Talk:Horcrux

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

---

table error

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.

• nvm, it had just being fixed.

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)

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 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)

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).

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)

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)

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

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?

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.

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)