopher's Stone if he already had his Horcruxes? are we to take this to mean that Voldemort did not want the Philosopher's Stone? In her answer to one of the previous poll questions JKR even says that some of the poll questions do not have intresting answers. Dalf | Talk 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Voldemorts murders and soul fragments

I removed the parenthetical (while it is likely that Voldemort has killed more than six times, the resulting "soul fragments" were not extracted) from the article on the basis that the book never says that the act of murder itself creates a soul fragment only that that it "rips the soul apart" though it does refer to "encase[ing] the torn portion" (HBP p.498) it does not necessarily imply anything about what happens to the soul afterwards if it goes back together, or whatever. As written it could be taken to mean that you could commit a murder and then use that murder to create a horcrux at a much later date. Mostly I removed this because it felt unnecessary, another little detail to show how smart we are that really is just cluttering up the article. That said if you replace it please change likely with known. I think if you list the actual murders from the books you get a number bigger than 6. Frank Bryce (old muggle), his grandparents, father, Bertha Jorkins, James and Lilly potter, that makes seven. Dalf | Talk 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out that Slughorn said nothing about it being the spell that creates the fragment - but that the act is what "rips the soul apart". Now the implication is that the 'spell is what does that. We don't know that anymore than the first assertion. The previous version didn't assert that murderers are now a big bag of soul bits. Whether portions rejoin the collective soul is another issue entirely. In an effort to be "perfectly fair" the issue is getting way too complex. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No I agree Slughorn does say that the act rips the soul but he does not say what happens if you don’t capture the part. Does it go back? Does it rip them into 1/7th parts automatically since 7 in a magical number and voldemort figured this out? Etc. I am not saying the removed sentence asked any of these questions but it was not necessary and it implied a degree of knowledge about the process that we don’t have and it included useless information, the total number of people killed by voldemort really does not matter to the article. Dalf | Talk 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does killing in self-defence tear apart the soul? Or in the line of duty (do aurors get their souls ripped up)? Or manslaughter? Because whilst these are not necessarily murder, many of those who inflict them would certainly feel guilty. Or is the soul torn when the murderer doesn't feel guilty: meaning that the key is not the act of murder itself, but the refusal to feel remorse. How does euthanasia fit in? That is murder in action, if not in intent. Michaelsanders 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All good questions all of which are impossible to know since it is a fictional universe and JKR has not given any clues to this, and all the more reason to stay away form speculating at all. We do not from what iv given in the books know the mechanism or the mechanics of this process except for about 2-3 sentences of text in the books and as far as I know nothing from JKR herself. I propose we find a way to work those two or three sentences into the article and totally scourgify all other sentences that have or depend on implications that are not clearly known. Dalf | Talk 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dolores Umbridge?

Nagini may actually be an Animagus, disguising herself as Dolores Umbridge. Firstly, back in book 5, when Umbridge seizes Harry's arm, Harry feels a sharp twinge in his forehead. This may be because a portion of Voldemort is enclosed in Umbridge. We've also all known how villainous Umbridge is...so perhaps, Umbridge really is a villain and pretending to work for the Ministry of Magic? Since Umbridge came to Hogwarts, we have never seen Nagini in a snake form except for when Nagini attacked Arthur Weasley. Perhaps Umbridge had attacked Mr. Weasley while the others weren't looking? She also exhibits some characteristics of Voldemort (no fear to do villainous things such as set Dementors on Harry or express greed and eagerness to torture) and snakes (very sharp teeth)... from Anon.

Actually I am Dolores Umbridge! Well except for those times when I have to go visit my family then dobby fills in for me. However I am not going to include the amazingly revealing information in the article because it woudl be original research. Dalf | Talk 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hufflepuff's Cup

I believe that the location of Hufflepuff's cup is located at the exact place where Horace Slughorn stayed when he was in hiding. Voldemort may have hidden the Horcrux at Hepzibah Smith's house, as he usually guards all Horcruxes that he creates in the places he retrieved them. Well, since Voldemort supposedly found the cup at Hepzibah's house, he may have hidden it there. In the beginning of the the sixth book, The Half-Blood Prince, J.K. Rowling tells us, "If Harry were to have guessed who lived here, he would have guessed a rich, fussy old lady.", making an implication to Hepzibah Smith, who indeed inhibits those qualities. Hepzibah Smith is also a wealthy, fancy house...well, didn't Harry visit a wealthy, fancy house to pick up Horace Slughorn? I'm even guessing that the goblet that Slughorn retrieved when he wanted a drink was the Horcrux itself...

Slughorn was staying in a muggle residence which he explaines is easier than a wizarding one since you can simply use a freezing charm on the muggle security system (Though apparently bringging your larger furnature in such as a piano has to be done with care so the neibors don't see) Dalf | Talk 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymologie (2)

In Archive 1 there is some talk about the etymologie of the word Horcrux. I think it is a combination of the latin crux (meaning) cross, and the Egyptian God of Horus, the Sun God. The cross indicates to the conventional meaning of Jesus Christ dying on a Cross (compare with necessity of a violent death in the book) in order to accomplish the saving of the souls of mankingd. Horus indicates the Deity in Egyptian mythologie (son of Iris -> Maria) who evolved in the Sun God, who had supreme powers (in the book Horcruces are very difficult and very advanced types of magic. Combined together it is an analogy (parody) of God dying for the good of men, but in reverse, Evil (Voldemort) living eternally by killing life. Seven indicates a perfect number, the Godly equilibrium. See also Shamanism#Shamanism and New Age movement Stijn Calle 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at this point, this would just be fan speculation (and therefore not appropriate for inclusion). It would be great if someone interviewing Joanne could actually ask her exactly how she came up with the name: we could then cite the interview when decribing the etymology of this word. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Horocrux Possibility)

Could Harry Potter himself be one of the last Horocruxes. After the spell backfired, Voldemort could have used what little power he had, and the murder of Lily, to perform the spell. Thus marking Harry and causing the connection between he and Voldemort.

I have thought of this(i am not this person) and decided it couldnt be him, because he made the 7 before attacking harry Jathurlow 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC) kreacher could be linked to the Horcrux,if R.A.B is Regulas Black then Kreacher may of "horded" the horcrux,like he does with other artifacts contained in 12 grimwald or he may have important info.I`m sure that J.K Rowling did say that Kreacher would have an important role in book 7 and thats why she said to the makers of the 5th film to include kreacher.ps sorry for any bad spelling ect.

- rupdike

It could be; however, this talk page probably isn't the best place to get widebrush thoughts on possible Horcruxes. I suggest you post to one of the Harry Potter fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should post some links on this talk page to places where this sort of discussion is ongoing and approprate. On a more important note, the archiving is probbly good but we might want to add back some stuff at the top regarding general advice for the article. SPecifically warning agains the stuff that creeps in that does not belnog. Dalf | Talk 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious and unclear claim

I deleted and am putting here a line added to the article which is both unclear and dubious. Can someone please find a refrence for this and possible explaine exactly what is being claimed in more detail:

In Book 7, J.K. Rowling has stated that Harry has been to the locations of the remaining Horcruxes.

Dalf | Talk 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Reference Shake Up

I started to incorporate a few recent - and valid - additions to the article which benefited from being "streamlined" into the text. In the course of that, I decided to use the WP:CITE format to cite them, which is more accurate than the {{HP#}} format used in the article to date.

However, this caused me to convert the remaining citations to this format, and therein lies a problem: the ad hoc citation method developed by the Harry Potter WikiProject isn't very accurate, and since it has been used exclusively in this article, none of the article's references are very accurate.

So, I have adapted the references, but they need a lot of work. Specifically, page numbers for quotes and claims need to be added. I can't add them right now, as I can't lay my hands on the texts. Additionally, a lot of claims - and direct quotes (!) - said to come from the text are unreferenced. I have tucked ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} after many (but not all, I'm sure) of these.

We need to find specific page numbers for many of the quotes here (and note the edition that they come from! Page numbers in the British version may not match those of the North American version! - ideally, page numbers for both editions should be included), as well as many of the claims. If we can't find specific page numbers, then maybe those quotes and claims should not be part of the article.

Reference-wise, the article needs a lot of work. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the Notes section could use the term "Ibid" a great deal - however, I'm holding off converting the explicit references to "Ibid" until the references are completed. Idid only makes sense if an additional and different referencese in not tucked into the footnotes between a reference and its "parent" - Vedexent (talk) - 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

These are the best matches I can come up with for British Bloomsbury versions. Don't think it matters but PS, COS and GOF were in a box set - revised at least once from the originals. HBP was the 1st revision. Apologies for the crappy format but I'm still new at this :(

Existing cites as of right now:

2: "lesser than the meanest ghost": GOF, CH33, pg 566

3: "his attempted use of a Killing Curse on Harry Potter backfired upon himself": not a direct quote. Event occured before the beginning of PS, but is first referenced in PS, CH1, pg 14-15. It doesn't specifically mention backfiring until much later in the book IIRC. I think this is okay though.

4: "Tom Riddle's Diary is destroyed": COS, CH17, pg 237 ... "ring is confirmed as destoyed": HBP, CH24, pg 470-471

5: "rips the soul apart": HBP, CH24, pg 465

6: "each Horcrux he created": HBP, CH24, pg 469

8: "Horace Slughorn's Pensieve memories": HBP, CH17, pg 345-346

9: "Dumbledore destroyed this Horcrux": HBP, CH24, pg 470-471

10: "an ornate, serpentine S": HBP, CH20, pg 409

11: "engraving of a badger": HBP, CH20, pg 408-409

12: "murder of Frank Bryce": GOF, CH1, pg 19

13: "underlines the Slytherin connection": HBP, CH24, pg 473

In addition, the four existing cites/cites needed under the Creation paragraph will all reference the same place: CH24 in HBP. I'm not sure if putting 4 cites to the same place in 5 sentences is a good idea.

I can't find where "the most evil and unnatural of the Dark Arts" came from in that paragraph though. I think someone's inferred that from the text ... the closest I can get is "of the Horcrux, wickedest of magical inventions" - HBP CH 18 pg 357. Daggoth S 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! :) As for multiple references to the same chapter, don't worry as long as they point to different pages. Eventually the footnotes section would appear something like this.

Rowling, The Half-Blood Prince (British Bloomsbury edition), p.465
Ibid, p.469
Ibid, p.472
Ibid, p.474

Vedexent (talk) - 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have wanted to do this for a long time, but as you point out the current ref systems does not support Ibid notation. If we maipulate it to do it, then we have defeated the whole point of the ref tag. That is, the whole pointis that someone should be able to edit a single paragraph of the article. Add a tag and not edit the end without breaking anything. Unfortunatly I don't see how to do that here. Dalf | Talk 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to repeat the full references then. It might be a little cumbersome, but it does make the footnotes more accurate, right down to edition-specific page numbers, rather than nebulous allusions to "somewhere in book X". - Vedexent (talk) - 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. Dalf | Talk 06:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Reference Shake Up - redux

I just replaced all of the {{citation needed}} tags with refrences. The article is starting to look a bit messed up with all of the refs all over the place. We will soon I am sure have more ref tags than we have sentences. I think we can take two approachs to this. We can either keep it like this and add the actual quotes where possible, which has its own sort of charm as an idea. Or we can try and make the artile look less like the Las Vegas Strip by refrenceing the whole 10 page section that most of the refs refer to and then reusing it. Dalf | Talk 05:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Just adding the quotes" wouldn't work - adding the quotes directly just means you have to cite those. Adding 10-page chunks defeats the purpose; the purpose of citation is to allow the reader to find the reference which backs up the point. If you start making refs to whole blocks of pages, how exactly is that much better than just saying "somewhere in book X"?

You won't ever have "more ref tags than we have sentences" since the most you should/can ever had is 1 ref per concrete assertion: e.g. "Voldemort likes chocolate frogs" (see Book 8, page 1,862). Compound assertions can be "lumped" into a single reference if need be, for a complex sentence.

<ref>Rowling, ... the Philosophers Stone, p. 12; ...Goblet of Fire., p.36; ... the Pillar of Storge, p.262. Note: Voldemort's liking for frogs in mentioned in the Philosophers Stone, the Order's use of chocolate frogs cards as spy devices is mentioned in Pillar of Storge, and the Wensleydale Report was presented to the Minister in Goblet of Fire.</ref>

You might not like the aesthetics of footnotes (they can be a bit of a pain in the butt), but in cited reference material they are a fact of life. These articles aren't light fiction, forum discussions, or fanzine speculative articles. If one doesn't want the reference marks, then one should stick to reading MuggleNet.

Addendum: According to the manual of style, however, there should not be references in the middle of sentances, and not more than one per sentence (although I'm see what you are saying about linking to another article, which contains common knowledge descriptions though, but that is a very limited tactic. Linking for anything but the vaguest generalities is unacceptable, as you have no guarantee that the article will support the point after the next 300 edits, nor that the point is well supponot sure this last point is in the MoS, it does seem to be convention), so perhaps a bit of a clean-up could be affected by consolidating ref tags to the end of sentences? - Vedexent (talk) - 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I love the ref system, I just think that some of the asks in this case are a bit silly. I disagree that saying that "this 8-10 page section contains most of the info refrences here", most people are able to read 10 pages in under 5 minutes. Reading quotes in contex gives a better graps of the details containe. It is also manifestly untrue that a single sentence can only caon tain one assertion, or that one assertion cannot contain more than one refrenceable fact. There is not consensus about the syle of refrences in fact for some of the mroe trivla things it is enough to link to another wikipedia article which contains the refrence (so that is someone wants a cite that says that George Bush is the presideent of the USA you can simply wikilink his name). Adding multiple refrences in a single tag is I think very bad style and if it is on the MOS page it shoudl be removed. The point of refrences is that they should work like refrences in normal refrence works. Each one corrosponds to one source, this enables re-use with the name attribute. Going back a second, if someone wants to check all the refs or even some of them on this page they WILL end up reading that whole section though probably not in order. Dalf | Talk 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with most of your objections, basically because I didn't say any of the things you seem to be objecting to.

I am saying that making references unspecific enough that they only target a large "10 page block" is pretty pointless. Think of an academic paper. If you had to read 10 pages to find each supporting point would you bother? Probably not. I very much doubt that Wikipedia readers would do so either. This leads to errors in citations not being caught, because no one checks up on them. Therefore errors - either accidental or deliberate - can creep in that no one will ever catch.
I have never said that the most that one sentence can carry is one assertion. I am saying that 1 assertion = 1 reference, unless the same reference contains the same chain of assertions. This leads to...
Because most articles written in encyclopedic style are written in a summary style, many assertions that come from different sources can get stuffed into one sentence. This means you have to either...
1. Break up sentences - which doesn't seem like a good idea, as it leads to "article bloat"
2. Put multiple references inside a sentence - looks clunky, and violates the current reference MoS
3. Leave some points un-referenced and unsupported - bad. Leaves swathes of article open to debate and partisan bickering. You've seen that here.
4. Put multiple references in the footnote. - Not great, but it seems to be the least of the possible evils. Many people object to it, but it seems to work. See Third Servile War.
It is explicitly stated in the guidelines that Wikipedia is not a reference for Wikipedia. Irted and referenced in that article.
I agree that references in Wikipedia should work like references in published papers. However, most referenced works are not summary style encyclopedic articles, they are general papers. When you write in summary style, the points get all "scrunched together", and thus references get "scrunched together" as well. What we seem to be discussing is how to deal with the problems caused by this scrunching.
Given that we seem to agree that "1 sentence" does not equal "1 assertion" then you cannot preserve all of the following: "1 footnote = 1 reference", "1 assertion = 1 footnote", "1 sentence = 1 footnote" at the end (according to the MoS). Something has to give somewhere. My personal preference is to throw the "1 footnote = 1 reference" rule out to make it work. It isn't ideal, and you might not agree, but it makes everything fit again.
I would most strongly disagree with the idea that "maximizing reusability" is a consideration when it leads to a degradation in the accuracy of citations. Citations do no get much more specific that page numbers (in most texts - historical and religions texts that use the "Chapter and Verse" means of breaking up text can get more specific), and when the different points are made on the same page, I can see the purpose of reusing footnotes. However, once you start clouding the accuracy of footnotes to make the presentation "neater" you are sacrificing information for the sake of aesthetics. Given that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not an art project, I cannot agree with that. Nor is an online encyclopedia limited by paper media; we can have as many different footnotes as are required for accuracy and not have to worry about "running off the page" - Vedexent (talk) - 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think ths argumetn is mostly acedemic as I am not proposing any changes to the article that I am willing to go to the mat over. However, just because I like discussing these sorts of things(my numbers refrence your number or should):

Actually, when refrenceing scientific pappers on wikipedia (most of which are over 10 pages) I am not sure I have ever seen anyone refrence a sincle page. The idea being that you have to read it in context to understand it. Ten pages is not that much, in this case it is a better argument to say that we want to include specific quotes in the ref which woudl make re-use impossible, that argument I can accept but I do not think as a matter of style having 15-30 refrences to refer to the same 8-10 pages is in anyway better.
In this case where both logical refrences crammed into the same physical refrence are from the same source it is not AS bad but I suppose I am one of the people who thinks that is seriously bad form. I suspect that when consensus is eventually reached it will settel on a solution that does not use it, though I suspect the ref system will be enhanced by then.
You left off, "put multiple refrences at the end of a sentence" which is easier to maintain when one of the refrenes needs changing and easier to read, and easier to understand that you are provigind multiple sources, sometimes for multiple facts other times for the same fact.
WIkipedia is not a refrence for wikipedia, but that is irrelvent, the point I made (and possibly the example) was from a mail by Jimmy Wales to the mailing list. Providing a pointer to an article with mroe context and a refrence is not diffrent form pointing to a footnote with more info (possibly) and a refrence. WIkipedia is seen as a single work not a bunch of smaller works presented near eachother (for this anyway).
Yes we are basically discussing style and not what should be refrenced, and you will note that I have not changed the article and infact used the system you are supporting when I added the last chunk of refs.
The multiple refrenced facts in one sentence only happens on this page once and a in that case a single page actually worked for all three facts as they were related. However have a look at the second to last sentence in Kraftwerk, due to several edit wars and arguments on the talk page lots of refrences were needed for a single fact. It looks pretty silly as well, and if possible should also be avoided but it is how refrences and footnotes are done in acedemic publishing at times. I think breakign them appart is doublly important when the facts refrenced and the soures are diffrent.
We had two footnotes to the same single page! Like I said if you can include a quote as part of the ref making it diffrent then you are right, but otherwise it is NOT sacrificing information, and it makes the article much eaiser to edit for new users (And even old users). One of the biggest complaines about {{cite}} and the ref system is that it makes the articles impossible to read in the edit window. That harms the encyclopedia too. Dalf | Talk 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

I just removed the D&D reference about phylactery/lich being related as D&D mythology. D&D doesn't have mythology about such things it is a given FACT in the fictional worlds of D&D that a lich can house his soul externally in any object suited. It doesn't have to be a phylactery/amulet. It could be a gem, or bottle, whatever depending on the person running the game. Innacurate connections to the game don't really help explain real-world mythology towards JKR's creation Horcruxes. shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Presenting such matters here, unless admitted to by Rowling, or expertly analyzed critically in some sort of Verifiable and published Reliable Source, amounts to Original Research, and should not be allowed in the Wiki. --T-dot 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Long night, are you saying you would like a ref to the D&D aspect, or the D&D aspect doesn't belong unless JKR says she was inspired by D&D? shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am agreeing with your removal of any off-topic material about D&D or other analogues to a Horcrux. The purpose of the Wikipedia article on the Horcrux is to reveal Rowling's conception of her fictional Horcrux, with verifiability references to her books, interviews, web site, etc. Comparisons can be made to other items, but such comparisons cannot be original research. If for example an expert in mythological soul-containers did an analysis comparing Rowling's Horcruxes to D&D liches or whatever, than a discussion of that would be allowed here. Otherwise it is undocumented original research that is unverifiable. The whole section that provides reference comparisons to D&D probably needs to go away - it has been removed by cleanup crews and restored by anonymous trolls many times already. --T-dot 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OH ok. There was something I was unsure if wanted so didnt add here from he most recent site update http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ about a new word and she Googled for Horcrux and she for 401,000 entires on 28 Sept, 2006. Little bit of Horcrux trivia unless it is unrelated to the main concept of the artile. shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right - Rowling's website point was that she literally made up the word Horcrux, and used Google or whatever to confirm the word didnt already exist out there somewhere before she used it. There were no web references to the word Horcrux back then, and now there are "about 348,000" on Google, and "about 233,000" on Yahoo. We can use this sort of information to "prove" that "Horcrux" is a word that Rowling totally made up out of thin air, and that it does NOT derive from some twist on Latin root meaning "scary cross" or something, or even worse - a Hungarian-Bulgarian word for "broken-soul box" or something, as some superfans may have tried to claim in the past. --T-dot 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That post on her web-site did not say anythign about the process ny which she made it up. She does use latin roots in some of her made up words and in most of her names. We cannot put any specific roots in here since we don't know it to be true, but neither can we put that it is 'proven' that such a derivation is untrue. We should not assert anythign about it. We should not include it. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that related ideas in popular culture shoudl be removed wholsale. Even if (as is the case here) they are unlikly to have inspiored her they are almost sure to have been inspired by the same myths and fairy tales. It puts it in perspective to see other places that had the same idea. Also I might add that my understanding of the D&D item is that a gem or other such object containing the soul of a litch is called a phylactery, sure it can be just about anythign but the fact that a litch uses it as such makes it a phylactery. Dalf | Talk 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gone overboard vociferious opposition to the mention of Harrycrux and Scarcrux

In looking through the article tonight and at some of the history I started to become concerned that in our (proper) quest to keep the article clean of original research we have created a situation where the article is noticably incomplete. I do not think that we can honestly say that we have covered this subject without mention of the debate in the Harry Potter fandom regarding Harry (or his scar) as a Horcrux. I think it is significant enough to the topic that even if book 7 debunks both theories totally their existance would still be worth documenting. I do not think it will be difficult to find sources and attributions, but right now we seem to have added some additional rules to this page beyond those that the whole of wikipedia has regarding these specific issues. As such I am asking here for arguments as to why the debate should nto be mentioned, and also if we were to include it how could we do so carfully. I know at least part of the opposition to including it is that it will probably encorage the random drive by editor to add drivvle and speculation, or try and debae it in the article. But, difficulty in maintainning the article is not a good argument against including something that really is needed to say we have complete coverage. Dalf | Talk 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding the edit summary on [2] please dont WP:BITE the newbies, especially since it was not added as speculation but as documentation of said speculation. Dalf | Talk 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a similar comment on this talk page last year, and the general line of argument was that the Harrycrux hasn't been mentioned anywhere significant yet (with fan forums not counting as significant). I kind of agree with that, so I guess we would need a major source to mention it. I seem to remember Mugglent running a poll of horcrux possibilities at some point with Harry and Harry's scar as options, but I can't seem to find it in their archive.--Victim Of Fate 10:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can legitimately point out, sort of in the style of a "news report", that there are a vast array of "other things" mentioned as possible horcruxes in the speculative fan base. We could then produce a list of those commonly mentioned items (especially if any of the Rowling-acknowledged fan sites have already created such an organized list - otherwise it might be considered Original Research). Such a list would need to be clearly prefaced with remarks to the effect that these items are purely speculative, and have no authoritative basis from the canon of books, movies, interviews, or Rowling's web site. We need to avoid weasel words in trying to legitimize the list by saying "many fans believe" (etc.) - the best scenario would again be to find an already published list and post a reference link to that. This way the Verifiability and Reliable Source policy requirements are met, and it does not violate original research or constitute weasel wording guidelines. And - best of all - we do not get into "giving support" to any one particular "anti-horcrux", we just list them without further comment, beyond the disclaimer. We need to avoiding debates on the likelihood of any of them, or "prioritizing" the proposed list by high-low probability etc. It is a can of worms to open, but at least it might get the fanatics and drive-by horcrux-vandal-trolls off our backs. --T-dot 10:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not especially intrested in documenting the theories and I am activly against documenting the arguments for or against any theory. I simply think we should document the existance of the debate within the fandom. We have to be carufl though because we are on a subject for which there is no consensus and much debate about what exactly a reliable source is. I likeyour idea of refering to fan sites that have been mentioned on JKR's site. There was recently a review of WP:RS at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws by User:Phil Sandifer who as I understand it teaches a university level class on things related to sourcing and such in acedemia. One of the thigns that he pointed out was (in my own words) that many of the thigns that we document on wikipedia exist only as primary and secondary sources online on the types of sites that many people have explicitly banned in WP:RS and that in some cases such a hard line on things like bultin boards usenet posts and wikis is (his words now "This section is just nonsense. Usenet, BBs, and wikis are perfectly reliable as primary sources in lots of cases." The truth is is you are only using the source as a refrence to the existance of something, and that somethign exists online simply linking to it is enough. If we want to state that such a debate exists O think linking to any one of many many permanate threads on fan fourms dedicated to the topic establishes that. PLEASE NOTE however that these are NOT good sources for saying anythign ABOUT the debate, only for documenting its existance. Dalf | Talk 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with me if I am wrong, but isn't this one of the most discussed issues in fandom? ("is harry a horcrux" brings up 2270 results on google.) Surely, then, wikipedia should make some report of the idea, if only to document that such a controversy is happening. Whether you look at it from an inclusionistic 'it is our duty to present as much information relevant to the topic as possible in a convenient manageable form' viewpoint, or a quasi-info-capitalistic 'we provide a service and if people aren't satisfied by it they'll go elsewhere and take their patronage away from us so we need to keep all readers satisfied' viewpoint, the issue should be discussed (making clear, of course, that it is fan opinion rather than authorially confirmed fact). As for documenting theories: I would like to point out that one of my own university lecturers said in a lecture on the Black Death that the equation of it with bubonic plague was, in his exact words, "pure speculation", and that today only historians believe the two to be the same: scientists and everyone else, apparently, scorn the identification (though they haven't come up with a better idea). However, try erasing the identification of Magna Pestilentia with Yersinia Pestis because it is based upon 'fan speculation', and you may run into some problems...Michaelsanders 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok so no detractors have spoken up yet, I had wanted to wait for them but since we seem to all agree why don't we start discussing how we think it should be added and to which section (or perhaps a new section). If we are carful in how we do it instead of just jumpping in I think it will be less contraversial. Dalf | Talk 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about we sandbox it here. Let's write up a paragraph below as you propose, and let's "edit" on it over the weekend, and when it seems reasonable consensus is reached, post it to the article along with a "gentle strong warning" that appears in the edit pane not to add undiscussed anti-horcruxes, or comment on their probability or the why's and why-nots. Here - I'll start us off...

== Horcrux candidates in the fan base (SANDBOX VERSION) ==

The Harry Potter fan base has generated a wide variety of non-canonical "possible" horcruxes, based on their interpretation of various sections of the texts. These horcruxes are not authoritative - that is they were not specified by Rowling, either in the books (specifically mentioned by Dumbledore in his discussions with Harry on the subject), or in the movies, or in documented interviews, or on her web site. One fan site in particular, [www.?????.com - tbd] has produced a list of proposed alternate horcruxes, along with arguments pro and con as to their validity. Some commonly debated horcruxes mentioned there include the following:

(and then a list of perhaps a half-dozen "top candidates" as documented at the site).

Rowling has already rejected a number (?) of other proposed horcrux candidates, such as the Sorting Hat, in interviews and on her web site in the frequently asked questions section.

By the way - this cannot work unless we FIRST find a Verifiable list from a Reliable Source - such as the HPANA or the Mugglenet or other quality web site which Rowling has acknowledged on her web site - so don't go inventing your own list, posting it on a blog, and then linking to that. (--T-dot 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

I agree that the proposal of a list of fan based otions is out, I think we really only have cause to address teh single issue of Harry (or his scar) as a Horcrux. I still want to point out that for this particular issue (as I stated above) WP:RS (which is not a policy and is disputed as a guideline) may not be 100% authoratative. We need to use some common sense about what we are claiming and what we are using to support it. In other words, rather than taking a rules based "this is allowed this is not" approach we should look at the spirit of the things. Is the source we are using one that provides good evidence for what we are saying. Thinking in tha way I propose that we ONLY claim that the debate exists, in a significant way and then link to the discusion threads dedicated to this topic on major fan sites (4 or 5 links should do). We woudl not be using the content of those threads to prove anything as all we would be claiming is their existance. I suspect we could probably even find a mailing list or yahoo group or two dedicated to just discussing this issue. Dalf | Talk 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Harry A Horcrux? - As far as I am aware, the HP Lexicon has been identified as one of the very best Harry Potter websites by JK Rowling, so surely the fact that they have discussed in an essay this should count as a reliable source?--Victim Of Fate 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, infact I got to thinking about this and I think if we are wanting to make claims about the fandom, any harry potter fan sie notable enough to have a wikipedia article I think would qualify. As long as we are using them as a primary source and NOT a secondary source (ie we are using them to document themselves and not the Harry Postter books), then the only relavent wikipedia policies are Verifiability and Notability. Dalf | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interview

I've been told that there was an interview in which Rowling stated there has actually been one Horcrux revealed in each book. And also that the horcrux of book 1, held a much bigger part in the 1st movie by accident. I've heard this from a few people, but I never personallly saw this interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

no there hasn't. She said in the interview shortly after HBP was released that a sharp reader might be able to spot a horcrux or two within the series, but not one in each book. Although that's what some people try and do! Jammi568 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I reverted an edit saying that it has been speculated that a Horcrux could be created by a potion, as this is speculation and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just wanted to give a reason as when I rolled it back, I wasn't offered to give an edit summary. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It was also phrased with weasel wording: "it has been speculated" which is a disallowed way of sneaking in an unverifiable or controversial concept - hiding it as a "fact" by conditionalizing or "limiting the liability". The rule of thumb is: if the statement cannot stand on its own without "some believe" ot "it is speculated" (etc.), then it is not encyclopedic and should not be presented as a fact. Your support for this sort of reversion is Verifiability wih Reliable Sources and Avoid Weasel Wording and posting Original Research. On the edit summary - if you open an edit window on a previous version of an article (reverting to a previous version) there is always an edit summary below the edit window which is near the bottom of the page - perhaps it was just below your scrolling pane range and not very obvious. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement on Horcruxes as magical items

Horcruxes are regular objects until activated to become magical. The only information we have about these objects is from book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rambos shadow (talk • contribs).

To repeat the comment in my summary: a horcrux is a magical object - a horcrux has a piece of soul magically inserted, and becomes a magical repository of that fragment (and, if the ring and diary are any indication, are capable of magical actions). Yes, a horcrux is a normal object, not necessarily magical, before it gets the fragment - but before it gets the fragment, it is not a horcrux. Michaelsanders 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To Rambo: Not really, no. Being magically "activated" as you say is a necessary condition for an object to be a Horcrux. A regular object becomes a magical Horcrux when the Horcrux-creator murders a victim (thus splitting his own soul), and then magically implants the resulting soul fragment into the object. The object is not a Horcrux until it has been imbued with the soul fragment. Therefore, Horcruxes are by definition magical objects. You cannot have a non-magical Horcrux. You can however have a former Horcrux, once the curse or charm or whatever has been countered, and the soul fragment has been destroyed (eg: the Riddle Diary and the Gaunt Ring).

On a semi-related note, it would probably be good to start off the article by clearly stating that the Horcrux is first and foremost a fictional object in the fictional Harry Potter universe. The HP Project has been taking a lot of grief lately from "outsiders", particularly during Good Article discussions, over the fact that the information in many articles is not very clearly stated as "fictional". Events and objects and people and places are described "encyclopaedically" as if they were "real", and this usually prevents the article from being awarded status as a good or Featured Article. This argument is used in the vast majority of HP article GA turn-downs; and most submissions of HP articles to GA or FA are automatically dismissed now for that reason. Something we need to think about and work on. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed notes about being similar to The Lord of the Rings

I've removed the Lord of the Rings text from "Horcrux precedents" here. The previous two are very similar to what a horcrux does, but this one is admittedly very different:

In Lord Of the Rings, the dark lord, Sauron, cannot be destroyed until the ring in which he left part of himself is destroyed; note that this is somewhat different, as Sauron did this not to protect himself from mortal death (being immortal already), but to magnify his own power; thus, the Ring rendered him nearly mortal whereas the Horcruxes render Voldemort immortal.

Since it's so different, I don't think it belongs in this section. --Death phoenix 15:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the One Ring, and only saw this Talk section afterwards. I really think it belongs here, since the similarities are far greater than the (nuance) difference (soul put into an object); but I am going to re-add the difference paragraph.

But it's not like Rowling drew inspiration from it. As far as I've been told she's never even read LotR.

It says in the Wiki article on the series that she had read LotR as a child, but had not read the Hobbit until after the first book was published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.196.162 (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).