Talk:Horcrux/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

obvious error?

says he made his first horcrux in 6th year, and his second in 5th year... Feldercarb (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

table errors

In the Horcrux table under "Created with the death of" and "Nagini" there's Frank Bryce, though it supposed to be Bertha Jorkins according to the "Notes" on the right bottom edge of the table. for some reason I coul'dnt fix it.

• never mind, it was just being fixed.
  
  

Question about the table from a new user: When Voldemort has Wormtail take Harry Potter's blood (blood of an enemy, forcibly taken) to help him re-create his body, a part of Harry that has been protected by his mother's sacrifice is inadvertantly transferred into Voldemort for safekeeping. Rowling writes this as part of the inner dialogue between Harry's detached soul and the avatar of Albus Dumbledore. Rowling states that this fact helps keep Harry tethered to life after the killing curse is used on Harry.
Should we add the piece of Harry inside Voldemort as another horcrux, or do we believe that this is a different device? As other editors of the article mention, Harry is an accidental horcrux (no binding spell used to attach the piece of Voldemort's soul to the living Harry).Just wondering...Catbert234 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

spoilers

considering the extreme popularity of this series of books and the fact that countless people will read this page in the next few weeks - prior to or while reading 'deathly hallows' - i feel that the article should give fair warning that it contains important plot information from the last book (this article spoiled major plot elements for me personally with no warning). please read the page regarding spoiler warnings if you have any doubt that one should be included.Amaxson

In this case, the spoilers are restricted to an "in the novels" section. That is a section header that clearly indicates the likelihood of spoilers. Phil Sandifer 13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this article gives away more than may be expected by someone looking at it for reference regarding Horcruxes. Namely, that Harry himself is the final Horcrux, which is perhaps THE biggest twist in the final book. The typical reader, while expecting information regarding Horcruxes, will not expect to find THE SPOILER on this page. This is why I feel people deserve a little extra warning, at least for a few more days until most people who care have finished reading the last book.Amaxson

A reader wanting to avoid spoilers for the final book should not read sections of articles that are obviously likely to contain spoilers. Phil Sandifer 14:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Obviously likely to contain spoilers" is a bit subjective. Indeed, readers should come to the page expecting to learn the identity of the horcruxes, but by the author's design most will be unaware that the secret to the ending of the final book in the series lies in the identity of the final horcrux. I'm sure you can agree that a good plot twist is not "obvious"; if it were, it would be no surprise at all. Amaxson 15:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For a book that was obviously set up to be a quest to find the seven horcruxes, of which we only knew what three were, I am skeptical that the identity of one of the horcruxes being surprisng can fairly be said to be unexpected. And, again - it is not our job to police every possible expectation that a reader might have. Obviously that section is going to include information about the seventh book. Anybody who has read even the first book knows that Rowling likes using twist endings. An even remotely prudent reader is going to not read this section. Phil Sandifer 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that we are not here to police reader expectations, but we ARE here to supply readers with information in a way that is most helpful to them. I see no harm in providing a warning that "significant" plot details follow. The article for spoiler warnings warns that "the overuse of spoiler warnings can have a damaging effect on article organization", but I don't think that's the case here. So unless there is a good reason NOT to have a spoiler warning in this article, I feel it should be left in for the benefit of those readers imprudent enough to read this article (who - this week - probably number in the tens of thousands).Amaxson 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, also guys, the Table of Contents -- pretty much the first thing you'd see -- gives them all away pretty clearly. Is there any way to obscure that? 64.95.27.5 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)sean

When you visit an encyclopedia of an in-universe item, how can anyone expect to only receive non-spoiler information? Come on, an article on an in-universe item is, by definition, a spoiler in and of itself. Nobody seems to go the encyclopedia article for, say, the 2007 Tour de France and then complain that they weren't warned that the article mentions who has one the different stages and what the standing is. I don't mean to be rude, but why do we have to protect people against their own stupidity? Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however since Horcruxes are mentioned in Half-Blood Prince, somebody wanting more information on them would have the ending of the final book spoiled.

The horcruxes are as follows:

1. Tom Riddle's Diary - made after the murder of Moaning Myrtle
2. Hufflepuff's Cup - made after the killing of Hepzibah Smith, after he took it from her
3. Slytherin's Locket - perhaps made after he killed Ms. Smith. (probably)
4. Ravenclaw's Diadem - made after he killed an Albanian peasant.
5. Slytherin's Ring - made after the murder of his uncle, Morfin Gaunt.
6. Nagini - made after the murder of the Riddle's groundskeeper.

The rest of the "horcruxes" are not horcruxes as no spell was performed by Voldemort to make them. His soul is esentially split into seven pieces if you include the part that he has in his current body. Harry Potter makes 8 separations of soul, however Voldemort does not know that. I have to get quotes, I know....I'm a litle foggy on the Slytherin's Locket and Hufflepuff's Cup creation, I know he made at least one of them because of her death. What my big question is...What horcrux did Voldemort use to restore himself in the Philosopher's Stone. His soul was attached to Harry's, so he had to have had one before he killed Harry that he used to return, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbloor (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate sources

The "Other theories" section needs some work if it is to be kept at all. First, this section mentions two sources for these theories, then references a few of them. David Langford's book "The End of Harry Potter" is an appropriate source. It is published and has an ISBN. However, "Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?" is self-published and does not have an ISBN. This is an inappropriate source. Furthermore, most of the references in this section point to the self-published book rather than "The End of Harry Potter". I have long argued AGAINST the inclusion of non-notable theories and speculation not mentioned in the Harry Potter books, but "End" is very appropriate, and its use is an excellent compromise. While it apparently mentions internet-based fan theories, the fact is that "End" is properly published and is therefore an appropriate source for citation. "Killed", however, is inappropriate, at least until it has been properly published (rather than self-published). I think anyone who has "End" should use that book to change all theories referring to the "Killed" book so that they refer to the "End" book. Anything not mentioned in "End" should be deleted.

I would gladly do this research myself, but I don't have a copy of the book (I'll look in the library to see if it exists in my local library system). --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought all books had ISBNs nowadays. However, it is 0-9723221-1-6. WHy would not having an ISBN make a difference? Sandpiper 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F. According to this, I cannot agree to let "End" be allowed as a reliable source. Langford is neither trustworthy or authoritative in the subject, as he has never written anything about HP before that. He isn't known for being an "established structure for fact checking" either, as there's no way to verify many of his claims that some theories would be the most popular (statements which are used in the article).

"End" from Langford is a source of questionable reliability, and thus should be avoided.

Look at the facts, if the only sources available for HP7 theories are a self-published book by Granger and a questionable book by Langford, it means the subject of HP7 fan theories is largely non-notable, because, as WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

How can you say that HP theories have received "significant coverage" when the only sources available are either self-published or questionable ? Folken de Fanel 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will quote you the dust jacket of 'the end of harry potter. :David Langford long ago used to be a nuclear physicist, but has been writing about science fiction and fantasy for many years. In 2006 he received his 27th Hugo award, the oscar of the SF/fantasy world. JK Rowling won one in 2001 for HP and the GOF, and may catch up with Langford some day. Langford's critical writing has appeared in many reference books, and in his own collections, The silence of the Langfords, The complete critical assembly and Up through an empty house of stars. He was on the editorial teams for the encyclopedia of fantasy 1997 and the greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy 2005, and is currently working on a new edition of the encyclopedia of science fiction. His for gollancz include the discworld quizbook, the unseen university challenge and the wyrdest link, bith introduced by terry pratchett. he also writes for magazines SFX and Interzone and publishes the irreverent SF newsletter Ansible.

So basically he is a professional writer for encyclopedias about fantasy fiction, who has now written a book about HP. I don't see that you could get a better expert on this subject. In the bibliography for his book he also mentions New clues to Harry Potter:Book5 by Galadriel Waters (2003), Unauthoriized Harry potter book seven news: half blood prince analysis and speculation by W frederick Zimmerman 2005/update 2006, mapping the world of Harry Potter by Mercedes Lackey and Leah Wilson 2005, The ivory tower and Harry Potter:perspectives on a literary phenomenon ed Lana A whitehead 2002/2004, the hidden myths in HP David Colbert 2004 and revisions.

Why exactly do you not consider him a competent authority to have analysed the book accurately? I think his awards alone make hime 'trustworthy and reliable', never mind his track record of writing about books. If he didn't do it well, he wouldn't keep getting awards for it. His book is exactly the sort of work which wiki should be quoting, and frankly in the absence of anyone going out and getting some of the others which actually disagree with him, I do not see any reason to believe his description of what is widely believed about lockets etc to be in any way disreputable.

I would also refer you to this comment by User:Phe in response to a query by ccrash, posted on phe's talk page.

First, as you point, the first part get better source than the second. For Granger I consider it as a reliable source. He already wrote non self-published book on HP topics (Tyndale House, 2004) sold up to 50 000 copy. This number is interesting, not as an argument ala "sold a lot means it's true", but given it I doubt self publishing is other books was forced by the lack of traditional editor wanting to publish them, many editors will be very happy with such number of copy sold. Granger gave also some lecture and various interview in HP related fields. So, as stated in Self published source:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications

I think, what says Granger in this books is relevant (but I understand the bolded part can cause trouble). Since Folken claims this is original research, I also point Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, especially

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

- phe 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, although it does not seem to have been included on this page, there is also the best-selling 'Mugglenet.com's what will happen in Harry potter 7, which you must all by now realise also talks about this.

Sandpiper, the rest of the content on self-published sources (excluding stuff about BLP, which really doesn't apply here):

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Basically, self-published may be appropriate (but this is up for debate), but it is really a last-ditch source that shouldn't be used if other, more notable (and published) material is available for the same subject. Here, we have a non-self-published work that describes pretty much the same thing, and it's been put to review as required by a non-vanity press. Why not use it instead of a self-published book? Also, Folken, the book itself has a publisher that would satisfy the attribution requirements (Tor Books is quite notable), so regardless of how you personally feel about the author, Tor Books has put this book through the ropes and decided that it is sufficient for publishing. That satisfies the requirements for attribution. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy not specifically mentioning any of them, because I think the information is widespread and generic. However, others seem to want as many sources as possible. This leads us inexorably to mentioning whatever books we happen to know about. There are others out there, but it is difficult to quote them unless you have a copy. A quick look at amazon for any of these throws up 'other similar books' currently available. I am also not entirely happy about dismissing Granger's book as 'self published'. The inference of something being 'self published' is that you print it yourself because no one would buy it. The book is available on amazon etc, and seems to me to be satisfactorily commercial. I suspect they self-published because they felt it would be a success, not because no one would touch it. I think phe made this point. Sandpiper 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The medium would be to slap the source at the end of the paragraph, if that paragraph uses content from the one book. Personally, I'd be a little happier if a single paragraph didn't include ten or twenty links to references, so a good compromise would be to try and make the content of one paragraph only require a couple of references at most. I'm not arguing that a book that is "self-published" is somehow lesser in, say, notability or saleability than a properly published book, but a properly published book will have gone through a significant level of peer review as required by the publisher, whereas a self-published work will not go through the same level of review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We did have a paragraph like that: unfortunately Folken then objected to every sentence which did not have a specific attribution to it. Hence, Michaelsanders generated page references for every single fact. I agree, it is ridiculous to references to such an extreme. In the case of the Granger book, I think all the material was previously published on the internet, and thus would already have been open to challenge by anyone reading the pages and posting feedback. I can't say where exactly it all came from, however. All the stuff about the locket at Grimmauld place is directly and clearly attributable to Langford, and generally from the books where there is descriptive material. Langford also mentions the possibility that Harry's scar is a horcrux, and some other less likely possibilities. There are several places in the books where can be found statements that Voldemort put something into Harry, eg the quote 'Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?', and how this came about remains unexplained. Sandpiper 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Publishing online doesn't make it go through the same editorial process as a print publication. The two books appear to give the same info, therefore, we should use the better-published one as a reference instead. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

website references

Rowling has recommended a number of websites, including mugglenet. About them she says:[1]It's high time I paid homage to the mighty MuggleNet. Where to start? I love the design, (I currently favour the 'Dementor' layout), the polls (I actually voted in the 'Who's the Half-Blood Prince?' one), the pretty-much-exhaustive information on all books and films, the wonderful editorials (more insight there than in several companion volumes I shall not name), 101 Ways to Annoy Lord Voldemort (made me laugh aloud), the Wall of Shame (nearly as funny as some of the stuff I get)… pretty much everything. Webmaster Emerson, Eric, Jamie, Damon, Ben, Matthew, Rachel, Jaymz and Sharon, I salute you. Their summary page about theories is here:[2]

Now, ccrash claims he denies any website is a good reference. He has still not explained this. Myself, I see absolutely nothing wrong in using mugglenet as a source to detail fan theories about the books. I can't really see why anyone would doubt that they accurately report such things, or suggest that they are not experts in this field. Mugglenet claims to have been viewed by 27 million visitors in 2005. When I checked it had 3800 people currently viewing [3]. The forum claims to have 10000 discussion topics, 74,000 members, 910000 posted comments [4]Sandpiper 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't explained this? Really? Again, you are being obtuse (ooo...big word...look it up) or lying...your choice. Anyone can create a website. Anyone can contribute to this website. No one properly edits or ensures that what is posted is factual. Look at Wikipedia. If Mugglenet is populated with people like you, I wouldn't hesitate to call it a pack of morons. Regardless of their seeming expertise, it is made up of fan speculation. From what I understand, both Langford's and Granger's books simply regurgitate these fan speculations. So, in my opinion, they aren't valid sources either. But regardless. Once again, Sandpiper, you are beating a dead horse. As far as I am concerned, you can keep your theories. When the book comes out, the speculation will be replaced by facts, and your aberrations will be removed from what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia. Ccrashh 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No you havn't explained, or maybe. You seem to be sticking with your original statement that all websites, including wikipedia, encyclopedia britanica, any of the online newspapers, government publications, and so on are are all unacceptable sources. I feel that many people will disagree with you. On the other hand, if what you really mean is some websites are acceptable, while others are not, then you need to explain more clearly how you propose to make a distinction.

The difficulty with self-publication is exactly the same whatever the medium. For example, I think the charge was levelled at Berluscone, the Italian politician, that all his TV stations only broadcast what he wanted. ie self-publication. On the other hand, most national television stations would probably be regarded as good sources. A number of national newspapers also belong to or are controlled by individuals, and can therefore also be accused of self publication. The classic case is where someone pays to print a book, and then gives it away, because no one would be willing to buy it. This distinction too is now breaking down, because self-publication as a commercial operation is relatively easy. Might as well take the profit yourself. There exist self-published websites, where the author of what is posted there is also the owner. However, mugglenet HPlexicon and TLC (to name some examples, not an exclusive list) are not in this category. They were started by one person, but now have large editorial teams, and publish information from outsiders. They have established reputations, which rely upon their publishing sensible material.

Material on such sites is heavily checked for factual accuracy. First by the staff concerned, next by anybody reading the website, who can posts comments and report inaccuracies. This is rather better and more immediate checking than a number of traditional sources, feedback is very direct and public. You are right, they do check editorial material much better than does wikipedia. There is a whole world of difference between a website which displays some information, which no reader has any power to alter, and another where anyone reading it can post a comment objecting to any inaccuracies.

I have to say I don't see why you look so negatively upon the work done by 'fans'. All you need to work on this is a set of the books, which you could probably get second hand for £10. Its not as though you need a million pound lab to do good research. Analysis of the books has proceeded piece by piece with contributions from very many people, each of whom has contributed something. This is a very amateur operation, in the very best sense of the word 'amateur'. People do not have to paid to get good results. In fact, anyone being paid to conduct research obviously has an immediate built in conflict of interest if they get any results which might threaten their funding. Analysis has been made possible precisely because these forums exist on the internet, where anybody can read work completed so far and add to it. This is certainly an unusual development, an international collaboration between thousands of people, but it is not something which should lightly be dismissed. As I said, it is also exceptionally well fact checked.

Again, you are misunderstanding what constitutes a fact. The issue here is not whether anything posted on a website is true. The issue is whether these postings exist, and whether there are accepted conclusions amongst them. You may despise them, and utterly reject their conclusions, but that does not alter the fact of their existence. If they exist, we are entitled to report them. Sandpiper 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A web site may, of course, be a good reference, depending on what is being quoted. I would submit that forum posts on speculation and theories would be insufficient. However, I don't think there is any need to use forum posts since a published book already mentions various popular fan theories (including some that originated online). Why use questionable sources when a good one exists that can say the same thing? --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

under the circumstances, the more the better. Online references are also immediately available to everyone, whereas one of the difficulties we have here is that we are not all going to get hold of copies of the books about this to argue about. Nor are readers of articles. I agree forum posts are a very difficult thing to reference, because while they are very informative, they are also incredibly badly organised and repetitious. Also, in a case like this where the main debate happened years ago, difficult to locate the archived debates. However, happily such places include editorials and summaries of the debate, which is really the sensible place to look. Obviously a summary misses some of the high points (and low), but we are really only interested in situations where there is a clear consensus on a few major points. Rowling has highlighted a few websites, even invited some of them to interview her, so picking sources isnt too difficult. By now these websites have a reputaion for expertise in this area. Sandpiper 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Rowling really has helped by mentioning some web sites, and it's certainly helped us pare down some of the sites to mention. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving heads-up

I would like to archive the discussions on this page, from the top right down through the end of section 12. Talk:Horcrux#Are books predictable?, unless there is more to be discussed there. This would leave Section 13 Talk:Horcrux#misuse of vandalism tag and 14. Talk:Horcrux#Appropriate sources and 15. Talk:Horcrux#website_references remaining active. If anyone objects to archiving to clear the older discussions, or has more to say in the affected sections, please say so soon. By the way - I selected to the end of section 12 primarily because that would make /Archive 5 to be essentially the same length as the other four archives in the series. Thanks. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, it is done. If a n argument discussion needs to be brought back from the dead archives and resumed, let us know. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Eighth Horcrux?

Wouldn't there have to be an eighth Horcrux, used when Lord Voldemort was first defeated at Godric Hollows, which allowed his resurrection? Or are they not consumed when death occurs? 68.13.65.152 15:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

After some talk in the book about how death of a person destroys the body but not the soul, I guess not. On another note: did Voldemort himself contain an eighth piece of his soul, or did he put the last of his soul into Naigini, not realising Harry already held a piece? 213.208.94.205 12:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (Rawling)

Where does it say that there is an eight Horcrux as i do not remember this.The existence of a single Horcrux will assure Voldermort that he does not die(and he already had several by the time of the attack at Godric's Hallow).I will remove the section until actual proof in the books is revealed.Denisa hime 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldy had some soul in his body, albeit badly mangled, or else he would have been like Barty Crouch after the Dementor's Kiss.

As to the Mysterious eighth Horcrux, no such thing existed. It is never mentioned in the book, and anyway that is not how Horcruxes work: they act as anchors to the living plane - even if your body is destroyed, as Voldy's was, your soul cannot die while fragments of it are held in Horcruxes. All Voldy did in HP4 was to create a new body in which to house the "main" part of his soul. No Horcruxes were "used up". I've removed the section for being an unreferenced, original theory. chgallen 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading the book I was wondering which is the sixth Horcrux. The book only mentions 5:

The ring, the diadem, the cup, the locket and Nagini.

Harry is a Horcrux but Voldemort is unaware of this. If he split his soul into 7 pieces, with he himself being the seventh, then where is the sixth (according the Voldemort count)? The article says:

Not knowing that he had inadvertently made Harry into a Horcrux, Voldemort believed Nagini to be his sixth and last Horcrux necessary to split his soul into the magically significant seven pieces.

So, if Nagini was the sixth, Voldemort was the 7th... That makes Harry number 8 and ... there's one missing. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AAAH! And the diary makes 8. Thanks. How stupid of me. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Voldemort made his soul so unstable he actually created an eight-part soul instead of a seven part one as he intended. By the time he inadvertently made Harry his 6th Horcrux (later making Nagini his 7th), there wasn't enough left in him to miss any particular piece (further shown when the diary, ring, and locket were destroyed; it probably led to considerable doubt in his mind as to whether the cup and the diadem had been destroyed when he had the final confrontation with Harry. He knew the cup had been stolen, but he felt the diadem was the best protected). The bit of Voldemort in Harry during their last two confrontations had huge meaning. The Elder Wand refused to kill it's master in the final duel, but whether Harry was the master of the Hallows or if the Elder Wand worked on the Horcrux that was Harry can be debated (perhaps both; I think the Elder Wand saw two targets, and said I can't kill my master, but I can get rid of that unimportant bit of soul).

-- I don't think the elder wand to be so powerful to destroy a soul, even if it's a small part. In any case, Harry died from the killing curse, therefore destroying the container of the horcrux and destroying it. Perhaps, him returning to life was a choice he could make given that Harry was the master of death or holder of the hallows. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.0.123 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear (though this is in no way the place to discuss these things), there are seven horcruxes: The diary, the ring, the locket, the diadem, the cup, Harry, and Nagini. Seven Horcruxes means that there are eight pieces of soul, as the final piece is in Voldemort himself (this is the part that was "freeflowing" when his body was destroyed first time around). Lilac Soul 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a very experienced editor, so I thought I'd bring this up. In the section on Harry as a Horcrux, it states that Dumbledore must realize that Harry is a Horcrux sometime between books 2 and 6. I think he realizes it in fact at the end of book 2. When talking to Harry at the usual end-of-book meeting, Harry says "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?", to which Dumbledore responds "It certainly seems so." (page 333 of the softcover version of Chamber of Secrets) This certainly suggests that Dumbledore realizes that Harry is a horcrux, and combined with the existence of the diary, he must realize also that Voldemort made multiple horcruxes. Ekao1111 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things, one for and one against. Your timeline is supported by the statement of Rowling that she had removed the discussion of a major plot point from her original intention for Book 2 into Book 6. Now that we can see the series as a whole, that moved plot point is clearly the issue of horcruxes. The question of when Dumbledore knew about horcruxes specifically is a bit stickier though. Cleary by book 5 he knows for sure that there is a soul-wise connection between Harry and Voldemort, and by book 4 he knows that there is a physical connection from Voldy's ressurection that gives him a sense of triumph. The problem, however, is Dumbledore's statement that he is going to tell Harry everything in Book 5: if he already knows about horcruxes being the specific magic behind Voldy's secrets and his connection to Harry, this is seemingly a lie, and a lie that makes no sense given that he tells Harry about them next year anyway. Given the uncertainty here, I don't think we can do more than speculate: and thus it can't be part of the article.67.109.81.2 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that in an interview with Jo Rowling she specifically states that Harry Potter was NOT a horcrux, she just merely used the word because the fact that Voldemort's soul attaching itself to Harry was something that never happened before and it was just easier to say that he was the Horcrux. When I find the interview, I will link to the transcript. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.232.101 (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't it say that Harry couldn't speak Parseltounge anymore so didn't the Elder Wand destroy the piece of Voldemort in Harry? Queenqpawn (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Queenqpawn

Article Error?

"The first known example of such an object was introduced in the second novel of the series, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" isn't correct, is it? Seeing as Harry is a Horcrux, the first example of a Horcrux would have been introduced in the very first book. I've changed the article to accomodate this. 216.48.42.99 13:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've slimmed it even more to avoid giving anything away. Several other Horcruxes predate HPB--Nagini the snake is mentioned as early as GoF, and IIRC the diadem is seen in OotP. --EngineerScotty 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "Horcrux"

Anyone know the correct pronunciation, and have a canonical source for it (say, an audio book edition of HPB, the first novel to mention Horcruxes)? If that is known and can be source, it would make an excellent addition to the article. --EngineerScotty 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[5] - not sure if it's canonical. chgallen 10:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm thats the American publisher right? Some words are at least not pronounced as they are in the UK audiobooks, without the American accent. Go In-FE-rai CHANDLERtalk 10:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronounced basically as it's written in the movie. don't understand the way they're written on WP, but it's basically hoor-CRUCKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.labes (talk • contribs) 08:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but

I think I remember something like a horcrux in a fantasy book before Harry Potter, in which a dark wizard could only be killed by the destruction of a part of his body which was cut off and stored in a box. Can anyone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.14.100 (talk • contribs).

There was a section making such analogies in the article previously. However, unless those comparisons are cited to a reliable source, they are original research, and are not acceptable. --Eyrian 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Voldemort Harry's Horcrux?

How did Voldemort become a horcrux for Harry?? I don't remember reading anything leading up to it... when was this horcrux created?

It's not quite that. It's explained that Voldemort turned Harry into a Horcrux, which kept Harry alive while Voldemort was as well. Dumbledore explains it in the afterlife-like chapter. --Eyrian 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort is not Harry's Horcrux, it's the other way around. Voldemort has Lily's protection in his veins from Goblet of Fire when he uses Harry's blood, and thus Harry cannot be killed by Voldemort. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fictional In-Verse Crap

What's with whoever's gone around and added that notice plus the word "Fictional" everywhere in the article? If one had to include "fictional" every time one describes an object that does not exist in real life, it'd probably be in the Top10 if not 5 of the most common words on Wikipedia!

If should suffice that the article makes note of that the objects described herein are fictional. Likewise, on the sections describing each object, there are hyperlinks to sites where it's specifically stated that each of the characters are fictional (or so I presume).

We cannot go around and add "Fictional" to every other sentence. FallenAngelII 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The "similar soul containers" section

Does anyone have The Poisonwood Bible handy? What's the name of the trinket given to Ruth May that will supposedly protect her? Should that be in the "similar soul containers" section?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.93.210 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Given the notability tag currently at the top of the page, shouldn't we at least discuss the issue? I personally I'm not certain why the issue would come up at all; it seems extremely unlikely that the article will actually be deleted. But shouldn't we have an explanation of why not? I don't understand the policy well enough to do anything with it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.106.74 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Murder that Made Harry a Horcrux

Doesn't the seventh book explicitly state that it was Voldemort's murder of Lily that made Harry a Horcrux? Parableman 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't check it at the moment, but I'm relatively sure it says it happened when Voldemort tried to kill Harry (with Lily already having sacrificed herself, giving Harry her protection). V-train 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I does indeed. In Dumbledore's words, "The Prince's Tale", page 550: "Tell him that on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself on to the only living soul left in that collapsing building." Seems clear enough to me, unless there's something I'm missing? --Maggu 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. There is no evidence, implied or explicit, anywhere that Lily had anything at all to do with Harry becoming a Horcrux. Lily's sacrifice did indeed protect Harry from dying that night, but that in no way extends to the spell that creates a Horcrux. We simply don't know how Harry became a Horcrux and JKR has, as yet, shed no light on the subject. Flernk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get it. I seems to me that there can be little doubt about what happened in this case. I think you'll have to lead me through what exactly you (and others) think is unclear. For starters:

• Do you agree that the event described in the quote above is what made Harry a Horcrux?
• Do you agree that a murder (not merely a death) is required to make a Horcrux?

(I suppose it's possible that there are other explanations, but we have no reason at all to think so. It's a bit like saying: "Are we sure that the diadem was in the Room of Requirement? Perhaps it was an illusion and they only thought they were there?")

--Maggu 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A spell is required to create a horcrux and the spell was not cast. Yes, Harry was turned into a horcrux on this occasion and, yes, Lily and James were murdered, but the spell is missing. Since the normal creating process wasn't followed, there is no way to know which murder, if any, served as the catalyst (it may have been Lily, or James, or any number of Voledmort's previous victims). The point is, there's no way to know and JKR has not yet clarified. JKR may eventually say definitively how Harry became a horcrux, but until then this section will remain N/A. Flernk 00:15, 17 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

As you say, the book never describes the details of the magic required to make a Horcrux: for all we know, since Voldemort intended to make his final one that night, he had already cast the necessary enchantments and simply needed to pick the murder. But it doesn't make much sense that he would have used either Lily or James' murder: both were trivial, and he didn't even particularly intend to kill Lily until she resisted him. Voldemort does not seem to think that Lily's murder is itself significant or has any special effect, and there is no reason to think that his killing of her created the Horcrux: it was his attempt to kill Harry that had the bizarre effects. I vote we simply not say anything about the issue until if and when we get more information.Plunge 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the killing curse that Voldemort tried to use on Harry that broke off a piece of his soul, that then attached itself to Harry. It wasn't Lilly's death that made Harry a horcrux, it was Voldemort's quasi-death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckfootx (talk • contribs) 20:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I think that as the horcrux was made accidently, it's obvious that there was no spell cast. I also think that it was the general instability of Voldemort's soul that caused a piece of it to go into Harry, however, I could be wrong. I also think that to people in the Harry Potter world it would be very obscure and they wouldn't know how it happened, either. Shmooshkums 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the book again, and Dumbledore clearly explains it that ALL THREE murders/attempts tore Voldemort's already highly unstable soul, and that his "death" broke a piece off which went into Harry. No spells are mentioned: this seems like a very unique way of making a horcrux that didn't require particular spells (beyond those that made Voldy's soul so unstable to begin with). So trying to fit it into the "one death per one horcrux" model we are currently using doesn't seem to make sense.67.109.81.2 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to write, "The murder of Lily Potter made Harry an accidental Horcrux", but after reading the entire discussion it just appears not to be so. I wish it were, because that would be nothing less than poetic justice, since Voldemort's demise would be the direct result of his own evil folly. Saying somehow the rebounded killing curse split his soul, and somehow that piece of soul entered Harry Potter makes the whole ending much less airtight and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.235.107.206 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter as a Horcrux

On the table it lists the creation of the Harry Potter Horcrux as being caused by the death of Lord Voldemort. This is untrue. Firstly, it is not death that splits a soul, but murder (so the table heading should be changed). Secondly it was Lord Voldemort's soul's general instability that, when faced with the destruction of Voldemort's body the soul split again. If the creation of the Horcrux were to be associated with a murder of a person, it should either be 'Harry Potter', 'General Instability of Lord Voldemort's soul', although in my opinion it would be better to leave that box on the table blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13djb13 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the "Created with the murder of" field for Harry Potter should be Lily and James Potter. When Voldemort murdered Lily and James Potter and attempted to murder Harry Potter, part of his soul (even if he didn't know it, it still happened) was embedded into Harry. Therefore, "Created with the murder of" should read Lily and James Potter, not "N/A".Jab416171 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On the PotterCast Interview to Jo Rowling, the author says that the creation of a Horcrux implies intention, so Harry should not be considered a Horcrux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.155.127.211 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible notability reference

At the AfD, an anon pointed out that the word "horcrux" without giving any sort of contextual clues in a fantasy sports article; this may be one step towards working out the article. Excellent reasons for keeping the article, btw. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Tom Riddles Diary

Originally proposed to be put into Lord Voldemorts article, it was felt that it would be more appropriate here. Judgesurreal777 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely faithless (^speak) 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Seems like the best place for it. V-train 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree completely.Neville Longbottom 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Tom Riddle's Diary entry needs a lot of clean-up, but this is definitely the best place for it.. ∅BRIT 17 September 2007
• Merge, and clean-up as stated above. Lord Opeth 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Guess I'm just echoing here....yeah, let's merge. Keyblade Mage 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Harry not a Horcrux

I added this in the comments anonymously, however I would like to make it an actual topic. JK Rowling specifically said in an interview that Harry was not a horcrux, she just called him that because it was convenient and the manner of Voldemort's soul bonding to his was a one in a million thing, that probably would never happen again, so instead of going in to the whole concept of this she just ended up calling him a horcrux. It was referenced on the Harry Potter Podcast by the Leaky Cauldron and I am currently looking for a transcript of the article to quote. --Kbloor (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was also referenced on her site, however if anyone has gone to the site you find how difficult it is to find something twice, it is updated so much. Still looking for the transcript, I contacted the administration of The Leaky Cauldron for the article, they will get it to me Kbloor (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I was just about to mention this. The only place I can find any evidence is Pottercast, but they don't have a transcript yet. Arry 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry IS a Horcrux. Here is the transcript in question:

Q: When Harry was stabbed by a basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, since he was a Horcrux shouldn't it have been destroyed then?

JKR: I have been asked that a lot. Harry was exceptionally fortunate in that he had Fawkes. So before he could be destroyed without repair, which is what is necessary to destroy a horcrux, he was mended. However, I made sure that Fawkes wasn't around the second time a Horcrux got stabbed by a basilisk fang, so the poison did its work and it was irreparable within a short period of time.... I established early in the book, Hermione says that you destroy a Horcrux by using something so powerful that there's no remedy. But she does say there is a remedy for basilisk poison but of course it has to be administered immediately and when they stab the cup later - boy I'm really blowing this for anyone who hasn't finished the book - there's Fawkes, is my answer. And thank you for giving me a chance to say that because people have argued that quite a lot. ∅BRIT 30 November 2007

That article is from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, she has since said that he was not a Horcrux. Again, I say that she just merely references Harry as a Horcrux because that is the most convienent way to do it rather than to explain what happened. If you go to the pottercast that is referenced she explains why she calls him a horcrux and thus making the argument null. I would also like to mention that in that same interview she said she will still be calling Harry a horcrux, only to make explaining things more easily. I ask you to listen to the pottercast please. Or go to [6] and search through the message boards, there are many references. The people on the pottercast actually met JKR and she confirmed him with this, I will get the exact transcript. I refer you to the following <a href="http://pottercast.the-leaky-cauldron.org/episode/show/156">Pottercast</a>, please listen to it, then formulate your opinion. Kbloor 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We call that "original research" and it is expressly forbidden. Show me an instance when JKR actually said "Harry is not a Horcrux" (or anything like it), and I will gladly edit the entry myself. Until then, Harry is (obviously) a Horcrux.

And, for the record, the article I linked to was from a 19 October 2007 Q&A at Carnegie Hall following the release of the Deathly Hallows. It also happened to be the Q&A where she revealed the sexuality of Dumbledore. ∅BRIT 2 December 2007

I know what you mean. Until I find the transcript, I can't back up my point 100%, however what I can say is that a spell or some other sort of preparation is needed to create a Horcrux, therefore there is no such thing as an "accidental horcrux", you either are a horcrux or you aren't. That can be referrenced in the Deathly Hallows and no spell was performed by Voldemort to create one. Dumbledore also says that the part of Voldemort's soul that was expelled by the backfiring of the curse just attached itself to the closest soul, which happened to be Harry. So far we can't say that Harry is not a horcrux, but we really can't say he is because according to canon, the mechanics of making a horcrux are missing (I'm new I don't know how these are referenced.) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Chapter 6 pgs 102 - 103, Scholastic Edition & Chapter 35 pgs 706 - 707, Scholastic Edition)--Kbloor (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"a spell or some other sort of preparation is needed to create a Horcrux, therefore there is no such thing as an 'accidental horcrux'" : We don't know that for sure, though. Nowhere does it say that is the only way to create a horcrux. As far as we know so far, unless JKR says otherwise, is that Harry is exactly that: an accidental horcrux. "we really can't say he is" - Of course we can, because the canon specifically says he is a horcrux. V-train (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you V-train. The books specifically refer to Harry as a Horcrux. Kbloor, your argument is very in-universe. Your assertions ("can't," "can," "no such thing," "Dumbledore said," "the mechanics," etc.) are based on a wizarding world point of view. From an objective view of the fiction, Harry is obviously a Horcrux since that was precisely the plot device Rowling used to build a climactic confrontation for the entire series. --- And now that I think about it, how do we know that the spell wasn't said? Perhaps Voldemort uttered the spell while intending to use the murder of Harry to create a Horcrux out of another object. This is pure speculation, of course, which is my point. Until Rowling says something specific, we simply don't know. ∅BRIT 5 December 2007

You guys would probably like to listen to this interview. It's pretty long, so the relevant bit to Horcruxes is about 40-45% through if you want to skip to it (though it's pretty interesting to HP fans, I'd recommend listening to it all). faithless (^speak) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Out of the mouth of JK Rowling herself. Harry can not be defined specifically as a horcrux!!! And Harry is not a Horcrux! [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbloor (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

VERY interesting. Now we have to decide how to integrate that into the article. V-train (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction we can define what a Horcrux is by using what JK Rowling said in the interview. The transcript should be up soon. We have to make it clear that JK Rowling's use of the word Horcrux when referring to Harry is just a means of convenience. We would also have to change the Horcrux list. Harry obviously was a vessel for Voldemort's soul, however he can not be defined as a horcrux due to the very definition of a Horcrux. Kbloor (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rowling updated her website with a few interesting things. This one is sort-of relevant to the Horcrux debate, while this one isn't really, but still good to know. faithless (^speak) 10:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The way the article is now, it both says he is a horcrux and that he isn't. I've therefore tagged the section about HP with a self-contradictory tag, although really it applies to more than just that section (the table and general discussion of V's horcruxes as well). Aleta (Sing) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up and reworded the Harry Potter section to remove contradictions. Harry still acts as a Horcrux in that he is a component of Voldemort's immortality, so it's important to leave him in the article. ∅BRIT 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the qualifying term "de facto" to two instances of Harry being mentioned as a Horcrux. I hope this is acceptable. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Six Horcruxes?

In the section about Voldy's horcruxes, it says "Only six Horcruxes ever existed at any one time in the series", but it's not true, there was a time in which all seven (plus the eight bit of soul in voldemort) existed, or so I think. Could anyone clear this up a bit? 200.26.164.235 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry destroyed the Tom Riddle Diary horcrux in Chamber of Secrets. The Nagini horcrux was created later with the mysterious disappearence and death of Bertha Jorkins in Goblet of Fire. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 03:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow!, that was fast! thank you very much200.26.164.235 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   I see lots of reverts in the article hisory. possibly not stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As far as I can see I beleive this is a good article. It passes all counts as far as I can see. Due to the fact that I am slightly attached to the article even though I have not edited it I still see a Conflict of interest so I ask for a second opinion

   Passing; The reverts seem to be normal OR insertion. Will ^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead kind of short

I think the lead should say a bit more. Right now all it talks about is what books they're in. It doesn't really say what they are at all. Seems important to have that. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Horcrux

In an interview JK Rowling states that Herpo the Foul was the first wizard to make a horcrux, Voldemort was the first to split it into so many pieces. All the information can be found here. JK Rowling Interview at Leaky Cauldron

Kbloor (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of Horcruxes

This article states that the diary is the first horcux and the ring the second. However, Rowling states that Riddle killed his father in the summer of his 16th year, which is the summer when he was 15. He was 16 in his sixth year at Hogwarts, which is the year he killd Myrtle and made the diary horcrux. So the ring was the first horcrux, and the diary was the second. The article has it backwards. Parableman (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in Slughorn's memory, he's already got his ring, which he got just before he killed his father. She says that death made the ring a horcrux. So when he asks about the possibility of making more than one horcrux, he's already made one, and it's the ring, not the diary. He must have made the diary a horcrux after talking to Slughorn. Parableman (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like like synthesis. Aleta (Sing) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

REPLY This is actually a sound argument and the chronology is already clearly referenced in the books. I updated the article to reflect this. If there is an issue in the future, we need only remove the words "first" and "next" in the opening paragraphs of each section (since this is the only explicit indication of creation order). ∅BRIT 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Horcruxes vs. Horcri: Which is the proper plural?

Although the books feature the characters saying "Horcruxes" a great number of time, J. K. Rowling has recently revealed in an interview (this one: http://pottercast.the-leaky-cauldron.org/episode/show/166) that Horcri is the "really correct term" (paraphrased). This is contrary to previous information calling Horcri the wrong word and favoring Horcruxes, but JKR's word is law around the Wiki Harry Potter articles, so what should it be? - Angelica K (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Horcrux, as that is what the books refer to them as. It'll confuse many users if we call them Hocri as most people will not know about this interview. Jammy (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If Rowling said so, I'd use Horcri. It's understandable that Harry and company would simply use "Horcruxes" out of colloquial habit.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And Jammy, they will know about the interview if we use it as a reference.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not many people even look at the references, I hardly ever do, so Horcrux is a more understandable term to use. If J.K Rowling used Horcrux in the book then that is really what should be used. Jammy (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? You've been using singular...we're talking about which plural is better. And frankly, it's people's own faults if they don't check references. They should probably take a moment to glance at the floating number instead of wondering "where did THAT come from?" forevermore.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, JKR has previously said that it's "Horcruxes" and not "Horcri" (on the FAQ at her site, if that bit's still up). "Horcruxes" is the more theoretically correct form: Assuming that it's a typical third-declension -x Latin word, such as mendax -- mendaces, it would probably be Horcruces in the plural, although Horcruxes would be what is easier to say. "Horcri" is a corruption of the second declension rule for words ending in us (such as servus -- servi), which Horcrux is most distinctly NOT. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Dumbledore himself said "Horcruxes" at some point in the books (although I'd have to look that up) and if he doesn't use the correct plural, who would? - Angelica K (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In the HBP movie, which will have Rowling's input, Hermione describes the plural as Horcruxes. Joel.labes (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article status

I am sorry to say that I do not believe that the article as it currently is meets the good article criteria for the following reasons:

Criteria 1b - The article should meet the manual of style requirements for fiction, these are set out in WP:WAF, the guideline states that articles on fiction should "write from a real-world perspective" I do not beleive this is the case for several sections of the article including the Destruction section and the sections on the individual horcruxes (horcri?). The guideline also says that article should "avoid original research" which I believe is another problem with the article - elaborated on below.

Criteria 2b - The article should provide reliable sources which verify all content. The Harry Potter Lexicon and Pottercast are both used as sources, fansites and fansite podcasts are no considered to be reliable sources.

Criteria 2c - The article should contain no original reasearch, currently this is not the case. The final section Similar objects in other works of fiction has one source for one of the "Similar objects". The other examples are unsourced. This is pure original research by synthesis, if a reliable source has not commented on the similarity, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to speculate about a connection.

I've mentioned this at the Harry Potter Wikiproject and will give editors a few days to comment on/ address the concerns raised before delisting (per WP:GAR). Guest9999 (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I second the opinion of Guest9999 (talk · contribs). This is a fun article but it is not an encyclopedia article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

REPLY Guest999, it's nice to see you back for your quarterly trashing of this article. Please do us all a favor and instead of constantly pointing out perceived problems with the Horcrux article (including two unsuccessful attempts to have it deleted), take the time to update the article. Frankly, I'm tired of your unwarranted criticisms. If the article needs fixing, then fix it. That's the point of Wikipedia. ∅BRIT 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm junking the "similar objects" section, as it's nothing but OR, not to mention a thinly-veiled trivia section which adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. I'll have a more thorough look tomorrow (today, technically), as it's nearly four in the morning and time for me to hit the hay. faithless (^speak) 07:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. Just a note that I only helped passed the stability criteria. The rest were already passed. I have no bearing on whether it should be a GA or not (though, having a look, it doesn't look GA standard). Will ^(talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst obviously some work has been done I think there is still work to be done, since some users seem to think I have some kind of vendetta against the article I'll list it for reassessment to get some "independent" input. Guest9999 (talk)

I just re-read what I wrote above and it sounds horrific, I really didn't mean to offend anybody. As originally stated the article is now up for reassessment. Im sorry if my language seemed harsh or vindictive it wasn't the intention when written. Guest9999 (talk)

Locket's comparison with the One Ring

I have this source from the HP Influences and Analogues article which says that some reviews have found similarities between Slytherin's locket and Sauron's One Ring. Here they are: "Several reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows noted that the locket used as a Horcrux by Voldemort bore comparison to Tolkien's One Ring, as it negatively affects the personality of the wearer." References include:

• Elizabeth Hand (2007). "Harry's Final Fantasy: Last Time's the Charm". Powell's Books. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
• Gina Carbone (2007). "Book review: 'Deathly Hallows'". Seacoastonline. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
• Laura Miller (2007). "Goodbye, Harry Potter". salon.com. Retrieved 2007-09-04.

Should we include this in the article? --Lord Opeth (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It's short, relevant and well sourced. Why not? faithless (^speak) 05:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Riddikulus

Isn't this article slightly ridiculous? The Horcrux was just barely a main plot point of the harry potter series. Theoretically there should be a similar article on Portkeys. This article should be merged into the article on Lord Voldemort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.105.232 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the books, its a major plot point spanning the entire series since harry himself was one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that a certain section of the Harry Potter series shouldn't necessarily require an entire Wikipedia article. If this were the Harry Potter wiki, it would be a given, but with Wikipedia's new stance on information bloat, I am just suggesting that perhaps this is an unnecessary page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.105.232 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Murders Committed

Re: The table containing pertinent information about the Horcruxes

How do we know some of the murders? For example, Moaning Myrtle was killed by the basilisk, not Tom Riddle, so how could that have ripped his soul? Also, I have a funny feeling that the muggle tramp and Albanian phesant are random, as Riddle reserved Horcrux creation for "special" killings (See Book 6). Do we know these, or are we just pretending? spider1224 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, just read the reference #11. Sorry for my disbelief! spider1224 12:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference leads to a broken page now. Other murders not withstanding, at least one murder seems to be contradicted by the books. It says that Voldemort used the murder of Tom Riddle Senior to create the ring Horcrux, however, in Book 6 Riddle is seen wearing the ring in Slughorn's memory (indicating that he already killed his father, since he took the ring the same night he murdered the Riddles). However, at this point he still doesn't know how to create Horcruxes, since he's asking Slughorn about how to create them. Dumbledore also comments that after the ring became a Horcrux he felt it too precious to wear, and hid it. Unless a new reference can be found I'm inclined to edit this out... 43.244.33.36 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No he knew how to create horcruxes. He only asked slughorn what the effect of MULTIPLE horcrxues would have. This is specified by Dumbledore, or if it was JKR in a interview. And there is nothing that says you have to create the horcrux the same moment you kill. The information is correct. — chandler — 05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Im guessing this is the updated reference [8] — chandler — 05:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I know these books. We do not know whose murder created the locket; it never says. 'Muggle Tramp' was made up. 'Moaning Myrtle' was made up because she was killed by the basilisk. 'Albanian peasant' was an assumption. And finally, Nagini the horcrux was created after the murder of Frank Bryce. Direct quote from Book 6: 'After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man (which incidentally isn't true because in book 4 it says that he used a curse, but I find these things everywhere), and it might then have occured to him to turn her into his last horcrux.' Now, I know that this does not say that it was Frank Bryce's murder that made her the horcrux, but it's a heck of a better assumption than a murder that he made several months later in front of Wormtail. See what I mean? I think Unknown should be subbed for muggle tramp, albanian peasant, and moaning myrtle.Panther991 (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage of Horcruxes for control

"Once possessed, the soul within the Horcrux can take total control of the person's actions while the person remains completely unaware of the connection. Once a person has become possessed by a Horcrux, the Dark Wizard has the ability to take corporeal form by draining the life force of the possessed person" This could be inferred from Chamber of Secrets, but as we discover that Harry is also a Horcrux, both of these are inaccurate: when Voldemort takes over Harry's body in Ministry of Magic, he is aware of the connection, and Voldemort doesn't drain Harry's life force to regain a human form. Or that's my interpretation anyway. Joel.labes (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

still believe there were 7 horcruxes, not 7 parts...

Is there actually any sure evidence (JKR cite or something) that we correctly understand what Dumbledore says about the number of horcruxes Riddle wished to create on p. 503 of Half-Blood Prince? If not, please take the following arguments into consideration:

• first of all: i talk only about "intentional" horcruxes - i don't count Harry as a "horcrux" here
• in Half-Blood Prince - young Riddle, while talking to Slughorn, is opposing ONE horcrux to SEVEN horcruxes, not TWO soul parts to SEVEN soul parts
• there is no evidence that a piece of soul hidden in horcrux is somehow different than the one that remains in body (people use to call it "main"); actually it seem that they own similar "abilities" (see diary) - though the former only lacks human body
• if a piece of soul kept in horcrux is destroyed by the time the container is destroyed - why the piece of soul kept in the "main" body would remain as a "bodyless soul" after the body is being destroyed?
• it is mentioned in Philospher's Stone that Quirrel met Voldemort while "travelling around the world". i can hardly believe that voldemort's soul (the one that left his body after Godric Hollow events) was wandering around looking for fellows. it is rather that Quirrel found actually the seventh - not mentioned ever before and after - horcrux, which possesed him
• moreover - after Quirrel being killed - this seventh part of soul remains in horcrux found later by pettigrev (according to my reasoning - the eight part, the "main" one is missing, destroyed at Godric Hollow)
• this seventh horcrux is used to regain Voldemort's body+soul in Goblet of Fire
• and that is why Voldemort creates another horcrux then: Nagini - to compensate for the missing one
• Dumbledore's words in Half-Blood Prince do not point out unambiguously where does the part of Voldemort's soul that lives in his body come from

If I am wrong - please correct me. If JKR said somewhere that there were six horcruxes and that's it - i promise i'll shut up. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.157.177 (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, everything you say is great speculation, but speculation nonetheless. It's unfortunate that there are no definitive answers to what was and what wasn't a horcrux - and because of that, we can't really add this to the article - since we don't speculate, only report canon. Ccrashh (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely understand that what i said is speculation. However it is stated in the article that "there were six horcruxes" and this fact is based upon Dumbledore's words in HBP. I try to show that this is not a realiable source, as these words are amibguous. 62.152.157.177 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)kuba

I'm trying to avoid searching for the text in the books, but I believe your premises are wrong, or at least four and five are and the rest follow. The whole point of the horcruxes was that he couldn'tt die. Destroying one "releases" the fragment of soul that was placed within it, but it cannot go and possess something else - otherwise there'd be no destroying it! You must remove all of them before you can kill the original being, whatever soul is left within the body. Voldemort should've died when struck by the killing curse, but because of the horcruxes could not. Thus his soul, undead, was wrenched from his body. There is testament from Voldemort himself that he "was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but still [he] was alive." (GoF, 421) He could inhabit others, such as rats, snakes, and to an extent, Quirrel. Thus, there were only seven parts, six horcruxes, just as Dumbledore explained. He didn't use Nagini to make up for a lost one, he used Nagini as his sixth, finally, as he intended to the night he tried to kill Harry. End fancruft. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)