Talk:R.A.B./Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Foreign edition deadline

I was struck by the comment about initials and foreign translations. It seems pretty certain that the regulus black debate is going to be solved by comparing foreign translations where the characters have translated names. If this is so, then JKR must have known before the book was published that the RAB riddle would only have about 4 months life before it was solved conclusively. Hence her desire to see it discussed now, while there is doubt. Which would explain something else I read, that foreign translators were not allowed to see HBP and prepare translations before the english version was published. That struck me as a bit odd at the time, that they could not trust their staff enough to work on the book in secret. But if they had a pressing need to not publish in foreign languages for a while to preserve the riddle? Then they would need an excuse to delay foreign publication????? Sandpiper 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

OR we are going to wait and see what happens instead of speculating, since we are working on an encyclopedia, not on a forum. --Sn0wflake 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
well, we might take the view that we will refuse to point out relevant facts from the texts in order not to spoil the puzzle, but that is not encyclopedic either. Wiki policy wikipedia:No original research says
'research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged'. So I think we should.
But I think you will find that everyone here, including those who feel we should show restraint in reporting this stuff, are here because they personally are interested in all available information. Sandpiper 19:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Discussing "excuses to delay foreign publication" and what J. K. Rowling thinks or not is not encyclopedic. Adding a terse comment to the article on how the R.A.B. situation might be solved when the editions of HBP in certain languages are released is a different matter. I insist that it would be much more logical to wait for said books to be published instead of adding yet more speculation to the article, though. --Sn0wflake 20:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually I wasn't planning to, and I do not think I said that I had any plan to. I don't think there is even a remote reference in the books to real world events, or anything which might support speculation on the publishers motives. I posted it here to see whether anyone had a view on it. I am not yet totally convinced, but I think it will be interesting to see how the editions differ. I thought it quite amusing. Also relevant to us in compiling the page in that the tussle over what else might justifiably be included could possibly be resolved much more quickly than having to wait for book seven. Sorry if I panicked you. Sandpiper 22:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Amy Benson, Burkes, and miscellaneous

Recently I made some changes to the article with a full edit summary, including removing candidates that were original research and did not even have initials of R.A.B, or even R.B. I also made other changes that were described. Sandpiper reverted many of my changes while only saying "What's wrong with Amy Benson." Therefore, I am restoring all other changes while keeping Amy Benson in the article temporarily. I am only allowing the Benson info to stay one week without a source. After that, I will assume it is original research and it will be removed. I ask all editors to please cooperate. This is Wikipedia policy. If anyone has any other issues with my edit beyond the Amy Benson protest in the Sandpiper revert, they should describe them here. Do not revert without explanation. Superm401 | Talk 00:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Sandpiper added a discussion forum back in with a misleading edit summary stating only that J.K.R endorses mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron. He did not explain why the forum should be there, and I already explained that it should be removed because the participants are non-notable. If you have a specific reason to add the forum link again, explain it here. Otherwise, please do not. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Specifically, when I say I am restoring other changes, here is what I am doing in that edit.
  1. Remove link from horcrux, because otherwise "emphasis added" note needed.
  2. The trio do not investigate the R.A.B mystery, so remove note stating otherwise.
  3. Remove subjective OR about "no better fit" and lack of clues because searching for clues and determining what is best fit are OR
  4. Remove note about Kreacher's craziness, which is pure OR
  5. Remove Borgin, Burkes because there is no proof of R or A, making them blatant speculation and OR.
  6. Possibly very minor changes elsewhere.
--Superm401 | Talk 00:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't read all of the comments in the discussion links on the bottom of the article, and i can't blame you for that, but how can you remove stuff for being OR if you didn't even read the sources?
Besides, leaving Amy Benson in but not Borgin makes no sense whatsoever. Quit replacing other theories by your own, this is an encyclopedia not your own HP fan site. Removing a character solely based on the reason that his first name is not known yet is not a very good reason you know.
That you speak of removing Burke already shows that you do not know where you are talking about, for we already know Burkes first name, Caracactus, so we know he cannot be RAB, and was therefor not listed as a possibility in the piece you have removed. --62.251.90.73 10:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I did not keep Amy Benson in because I think she's RAB(IMHO, given her name (NO R) and the fact that she's a muggle, that's completely ridiculous speculation). I kept it in because she was the only character contested in the edit summary. See my comments at bottom of the page. Superm401 | Talk 01:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The current revision appears to be reasonable. Would it be too much for both parties to live with it? --Sn0wflake 02:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi superman. Please read the rather long sections I wrote above in discussion with deathphoenix. The theories about who is RAB are not original research in the meaning ascribed by wiki. I am a lot more determined on this point than on the issue of whether they merit inclusion. I can see why people may argue they are not worthy of inclusion (though I do not agree) but they are certainly not 'original research'. They are widely held and discussed views. The links removed to 'mugglenet' and 'leaky cauldron' show hundreds, possibly thousands of people discussing and supporting them. So, running this argument slightly backwards, please do not delete references. By all means include better references instead, but otherwise leave them. You may feel that wiki is the only and best source of information on this subject on the internet, but others may not. Even if you do not feel they are directly relevant to a particular point they should be included as per wiki policy as sources of further general information.

  1. re horcrux, dont quite understand what you meant, but I am not arguing.
  2. re Investigation, read the book. Yes they do. Hermione in fact produces two candidates with the correct initials. I do not remember their names (they may be above somewhere, rufus axebanger something?). This is fact from book.
  3. I inserted no better fit etc from an internet discussion, so again it is not original research. The difficulty with this section is to try to balance it. The way you have left it is too definitive that Regulus is not R.A.B. In the interests of accuracy the article should certainly give the impression that he is widely believed to be RAB, and that there are frankly no other good candidates. This is what you yourself have said when arguing for deleting the rest of the names mentioned. So it seems your position is that the case for RAB being regulus has been largely proved, despite your wanting to write the article claiming it is very uncertain. This seems to be misleading the readers.
  4. Kreachers craziness is nothing to do with me, but again I have seen this suggested more than once so I myself did not strike it out.
  5. The issue of initials seem to be being overplayed. I think (to do some original research) that JKR has quite deliberately given us no RABs precisely. It would have taken about 2 paragraphs at the end of the book for harry to ask someone at the funeral what regulus' middle name was, but this did not happen. We are expected (to stop doing original research) to speculate about people who have nearly the correct initials,and this is all part of the puzzle which has been widely discussed, and we should be properly explaining to readers. It is entirely appropriate and within wiki guidelines to say that a puzzle has been set to find characters within the book with certain initials, and then to list those who fit, or might allowing for the usual conventions of people using a second name or getting married. That is not original research, it is merely indexing references within the text. Thus I have yet to see anyone state a reference which says Amy benson can not fit. On the other hand, amelia bones other name was susan,so I would not regard her as a likely candidate, but still worthy of inclusion to bring together the separate facts that she is normally referred to as amelia, but there is a reference to her other name being susan. we aim to report relevant facts here.

But apologies if you felt I was a little high-handed in altering your changes. It is not possible to include all this in the edit summary. And frankly, i felt there was a lot which had been removed which should be restored.81.139.132.104 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)(User:Sandpiper, not logged in)

Madam Rosmerta Theory

We know little of the past of Madam Rosmerta, nor do we know her full name. She could be a current or former member any organization (The Order of the Phoenix, a Death Eater, etc.) or none, as all are secretive. Weakness to the imperius curse should not rule her out. It would also be in Rowling's style to pull an obscure, rather nonessential character into the main plot and unexpected powers, abilities or intelligence. It is also possible that Madam Rosmerta could have put together things she has heard in the Three Broomsticks, such as the depositing of hundreds of bodies in the cave by deatheaters, a Good task to be delegated by Voldemort.

Though why she did not pass the information on to Dumbledore would be a mystery, and Rowling would have a good explanation for it, maybe a basis of fear, mistrust, phsychological blocking of the horror, alterior motives, etc.

Male or female R.A.B-translation

Russian and middle-eastern languages will translate R.A.B.'s letter differently if R.A.B is female. Did the translators ask JKR whether R.A.B. is male or female?

I await with interest the cross-refencing which will ensue in a few months.Sandpiper 17:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see the (Harry Potter fandom) headlines now: Russian translation proves that Amelia Bones is R.A.B. --Deathphoenix 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised nobody has suggested that it's Susan Bones. ;-) -- DocSigma 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Resolution

I was wrong. I will admit that. It is a bad idea to allow any kind of theory unsupported by Rowling to enter this article, since it creates a "my theory is no worse than the next" scenario, despite the fact that some theories are quite clearly more plausible than others. Thus, I will try to solve this in a manner that all agree, but if I fail, I will use the shotgun approach. It's the only fair thing to do. What I intend to do at the moment: making an edit which will include only verified information concerning Regulus and omitting the rest of the article, making a terse list of "other possible candidates" with a one-line explanation of why they could be R.A.B. In case people start expanding or reverting, I will protect the article and end of story. Does anybody disagree very much with this? Or can we accept it as a fair solution for all, at least for the moment? --Sn0wflake 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be very wrong, there isn't any more 'verified information' of regulus being RAB then of the other possibilities. There is only fan theory and speculation. While the regulus theory is (imo) a more likely then the other ones, it's still all speculation, and puting in only one possibility while ommitting all others isn't the way wiki works. Especially since we can assume it was the intention of JK for the readers to speculate about who might be R.A.B., in that case puting in only one theory is simply wrong, even though it's the most likely.
I think the article is pretty good now as it is, the blatent speculation is left out, only the facts from the books that could be clues to support one of the theories is still in.--62.251.90.73 11:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Regulus is the only character on which Rowling has commented on interviews. No speculation regarding him will be included, just the quote from the interview and why it could be. The "way the wiki works" is the way which is fair to everyone. --Sn0wflake 21:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Reasons why it could be = speculation. With the other possibilities mentioned in this article it only gives facts from the book that could be clues for the person being R.A.B. aswell. If you would only quote the interview piece and nothing else about regulus THEN it would be fair, yes. But since R.A.B. is intended by JKR to be speculated about, it would be weird not to mention the major theories about it. That's why I argue to keep the article very much as it is. Which is also fair. --62.251.90.73 09:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Reason why it could be='collecting and organising information from existing sources', which is recommended to all wiki editors. Editors are expected to include facts quoted from recognised sources, or arguments widely held in the community at large. The difficulty is to avoid creating theories of your own, or of referring to theories which have little actual support. However, this is all the same issue and it is not clear to me how you can provide information about Regulus without providing information on others. Snowflake is quite correct that I have not anywhere seen anything which merits much more than a sentence stating the facts about anyone apart from Regulus. But I do feel it is worth trying to preserve the feel of this article as an unsolved puzzle, which for balance ought to mean including other possibilitiesSandpiper 18:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
If it wouldn't be speculation we would already be 100% sure that Regulus is R.A.B., and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. For the rest your reply seems to be an accusation of OR, and apparantly you haven't read any of this articles' sources, or you would have seen the editorial on one of the biggest HP sites out there with over 350 replies discussing wether or not Borgin could be R.A.B., aswell as you would have noticed that any long discussion about the R.A.B. mystery has people suggesting about Borgin as a possibility. Google it if you don't believe me. I suggest you do some research on the subject yourself next time you're commenting. I really fail to understand how you can accuse people of OR if you don't even bother reading the sources. --62.251.90.73 18:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting removing Borgin, or anyone else you care to mention with a simple straightforward explanation of how (by mentioning facts from the books), they are candidates. What i really mean, is that Regulus is favourite candidate because there are quite a lot of references about him which fit, but relatively few about anyone else. Which logically means he would get more of a mention here than anyone else, because there is more to say. You might invent a theory that it was Dumbledore, but he wanted to test harry and see how he would react when Dumbledore got sick etc. I expect some one has thought of that somewhere. But there is really nothing to support such a theory from the books themselves so it would be pretty pointless to mention it. I don't accuse people of original research. I worry about whether something reported is noteable and accurate. Sandpiper 19:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
But noone here was argueing that every theory should have an equal amount of space. So if that was what you ment, then what point did you try to make?
Editors are expected to include facts quoted from recognised sources, or arguments widely held in the community at large. The difficulty is to avoid creating theories of your own, or of referring to theories which have little actual support. Sounds like an accusation of OR.--62.251.90.73 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No, but many people think so. I was semi-quoting from the wiki policy which explicitly states what is not 'original research'. The problem, at root, is that it is literally impossible to create any article without at some level doing 'original research'. You are expected to research what you write, draw together related facts. But, on the other hand, you are not permitted just to make it all up. Sandpiper 21:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Arcturus

Does anyone know whether the inserted quote that hp-lexicon was claiming RAB was 'arcturus' was an actual page they put up then removed, or a total spoof by an anon?Sandpiper 18:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I saw it, it was there, on the Regulus Black page that was linked to as a source in this article. I read it after that dude put it in the article, it was reported on mugglenet.com aswell, it said that a 'reliable source' confirmed that Regulus is R.A.B. and that his second name would be Arcturus. The entire page was written as it was already 100% sure that Regulus was R.A.B. including explanations of the meaning of his middle name and all that. [1]
Also I'm wondering why you removed everything about this without apparantly having a clue about what is going on. I think it's total disrespect for the other users to revert user edits without knowing anything about the subject you are reverting on yourself. Especially when proper sources were cited. Anonymous contributors are wikipedians aswell, and if you don't like that go found your own encyclopedia. --62.251.90.73 18:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I checked the hp-lexicon page given as reference, before I removed it. It makes no mention of 'arcturus'. So either it was never there, or they have withdrawn it. If you have proof that it was there, then you can include it as an amusing incident which came and went. But the fact that it is not there now rather suggests they are not standing by the story now, so we can hardly do so either. More information would be needed about what happened, before it could be included. Did someone break in and post a false page there? 62.41.130.198 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)(user:Sandpiper, computer has decided not to log on again)
Maybe someone higher up the lexicons' ranks didn't want to spoil too much, so it could still be relevant. But you can remove it from the article again if you don't agree. I don't care much about it. I was just annoyed by your reverting without knowing anything about it. --62.251.90.73 19:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
well indeed, I find it fascinating, there could be good reason for it being there, and good reasons (including legal/contractual ones) why it might have been withdrawn despite being accurate. But it could also be a total hoax. I have yet to see it on an actual internet page? Sandpiper 20:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Earlier in this discussion i linked mugglenet.com [2] which reports the lexicon claim. (i guess you missed that) Googling[3] also gives reports of it happening. And most interesting: it quotes cached parts of lexicon pages with the name "Regulus Arcturus Black" on it. [4] --62.251.90.73 21:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the link again. I have had a look (and elsewhere), and it certainly appears that hp-lexicon did post this story, and would not have done so without a good source. However, they have also removed it, leaving only the comment that the news has been particluarly interesting lately. Though, they were still listing Regulus arcturus black as a member of the death eaters. If they had good grounds to now disbelieve it, I would have thought they would have explained what happened. So maybe there is more information to come...or they got a solicitors letter? If the story were wholly incorrect, I don't see why anyone would be arguing legalities, just laughing privately.So...Sandpiper 23:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's very curious, had it been a hacker or a staff member go nuts or something, then they would have told it openly i think. So i think it's either that the story is true and a lawyer demanded it to dissappear, or the other possibility that the story is true and someone at the lexicon felt remorse about spoiling it (maybe the head admin as opposed to the woman that posted the news). Do you think we should put something about it in this wiki article? --62.251.90.73 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'd put a link to the mugglenet site, at http://www.mugglenet.com/newsfusion/fullnews.php?id=1116 and the Google search that quotes the page, at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Regulus+Arcturus+Black . To confirm it further, we can put a link to a leaky cauldron news story, at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/007504.php . That is cached by google at http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:XG6TXUKuPGcJ:www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/007504.php+&hl=en , in case the real page is taken down. By the way, I'm now okay with leaving the speculation about Amy Benson and Borgin in, as long as they have sources. I still don't believe the theories are notable, but I can tolerate them with references. Borgin has one(though it was temporarily down), but Benson does not have a specific source. Can someone please provide one? Superm401 | Talk 01:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone see a pattern here? book published July. Mysterious suggestion that Black's middle name is Arcturus in September to stir up the debate, confirmation of sorts from the foreign editions in November. Someone playing games with her public? Sandpiper 21:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RAB as Pictogram

There are three pictures in RAB turned upside down. The Three houses. Hufflepuff is the first picture, Ravenclaw is the second picture and Slytheryn is the last picture. "B" makes up the picture of a badger when it is turned upside down Bones' last initial "B". "A" makes up the picture of the eagle when it is turned upside down. Last name that starts with an "A" is still being investigated. "R" makes up the picture of the snake when it is turned upside down. Last name that starts with an "R" is still being investigated. My theory is that it is three people. Bones being one of them.--66.87.127.175 15:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)September 14, 2005

...what? o_0 -- DocSigma 18:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
R.A.B. refers to him/herself several times as "I" during the note found inside the fake locket.--207.160.210.253 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But I'm saying that only "1" person wrote the note. There are two more people who helped get the horocrux. The initials stand for three last names. Because if you turn the book upside down at look at RAB upside down you will see three pictures of the three houses. The first being a badger side profile-Hufflepuff, the second a bird looking directly at you - Ravenclaw and lastly the snake coiled around a stick - Slytheryn. These pictures are not a fluke and I believe because of this evidence, that it was three people from three houses. Also they would have to know exceptional magic to get to the horcruxes. Regulas Black was too young to know that type of magic (such as Harry needs help getting to the Horocruxes and DD is his help). So I determined that the three must be older. And I believe one of them to be Amelia Bones. The "B" in her last name makes up the "B" part of RAB and turned upside down the B makes up the picture of the badger - Hufflepuff. Of which this was her house when she was in school as is her neice Susan Bones.

Not a person?

Why is everyone asuming that RAB is an i identification of the note's auther? the letters could just as easily be a hidden mesage. In "the secret garden" one charecter signs his notes BAR, standing for Burn After Reading. The leters RAB could stand for Read And Burn, or any number of other phrases.

I doubt it's a person as well. It might be an organization, or as you say, a message. JK likes tricking us. Remember when (SPOILERS, of course) we thought that that Snape and Sirius were bad guys in books 1 & 3. Remember when we thought that there was a super-weapon in book 5? Remember when we were looking for a royal prince in book 6. The fact that Ron and Hermone thought that RAB were initials shows us that they aren't. -Arctic.gnome 08:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler, Dumbledore's Death

This article starts by mentioning Dumbledore's death. While it is hard to see how anyone could have read the book far enough to know about RAB without going on and discovering the death, why do we begin by saying Dumbledore is dead? This is entirely irrelevant information to the issue of who RAB might be. Sandpiper 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Because if Dumbledore hadn't been thrown from the battlements, Harry would not have thought to look in his robes for the fake Horcrux. The note was in the Horcrux, signed by R.A.B. so if Dumbledore hadn't died (unlikely) then i assume the RAB message would not be needed. -Kordos If Dumbledore hadn't died, then presumably he and harry would have opened the locket and discussed who might have written it. (though, of course, Dumbledore would almost certainly have known what Regulus Blacks full name was, and certainly should have thought of him. So perhaps he had to die so we might enjoy the puzzle?)

RAB is Dumbledore

Could it be possible that RAB is Dumbledore? R could be an unknown first-name or possibly the word "respectfully," A for Albus, and B could be two Ds stacked up on each other (a fancy way of signing his name). -Feripe

What theories should be listed here? It looks like only the most popular candidates show up here. But why are the most popular the only ones that should be mentioned? - Mig

well, to be listed a theory would have to have a degree of noteability, a significant body of support. It would also have to pass a common sense test of whether it was factually acurate.
In the example here, we are somewhere told Dumbledore's whole name, and it does not fit the initials at all. Second, the fact of signing the note with anything suggests that this will be meaningfull to the person reading the note, so it is not likely to be difficult to identify. Perhaps if Dumbledore was in the habit of signing hinself with a monogram, but he is not. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that it is exactly what it appears to be, three initials of someones name. That is how it is interpreted within the book. Sandpiper 19:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Haven't gotten a wiki account yet, but I probably will momentarily. Anyway, Dumbledore's full name is Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore. Plus, comparing what has been given as Dumbledore's writing before (Sorcerer's Stone, note that falls out of Invisibility Cloak) with R.A.B's handwriting, I don't see much of a resemblance. So I don't think R.A.B is Dumbledore. Interesting theory though. 69.92.180.201 07:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

R is Really A is Albus and the B is 2 D's for Dumbledore

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/2E/a/Talk%7ER.A.B._Archive3_bfd0.html"