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.
Warning Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.
Archive

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Contents

[edit] State of soul

to make a horcrux you must tear your soul, when this happens you remove a bit, but does that mean you now only have half a soul? If voldemort has done this 6 times, is the soul he now is using only 1/64 (2^-6) of a full soul? Does this mean right now harry is fighting a very weak version compared to that he will be fighting at the end? Wolfmankurd 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he gets the soul fragments back - isn't the damage supposed to be irreparable? As for the division sizes, we simply don't know enough. Michaelsanders 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

I've been told that there was an interview in which Rowling stated there has actually been one Horcrux revealed in each book. And also that the horcrux of book 1, held a much bigger part in the 1st movie by accident. I've heard this from a few people, but I never personallly saw this interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

no there hasn't. She said in the interview shortly after HBP was released that a sharp reader might be able to spot a horcrux or two within the series, but not one in each book. Although that's what some people try and do! Jammi568 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit

I reverted an edit saying that it has been speculated that a Horcrux could be created by a potion, as this is speculation and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just wanted to give a reason as when I rolled it back, I wasn't offered to give an edit summary. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It was also phrased with weasel wording: "it has been speculated" which is a disallowed way of sneaking in an unverifiable or controversial concept - hiding it as a "fact" by conditionalizing or "limiting the liability". The rule of thumb is: if the statement cannot stand on its own without "some believe" ot "it is speculated" (etc.), then it is not encyclopedic and should not be presented as a fact. Your support for this sort of reversion is Verifiability wih Reliable Sources and Avoid Weasel Wording and posting Original Research. On the edit summary - if you open an edit window on a previous version of an article (reverting to a previous version) there is always an edit summary below the edit window which is near the bottom of the page - perhaps it was just below your scrolling pane range and not very obvious. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement on Horcruxes as magical items

Horcruxes are regular objects until activated to become magical. The only information we have about these objects is from book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rambos shadow (talk • contribs).

To repeat the comment in my summary: a horcrux is a magical object - a horcrux has a piece of soul magically inserted, and becomes a magical repository of that fragment (and, if the ring and diary are any indication, are capable of magical actions). Yes, a horcrux is a normal object, not necessarily magical, before it gets the fragment - but before it gets the fragment, it is not a horcrux. Michaelsanders 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To Rambo: Not really, no. Being magically "activated" as you say is a necessary condition for an object to be a Horcrux. A regular object becomes a magical Horcrux when the Horcrux-creator murders a victim (thus splitting his own soul), and then magically implants the resulting soul fragment into the object. The object is not a Horcrux until it has been imbued with the soul fragment. Therefore, Horcruxes are by definition magical objects. You cannot have a non-magical Horcrux. You can however have a former Horcrux, once the curse or charm or whatever has been countered, and the soul fragment has been destroyed (eg: the Riddle Diary and the Gaunt Ring).

On a semi-related note, it would probably be good to start off the article by clearly stating that the Horcrux is first and foremost a fictional object in the fictional Harry Potter universe. The HP Project has been taking a lot of grief lately from "outsiders", particularly during Good Article discussions, over the fact that the information in many articles is not very clearly stated as "fictional". Events and objects and people and places are described "encyclopaedically" as if they were "real", and this usually prevents the article from being awarded status as a good or Featured Article. This argument is used in the vast majority of HP article GA turn-downs; and most submissions of HP articles to GA or FA are automatically dismissed now for that reason. Something we need to think about and work on. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed notes about being similar to The Lord of the Rings

I've removed the Lord of the Rings text from "Horcrux precedents" here. The previous two are very similar to what a horcrux does, but this one is admittedly very different:

  • In Lord Of the Rings, the dark lord, Sauron, cannot be destroyed until the ring in which he left part of himself is destroyed; note that this is somewhat different, as Sauron did this not to protect himself from mortal death (being immortal already), but to magnify his own power; thus, the Ring rendered him nearly mortal whereas the Horcruxes render Voldemort immortal.

Since it's so different, I don't think it belongs in this section. --Deathphoenix 15:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the One Ring, and only saw this Talk section afterwards. I really think it belongs here, since the similarities are far greater than the (nuance) difference (soul put into an object); but I am going to re-add the difference paragraph.

But it's not like Rowling drew inspiration from it. As far as I've been told she's never even read LotR.
It says in the Wiki article on the series that she had read LotR as a child, but had not read the Hobbit until after the first book was published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.196.162 (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Added short reference to The Lord of the Rings

Some say the "One Ring" in The Lord of the Rings is not a Horcrux or even almost the opposite. The One Ring is however a perfect example of a Horcrux. The most obvious difference lays in the fact that Sauron didn't have to kill anyone to store a part of his essence in the ring, although he must have killed a lot of people. As is mentioned as an argument involving in- or decreasing of the vulnerability it is said that Sauron got more vulnerable, while Voldemort got invulnerable. In fact, they only use a different way to ensure their survival: Sauron makes his ring almost indestructible, while Voldemort makes multiple Horcruxes. Sauron doesn't take the form of his old body but stays alive in a similar way to Voldemort. This brings us to the main difference: Sauron didn't lose much in means of power when his body was destroyed, he only needed time to remanifest himself; while Voldemort got extremely weak, until he regained a body. This last difference may however lay in the amount of power that was stored and the amount that was lost while casting the spell. A remark to the fact that he forged the One Ring to gain power is that he would not magnify his powers in a direct way, as long as he was wearing the ring his power would stay about the same as it used to be or possibly slightly weaker, he would however gain power because the One Ring controls all the other rings. Indeed Sauron is immortal and stays immortal, even after the One Ring is destroyed, he does however loses his form and thus no longer influences the material world, it could be said in another way that a soul will disperce if it is not constricted to a certain area by for example being contained in solid matter. It might be unlikely that Rowling ever read The Lord of the Rings, but it's far from impossible she has heard of the One Ring, especially when The Lord of the Rings became more known because of the movies, so she still might have inspired the Horcruxes on The Ring.

To put things short, I think the One Ring should at least be shortly referenced. I have also rementioned the lich

Tuganax 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a passing mention that the two bear superficial similarities would not hurt - both are created to make the user more powerful, but in fact make him more vulnerable; both parts of their souls into the Rings of Power, etc - but anythng deeper than that is not necessary. As the above essay makes clear, at a deeper level, the two deviate substantially in function and purpose (although the Nine and the One both unnaturally prolong the lives of mortals, Horcrux fashion); and since Rowling has not officially described LOTR as a source, we cannot give a long-drawn out analysis of the changes she made to a subject she might not have known about. However, LOTR is a cultural phenomenon as well, so a brief mention wouldn't hurt. Michaelsanders 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless some scholarly source has published a mention of the connection between a Horcrux and the One Ring, it is original research. Incidentally, Rowling was asked whether LOTR influences her works, and she claims very little inspiration sprung from the books. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is, of course, why both happen to feature a 'Dark Lord', a title which is very rarely used (I've never seen it outside LOTR and HP - though Star Wars comes close)?
"And a third time, even as he laughed, thinking what he would do now in the world, being rid of the Edain forever, he was taken in the midst of hs mirth...But Sauron was not of mortal flesh, and though he was robbed now of that shape in which he ha wrought so great an evil, so that he could never again appear fair to the eyes of Men, yet his spirit arose out of the deep and passed as a shadow, and a black wind over the sea...to Mordor that was his home. There he took up again his great ring in Barad-Dur and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." (Akallabeth). Hasn't been influenced by LOTR my foot...
But I digress. There are similarities between the Rings and the horcruxes - enough to allow a throw-away line, if not a long drawn-out discussion. After all, has she confirmed any connection with Koschei the Deathless (and I haven't noticed Voldemort stuffing many parrots with needles of late)? Michaelsanders 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


My last remark (hopefully): In the link given by Fbv65edel (close to the end of the page) Rowling says having read The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings and admits there are superficial similarities. I can personally say that when I first read about Horcruxes in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which in fact I read before reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, it immediately reminded me of The Lord of the Rings especially the One Ring of Sauron, already when I read about Marvolo Gaunt and his ring I was starting to suspect a possible connection. I don't want exclude the possibility that J.K. Rowling wasn't influenced by any of the Tolkien-mythology, but it is in fact probable she was influenced to a certain extent. I do however need to make a remark that the Tolkien-books date back (long) before Rowling's first Harry Potter book and so the statement "More recently" is not really correct, so I will adjust this.

Something that is an interesting fact is that Marvolo Gaunt is an anagram of Morgot UnVala, ofcourse this could be pure coincidence, but it's true Morgoth was of the same order as the Valar and the 'antagonist' of the Valar. Even the missing "h" might be explained: Gaunt is the former English name for Ghent a Flemish city, in the Dutch language however Ghent is spelled as "Gent", without the "h". The Gaunt family has other anagrams in its family, the most obvious as it has occured in the Harry Potter books is that of Tom Marvolo Riddle, what can be rearranged to spell "I am Lord Voldemort". Although Rowling probably never intended this similarity. Tuganax 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am rather curious as to why the Rings aren't similar enough to horcruxes. These would be the objects of power created by the Dark Lord to make him more powerful, but which in fact make him more vulnerable? Repositories of fragments of the Dark Lord's essence? Objects of great worth, which others are prepared to kill for? Objects which the Dark Lord figuratively mutilates himself for, but which give him greater power?
Spot the difference:'The Dark Lord rises to power, but is opposed by a few. Two notable enemies oppose him. Both are killed, but their deaths lead to the destruction of the Dark Lord. Unable to die due to his objects of power, he retreats as a spirit to the lonely places of the world. His objects of power he leaves lying around. Some are used by others to their own ends. The great war leader fails to have the objects destroyed; as a result, he is killed, and many others suffer the same fate because of his failure. Meanwhile a nasty little Kreacher creature has been hiding away an object of power in its den, until it is stolen by a robber. And the hero of the story embarks on a great quest to destroy the object of power, which will unmake the Dark Lord's plans and magics, and cause him to meet his final downfall.' Well, which story was that? Michaelsanders 10:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - well as DeathPhoenix has said repeatedly - we still cannot say things like: "...there have been made many comparisons to other objects in modern fiction..." and then state our own theories about similarities between Horcruxes and Isildur's Bane unless we can come up with independant, authoritative, Reliable Sources with proper editorial analyses and matters of fact, outside of the Wikipedia posts and the HP and LOTR fan base, which can be verified by anyone with a click at a footnote. Otherwise it is no more than weasel worded speculation and gossip Original Research which must be disallowed. Verifiability from Reliable Sources always trumps the "truth" or "common sense" in an encyclopedia such as this. Otherwise it is just your opinion - no matter how firm your convictions and how sure you are of the common sense logic. It is our responsibility in the HP Project to do our best to keep the Wikipedia orders of magnitude "tighter" than the typical fan sites, forum and blog pages, and other web riffraff sites out there. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Could this link: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm
be a propper source? On this site you can find the text:
  • Q.: Hello, I was wondering how much Tolkien inspired and influenced your writing?
  • J.K.: Hard to say. I didn't read The Hobbit until after the first Harry book was written, though I read Lord of the Rings when I was nineteen. I think, setting aside the obvious fact that we both use myth and legend, that the similarities are fairly superficial. Tolkien created a whole new mythology, which I would never claim to have done. On the other hand, I think I have better jokes.
Tuganax 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you are certainly welcome to quote that, but you cannot use that to prove, nor can you by that quote infer or conclude, that the Horcrux is in any way shape or form similar to the One Ring, since she did not say that, nor was that specific question even asked. All you can use that quote for is to say that any similarities between Harry Potter's world and Middle Earth are "superficial". This does not help your case at all. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It does prove she read the books and there are similarities albeit fairly superficial. The fact that the question is asked also proves there have been made comparisons to Tolkien. Indeed it doesn't speak specifically of The Rings of Power, or the One Ring alone. Tuganax 23:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought - has Rowling ever owned up to being inspired by Koschei the Deathless, or the Indian sorcerors secreting their souls in parrots? In terms of speculation, making a passing reference to vague similarities between horcruxes and a concept in a book she admits she has read and which she views as having vague similarities to her own work is much less in breach of policy than working in references to The Firebird and myths that she is far less likely to know (they certainly don't seem to be cited). Michaelsanders 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You have a point there. If we cannot provide any references to the mythological inspiration of the Horcrux (Rowling: "Why yes, I took the idea for the Horcrux out of blah blah blah.") we should actually remove the section entirely. OTOH, a notable third-party source would be sufficient to put in an illustrative example, say, a review or literary analysis posted by a notable writer or publication saying "The Horcrux was inspired by (or is very similar to) blah blah blah." --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Michaelsanders 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with DeathPhoenix. I have no problem at all with posting comparisons of the concept of the Horcrux with anything else in the real world or in mythology - hell, you can even compare Horcruxes to Zeus's magical toenail clippings if you wish (and can find a source!). I do not have a problem with such comparisons even if the objects being compared are actually "sort of opposites" (like the One Ring vs. the Horcrux) - then it becomes contrasting instead of comparing. The only necessary condition for posting such thoughts it to have verifiable reliable sources for such editorial commentary, and it is not just "us" (or the non-authoritative fan base) doing the comparing-and-contrasting work and also the posting - because it then becomes, by definition, original research. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] locket

on which page is the locket in grimmauld place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.15.116 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

According to the HP Lexicon it's first mentioned in chapter 6 of Order of the Phoenix. John Reaves (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seemingly irrelevant reference

This is from the description section. "It is unknown what happens if a person with Horcruxes is kissed by a dementor."

It's also unknown what happens if you a person with Horcruxes gets slapped with a trout, but that's entirely irrelevant, as is the reference to dementors, as of right now. Why is it even slightly important what happens if a person with Horcruxes is kissed by a dementor?

Because the Dementor's kiss takes the soul. Does this have an effect on the other parts of the soul? Are they all taken? Is the person invulnerable to a Dementor's kiss because of their horcruxes? Michaelsanders 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The refrence shoudl be removed unless we can find some sort of worth while source discussing it. Dalf | Talk 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I would assume that the dementor's kiss would suck out the soul IN a person. Thus, the remaining soul of the person(with a horcrux) would be sucked out, but the soul of the other horcruxes would still exist, and the person could be revived using those horcruxes as well. GavinTing 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horcrux in other literature

Although not expressly stated as a "Horcrux" there are other forms of entertainment or literature that mention the concept, such as Lord of the Rings. The One Ring is a horcrux of sorts that keeps the Dark Lord from dying until the ring is destroyed. I bet that this isn't the place to talk about the concept from other literature and such, but I thought I would mention it, just in case anyone was interested. rlee1185 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Should we have a section on speculation on what the other possible horcruxes are? i mean, i know Deathly Hallows is coming out soon, but still...Jammi568 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan speculation site. At times when we allowed some "alternate speculations" on horcruxes, the page quickly becomes spammed with sundry lists of possible horcruxes, from various fanatics who think that any object they can think of that was ever mentioned in the novels or shown in the movies or purely made up at the fan sites "might be a horcrux". The consensus was to avoid all speculation, and report simply what Rowling told us about horcruxes - either from quoting the books (eg: what Slughorn and Dumbledore had to say about them), or from Rowling's interviews and her web site.
It might make perfect sense to document a short list of popular horcrux candidates, but then we run into all sorts of problems regarding original research and weasel wording, and what qualifies as verifiable from reliable sources, and inevitably difficulties with maintaining a neutral point of view as various HP fans earnestly try to promote their personal favorite horcrux-candidates to the "short list", and firmly disputing other items included on the list or proposed by other HP fans. Previous consensus efforts to make non-canonical lists of "other possible horcruxes" inevitably failed on those grounds. The canonical list is relatively indisputable - anyone can check the books or the web site links. Thanks for asking though. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

that's a shame, but thanks for the answer. Seemed like a good idea at the time though! Jammi568 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently, a lot of fan speculations have been added by User:Michaelsanders: it is cited, but cited from a self-published source (fans publishing themselves their theories in a book without any kind of factual verification), which appears no more different than any fan posting his theories on a message board.

If we can accept self-published sources with no other fact verifications than fans saying what they think after the reading of book 6 (ie without any concrete element from JKR), I think it's safe to assume we can also cite all kind of message boards and personal blogs...! Because, if we broke a part of the rule once, why not break it completely ?! Lets this article become the new HP message board ! Folken de Fanel 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous decision completely. I like Harry Potter, but I like to think of myself as a rather lukewarm fan, who will read the books, and even read editorials, but won't bother to spend too much time at it and certainly won't post theories about it. From what I have seen of "real" fan sites, some people will argue for just about anything. They spend ages reading these editorials, doing in-depth studies, building Rorshack ink-blot tests for themselves, and never stepping back and saying "Wait! That makes no sense." They sometimes spiral down into a series of assumptions compounded on assumptions, with the eager support of other fans also falling down the same well (and there are always scores of idiots to support *any* half-brained theory as long as it doesn't directly violate canon), until they think that their view of the world is actually more popular, more accepted and more consistent than it actually is.
Thus even if the statements were not meant to be weasel words when the fans wrote them (many people believe, etc), they may well be a result of this fan-distortion field rather than any malice. However, this makes such statements completely unsuitable for wikipedia. As an example, the statements in the current version of the article that claim (in effect) that "many people believe Harry is a horcrux" may well apply in some fan circles, but I suspect that many, if not most, readers have not even heard of this idea (or the vigourous debate over it within fan circles, which appears, to my untrained and unsufficiently sampled eye, to have not been resolved at all). I strongly suspect that the idea is not notable enough to be included. Thus other, even more far-fetched ideas probably should not be included as well.

[edit] Straw poll consensus on Granger-sourced material

Another intractable reversion war is underway, regarding the works of John Granger, in his published book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?. Granger published some critical analysis with theories based on his studies of the Potter series. Editors such as MichaelSanders et al wish to include Granger's material, as a reliable source providing sourced analyses. Other editors feel this material constitutes forbidden speculation and original research. The Wikipedia's Manual of Style of documenting works of fiction and Notability guideline for Fiction defines parameters such as:

  • Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.
  • Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
  • Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
  • Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

The question put to a Consensus Discussion (please see Wikipedia:Consensus) is: Should Granger's work be permitted as a sourced analysis of Rowling's work in discussing her books and concepts taken from them? This is not a vote, per se, but an attempt to come to reasonable consensus, so concise but reasoned comments are more valuable than just a yea or nay. Please place your thoughts as Allow or Disallow or other appropriate header, example:

  • Allow (example) - Granger's work constitutes a properly sourced analysis on the topic of Horcruxes... (explain why)
  • Disallow (example) - Granger's work constitutes pure groundless speculation which is to be avoided ... (explain why)
  • Other / Comment (example) - This should be taken to the Arbitration Comittee because the argument is intractable and consensus would be inappropriate ... (explain)

--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Michael Sanders 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) : Allow : Granger's book analyses the text of the books, and studies what has been presented in the text so far - on the basis that Rowling as an author lays groundwork for plotlines in her work (e.g. diary in book 2); there is also a lot of simple analysis of what has happened so far, which I have yet to write up; but in any case, it is not a simple guess for the hell of it (which would be pointless to the article) but the work of a person with a claim to expertise in the subject. Michael Sanders 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Disallow : Lots of sites/sources analyse the books and the text therein, produce such studies, and so forth. We already have a consensus that, as a general rule, such sites are just speculating. What makes Granger's claim to expertise so much stronger than other authors' claim to expertise? 24.15.198.73 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a book. Michael Sanders 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that he's expert, just that he has the means to have a book published. 24.15.198.73 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
To expand some more, here is a description of the book (I assume this is the right book) from amazon.com:
Six fan-theorists attempt to unravel the clues of THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE. Joyce Odell of Red Hen Productions, Daniella Teo of Mugglenet, Sally M. Gallo of The Leaky Cauldron, Wendy B. Harte and the mysterious "Swythyv" - along with editor, John Granger (author of Hidden Key to Harry Potter, etc.)- provide Harry Potter readers with exciting and insightful ideas of what happened and what will happen based on their close reading of the texts ... ideas that will challenge and engage readers everywhere. Travis Prinzi, creator of THE SWORD OF GRIFFYNDOR website, writes that these essays "will stand as a monument to the kind of guesswork we were all involved in as we awaited the final Harry Potter book."
In other words, this book is, according to amazon.com, clearly an attempt at speculating at the implications of book six. The fact that it's a book just reflects that it's an interesting and (probably) a well-written piece of work, not that it's expert. 24.15.198.73 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, yes, part of it is a study of the implications of what happened in book 6. So what? It's a published work which meets the requirements for inclusion in articles. It's an intelligent analysis of book 6 (hence the name) - if it was simply 'I believe this, so there', it wouldn't be suitable, but it is 'this is what happened, what conclusions can we draw', and thus - provided it is clearly marked as external opinion and not either authorial information or editor opinion - is suitable. Michael Sanders 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But how is this book not just a matter of "here's what these authors believe, so there"? What makes those particular author's speculations, as the review of this book implies (given the use of the word "ideas" and "guesswork") any more reliable than the slew of web sites out there. The fact that it's a book rather than a fansite only speaks to its marketability (which doesn't necessarily come from accuracy) and the desire to get the work published as a book, and not its "authoritativeness". If we're going to cite something, it's not sufficient that it be "not me", but rather that there is some proof of the accuracy of the information, which you haven't produced here. 24.15.198.73 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course disallow completely. It fails every possible rule of Wikipedia:
-It's not published by a popular editor, it's published by John Granger himself. Given that John Granger wrote the editorial of the book, and that he personally wrote one the chapters of the book, such proximity between the publishing entity and the author of a part of the book clearly classifies this book as self-published.
-The material has not been subjected to any form of fact checking, because this is merely a bunch of speculations about a book that'll be published in 5 months. There's no mean to check the plausibility of any of these speculations.
-John Granger himself is a professor of literature and a christian (that's why he first wrote about HP, to find parallelisms with christian religion), thus he can only be concidered an "expert" (or "professional researcher) in his relevant field when talking about the narrative devices in HP or parallelisms with christian religion. However he's no more an expert, or no more in his relevant field when talking about "what will happen in book 7". Thus his value as the editor (the one who collected the various essays) of such a book is close to 0.
-The various writers responsible for the various theories in the book are no more than fans, ie they're not professionals, they have no reputability, they are not experts. Their values as authors is close to 0.
-The book and its content has not been previously published by a reliable, third-party publication.
-Finally, the consensus on this article is "no speculations allowed".
Also, what we should disallow also is Michaelsander's attitude. You can't just revert anything you don't like without even justifying it and impose a content that violates every princle of Wikipedia. For the last time, a source is not enough, it must be reliable. Really, Micheal, you've been blocked three times, now, and you're still on the verge of 3RR ? ?Folken de Fanel 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I pay more attention to reputable and long-serving editors that I respect than anonymous editors who appear to be stirring up trouble - T-dot gave me the go-ahead, provided I followed his advice to clearly demarcate it from the authorial information; by contrast, I should explain an already settled question to a trouble-making IP (I'm assuming it was not you, Folken, and that you have merely scented blood once more). As for the notability factor, see User talk:T-dot - I'm not going to repeat myself again. I explained there that Granger meets the required criteria for published sources. He is qualified in English literature (which HP is), and is, to a large extent, a recognised expert in Harry Potter; which makes his analyses of the books, and those analyses he sanctions, worth more than those of some non-entity on a fan-forum. You want his standpoint on the books, read his work.
No, Granger doesn't meet the required criteria for published sources. It's a self-published source, with no form of fact-checking, which is the very incarnation of unreliability because its authors are not in any way professional researchers in their relevant field. In fact, it is all but a valid source. T-dot can say what he wants, it won't change the problem. It's a perfectly unreliable source and it cannot be used here. You do not use message boards, you do not use this kind of books, because it's exactly the same.
Granger is not a recognized expert in HP, he's qualified in english literature and christianity, and that's about it. He's not an expert as far as unpublished stories are concerned, he doesn't have any confidencial info about HP7, he's not in contact with JKR, and he cannot see the future. He can analyse what he wants about narrative devices and christianity in HP, however here HE IS NOT ANALYSING ANYTHING since book 7 is not published yet. Those non-analyses he "sanctions" are ABSOLUTELY NOT better than others , because everyone is in the same situation: no one has read book 7, and no one can know what will happen in it. Every single fan posting his theories on a message board is worth the authors of this book. Folken de Fanel 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record - I am attempting to remain as a neutral moderator or facilitator in this discussion. I laid out on my talk page discussions and elsewhere what I think would be the requirements for declaring Granger's work as either a valid reliably sourced analysis, with the justification for providing such analyses based on the Manual of Style and Wiki Guidelines on articles about fictional literature (see links above); or as disallowed speculation and original research that has not been critically evaluated for accuracy or reliability by 3rd party "experts" in the field. I have not read Granger's works or evaluated it in any way. What I told Michael is that IF we can count Granger as a reliable source, then "this" is how we should present his work within Rowling-subject articles, such as Deathly Hallows or Horcrux: as a separate "sourced analysis" section, and fully attributed to Granger. This differs greatly from allowing anonymous editors to post personal pet theories - Granger's work is in the public domain, and is verifiable to the extent of it is what he says. That said, I agree that if Granger's work CANNOT be declared a suitable reliable-sourced analysis, then it should not be included. The Wiki is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive - especially in the matter of works of fiction. I am inclined to believe that Granger's work may be suitable for analysis of materials in the first 6 books, but projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice. I think the Wiki policy allows us to document the knowledge base, and I am not convinced that Granger's work is disallowable only because of the nature of the publisher. It seems that this is the only hang-up for allowing Granger's work - the publisher. If a different publisher, say Scholastic Books, published it, would that suddenly make Granger's material a reliable source? What would be the requirements for an independant published analysis of Rowling's books to allow for inclusion as sourced analyses? What is the threshhold for inclusion that would satisfy Folken et al? This is what I am trying to capture. One thing we need to think about, in addition to the Wiki guidelines for articles on works of fiction, is that some of us may be engaging in a little WikiLawyering - such as:
  • Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
  • Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and
  • Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
I think we may be to the point where we need to call for Mediation or Arbitration, since neither side of the issue seems to be interested in reaching a sensible compromise or consensus. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem with the source per se in that I don't care that he he edited and wrote part of it. I'd have the same problem if Scholastic Published it. My point is that all the relevant section of this article is doing is "projecting theories into the 7th book", which is speculation. Thus, your point of being on "thin ice" on this matter is really my objection to this section. Since only JK Rowling (and a *very* few other people, all of whom have almost certainly been sworn to secrecy) really knows what's in book seven, anyone else is speculating. It's one thing to record a claim that Book 6 itself speculated some of the remaining Horcruxes -- that is part of the material of Book 6 itself, and thus valid discussion -- but it's quite another to cite another reference that has no particular basis for being a "crystal ball" into book seven. I just want to know what makes this book more reliable than a fan site, which has already been deemed invalid as a source for speculation. And simply being a published book doesn't cut it, as all that's really needed to be publised is to be well written/entertaining/marketable enough to sell -- one can be any or all of these three without being authoritative, especially since Granger's book is not marketed to be particularly authoritative on the events of Book 7 -- it's marketed to be intelligent theorizing; i.e. speculation. 24.15.198.73 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that at least the part reference in this about Harry being a horcrux is *itself* only quoting the speculations of many fans. At the very least, this is therefore clearly only fan speculation, and not Granger speculation (which, as I have noted, isn't something I'm inclined to give much more credence anyway). 24.15.198.73 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Folken - I'd stand away from the glass-house before chucking those stones. You were blocked at the same time as me for - what - 11 reverts in 2 hours, was it? Michael Sanders 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't play this game. You've been blocked 3 times: a total of 103 hours, each time for 3RR and edit-warring. And only a week after having been unblocked, you're already involved in an edit war ? Guess your last 48-hours block was not enough for you to understand...Folken de Fanel 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/r/Talk%7EHorcrux_9520.html"