Talk:Horcrux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B
This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

For previous discussions, please see the following:

/Archive 1
/Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Etymologie (2)

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

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

[edit] Horocrux Possibility)

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

I have thought of this(i am not this person) and decided it couldnt be him, because he made the 7 before attacking harry

- rupdike

  • It could be; however, this talk page probably isn't the best place to get widebrush thoughts on possible Horcruxes. I suggest you post to one of the Harry Potter fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should post some links on this talk page to places where this sort of discussion is ongoing and approprate. On a more important note, the archiving is probbly good but we might want to add back some stuff at the top regarding general advice for the article. SPecifically warning agains the stuff that creeps in that does not belnog. Dalf | Talk 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious and unclear claim

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

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

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

[edit] Article Reference Shake Up

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

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

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

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

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

I realize that the Notes section could use the term "Ibid" a great deal - however, I'm holding off converting the explicit references to "Ibid" until the references are completed. Idid only makes sense if an additional and different referencese in not tucked into the footnotes between a reference and its "parent" - Vedexent (talk) - 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
These are the best matches I can come up with for British Bloomsbury versions. Don't think it matters but PS, COS and GOF were in a box set - revised at least once from the originals. HBP was the 1st revision. Apologies for the crappy format but I'm still new at this :(
Existing cites as of right now:
2: "lesser than the meanest ghost": GOF, CH33, pg 566
3: "his attempted use of a Killing Curse on Harry Potter backfired upon himself": not a direct quote. Event occured before the beginning of PS, but is first referenced in PS, CH1, pg 14-15. It doesn't specifically mention backfiring until much later in the book IIRC. I think this is okay though.
4: "Tom Riddle's Diary is destroyed": COS, CH17, pg 237 ... "ring is confirmed as destoyed": HBP, CH24, pg 470-471
5: "rips the soul apart": HBP, CH24, pg 465
6: "each Horcrux he created": HBP, CH24, pg 469
8: "Horace Slughorn's Pensieve memories": HBP, CH17, pg 345-346
9: "Dumbledore destroyed this Horcrux": HBP, CH24, pg 470-471
10: "an ornate, serpentine S": HBP, CH20, pg 409
11: "engraving of a badger": HBP, CH20, pg 408-409
12: "murder of Frank Bryce": GOF, CH1, pg 19
13: "underlines the Slytherin connection": HBP, CH24, pg 473
In addition, the four existing cites/cites needed under the Creation paragraph will all reference the same place: CH24 in HBP. I'm not sure if putting 4 cites to the same place in 5 sentences is a good idea.
I can't find where "the most evil and unnatural of the Dark Arts" came from in that paragraph though. I think someone's inferred that from the text ... the closest I can get is "of the Horcrux, wickedest of magical inventions" - HBP CH 18 pg 357. Daggoth S 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Article Reference Shake Up - redux

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

"Just adding the quotes" wouldn't work - adding the quotes directly just means you have to cite those. Adding 10-page chunks defeats the purpose; the purpose of citation is to allow the reader to find the reference which backs up the point. If you start making refs to whole blocks of pages, how exactly is that much better than just saying "somewhere in book X"?
You won't ever have "more ref tags than we have sentences" since the most you should/can ever had is 1 ref per concrete assertion: e.g. "Voldemort likes chocolate frogs" (see Book 8, page 1,862). Compound assertions can be "lumped" into a single reference if need be, for a complex sentence.
<ref>Rowling, ... the Philosophers Stone, p. 12; ...Goblet of Fire., p.36; ... the Pillar of Storge, p.262. Note: Voldemort's liking for frogs in mentioned in the Philosophers Stone, the Order's use of chocolate frogs cards as spy devices is mentioned in Pillar of Storge, and the Wensleydale Report was presented to the Minister in Goblet of Fire.</ref>
You might not like the aesthetics of footnotes (they can be a bit of a pain in the butt), but in cited reference material they are a fact of life. These articles aren't light fiction, forum discussions, or fanzine speculative articles. If one doesn't want the reference marks, then one should stick to reading MuggleNet.
Addendum: According to the manual of style, however, there should not be references in the middle of sentances, and not more than one per sentence (although I'm see what you are saying about linking to another article, which contains common knowledge descriptions though, but that is a very limited tactic. Linking for anything but the vaguest generalities is unacceptable, as you have no guarantee that the article will support the point after the next 300 edits, nor that the point is well supponot sure this last point is in the MoS, it does seem to be convention), so perhaps a bit of a clean-up could be affected by consolidating ref tags to the end of sentences? - Vedexent (talk) - 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I love the ref system, I just think that some of the asks in this case are a bit silly. I disagree that saying that "this 8-10 page section contains most of the info refrences here", most people are able to read 10 pages in under 5 minutes. Reading quotes in contex gives a better graps of the details containe. It is also manifestly untrue that a single sentence can only caon tain one assertion, or that one assertion cannot contain more than one refrenceable fact. There is not consensus about the syle of refrences in fact for some of the mroe trivla things it is enough to link to another wikipedia article which contains the refrence (so that is someone wants a cite that says that George Bush is the presideent of the USA you can simply wikilink his name). Adding multiple refrences in a single tag is I think very bad style and if it is on the MOS page it shoudl be removed. The point of refrences is that they should work like refrences in normal refrence works. Each one corrosponds to one source, this enables re-use with the name attribute. Going back a second, if someone wants to check all the refs or even some of them on this page they WILL end up reading that whole section though probably not in order. Dalf | Talk 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with most of your objections, basically because I didn't say any of the things you seem to be objecting to.
  1. I am saying that making references unspecific enough that they only target a large "10 page block" is pretty pointless. Think of an academic paper. If you had to read 10 pages to find each supporting point would you bother? Probably not. I very much doubt that Wikipedia readers would do so either. This leads to errors in citations not being caught, because no one checks up on them. Therefore errors - either accidental or deliberate - can creep in that no one will ever catch.
  2. I have never said that the most that one sentence can carry is one assertion. I am saying that 1 assertion = 1 reference, unless the same reference contains the same chain of assertions. This leads to...
  3. Because most articles written in encyclopedic style are written in a summary style, many assertions that come from different sources can get stuffed into one sentence. This means you have to either...
    1. Break up sentences - which doesn't seem like a good idea, as it leads to "article bloat"
    2. Put multiple references inside a sentence - looks clunky, and violates the current reference MoS
    3. Leave some points un-referenced and unsupported - bad. Leaves swathes of article open to debate and partisan bickering. You've seen that here.
    4. Put multiple references in the footnote. - Not great, but it seems to be the least of the possible evils. Many people object to it, but it seems to work. See Third Servile War.
  4. It is explicitly stated in the guidelines that Wikipedia is not a reference for Wikipedia. Irted and referenced in that article.
  5. I agree that references in Wikipedia should work like references in published papers. However, most referenced works are not summary style encyclopedic articles, they are general papers. When you write in summary style, the points get all "scrunched together", and thus references get "scrunched together" as well. What we seem to be discussing is how to deal with the problems caused by this scrunching.
  6. Given that we seem to agree that "1 sentence" does not equal "1 assertion" then you cannot preserve all of the following: "1 footnote = 1 reference", "1 assertion = 1 footnote", "1 sentence = 1 footnote" at the end (according to the MoS). Something has to give somewhere. My personal preference is to throw the "1 footnote = 1 reference" rule out to make it work. It isn't ideal, and you might not agree, but it makes everything fit again.
  7. I would most strongly disagree with the idea that "maximizing reusability" is a consideration when it leads to a degradation in the accuracy of citations. Citations do no get much more specific that page numbers (in most texts - historical and religions texts that use the "Chapter and Verse" means of breaking up text can get more specific), and when the different points are made on the same page, I can see the purpose of reusing footnotes. However, once you start clouding the accuracy of footnotes to make the presentation "neater" you are sacrificing information for the sake of aesthetics. Given that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not an art project, I cannot agree with that. Nor is an online encyclopedia limited by paper media; we can have as many different footnotes as are required for accuracy and not have to worry about "running off the page" - Vedexent (talk) - 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I think ths argumetn is mostly acedemic as I am not proposing any changes to the article that I am willing to go to the mat over. However, just because I like discussing these sorts of things(my numbers refrence your number or should):
  1. Actually, when refrenceing scientific pappers on wikipedia (most of which are over 10 pages) I am not sure I have ever seen anyone refrence a sincle page. The idea being that you have to read it in context to understand it. Ten pages is not that much, in this case it is a better argument to say that we want to include specific quotes in the ref which woudl make re-use impossible, that argument I can accept but I do not think as a matter of style having 15-30 refrences to refer to the same 8-10 pages is in anyway better.
  2. In this case where both logical refrences crammed into the same physical refrence are from the same source it is not AS bad but I suppose I am one of the people who thinks that is seriously bad form. I suspect that when consensus is eventually reached it will settel on a solution that does not use it, though I suspect the ref system will be enhanced by then.
  3. You left off, "put multiple refrences at the end of a sentence" which is easier to maintain when one of the refrenes needs changing and easier to read, and easier to understand that you are provigind multiple sources, sometimes for multiple facts other times for the same fact.
  4. WIkipedia is not a refrence for wikipedia, but that is irrelvent, the point I made (and possibly the example) was from a mail by Jimmy Wales to the mailing list. Providing a pointer to an article with mroe context and a refrence is not diffrent form pointing to a footnote with more info (possibly) and a refrence. WIkipedia is seen as a single work not a bunch of smaller works presented near eachother (for this anyway).
  5. Yes we are basically discussing style and not what should be refrenced, and you will note that I have not changed the article and infact used the system you are supporting when I added the last chunk of refs.
  6. The multiple refrenced facts in one sentence only happens on this page once and a in that case a single page actually worked for all three facts as they were related. However have a look at the second to last sentence in Kraftwerk, due to several edit wars and arguments on the talk page lots of refrences were needed for a single fact. It looks pretty silly as well, and if possible should also be avoided but it is how refrences and footnotes are done in acedemic publishing at times. I think breakign them appart is doublly important when the facts refrenced and the soures are diffrent.
  7. We had two footnotes to the same single page! Like I said if you can include a quote as part of the ref making it diffrent then you are right, but otherwise it is NOT sacrificing information, and it makes the article much eaiser to edit for new users (And even old users). One of the biggest complaines about {{cite}} and the ref system is that it makes the articles impossible to read in the edit window. That harms the encyclopedia too. Dalf | Talk 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology

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

Thank you. Presenting such matters here, unless admitted to by Rowling, or expertly analyzed critically in some sort of Verifiable and published Reliable Source, amounts to Original Research, and should not be allowed in the Wiki. --T-dot 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Long night, are you saying you would like a ref to the D&D aspect, or the D&D aspect doesn't belong unless JKR says she was inspired by D&D? shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I am agreeing with your removal of any off-topic material about D&D or other analogues to a Horcrux. The purpose of the Wikipedia article on the Horcrux is to reveal Rowling's conception of her fictional Horcrux, with verifiability references to her books, interviews, web site, etc. Comparisons can be made to other items, but such comparisons cannot be original research. If for example an expert in mythological soul-containers did an analysis comparing Rowling's Horcruxes to D&D liches or whatever, than a discussion of that would be allowed here. Otherwise it is undocumented original research that is unverifiable. The whole section that provides reference comparisons to D&D probably needs to go away - it has been removed by cleanup crews and restored by anonymous trolls many times already. --T-dot 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
OH ok. There was something I was unsure if wanted so didnt add here from he most recent site update http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ about a new word and she Googled for Horcrux and she for 401,000 entires on 28 Sept, 2006. Little bit of Horcrux trivia unless it is unrelated to the main concept of the artile. shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Right - Rowling's website point was that she literally made up the word Horcrux, and used Google or whatever to confirm the word didnt already exist out there somewhere before she used it. There were no web references to the word Horcrux back then, and now there are "about 348,000" on Google, and "about 233,000" on Yahoo. We can use this sort of information to "prove" that "Horcrux" is a word that Rowling totally made up out of thin air, and that it does NOT derive from some twist on Latin root meaning "scary cross" or something, or even worse - a Hungarian-Bulgarian word for "broken-soul box" or something, as some superfans may have tried to claim in the past. --T-dot 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That post on her web-site did not say anythign about the process ny which she made it up. She does use latin roots in some of her made up words and in most of her names. We cannot put any specific roots in here since we don't know it to be true, but neither can we put that it is 'proven' that such a derivation is untrue. We should not assert anythign about it. We should not include it. Dalf | Talk 00:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that related ideas in popular culture shoudl be removed wholsale. Even if (as is the case here) they are unlikly to have inspiored her they are almost sure to have been inspired by the same myths and fairy tales. It puts it in perspective to see other places that had the same idea. Also I might add that my understanding of the D&D item is that a gem or other such object containing the soul of a litch is called a phylactery, sure it can be just about anythign but the fact that a litch uses it as such makes it a phylactery. Dalf | Talk 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone overboard vociferious opposition to the mention of Harrycrux and Scarcrux

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

P.S. Regarding the edit summary on [1] please dont WP:BITE the newbies, especially since it was not added as speculation but as documentation of said speculation. Dalf | Talk 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I made a similar comment on this talk page last year, and the general line of argument was that the Harrycrux hasn't been mentioned anywhere significant yet (with fan forums not counting as significant). I kind of agree with that, so I guess we would need a major source to mention it. I seem to remember Mugglent running a poll of horcrux possibilities at some point with Harry and Harry's scar as options, but I can't seem to find it in their archive.--Victim Of Fate 10:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we can legitimately point out, sort of in the style of a "news report", that there are a vast array of "other things" mentioned as possible horcruxes in the speculative fan base. We could then produce a list of those commonly mentioned items (especially if any of the Rowling-acknowledged fan sites have already created such an organized list - otherwise it might be considered Original Research). Such a list would need to be clearly prefaced with remarks to the effect that these items are purely speculative, and have no authoritative basis from the canon of books, movies, interviews, or Rowling's web site. We need to avoid weasel words in trying to legitimize the list by saying "many fans believe" (etc.) - the best scenario would again be to find an already published list and post a reference link to that. This way the Verifiability and Reliable Source policy requirements are met, and it does not violate original research or constitute weasel wording guidelines. And - best of all - we do not get into "giving support" to any one particular "anti-horcrux", we just list them without further comment, beyond the disclaimer. We need to avoiding debates on the likelihood of any of them, or "prioritizing" the proposed list by high-low probability etc. It is a can of worms to open, but at least it might get the fanatics and drive-by horcrux-vandal-trolls off our backs. --T-dot 10:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not especially intrested in documenting the theories and I am activly against documenting the arguments for or against any theory. I simply think we should document the existance of the debate within the fandom. We have to be carufl though because we are on a subject for which there is no consensus and much debate about what exactly a reliable source is. I likeyour idea of refering to fan sites that have been mentioned on JKR's site. There was recently a review of WP:RS at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws by User:Phil Sandifer who as I understand it teaches a university level class on things related to sourcing and such in acedemia. One of the thigns that he pointed out was (in my own words) that many of the thigns that we document on wikipedia exist only as primary and secondary sources online on the types of sites that many people have explicitly banned in WP:RS and that in some cases such a hard line on things like bultin boards usenet posts and wikis is (his words now "This section is just nonsense. Usenet, BBs, and wikis are perfectly reliable as primary sources in lots of cases." The truth is is you are only using the source as a refrence to the existance of something, and that somethign exists online simply linking to it is enough. If we want to state that such a debate exists O think linking to any one of many many permanate threads on fan fourms dedicated to the topic establishes that. PLEASE NOTE however that these are NOT good sources for saying anythign ABOUT the debate, only for documenting its existance. Dalf | Talk 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with me if I am wrong, but isn't this one of the most discussed issues in fandom? ("is harry a horcrux" brings up 2270 results on google.) Surely, then, wikipedia should make some report of the idea, if only to document that such a controversy is happening. Whether you look at it from an inclusionistic 'it is our duty to present as much information relevant to the topic as possible in a convenient manageable form' viewpoint, or a quasi-info-capitalistic 'we provide a service and if people aren't satisfied by it they'll go elsewhere and take their patronage away from us so we need to keep all readers satisfied' viewpoint, the issue should be discussed (making clear, of course, that it is fan opinion rather than authorially confirmed fact). As for documenting theories: I would like to point out that one of my own university lecturers said in a lecture on the Black Death that the equation of it with bubonic plague was, in his exact words, "pure speculation", and that today only historians believe the two to be the same: scientists and everyone else, apparently, scorn the identification (though they haven't come up with a better idea). However, try erasing the identification of Magna Pestilentia with Yersinia Pestis because it is based upon 'fan speculation', and you may run into some problems...Michaelsanders 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


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

How about we sandbox it here. Let's write up a paragraph below as you propose, and let's "edit" on it over the weekend, and when it seems reasonable consensus is reached, post it to the article along with a "gentle strong warning" that appears in the edit pane not to add undiscussed anti-horcruxes, or comment on their probability or the why's and why-nots. Here - I'll start us off...
== Horcrux candidates in the fan base (SANDBOX VERSION) ==
The Harry Potter fan base has generated a wide variety of non-canonical "possible" horcruxes, based on their interpretation of various sections of the texts. These horcruxes are not authoritative - that is they were not specified by Rowling, either in the books (specifically mentioned by Dumbledore in his discussions with Harry on the subject), or in the movies, or in documented interviews, or on her web site. One fan site in particular, [www.?????.com - tbd] has produced a list of proposed alternate horcruxes, along with arguments pro and con as to their validity. Some commonly debated horcruxes mentioned there include the following:
(and then a list of perhaps a half-dozen "top candidates" as documented at the site).
Rowling has already rejected a number (?) of other proposed horcrux candidates, such as the Sorting Hat, in interviews and on her web site in the frequently asked questions section.
By the way - this cannot work unless we FIRST find a Verifiable list from a Reliable Source - such as the HPANA or the Mugglenet or other quality web site which Rowling has acknowledged on her web site - so don't go inventing your own list, posting it on a blog, and then linking to that. (--T-dot 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC))
I agree that the proposal of a list of fan based otions is out, I think we really only have cause to address teh single issue of Harry (or his scar) as a Horcrux. I still want to point out that for this particular issue (as I stated above) WP:RS (which is not a policy and is disputed as a guideline) may not be 100% authoratative. We need to use some common sense about what we are claiming and what we are using to support it. In other words, rather than taking a rules based "this is allowed this is not" approach we should look at the spirit of the things. Is the source we are using one that provides good evidence for what we are saying. Thinking in tha way I propose that we ONLY claim that the debate exists, in a significant way and then link to the discusion threads dedicated to this topic on major fan sites (4 or 5 links should do). We woudl not be using the content of those threads to prove anything as all we would be claiming is their existance. I suspect we could probably even find a mailing list or yahoo group or two dedicated to just discussing this issue. Dalf | Talk 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Harry A Horcrux? - As far as I am aware, the HP Lexicon has been identified as one of the very best Harry Potter websites by JK Rowling, so surely the fact that they have discussed in an essay this should count as a reliable source?--Victim Of Fate 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, infact I got to thinking about this and I think if we are wanting to make claims about the fandom, any harry potter fan sie notable enough to have a wikipedia article I think would qualify. As long as we are using them as a primary source and NOT a secondary source (ie we are using them to document themselves and not the Harry Postter books), then the only relavent wikipedia policies are Verifiability and Notability. Dalf | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/r/Talk%7EHorcrux_9520.html"