Jump to content

Talk:Horcrux/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Archive

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5

Fawkes the Horcrux?

I dunno if im going to sound stupid here, and thousands of people are gpoing to go "no way!" but is it possible that Dumbledore made a horcrux out of Fawkes? Reasons-

  • Dumbledore said that he will only be forgotten when there is no-one left at Hogwarts that remains loyal, well what if he needs someone loyal to do the ceremony to bring him back, like Voldemort in Goblet of Fire.
  • Without proof that it could be done, Dumbledore said that one of Voldemort´s horcruxes could be an animal, why wouldnt he know if he had one?
  • To destroy a horcrux the object must be destroyed presumably, but as Fawkes just is reborn, wouldnt a phoenex be a perfect horcrux?
  • Fawkes leaves at the end of HBP, leaving so can be uswed to bring back Dumbledore?
  • Dumbledore may not be as good as he appears, the gleam of triumph in his eyes after Voldemort´s return.

Tell me what you think! Ian42 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed Ian! And who do you suppose Dumbledore deliberately murdered, in cold blood, in order to tear his soul apart, enabling him to create a Horcrux for storing in Fawkes the phoenix? I for one think this is an excellent example of pure speculation and original research, which is banned in "just the facts" encyclopedias like the Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. We can only post "the facts" as presented by Rowling in her books, in documented interviews, or on her web site, and to an extent in the movies (which are considered less canonical). Anything else, including personal or even widely held speculations and fan theories, is disallowed. With all your strength and ability, please resist the urge to go posting this new Dumbledore-Horcrux theory into articles, such as Dumbledore's, or this Horcrux article, or anywhere else. However, please feel free to air and discuss your views on one or more of the many fan sites - some are mentioned in the Harry Potter fandom article. Most of all, Thanks for not posting the theory in the articles - where it would have to be deleted - before discussing it here. Again - this particular "Dumbledore is still alive because" theory with a Horcrux twist may get raving praise from the fanatics in the fan forums - have fun with that Ian! --T-dot 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it ever said exactly what happened to Quirrel after Harry collapses at the end of the first book, could Dumbledore have killed him, and made a Horcrux from that murder? However, Rowling is know to have been checking the films to make sure no important things are changed in the films, and in the Philosopher's Stone Film you actually see Quirrel die before Harry collapses, so maybe not! Ian42 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Harry as a horcrux

If Harry is Voldemort's horcrux, why does Voldemort try to kill him? Surely he would want to preserve all parts of his soul.

Chances are Voldemort does not know Harry could be a horcrux, and just sees him as the threat described in the prophecy. --Smoke 21:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Quite aside of how this coudl have happened. Since Voldemort is trying for a 7 part soul then, not knowing that Harry was one woudl he not try and make yet another Horcrux? At that time is it likley he woudl not notice a bit of his soul missing? Dalf | Talk 03:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"He would hardly attempt to kill Harry if he knew the latter contained part of his essence." Why not? If I were Voldemort I would gladly sacrifice one seventh of my soul in order to kill the one person who has been prophesised to be capable of killing me. 210.50.216.161 12:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Perhaps the corpse of Harry Potter would have been his final horcrux, his trophy for extinguishing not only the chosen one but also his parents and sealing his immortality. However, since the murder was obviously botched (thanks to Lily), Potter remained alive with his 1/7th of Voldemort's soul still intact.

Anyone else notice the cover art (children's version)? It may be purely coincidental, but the ring with the black stone (which, from memory, was a horcrux) has a crack through the middle. Compare that crack to Harry's forehead and you'll notice the similarity between the two. Any mention of the diary having a lightning bolt? (I can't remember back that far) --Croperz 12:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry may be a Horcrux only by accident. Voldemort wanted to create an Horcrux when murdering Harry. But that murder failed as we all know. The Dividing of his soul may nevertheless have been successful and the new part of Voldemorts soul left him and entered Harry. Voldemort beeing destroyed is not aware of this. This idea would be consistent with the canon and the Changeling Theory. The Voldemort of today is not aware that he must not murder Harry since then. (brf)

IIRC, Slughorn said that you have to say a spell to make a horcrux. Being as Voldemort was killed before he said such a spell, how would Harry have become a horcrux? Benji man 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty skeptical of this theory, although it's popular enough so that it probably should be discussed. Dumbledore tells Harry that, AFAHK, Voldemort intended to make the 6th horcrux with Harry's death, but was unable to, so he made Nagini the 6th horcrux when he killed the Riddle's groundskeeper in book 4. So, while it's theoretically possible that Harry's a horcrux, it doesn't seem likely. (OTOH, if Harry realizes that Nagini isn't a horcrux sometime in Book 7, then maybe it will turn out that he is. --TheronJ 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Like TheronJ i'm pretty skeptical of this theory. It just doesn;t make much sense that a piece of Voldemort's soul could reside in Harry while another part of Voldemort's soul was unable to possess Harry for very long without feeling intense pain. It also doesn't make sense that Dumbledore would have completely missed a horcrux right under his nose, or that Voldemort's soul would reside completely dormant within Harry for sixteen years without ever having made an attempt to emerge.

I think that this theory is one of the most plausible. Even though Dumbledore said that Voldemort intended to use Harry's death to create the sixth Horcrux, keep in mind that everything Dumbledore was saying at that point was pure speculation. I suspect that Voldemort intended to use James's and/or Lily's death to turn Harry into a Horcrux. The possibility was hinted at when Dumbledore mentioned that a living being would make a poor Horcrux -- that appeared to be more foreshadowing than just an off-hand comment. Turning Harry into a Horcrux could be the best way of thwarting the prophecy: while Harry lived, Voldemort would never die. This theory also gives very good solutions to why the Sorting Hat wanted to put Harry in House Slytherin (it sensed Voldemort's soul within Harry), as well as explaining a number of Harry's abilities (including Parseltounge.) Harry is shown as often choosing good when many others, perhaps instinctively, have thought of him as evil at some point in his life. --cnl Sat Jul 23 11:02:53 GMT 2005

What we have to remeber about the prophecy is that Voldemort has only ever heard the very first part, the one that refers the a boy being born who would have the power to destory him; however, Voldemort never knew about, and still doesn't about the final part of the prophecy that contaisns the "neither can live while the other survives line". It seems unlikely then that Voldemort would want to make a horcrux out of a person who he believed would one day have to power to destroy him. If Harry is a horcrux he's probably an accidential one, rather than an intentional one.
Please don't refer to accidental Horcruxes without explaining how they're possible.
speculation on how accidential horcruxes are possible is littered all throughout the discussion page, just scroll down a little bit for the main discussion on this.
Accidental Horcruxes? Easy. All you have to assume is that the enchantments required to create a horcrux are done in advance. That being the case, the big V would have done all of the spells before committing the James-Harry two-for-one (and Lily too, if she won't "stand aside, silly girl.") He'd have done everything but the final act, the soul transfer. Being killed (or life-impaired, whatever he was) in the middle of horcrux-creation is most likely unprecedented,

being that:

1.) no one (to Dumbledore or Slughorn's knowledge) has ever made more than one, so if they had been killed in the act, they'd have just died.
2.) it's tough magic to diversify your soul-investments, and as the Hogwarts library and the Slughorn memory show, not even CLOSE to common knowledge, even among Dark Arts devotees. Lucius Malfoy's total obliviousness about the diary is also (admittedly flimsy) evidence for this point. Voldemort already had Horcruxes when he did the deed, and if the enchantments are cast before the murder (which seems reasonable), then the backfiring, and the concommitment diminishment of Voldemort's soul and the destruction of his body could have easily forced the piece he intended for his next Horcrux into Harry or into his scar.
Quod Erat Described? --kajerm

Superm401 | Talk 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC) Now, as a counter to this (especially my above post): if this is true and Harry is a Horcrux, then what of the prophecy? How can Harry ever truly live, since Voldemort would never be able to truly die? --cnl Sat Jul 23 11:02:53 GMT 2005

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not entirely convinced of the Harry-is-a-Horcrux theory. That said, it's entirely plausible that he is. To answer cnl, I would assume that he would have to finish Voldemort in an act of self-sacrifice, perhaps rebounding an Avada Kedavra onto him to save someone else AFTER having destroyed all the bits of soul other than Voldemort and potentially himself. Score extra points for this theory in that it incorporates the love-conquers-all theme that J. Ro and Dumbledore have been developing since Sorcerer's Stone. Harry could even survive and still be a Horcrux under a scenario like this, by engaging in some act of selflessness or love or insert-good-thing-here that would destroy the Voldemort inside of him. Presumably this would have to be a huge one, being that Harry's been pretty selfless thus far and he's still riding the snake. As to the poster who suggested Regulus Black (the putative R.A.B) has been alive and in hiding, there is just one problem: JRK said very decisively in her World Book Day interview that Regulus is dead. -- kajerm Sat Aug 20 4:54 GMT 2005

Kajerm, on my talk you listed several assumptions that must be true for accidental horcruxes to be possible. They were,
  1. The spell to create a horcrux is done before the murder and is nonspecific. (This is not outside the realm of possibility, since as much of the process as possible should really be done before the murder to ensure that nothing goes wrong-- if this were easy magic, every Dark Wizard would leave a spare soul under the front steps, just in case...)
  2. Committing the murder seals the horcrux creation process; after this point the dark wizard is irreversibly committed to creating a horcrux.
  3. Getting killed (or getting killed-but-good-thing-I-saved-some-soul-for-a-rainy-day like Voldemort) while committing the intended murder, or getting killed before specifically directing the soul into a chosen object throws the horcrux creation process out of whack, but does not simply abort it.
I object first to the idea that the spell is non-specific. Magic requires great intention, and part of that intention is target. Similar to an Accio spell, I think the horcrux creation spell would require you to picture a precise object to place your soul into, and probably a precise murder to use as the "engine". I don't have a problem with the idea that the horcrux creation spell happens before the murder. I'm not sure of that, though. Doing it at the same time as the already difficult avada kedavra spell could be part of what makes it so difficult to complete. I agree with your second point completely. By the time of the person's death, I think the horcrux is either made or not made. By this I mean, after the victim dies, you can't undo a horcrux that has been created and you can't decide to create one using their murder. I'm not sure about #3. I think that it might depend on when you "die". I think that in the case of Harry, by the time Voldemort was about to kill him, his mother had been dead long enough that the horcrux process had been resolved. If Voldemort had decided to use Lily's death to make a horcrux(unlikely in itself because he offered her the chance to live), by the time he had got to Harry that had been completed. I don't see how Voldemort could have accidentally made Harry the horcrux. As you say in #2, once the person dies, the process is done. Lily was dead by the time Voldemort killed Harry. Superm401 | Talk 18:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
As before, I have to commend you on your insightful comments. I agree completely about magic, by and large, requiring intention-- as we saw with the vanishing glass and with inflating Aunt Marge, intention alone can create magic. When I said "nonspecific," I meant only that the object chosen to be a Horcrux did not acquire any special power (or was "chosen") at the time that the Horcrux-creating enchantments begin.
I like the idea the some aspect of the Horcrux creation process is done during the murder; it seems fitting in a lot of ways. If this were the case, going with the process I outlined before, the part which occurrs during the murder would have to be the final step of forcing the soul fragment into the chosen object.
Lily's death certainly wouldn't be the one he wanted to use to create a Horcrux. Like Dumbledore, I believe it would have been Harry's. The failed murder could have driven the Horcrux creation process out of control, and forced part of Voldemort's soul into Harry rather than the chosen object. This is especially plausible because Voldemort did successfully commit a murder while trying to kill Harry, thereby splitting his soul.
The failed murder, then, removed the element of intention, but the successful murder and the Horcrux-creating enchantments drove the Horcrux creation forward, making Harry into a Horcrux.
That said, this is all an academic exercise, as I'm not entirely convinced that this is where J.K. Rowling is headed-- I just believe it's a completely plausible line of reasoning. Kajerm 21:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Who did he successfully kill while trying to kill Harry? In my understanding, he killed Lily before Harry, which is why Harry had the sacrificial protection in his blood by that time. Superm401 | Talk 22:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Is Harry a horcrux? It certainly appears so to me. According to Dumbledore, Voldemort would have wanted to create his final horcrux with Harry’s murder. Possibly a spell would have to be performed before the murder. This spell would have been performed right after Voldemort killed James Potter. He then wanted to kill Harry and make his final horcrux with Harry’s murder. That would be reason why LV didn’t want to kill Lily. Otherwise he would have just killed here and then killed Harry. So now he pointed his wand at Harry, but Lily shielded him, causing the spell to backfire. LV’s soul split in two though, because he murdered Lily (and his own body) and the part designed for the horcrux went into Harry.

Dumbledore tells Harry that he thinks that the snake Nagini might be a horcrux. He might not have wanted to confront Harry directly with the theory that Harry is a horcrux himself. It might have been a lead for Harry to discover on his own that he is the final horcrux.

Does Voldemort know? He didn’t know in the beginning, but he probably knows now, when he found out that there is a bond between him and Harry. That is probably the reason why Snape wasn’t allowed to kill Harry when he fled from Hogwarts and told his fellow death eater that Potter belongs to the Dark Lord. (Isengrimm)

Voldemort would 'mark him as his equal' Hey, look at the prophecy. It means that by Voldemort marking Harry as his equal, he would make Harry his horcrux, a part of his soul.

No, that's just your interpretation of it. Dumbledore's interpretation is that the mark is the lightening scar on Harry's forehead. Whether it turns out to be true or not in the seventh book, the fact is that this is currently the only interpretation that is mentioned in the book. Any other interpretations, including yours, is fan speculation and original research. --Deathphoenix 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya'll are overlooking some important parts of the text in this discussion. First, when Voldemort goes to kill Harry, he is only acting on an imcomplete knowledge of the prophesy. Second, although living things and people that you plan on killing are normally not good choices for a Horcrux, this would have been massively outweighed by Voldemort's desire to "rig" the prophesy as he understood it. Making Harry a horcrux ensures that if Harry succeeds in killing him, he won't really die because even if Harry has destroyed all the other horcruxes, he probably won't have destroyed the one in himself. Conversely, yes, killing Harry would be killing part of himself, but if he truly was scared by the concept of the prophesy it seems like losing 1/7 of himself is reasonable. This explains why he trys to kill Harry several times. However, there is no evidence that Voldemort tried to kill Harry when he was an infant. Many characters just assume that. In fact, after Voldemort kills Harry's father, he points his wand at the crib, Lilly stands in his way, and he tells her to get out of the way (I don't have the book with me so I don't know exactly what he says--I encourage one of you to look it up). The spell that he cast was a non-verbal so we don't really know if it was the killing curse. It seems like if he was planning on just killing Harry and making the horcrux later he would have offed the mom first then killed Harry. But, if we wanted to make a horcrux out of Harry, he would ahve wanted to do that with the part of his soul which had just been separated from the killing of Harry's father and probably just underestimated Lilly's ability to fuck this up given how arrogant he is. I know this somewhat speculation, given that book 7 hasn't come out yet. But it certainly does not constitute original research as there is already tons of speculation on this matter on the web. I think the level of talk on this discussion page justifies a separate section of the article ("Harry as a horcux") which could attribute these assertions ("Many fans have speculated..."). As long as all of the "speculation" is grounded in references to the text, I don't see a problem with it. 129.170.202.34 19:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, if we are going to include the SORTING HAT as a possible Horcrux, clearly Harry should at least be on the list of possible horcuxes, even if we don't include another section to talk about the evidence for and against this. 129.170.202.34 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Harry could pssoibly be the horcrux. Dumbledore says that it is risky to put a horcrux on a living creature. What is not mentioned is whther the person has control over themselves or are a 'robot', as if under the Imperius curse. Harry has also been told he is special all the time, this could be that Harry is the horcrux yet can still act and move on his own. Nagini is a possible horcrux acting as a part of Voldemort. Voldemort may want to kill Harry, because the body of Harry is the Horcrux. Once dead, Harry's body would be come as inanimate as a cup, or book or whatever. Voldemort wants to kill Harry because Harry has his own mind and is fighting Voldemort. It is also noot said what the Horcrux takes from you. YOu may become very wak and prone to injury, and may need to flee into hiding, Voldemort could then use his Death Eaters to do his bidding while he recupperated. IT could have taken extra long on Harry, since he may very well indeed be the Horcrux, yet thinks for himself, an unexpected side effect that caused Voldemort to hide for nearly 13 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.79.169 (talk • contribs) .

IMO, there's no reason in the world to discuss horcrux possibilities other than those already talked about in the book. Wikipedia is not a place for our own ideas and speculations. Friday (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Sorry now to tack on another bit to such an old discussion, but i think harry is definatly a horcrux for all the reasons above, but also, in book 2, dumbledore said that harry could speak parseltongue because voldemort put a bit of himself into harry. That has to be a horcrux, what else could he have meant? Raemie 15:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's very fascinating. Perhaps you should post this to one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Voldemort trying to kill Harry

Perhaps some may disagree with this idea, but if Voldemort made Harry a horcrux then his actions really make sense. (This operates on the premise that all that Love conquers all crap the Dumbledore kept spouting really is crap, and that the Warlock/Necromancer Voldemort really did intend for everything that happened that fateful night to happen)

1) By attacking Harry, he creates a greater defence around Harry, i.e. people become close to him, he gets more security, it sets up other chains of events which Voldemort can take advantage of (alliance with the wraith/dementors). If you made a shard of your soul, then you'd want it to be as safe as possible. Harry was cared for by some of the greatest wizards in the world, what could be safer. Also, if it was discovered he was a Horcux, who would be willing to slay poor little innocent Harry.

2) The exact details of the soul-storing process is unclear, but we know that each time one was used, Voldemort took his own human form again and the Horcrux would therefore be consumed, however, this was only when the Horcrux was an inanimate object. If the Horcrux were say, a person, then it might be possible for him to take control of the persons body, almost like Prof. Quirrell.

3) Harry isn't a particularly great wizard, however, through his time at Hogwarts he has made influential friends. He is destined for greatness, powerful position, even if he did not, he is still a superstar. If Voldemort were able to instantly jump into the body of Harry, his words/thoughts/ideas would carry tremendous weight in the Wizard world. And surely not all wizards are brave, courageous souls who will all recognise evil a mile off. Anyway, bottom line, Voldemort in Harry's body = very dark and dangerous times for wizards.

Very slowly now! Please put the crack pipe down and move slowly away, no one needs to get hurt. Dalf | Talk 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
LMAO :) Death Eater Dan 23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Speculation removed. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with my actions, but I think the best way to prevent other people from inserting pointless speculation into the talk pages is to remove them as soon as they appear. This is similar to what we did in Talk:Harry Potter: Book Seven, and there was a consensus to do that there. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

7?

Ok in the book Dumbledore corrects Harry saying that he made 6 Horcruxes (if I remember right) so shouldn't there be 3 left (or 2, if R.A.B. destroyed the locket). A lot of you will probably be thinking, "how do you reckon that?", so I'll elaborate...

  • Voldemort makes 6 horcruxes and has one part of his soul in him. - 1 IV(In Voldemort) + 6 Hrx(Horcrux) = 7 parts.
  • The part of his soul in him is destroyed when his Avada Kedavra backfires. - 6 Hrx = 6 parts.
  • In 2nd year Harry destroys the diary leaving less horcrux. - 5 Hrx = 5 parts.
  • (This part I'm only assuming) To come back to life Voldemort needs to use one of them. - 1 IV + 4 Hrx = 5 parts.
  • Dumbledore destroys the ring. - 1 IV + 3 Hrx = 4 parts.
  • R.A.B. possibly destroyed the locket. - 1 IV + 2 Hrx = 3 parts.

Maybe I've got it all wrong but just tell me what you think. - Gerbon

I think the two you have wrong is that a part of his soul is destroyed and it takes another soul to come back to life. The horcrux just means that if you are killed, you body is gone, but your soul is still around. The horcrux acts as an "anchor" to bring your soul back (I'm basing some of this on what I know of phylacteries). If the horcrux is destroyed, you no longer have the anchor, and you are well and truly dead. However, I wouldn't strictly say seven horcruxes. If a wizard creates a horcrux, he has the soul in the horcrux and the soul in himself. I wouldn't say that wizard has two horcruxes, otherwise, every wizard can be said to have one horcrux. Therefore, if you don't count the remaining part of his soul, and you don't consider that it uses one horcrux to come back to live, he'll still have four. Woops, I forgot to cound R.A.B. If R.A.B. destroyed one, it'll be three. However, Harry still has to find out what happened to R.A.B. (and confirm if that other horcrux was destroyed), so I think that's why Harry has to find four horcruxes. --Deathphoenix 13:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but what I am basing my theory on is that why would you need 7 in that case. Couldn't you just have one which is heavily guarded. Like a lot more than was on the locket. Also if you'll notice, it says 7 parts not 7 horcruxes - Gerbon
Well, if you're talking parts, I suppose Voldemort has five parts, that Harry has to find and destroy (the last, of course, being Voldemort himself). Everything else I said is still valid (in my opinion and argument, I mean). --Deathphoenix 14:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
In Slughorn's memory, Voldemort stated that seven is the most powerful magical number. Apparently Voldemort split his soul into seven pieces beleiving it would give him added power or protection from death.
The main part of the soul can be used to regenerate body. Body dies, soul is still alive. --Muhaha 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


In the book, it says that the seventh horcrux resides in Voldemort's regenerated body (Chapter 23).
  • The sixth horcrux is the diary
  • The fifth is the ring
  • The fourth is the locket
    • Therefore, there are three horcruxes left, and then Lord Voldemort himself to contend with.

(If R.A.B. did not actually destroy the locket, then yes, there are still four horcruxes plus Lord Voldemort himself.) 129.21.109.130 21:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Anastasia

Voldemort did NOT create 7 horcruxes: he split his soul into seven pieces. 68.152.24.28

No, Voldemort made 6 Horcruxes, but we actually have no idea how many times he split his soul. In the book, it says: "How do you split your soul?" "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand....it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil--the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage. He would encase the torn portion--" (Pg. 497, US Ed.) This implies that whenever a person kills another, his/her soul is split. Whether the witch or wizard does anything with these pieces is up to that person. So as I see it, Voldemort split his soul into many pieces, but only made six horcruxes out of them.

Just to play devil's advocate, we have no idea what happens to those peices. Perhaps if not "yanked out" and used for a horcrux, they re-attach over time. Perhaps not. You initial statement is probably right though - Voldemort has probably killed many times (although we have no direct evidence - perhaps he just ordere the Death Eaters to do all the "dirty work" - he of all people who know about the damage such an act does to the perpetrator) - so a lot of splitting would have occured. We don't know the long term state of the soul however Beowulf314159 15:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that he split his soul into 7 parts, one within himself and six 'parts' in objects, therefore when the avada kedaver curse backfires he would loose the part within him, leaving him with 6/7 of a soul, diary - 5/7, being reborn - 4/7, Locket (? as to wether its intact) - 3/7, one of which being in Voldemort, so there would only be 2 more horcruxes left to find. At most he has 4/8 and he created 7 horcruxes, and split his soul into 8 parts, one for his body and 7 horcruxes. I know thats probably utter rubbish but what the hell! Ian42 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating Horcuxes

I don't remember - and I don't have time to look it up (have to catch a flight! :) ) - but in HPB doesn't Slughorn mention a spell specifically as a means of creation - even though he claims no to know it himself? - Beowulf314159 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently moved and I expect my copy of HBP is hidden under a pile of crap. However, what you say seems plausible. I'll remove "ritual" and leave it explicitly as a spell (as yet unnamed). --Deathphoenix 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In the first potions lesson, Snape says that he can teach you "to stopper death". is this just boasting, or is this significant enough from later actions to mention here? MartinRe 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding creation itself, I think the first sentence isn't accurate (Creating Horcruxes is an evil and violent act) All we know is the murder splits the soul, and this splitting can be used by a wizard to create a Horcrux. However, once the soul has been split, there is nothing to imply that creating a horcrux itself is evil or violent. Yes, murder is necesssary for the creation of one, but it's not sufficent, i.e. murder splits the soul regardless of any horcrux is created afterwards. Would it be better to have something along the lines of "Horcruxes require an evil and violent act as a prerequisite for their creation" instead? MartinRe 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, a side issue, in the intro it's said they're introduced in the HBP, is it more accurate to say that the term was introduced, as the objects themselves appear in earlier boooks? MartinRe 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that "to stopper death" could mean many things. It may even be as simple as curing the imbiber of any diseases. Your other arguments are about semantics, so if you wish to tweak the text to your satisfaction, go right ahead. I would argue that while your tweaks would make the article more accurate technically, they make the text harder to read. Of course, that's your perogative. --Deathphoenix 12:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that Snape is Potions Master at the time, I'd read it as mean he could teach you to make potions that kill people. These are then put in a bottle which has a stopper (i.e. cork or whatever) placed in it. David Underdown 11:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning unknown things

I've put the fact that no one really knows what happens to the fragment of the soul in a Horcrux if it is destroyed.

It keeps getting removed, on the grounds that if something is unknown, why mention it?

I think it's important to a) mentions such things and b) explicitly state that they are not known. This is so that someone does not come along, decided to "correct" an oversight, and put in their particular "pet theory" as "the truth".

It's perhaps a bit odd because the structure of the article is somewhat dictated by the collaberative nature of Wikipedia - but it's also the reality of such projects. - 69.19.14.20 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (Beowolf314159 - who can't seem to stay logged in with this internet connection)

Sorry, somehow I "lost" this question in the shuffle. To answer your question, I removed it because it's not necessary. There are a few "unknown" things that are notable enough (or questioned enough in the novels) to be mentioned in these articles, such as the identity of R.A.B. and whether Severus Snape is good or evil. However, what happens to the fragment of the soul in a Horcrux isn't questioned enough in the novels, nor is it a great mystery. To a degree, I actually agree with you: when I was performing my "major edits" in cleaning up this article, I actually put in (or left in, I forget which) the fact that this was unknown and said that it was likely that the soul is either released into the afterlife or returned to the Horcrux creator. However, someone else made an excellent point that these unknown things aren't necessary, and this seems to be the consensus. --Deathphoenix 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
JKR has stated in interviews (I can hunt up a link its online if you like) that when the Diary was destory so was the fragment of soul. I think the exact quote was somthing to the effect (and I am pharphrasing here), that piece of his soul is gone we saw it take shape and we saw it destroyed. Dalf | Talk 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to find the link so it can be referanced, this is a meaningful peice of information to put in the article. - Beowulf314159 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's from the Leaky/MuggleNet interview (http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml): "MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary -

JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul, you saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it’s gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort." 216.108.172.249 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) - Beowulf314159 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, in creating a horcrux you must kill someone yourself. So we should be able to trace the number of Horcruxes and possibly objects by the murders that Lord Voldemort has committed. To date I can only count the murders he committed directly and speculate as to what objects were created as Horcruxes. It should be noted this is speculation as the process of creating a Horcrux is not really known. Is it lengthy? Predetermined apriori to the murder? I can count seven murders -

      • 1) Muggle groundskeeper/ Nagini the snake
      • 2) Moaning Myrtle ?? (should this count as he didn't kill them directly?) / Tom Riddle's Diary (only object I can think of that was at the same time as the murder)
      • 3) Cedric Diggory / (?? Wormtail's silver hand is a good candidate)
      • 4) Riddle Sr. / ?? (Slytherin object which may have been in the family's possession?)
      • 5) Lily Potter / ??
      • 6) James Potter ?? (no direct evidence James was killed BY Voldemort himself) / ??
      • 7) Harry Potter ?? (speculation, as this may have been the attempted seventh horcrux)/ ??

There's a lot of question marks there. Any help?

Cedric was killed by Wormtail not by Voldermort, so it is unlikely that his arm could be a Horcrux. Also, the arm was given to Wormtail after the murder was commited. Although we don't know exactly how Horcruxes work, I think that it means that the arm isn't a Horcrux. Also, according to Dumbledore in HBP, he only has 6 Horcruxes and the seventh part of the soul is in Voldermort himself. Good list though. Oli 10:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did Rowling state this in an interview?

Hi, an anon added this edit where Rowling states in an interview that one Horcrux can be found be rereading the series. I haven't heard this, but then, I don't keep abreast of Rowling's interviews. I only remove speculation and things that are clearly false, but this one certainly sounds plausible. Can someone provide a citation for this interview? A link to the text (or an article) of the interview can certainly help. --Deathphoenix 14:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In OotP, Harry finds a locket that none of the Order could open in Grimmauld Place. This is likely to be Slytherin's locket which was found by R.A.B. I THINK that JKR said that no major characters would be introduced in Book 7, meaning that R.A.B. was probably mentioned somewhere. I re-read all the books and found that the only person with these initials is Regulus Black, which would fit with the theory that the Horcrux is in Grimmauld Place, as Regulus may have lived there.

Moving that paragraph here

I did some searching and was unable to find any mention of Rowling talking about re-reading the novels to identify one of the Horcruxes. Therefore, I am moving that paragraph here until it can be verified. In the meantime, I'm also going to do a quick copyedit on this paragraph on the off-chance that Rowling's alleged interview concerning this subject turns up in print:

  • J.K. Rowling stated in an interview that the identity of one of the remaining Horcruxes can be found by carefully re-reading the series. The implication is that this is one of the unknown Horcruxes, with clues carefully concealed somewhere within the books. (provide link to a transcribed interview here)

--Deathphoenix 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote you are looking for is here [1] just do a find for horcrux on the page if you do not want to read the whole thing (I am including the relavent parts below):

Most folks think this is a refrence to the locket mentione in OOtP as being at 12GP. Dalf | Talk 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You asked. Here are the references.

As to yet unidentified horcruxes, of which strictly speaking there is only one, this was said in "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three" (July 16, 2005, reproduced in Quick Quotes Quill [2] and The Leaky Cauldron [3]).

Melissa Anelli: Here at the end you sort of get the feeling that we know what Harry’s setting out to do, but can this really be the entire throughline of the rest of the story?
J.K. Rowling: It's not all of it. Obviously it's not all of it, but still, that is the way to kill Voldemort. That's not to say it won't be an extremely torturous and winding journey, but that's what he's got to do. Harry now knows — well he believes he knows – what he’s facing. Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I don't want to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, ‘There are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for Voldemort.’ So that's where he is, and that's what he's got to do.
Emerson Spartz: It's a tall order.
J.K. Rowling: It's a huge order. But Dumbledore has given him some pretty valuable clues and Harry, also, in the course of [the] previous six books has amassed more knowledge than he realizes. That's all I am going to say.
Emerson Spartz: It seems like it would be impossible. If Harry had gone to the cave, he never could have done it on his own, it seems like.
J.K. Rowling: Well, I'm prepared to bet you now, that at least before the week is out, at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books.

If you want to clean up the main article, consider this. The immediately preceding note is correct that there is a lot of speculation about the unopenable locket at 12 Grimmauld Place, but that would not be an unidentified horcrux, just Slytherin's locket which has been identified. These are the six horcruxes. First, the two that have been identified and destroyed are (1) Tom Riddle's Diary, (2) Marvolo Gaunt's Ring. The next four were intended by Voldemort to be heirlooms of the four Hogwarts founders. They are (3) Salazar Slytherin's Locket, (4) Helga Hufflepuff's Cup, (5) Rowena Ravenclaw's Necklace, (6) Godric Gryffindor's Sword (which is explicitly said to be the only known heirloom of Gryffindor). Voldemort had completed five horcruxes of his project when he attempted to kill Harry Potter, and failed to obtain the sixth object, which Dumbledore certifies to have remained clean. Subsequently, Voldemort substituted (6) Nagini the Snake, as the sixth horcrux. The intended #6 is straight deduction. The actual #5 is the only element of speculation. Where #3 happens to be located at the moment has nothing to do with its identification, which has been completed.

--216.113.220.91 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, that is assuming that JKR put as much thought into the technicalities of her words you are, when she said correctly identified. Further if you want to get especially technical, the word identify in english can be used to associate one object as being the same as another object. In this cause Identify the necklace in GP as being the same as the one RAB removed form teh cave. Either way the quote is accurate, in that if we want to reflect some sort of implication about there being more clues in the past boosk we can. Dalf | Talk 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Added the note with after Dalf's quote

Thanks to Dalf's most excellent source, I added a tweaked sentence about rereading the books (yes, that's the proper spelling of "reread"). --Deathphoenix 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that the context I put with that quote makes JKR's line look like a total non-sequator. FOr some reason that makes me smile. Then again most things make me smile tonight. Dalf | Talk 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

--Anthony Duff 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)==Destruction of horcrux and the soul contained within== Beowulf314159 is intent on including "seems to" in the statements such as: "Destruction of the horcrux destroys the fragment of the soul contain within it." His implication is that the soul may not be actually destroyed, or may not always be destroyed. Agreed, this is possible, for it is never explicitly stated otherwise, but what is the source of the doubt. The destuction of both the diary and the ring in each case seemed to involve the simultaneous destruction of the horcrux and the soul contained within. I believe that you need evidence (or at least some logical speculation) to support the doubt, otherwise the word "seems" would belong in nearly every sentence ever written. --Anthony Duff 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Turn it around. Put evidence on the table that's in canonical that it happens every time. I don't need evidence to support doubt. You need evidence to prove that it's so. This isn't a court of law where some crackpot theory is "true unless disproved" - or I'm putting the "Harry is a Horcrux" nonsense back in, 'cause you can't prove it's not so!. Do you really want to open the floodgate to "I get to put it in as long as you can't prove it's not so!". Harry as a Horcrux, Harry's belly button lint as a Horcrux, Lord Voldemort's nose hair as a Horcrux.... I don't think so.
As for the ring - does JKR say that in the interview? If I do a quick search in the interview text, the term "ring" isn't even in the article. Doesn't look like it. Don't expand your "evidence" beyond what's there.
Let me put it in simple terms: JKR has stated, once, in interview, that it happened once, with the diary. Anything stated beyond that is speculation. Show me evidence and I'll leave it alone. Happily.
Don't make any implications beyond what can be supported in the books and/or in the interviews. Got it? Good. If you are going to state something happens, or always happens, show me the reference - otherwise it's just fan speculation and these pages are fighting a war against every fan wanting to stuff an unsupported "pet theory" in Wikipedia. - Beowulf314159 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what "Harry is a Horcrux", or floodgates, has got to do with it. Why do you think that the soul fragment might not be destroyed (or irretreviably lost) when the horcrux is destroyed? Alternatively, you may feel that the implications of a surviving soul fragment warrent the raising of the question. I'm not asking for proof, just explanation. It's you who wants to insert a word, complicating a fine sentence and half-raising an unexpected idea. To me, on face value, the idea seems peculiar. It seems like you are (figuratively) holding open the door to some unstated theory, something to do with soul fragments freed from destroyed horcruxes.--Anthony Duff 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I want to apologize for the abrasive, snarky, and semi-flame tone of my reply; you were kind to overlook it.
<MyViewsAndOpinions>
As to the issue itself: it really has nothing to do with what I think, or don't think about Harry Potter. Personally, I think it's very possible that the fragment of the soul is destroyed, or possibly rejoins the remainder of the soul. I don't think the sentence as you want to state it is necessarily wrong.
However, it has to do with the issue of Wikipedia articles, supportability of claims, and implying or stating propositions as facts when the evidence is not there. You know the story about 4 logicians on a train in Scotland who see a single white sheep in the countryside?
  1. "We may conclude sheep are white."
  2. "No, we may conclude that sheep in Scotland are white."
  3. "No, we may only conclude that at least one sheep in Scotland is white"
  4. "You're all wrong. All we can conclude is that one sheep in Scotland is white one one side"
For Wikipedia, #4 has it right. Wikipedia isn't a place to advance theories, speculation, discussion, or viewpoint. It's not a discussion forum; it's not a place to publish thesis about topics; it's an encyclopedia. Which means that it presents the substantiatable facts, in an organized logical format, with only as much text and "filler" as is needed to make the material comprehensive, unified, and accessible to the "idealized reader" - who is intelligent, interested, but totally ignorant of any of the material, or it's implications.
The treatment of substantiatable fact means that unless something can be presented with citation and example, it doesn't belong within the Wikipedia.
Your claim/implication that "the fragment of soul is always destroyed when the physical form of the Horcrux is destroyed" can not be substantiated by any example, or author comment that I am aware of. If such evidence exists, I will be quite happy to let the claim stand; it will be one less thing I have to worry about "creeping in" to the Harry Potter pages.
Another "ideal" I have about Wikipedia is that all people's contributions, and all people's ideas should be treated the same; "equality under the law". I cannot, in good faith, allow one unsubstantiated "fact" in over another. This is why I do think it's "opening the floodgates". If we let in one implication because it seems "reasonable to us at the time", then how can we deny ideas that don't seem reasonable to us but seem reasonable to someone else? Is our view "special"? Does "our" taste hold up just because we got here first? I don't think so.
Instead, I believe that everyone's ideas and contributions should be subject to the same scrutiny, namely that if you want to include a "fact", or even an implication, it has to be able to be substantiated.
This is why I am so adamant about not letting a relatively minor non-substantiatable implications into the article. To me, it is either the beginning of the introduction of some sort of arbitrary "editorial viewpoint" by the people who happen to be here first, or it opens the article to whatever "pet theory" people want to include without evidence.
I don't really care what happens to the fragment of a soul when the Horcrux is destroyed, but I do care about a reasonably written article, and holding everyone's contributions to the same standards.
</MyViewsAndOpinions>
Beowulf314159 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Do Sheep even have belly buttons? Any shepards on Wikipedia? - Beowulf314159 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to say that the destruction of the horcrux "destroys" OR "seems to destroy" the fragment inside it. We're already explaining that horcruxes can be destroyed, after which their protection no longer applies. (Also, the horcrux is clearly the sheep's belly button itself, not the lint inside.) Friday (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the article in exactly that manner when I posted my "Wikipedia Manifesto". (The belly button? Ewe must be joking!) - Beowulf314159 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. I like the current version, not mentioning the fate of the soul fragment. I'd like to note that the soul question is interesting. People's souls and what happens after death has been an issue so far in the series. I do kind of follow the attempts to reason by analogy using sheep, however, I am quite sure that I have never seen a sheep's belly button. Which of you has evidence of a sheep's belly button actually existing?--Anthony Duff 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we are talking about evidence form the books I thought I would throw in another quote to the mix (from HBP page 501 of the emaerican edition):

Which aside from being a sentence that uses a — a : and a ; all in one sentence and I think correctly, is on point here. It does not seem that Dumbledore at anyrate saw the fragment of soul as surviving the destruction of a Horcrux or at least not to an extent that matters. From the conversation that follows, and otehr sections of the book, it is very clear that the fate of the soul fragments after a Horcrux is destroyed is totally irrelvent to the plot and that we here on this talk page have devoted more time to the topic than probbly anyone ever should. Also note that the refrence that someone asked for about making Horcruxes transforming you to being less and less human is on the next page. Further as to the assertion that the soul fragment in the ring was also destoryed on page 503 we have:

So unless DD is now actually in possession of that piece of the soul then I am not sure how amazing your linguistic jujitsu would have to be to make the sentence say that it was not destroyed. Especailly if the alternative is that the pice goes back into Voldemort himself. Dalf | Talk 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Seems like the issue is solved - finally someone did the research and dug out the supporting evidence :) Do the citation templates for the HP books allow page numbers? Looks like the tug-of-war over this point is a done deal. I for one am relieved.
Beowulf314159 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If you mean the brownish box with the quoted text, that is {{subst:motto|message here}} and based on the color scheme I think its ment for talk pages (that and it only being used on 6 pages in all of wikipedia all of which are talk pages). Though I suspect we do have a template with formatting for book quotations somewhere on here without having to cook our own. I would suggest looking at articles about well known books and authors to find one. I may do so tomorrow. Dalf | Talk 10:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hagrid prepared us for Horcuxes early in HB1

On "making Horcruxes transforming you to being less and less human", a significant point is Hagrid's theory/guess for for why Voldemort didn't die, from "Keeper of the Keys", early HB1: "there's not enough human left in him to die". Hagrid here is laying down introductory background material. Hagrid at this point is already depicted as a flawed character, so what he says cannot be taken as fact, but it was a hint, and sure enough in HB6, Hagrid is shown to be right, possibly more right than he could have known. Hagrid's statements are particularly significant because (to the best of my memory), they are the only hint of a theory given in all of the first five books for why Voldemort didn't die. I am undecided as to whether this stuff belongs here (Horcrux) or on the Voldemort page, or elsewhere?--Anthony Duff 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of other clues, the less and less human and the dark transformations type comments are made by DD a few times as well. Dalf | Talk 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ravenclaw's necklace

1. I think the opal necklace that almost killed Katie Bell in HBP could be Ravenclaw's necklace, and a possible Horcrux, considering the effects it has (it has also killed 19 other people). We also know that Dumbledore was almost killed by another Horcrux, so it seems quite possible to me that the opal necklace is also a Horcrux. Anyone agree it should be mentioned in the Possible Horcruxes section? Also, how is Slytherin's locket a Known Horcrux? --Bluerain 09:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice - but don't you think if the cursed opal necklace was a Horcrux, that Dumbledore would have immediately recognized it as such, as soon as it arrived, and sought to destroy it, rather than going off on a dangerous journey with Harry to seek one elsewhere? The list of "Possible Horcruxes" as posted in the main article is not just an arbitrary list of items that various fans thought up and posted because they thought they could conceivably be a Horcrux; or things that they saw posted on some fan site or somebody's blog page (like Harry, the Sorting Hat, the Sword, the Scar, the Mirror, ad nauseum ad infinitum). These extraneous items are invariably removed whenever they appear, as purely speculative. The "approved" list are those items specifically mentioned by Dumbledore in the Horcrux discussions with Harry. Nothing else should be "allowed" on Dumbledore's list, until Book 7 is released and the truth of the matter is established - unless JKR herself reveals more information on the subject in a documented and confirmed interview. (Contd...) --T-dot 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I was sure that argument would come up, so here are a few doubts I have. I know Wikipedia has a policy against original research, but I believe it means mentioning unverifiable points or specualtion as a concrete fact. Is it also against policy to mention 'fan speculation' as 'fan speculation'? Because if it so, then there are many inconsistencies in the use of it. For instance, the Grimmauld Place article has the line --> "Current fan speculation is that an unopenable locket, found during the cleanup of the house in book 5, once belonged to Salazar Slytherin, and may be one of Voldemort's Horcruxes." <-- Also, if you go over to the R.A.B. article, the list of possibilites of R.A.B. are almost entirely speculative. I don't think I've come across JK Rowling having discussed all those names in her interviews (if she has, then there aren't any links or references to them on that page), and General Discussion Forums have been provided as External Links. So can someone please clarify how the rule is to be applied? Thanx. --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I hate the speculation R.A.B. article for everything but Regulus Black because everything else in there is idle fan speculation that isn't cited anywhere. But just because something is in another article, doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in here. Personally, I'd like to get rid of those things, but I promised not to unilaterally act against consensus, and at that time, I was one of few voices arguing for its removal. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
About the R.A.B. article - while that page itself certainly is full of idle speculation, there is at least some support for "it" being Regulus Black - in the documented interview with JKR. The other names are frankly a huge annoyance and are excellent candidates for being rounded up into a cage of "Other RAB Names Frequently Mentioned in HP fandom" ... and then dismissed and drowned in the lake as speculative. Having such annoyances on other wiki-pages never justifies spreading such vermin and disease elsewhere. --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
About the Locket: The point I was trying to make is that I believe there is (or should be) a very clear and obvious distinction between DUMBLEDORE's speculations with Harry on what items might be Horcruxes, and what some FANS might come up with out of their imaginations. Dumbledore's "ideas" are essentially reflective of Rowling's Intentions, since she wrote what he "said" about the Horcruxes, and that is pretty much all we have to go on. This does not necessarily mean that Dumbledore was 100% "correct". It could well be that Rowling threw in some bogus Horcrux(es) in the canon of texts, just to make Harry's "job" a little more interesting; but even if she did then they should still be mentioned as canonical horcrux candidates, as mentioned by Dumbledore (on his "authority") until the "truth" comes out in the next book or some authoritative interview with JKR. Fan speculation on Horcruxes should be largely left to fandom and off the Wikipedia. But The Wikipedia should list Dumbledore's "official" list of Horcruxes, at least until we find out otherwise. Is that clear? As for the cursed "Opal Necklace" - it still seems a certainty that Dumbledore would have immediately recognized it was a Horcrux, and promptly destroyed it, or at least told Harry it was a Horcrux, and not suggest in later conversation there was another Horcrux out there instead for Harry to have to track down and destroy. --T-dot 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difference between 'fan speculation' and Dumbledore's theories. I don't see why we can't just round up some of the popular fan theories and put them in a small para which explicitly mentions that they are fan speculation, and that the reader is NOT to take them as facts (as Dumbledore's theories are facts or anything that Rowling's interviews have confirmed). That shouldn't be a problem. The real problem, however, should be how much of fan speculation is allowed on a particular page? For instance, the R.A.B. article has more of speculation and less of facts. I'll take up that point on that page, and I'll forget about the Opal Necklace theory for now, atleast until the rule becomes clearer. Anyway, sorry for citing other articles in favour of my argument, but its rather confusing when different HP pages have different rules applied to them. Still, even in this article, the 'Mythological inspiration' and 'Possible Locations' parts are completely speculatory, and the latter doesn't even serve any purpose. Maybe we could get those parts deleted? --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

2. (...Contd) ps -- As for the Slytherin Locket - the Note found in the "fake" horcrux locket (see R.A.B.), combined with the Dumbledore and Harry conversations on the subject [HP6], Voldemort / Tom Riddle's actions as seen in the pensieve, and the events surrounding the search to recover that locket, provide us with pretty fair certainty that the Slytherin Locket is (or was) a Horcrux. --T-dot 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but R.A.B. does not specifically mention that the stolen Horcrux was indeed a locket. I'm not really denying the locket was indeed a Horcrux, but since the list of 'Possible Horcruxes' is based on all that Dumbledore theorises, then the locket belongs there. After all, even if it may seem painfully obvious, we don't have concrete proof about the locket being a Horcrux, just Dumbledore's assumptions on the matter. --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
But Dumbledore's assumptions and speculations are canonical - unlike the fan speculation. See the difference? --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And Dumbledore's assumptions and speculations fall under the list of 'Possible Horcruxes', which is the right place for Slytherin's locket. --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is where I've moved it. --Bluerain 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

3. (...Contd) Nevertheless - a big "THANK YOU" gold star of the day to Bluerain for asking and discussing before posting yet another Horcrux theory. --T-dot 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, but where do I get to see the Gold star? --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We might have to bust you down from a gold star to a bronze - for starting an argument on purpose and with an agenda - and admitting you did it: I was sure that argument would come up, so here are a few doubts I have... Perhaps Deathphoenix will consent to give you one of his Good Humor ones ... :) --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't really start the argument with an agenda or purpose, nor did I intend any humour, but if you say so, I wouldn't really mind the Good Humor barnstar. --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the "Etymology"

Strictly speaking, the "etymology" of the word "horcrux" is completely specified by the following phrase: "a word invented by Joanne K. Rowling and first published in July 2005 in her children's novel Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince". Beyond that, invented words have sources (words and syllables that influenced the author's invention) and suggestions (words and syllables that they suggest to the reader).

There is no excuse for including untrue linguistic information in an encyclopedia article. You cannot pass the buck by quoting an outside source that is itself complete nonsense. Here is the full entry from the Mugglenet page [4] 

   Horcrux - In Latin, "crux" comes from the noun "crux." "Crucis" means 
   "pain or torture," and "hor" is a shortened form of the noun "horreum," 
   which means "storehouse." Thus, "tormenting storehouse." The English 
   meaning for "crux" is "the critical feature or essence," like the crux 
   of an argument. Similar to the Latin translation, it then becomes 
   understood as "essence storehouse." Many consider the soul to be the 
   essence of an individual.

All wrong.

- "crux" does not come from "crux". It is the noun "crux", which means "cross". - "crucis" is the genitive singular of "crux", not a separate word. It means "of a cross". It does not mean pain and torture. A cross can connote pain, or a puzzle, or a signpost at a crossroads.

- the English meaning for crux comes from the medieval phrase "crux interpretum", cross or torment of interpreters, which refers to a difficult point in a text.

- there is no Latin word "hor", and Latin words are not shortened forms of other Latin words. The shortest Latin word that begins with "hor-" is "hora", an interval of time, or an hour.

- there are lots of Latin words that begin with "hor-", including "horia" a fishing boat, "horrendus" horrid, "horrere" to bristle or be prickly, "horribilis" horrible, "horridus" bristly, "horror" shivering or terror, "hortamen" encouragement, "hortus" garden.

- that Rowling had in mind the word "horreum", a barn or granary, is almost certainly as incorrect as anything can be.

--216.113.219.11 08:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [cclout]

You have some great feedback there. I don't remember why we left it in, perhaps it was because it was cited (even though it was speculation). Could you remove the offending sections yourself, since you seem to have extensive knowledge of the subject matter? --Deathphoenix 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
All in favor of deleting all speculative and/or dubious word "etymologies" in the various Harry Potter pages - AYE! ... those opposed - ...  ? -- T-dot 17:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yank it. I don't think we need fan speculation at all, personally. Friday (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a convincing argument that the section is bogus. Someone should doulbe check eventually but at the moment it should be yanked. I am opposed, it shoudl be cleaned up (and according to DIctionary.com again English crux has as one of its definitions exactly the phrase used in the article, that is I like the current shortened section. Dalf | Talk 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I will moderate my stance a little by saying that I do nto think the section is as wrong as the original poster says. The fact that JKR constructs madeup words using bits and pieces of Latin and such is well estabilished. The process she used in additin to the fact tha she made it up is prefectly valid for incluson in the etymology of the word. According to dictionary.com an Etymology can include or does include both the origin and the History (i.e. how she came up with it) of a word. While Latin might not have shortened words when constructing words out of other words this information is always relavent. The fact that the wording is bad in this case means we hould at least cut it down, but I think it is significant that the not only has that speculation been made but that it is likley enough that most of the fan comunity (and I suspct at least some media sources) have gone with it. The last statment that Rowling had in mind the word "horreum", a barn or granary, is almost certainly as incorrect as anything can be. Do you honestly think this is wrong? I think it migt be wrong but almost certainly? Dident she use to teach latin? Are there any other latin words starting with with hor- that she might have ment? What is almost certain is that she had someething in mind. However, for the short term I think we can still ynak the section, pending researching and documenting it a bit more. Dalf | Talk 19:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the etymology is accurate. That's why we have the NPOV. The Lexicon is a notable fan site; thus, it's valid to report their opinion on the etymology. It would also be valid to report contrasting opinions from notable sources. Unfortunately, the "convincing argument" is original research, and irrelevant. Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You realise that mugglenet is the largest HP fansite? Larger than the lexicon. More to the point mugglenet is one of two fansites that JKR has had direct dealings with, and one of the few that have been featured on her own website. The refrence in the article is attributed and described in conditional terms may etc. Further it is an answer to a legamate question that many readers will have, How do people think she derived it I do not see how NPOV comes into this though I take your point about NOR (though I disagree on its application in this case). Dalf | Talk 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant mugglenet is a notable fan site (though the lexicon is also, and is honored on JKR's site). I agree that the mugglenet's claim should be reported in the article. I was saying "All wrong. [...] 'crux' does not come from 'crux' [...] " was original research. Sorry for the confusion. Superm401 - Talk 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As requested by the first three comments, I have made the revision, by consolidating the section on derivation with the section headed "Mythological inspiration", and revising that section, adding two footnotes.

--216.113.219.131 08:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) [cclout]

Looks to me like you replaced documented speculation from a reputable source with undocumented speculation. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to concur. In its current state, it looks to be speculation. It shouldn't have stuff like "many readers believe", or stuff like that. --Deathphoenix 17:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Especially since the paired down section just before it was deleted and merged was perfectly fine. Dalf | Talk 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One concise and perfectly fine section, and one section which should probably be removed as erroneous, has been merged into one long, convoluted, and needlessly padded section that's twice as long? I fail to see how this is an improvement. As noted "Mythological inspiration" was just fine as it stood. The footnotes more properly belong in Mythology and the section on Koschei himself. I also fail to see why we need a discussion of the "literary requirements" of author invented terms, nor an exhaustive list of all possible places a soul can be hidden. - Vedexent 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance regarding the origins of the word, and if 216's assertions are correct, the faith I put in the information that Mugglenet provided. Nightscream 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible locations - Godric's Hollow - 3 reasons?

3. Rowling has said that Book Seven will include information about Lily Potter. Harry visiting Godric's Hollow would be an opportunity for this information to be revealed.

Why is this supporting evidence for there being a Horcrux in Godric's Hollow? If it's because Voldemort might have created one from her death (which does not really seem likely. I don't think he had time. He kills Lilly, he moves in to kill Harry, and bam, his curse backfires. No time to stop, make a magic object, and then get back to killing your mystical/prophecized enemy), this is covered in point #2.

It's not wrong. I just don't see what it has to do with the possibility of there being a Horcrux in Godric's hollow. - Vedexent 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's some good feedback. I'm not sure why I left it in before, but Godric's Hollow seems like speculation to me. How about you guys? --Deathphoenix 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
A link between Godric's Hollow and horcruxes does indeed sound like weak speculation, and as such, doesn't belong. It's just one of many possibilities. --Anthony Duff 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yank it! There is no indication in the books to make this a more likley location than any other - it's pure speculation. Death Eater Dan 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yanked. Thanks for the feedback, folks. --Deathphoenix 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the entire Possible Locations section is completely speculatory, and besides, it serves no purpose nor adds anything to the article. Should we delete it? --Bluerain 09:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I actually have no objections to the removal of this entire section. I'm not sure how other people feel, but I agree with you in that this section could be yanked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No objections from me. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section for now. Anyone wishing to put it back please discuss it here first. --Bluerain 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that Godric's Hollow is a likely place for a Horcrux because Godric could be Godric Gryffindor, meaning that the Horcrux could have been one of Godric's possessions (or the house itself). I think that it could go in the possible locations section. Oli 10:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That is, once again, an excellent example of Original Research and Speculation. It may well prove to be true - but the fact is, it is still only pure speculation, and does not belong in the article as if it were encyclopedic and canonical. Now IF Dumbledore had told Harry in one of the Books something like: "Harry my boy, it is possible that Voldemort created a Horcrux back at your house in Godric's Hollow when he killed your parents, and it might still be around there somewhere, perhaps in the form of the Godric Gryffindor Estate dinner plate that your mother won when she earned 500 points for Gryffindor for rescuing Severus Snape and the rest of the Hogwarts Students from further attacks by Fenrir Greyback ..." - THEN we might have something to go on. Speculation documented in the Books by a Character is fine for inclusion in the encyclopedia, as are hints and tips revealed in interviews of the author. Random speculation by fans and researchers is not, and neither is weasel wording it by saying things like "many fans believe that there might be a Horcrux at ...". --T-dot 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
OK Oli 10:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horcrux/Archive_2&oldid=1239705430"