Talk:Horcrux

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

---

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)

misuse of vandalism tag

Guys, please quit putting spoilers in the article at least until tonight. Scholastic can still sue so please remember that.

ccrash, why did you plaster a tag warning against vandalising this page on the page of an anon who edited horcrux and inserted part of what I have been arguing should be inserted? Folken has been in the habit of using exactly this tactic to scare off people who disagree with him, to the extent he got banned for it on the french wiki. He seems to have calmed down a little now. I hope you are not going to continue to use the same tactic to further your own side is in this dispute? You can debate with users you disagree with, but I see nothing wrong with the edit made. however, persistent misuse of vandalism tags is a punishable offense. Sandpiper 07:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, before trying to give lessons about civility to others, you should first apologize for calling us a "bunch of newbies", for systematically ignoring what we say to you, for constantly revert warring, for making dubious analogies with our opinions and the nazi ideology, etc.Folken de Fanel 10:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Folk, civility, what sort of a civility are you proning, civility as in "Maybe you should try to learn english." [1] ? You seem to understand very well civility as well you understand source reliability apparently. - phe 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

er. no. folken. It seems your grasp of the english language is not quite so good as you believe. Both the examples you posted somewhere claiming I described you as a nazi said nothing of the sort. What I recall I said was that your notion that the only sources we can use for HP articles are those coming from Rowling herself was like only posting information about nazi germany issued by the nazis themselves. Somewhat misleading. I also recall our first serious disagreement, where you plainly agreed with a compromise text for 'deathly hallows', then a week later denied agreeing to it at all. In fact, I was not thinking of you when mentioning newbies with surprising competence suddenly appearing and diving straight into content disputes. I can't say why you believe both these description fit yourself. Sandpiper 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I responded on my talk page, that was the second time that day that I reverted the same edit, that had used the same terminology. Once is a revert, twice is vandalism. Using words like "It has been suggested...blah blah blah" is by definition speculation...adding it without reference/citation more than once after it has been removed is vandalism. By the way, what I removed was: ".., but speculation suggests that it could have been the un–opeanable locket that was discovered in the Black family house.". You really think that adding that a second time after it has been removed is NOT vandalism? Ccrashh 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. - phe 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Phe, you inserted exactly the same point yourself. I notice when folken reverted you, he stopped short of claiming vandalism again. Sandpiper

Ccrash, you deleted: but speculation suggests that it could have been the un–opeanable locket that was discovered in the Black family house and It has been speculated by some fans that the locket which no one could open, found during the decontamination of number 12 grimmauld place, in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is actually the Horcrux.

I had previously inserted the sourced: In Book 5, "a heavy locket that none of them could open" was mentioned in passing by members of the Order of the Phoenix while cleaning the former Black family home at 12, Grimmauld Place. The locket was thrown away along with many other unusual magical objects. One former resident of the Black house was Regulus Black, who is one of the leading candidates for R.A.B., who took Voldemort's horcrux locket. (Rowling was asked on publication day of 'Half-blood Prince' whether RAB was Regulus Black, but only gave an obscure answer ). According to Langford et al, many readers who have followed the series have concluded that this locket is the real horcrux, even though no mention was made of any specific identifying features (for example, it was not noted as having an 'S' on it). Mundungus Fletcher was seen in Half-blood Prince in possession of items 'liberated' from the Black house, while in Order of the Phoenix the family House Elf, Kreacher, was also attempting to keep souvenirs for himself. Forum posters noted after the release of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince that if the Grimmauld Place locket is the Horcrux, then, being an heirloom of Salazar Slytherin, it may require Harry to speak parseltongue to open it.

You may argue this is inapprpriate content and revert it, but it is not vandalism. It was simply part of the disputed content, accurate, and sourceable. You know perfectly well it is sourceable and therefore may not be deleted for lack of a source. Even if you did, vou should say precisely that. Claiming people supporting a different side in a content dispute are vandals is not good faith editing. You still owe the anon an apology, and I suggest you post one on that page. Sandpiper 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed up your reply so it is more legible. Now...I consider reposting the same thing over and over again vandalism. As for the content's validity, I disagree. Obviously. Ccrashh 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Vandalism and in particular Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. .  :::::Though in this case two different IPs made two different insertions. Not even very stubborn. Sandpiper 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Two different IPs. Heh...who used the exact same editing comment? Word for word? Really? Now, quit acting holier than thou. You aren't getting an apology out of me...especially since your derogatory comment about me being a "newbie". You got your way regarding Horcruxes. Now, shut up about it. And quit cluttering up Talk pages with almost illegibly structured paragraphs. For someone who isn't a "newbie" you sure don't know how to make your postings line up so they make sense. Ccrashh 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, here. Since this bothers you so much...Yes, oh wise, never wrong one. I have made thine requested edits as per thine orders. Thus, you who are never wrong and thus never need to apologise for your anonymity-fueled behavior, have won. Now blow off and quit cluttering up my talk page. Ccrashh 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

erm, do you mean they used the same automatically-inserted section header as editing comment without adding anything to what the software inserted automatically? You mean they were vandals because they placed the edit about the same thing in the section of the article where it is being talked about? Sandpiper 16:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. They don't. I was wrong. Geez, let it go, for crissakes. Now go mess up some other article. Ccrashh 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

people here are arguing about the niceties of rules. thats why the niceties of rules are important. Above you claim that websites are not good sources. Leaving aside that you just rubbished wikipedia with that comment, why? what rule says that?Sandpiper 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

omigod...! So I can make up a website, stuff any kind of implausible theory in there, and you think that would constitute encyclopedia-quality reference material? Wikipedia ISN'T a good source if editors like you continuously add in unreliable source references. Period. It can't get any simpler to understand than that. Langford and Granger simply compile and regurgitate fan speculation. Irrelevant for an encyclopedia. And if you honestly believe that "wikipedia is supposed to be made up of what people believe", which you wrote on my talk page, then you have no clue what you are doing or what wikipedia is about. As Jac said, Wikipedia is supposed to be about FACTS. Nothing more and nothing less. "...made up of what people believe..." man oh man. Ccrashh 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not made up of facts. Wikipedia has no interest in truth, only verifiability. Basically, if half the world believes something, then it becomes verifiable because someone writes it down or comments on it. Then wiki reports it. The existence of the thing is a fact. Whether it is a 'truth' is completely irrelevant.

Now, you claimed that all websites are bad references. Do you stand by that, thereby negating half the references currently in wikipedia, and wikipedia itself, or do you wish to explain better what you meant? Sandpiper 23:34, 28 June 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:[2]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:[3]

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 [4]. The forum claims to have 10000 discussion topics, 74,000 members, 910000 posted comments [5]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 effected 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)