Talk:Horcrux/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fawkes the Horcrux?

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Harry as a horcrux

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

Chances are Voldemort does not know Harry could be a horcrux, and just sees him as the threat described in the prophecy. --Smoke 21:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite aside of how this coudl have happened. Since Voldemort is trying for a 7 part soul then, not knowing that Harry was one woudl he not try and make yet another Horcrux? At that time is it likley he woudl not notice a bit of his soul missing? Dalf | Talk 03:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we have to remeber about the prophecy is that Voldemort has only ever heard the very first part, the one that refers the a boy being born who would have the power to destory him; however, Voldemort never knew about, and still doesn't about the final part of the prophecy that contaisns the "neither can live while the other survives line". It seems unlikely then that Voldemort would want to make a horcrux out of a person who he believed would one day have to power to destroy him. If Harry is a horcrux he's probably an accidential one, rather than an intentional one.

Please don't refer to accidental Horcruxes without explaining how they're possible.

speculation on how accidential horcruxes are possible is littered all throughout the discussion page, just scroll down a little bit for the main discussion on this.

Accidental Horcruxes? Easy. All you have to assume is that the enchantments required to create a horcrux are done in advance. That being the case, the big V would have done all of the spells before committing the James-Harry two-for-one (and Lily too, if she won't "stand aside, silly girl.") He'd have done everything but the final act, the soul transfer. Being killed (or life-impaired, whatever he was) in the middle of horcrux-creation is most likely unprecedented,

being that:

1.) no one (to Dumbledore or Slughorn's knowledge) has ever made more than one, so if they had been killed in the act, they'd have just died.

2.) it's tough magic to diversify your soul-investments, and as the Hogwarts library and the Slughorn memory show, not even CLOSE to common knowledge, even among Dark Arts devotees. Lucius Malfoy's total obliviousness about the diary is also (admittedly flimsy) evidence for this point. Voldemort already had Horcruxes when he did the deed, and if the enchantments are cast before the murder (which seems reasonable), then the backfiring, and the concommitment diminishment of Voldemort's soul and the destruction of his body could have easily forced the piece he intended for his next Horcrux into Harry or into his scar.

Quod Erat Described? --kajerm

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

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

Kajerm, on my talk you listed several assumptions that must be true for accidental horcruxes to be possible. They were,

The spell to create a horcrux is done before the murder and is nonspecific. (This is not outside the realm of possibility, since as much of the process as possible should really be done before the murder to ensure that nothing goes wrong-- if this were easy magic, every Dark Wizard would leave a spare soul under the front steps, just in case...)
Committing the murder seals the horcrux creation process; after this point the dark wizard is irreversibly committed to creating a horcrux.
Getting killed (or getting killed-but-good-thing-I-saved-some-soul-for-a-rainy-day like Voldemort) while committing the intended murder, or getting killed before specifically directing the soul into a chosen object throws the horcrux creation process out of whack, but does not simply abort it.

I object first to the idea that the spell is non-specific. Magic requires great intention, and part of that intention is target. Similar to an Accio spell, I think the horcrux creation spell would require you to picture a precise object to place your soul into, and probably a precise murder to use as the "engine". I don't have a problem with the idea that the horcrux creation spell happens before the murder. I'm not sure of that, though. Doing it at the same time as the already difficult avada kedavra spell could be part of what makes it so difficult to complete. I agree with your second point completely. By the time of the person's death, I think the horcrux is either made or not made. By this I mean, after the victim dies, you can't undo a horcrux that has been created and you can't decide to create one using their murder. I'm not sure about #3. I think that it might depend on when you "die". I think that in the case of Harry, by the time Voldemort was about to kill him, his mother had been dead long enough that the horcrux process had been resolved. If Voldemort had decided to use Lily's death to make a horcrux(unlikely in itself because he offered her the chance to live), by the time he had got to Harry that had been completed. I don't see how Voldemort could have accidentally made Harry the horcrux. As you say in #2, once the person dies, the process is done. Lily was dead by the time Voldemort killed Harry. Superm401 | Talk 18:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

As before, I have to commend you on your insightful comments. I agree completely about magic, by and large, requiring intention-- as we saw with the vanishing glass and with inflating Aunt Marge, intention alone can create magic. When I said "nonspecific," I meant only that the object chosen to be a Horcrux did not acquire any special power (or was "chosen") at the time that the Horcrux-creating enchantments begin.

I like the idea the some aspect of the Horcrux creation process is done during the murder; it seems fitting in a lot of ways. If this were the case, going with the process I outlined before, the part which occurrs during the murder would have to be the final step of forcing the soul fragment into the chosen object.

Lily's death certainly wouldn't be the one he wanted to use to create a Horcrux. Like Dumbledore, I believe it would have been Harry's. The failed murder could have driven the Horcrux creation process out of control, and forced part of Voldemort's soul into Harry rather than the chosen object. This is especially plausible because Voldemort did successfully commit a murder while trying to kill Harry, thereby splitting his soul.

The failed murder, then, removed the element of intention, but the successful murder and the Horcrux-creating enchantments drove the Horcrux creation forward, making Harry into a Horcrux.

That said, this is all an academic exercise, as I'm not entirely convinced that this is where J.K. Rowling is headed-- I just believe it's a completely plausible line of reasoning. Kajerm 21:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Who did he successfully kill while trying to kill Harry? In my understanding, he killed Lily before Harry, which is why Harry had the sacrificial protection in his blood by that time. Superm401 | Talk 22:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the comment directly below by Friday. --D e ath phoenix 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Sorry now to tack on another bit to such an old discussion, but i think harry is definatly a horcrux for all the reasons above, but also, in book 2, dumbledore said that harry could speak parseltongue because voldemort put a bit of himself into harry. That has to be a horcrux, what else could he have meant? Raemie 15:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very fascinating. Perhaps you should post this to one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Voldemort trying to kill Harry

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO :) Death Eater Dan 23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

7?

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

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

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

I think the two you have wrong is that a part of his soul is destroyed and it takes another soul to come back to life. The horcrux just means that if you are killed, you body is gone, but your soul is still around. The horcrux acts as an "anchor" to bring your soul back (I'm basing some of this on what I know of phylacteries). If the horcrux is destroyed, you no longer have the anchor, and you are well and truly dead. However, I wouldn't strictly say seven horcruxes. If a wizard creates a horcrux, he has the soul in the horcrux and the soul in himself. I wouldn't say that wizard has two horcruxes, otherwise, every wizard can be said to have one horcrux. Therefore, if you don't count the remaining part of his soul, and you don't consider that it uses one horcrux to come back to live, he'll still have four. Woops, I forgot to cound R.A.B. If R.A.B. destroyed one, it'll be three. However, Harry still has to find out what happened to R.A.B. (and confirm if that other horcrux was destroyed), so I think that's why Harry has to find four horcruxes. --Death phoenix 13:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but what I am basing my theory on is that why would you need 7 in that case. Couldn't you just have one which is heavily guarded. Like a lot more than was on the locket. Also if you'll notice, it says 7 parts not 7 horcruxes - Gerbon

Well, if you're talking parts, I suppose Voldemort has five parts, that Harry has to find and destroy (the last, of course, being Voldemort himself). Everything else I said is still valid (in my opinion and argument, I mean). --Death phoenix 14:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In Slughorn's memory, Voldemort stated that seven is the most powerful magical number. Apparently Voldemort split his soul into seven pieces beleiving it would give him added power or protection from death.

The main part of the soul can be used to regenerate body. Body dies, soul is still alive. --Muhaha 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In the book, it says that the seventh horcrux resides in Voldemort's regenerated body (Chapter 23).

The sixth horcrux is the diary
The fifth is the ring
The fourth is the locket
- Therefore, there are three horcruxes left, and then Lord Voldemort himself to contend with.

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

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

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

Just to play devil's advocate, we have no idea what happens to those peices. Perhaps if not "yanked out" and used for a horcrux, they re-attach over time. Perhaps not. You initial statement is probably right though - Voldemort has probably killed many times (although we have no direct evidence - perhaps he just ordere the Death Eaters to do all the "dirty work" - he of all people who know about the damage such an act does to the perpetrator) - so a lot of splitting would have occured. We don't know the long term state of the soul however Beowulf314159 15:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that he split his soul into 7 parts, one within himself and six 'parts' in objects, therefore when the avada kedaver curse backfires he would loose the part within him, leaving him with 6/7 of a soul, diary - 5/7, being reborn - 4/7, Locket (? as to wether its intact) - 3/7, one of which being in Voldemort, so there would only be 2 more horcruxes left to find. At most he has 4/8 and he created 7 horcruxes, and split his soul into 8 parts, one for his body and 7 horcruxes. I know thats probably utter rubbish but what the hell! Ian42 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating Horcuxes

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say that "to stopper death" could mean many things. It may even be as simple as curing the imbiber of any diseases. Your other arguments are about semantics, so if you wish to tweak the text to your satisfaction, go right ahead. I would argue that while your tweaks would make the article more accurate technically, they make the text harder to read. Of course, that's your perogative. --D e ath phoenix 12:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that Snape is Potions Master at the time, I'd read it as mean he could teach you to make potions that kill people. These are then put in a bottle which has a stopper (i.e. cork or whatever) placed in it. David Underdown 11:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning unknown things

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

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

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

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

Sorry, somehow I "lost" this question in the shuffle. To answer your question, I removed it because it's not necessary. There are a few "unknown" things that are notable enough (or questioned enough in the novels) to be mentioned in these articles, such as the identity of R.A.B. and whether Severus Snape is good or evil. However, what happens to the fragment of the soul in a Horcrux isn't questioned enough in the novels, nor is it a great mystery. To a degree, I actually agree with you: when I was performing my "major edits" in cleaning up this article, I actually put in (or left in, I forget which) the fact that this was unknown and said that it was likely that the soul is either released into the afterlife or returned to the Horcrux creator. However, someone else made an excellent point that these unknown things aren't necessary, and this seems to be the consensus. --D e ath phoenix 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

JKR has stated in interviews (I can hunt up a link its online if you like) that when the Diary was destory so was the fragment of soul. I think the exact quote was somthing to the effect (and I am pharphrasing here), that piece of his soul is gone we saw it take shape and we saw it destroyed. Dalf | Talk 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Rowling state this in an interview?

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

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

Moving that paragraph here

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

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

--D e ath phoenix 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

ES: It seems like it would be impossible. If Harry had gone to the cave, he never could have done it on his own, it seems like.

JKR: Well, I'm prepared to bet you now, that at least before the week is out, at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books.

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

You asked. Here are the references.

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

Melissa Anelli: Here at the end you sort of get the feeling that we know what Harry’s setting out to do, but can this really be the entire throughline of the rest of the story?

J.K. Rowling: It's not all of it. Obviously it's not all of it, but still, that is the way to kill Voldemort. That's not to say it won't be an extremely torturous and winding journey, but that's what he's got to do. Harry now knows — well he believes he knows – what he’s facing. Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I don't want to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, ‘There are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for Voldemort.’ So that's where he is, and that's what he's got to do.

Emerson Spartz: It's a tall order.

J.K. Rowling: It's a huge order. But Dumbledore has given him some pretty valuable clues and Harry, also, in the course of [the] previous six books has amassed more knowledge than he realizes. That's all I am going to say.

Emerson Spartz: It seems like it would be impossible. If Harry had gone to the cave, he never could have done it on his own, it seems like.

J.K. Rowling: Well, I'm prepared to bet you now, that at least before the week is out, at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books.

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

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

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

Added the note with after Dalf's quote

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

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

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

Turn it around. Put evidence on the table that's in canonical that it happens every time. I don't need evidence to support doubt. You need evidence to prove that it's so. This isn't a court of law where some crackpot theory is "true unless disproved" - or I'm putting the "Harry is a Horcrux" nonsense back in, 'cause you can't prove it's not so!. Do you really want to open the floodgate to "I get to put it in as long as you can't prove it's not so!". Harry as a Horcrux, Harry's belly button lint as a Horcrux, Lord Voldemort's nose hair as a Horcrux.... I don't think so.

As for the ring - does JKR say that in the interview? If I do a quick search in the interview text, the term "ring" isn't even in the article. Doesn't look like it. Don't expand your "evidence" beyond what's there.

Let me put it in simple terms: JKR has stated, once, in interview, that it happened once, with the diary. Anything stated beyond that is speculation. Show me evidence and I'll leave it alone. Happily.

Don't make any implications beyond what can be supported in the books and/or in the interviews. Got it? Good. If you are going to state something happens, or always happens, show me the reference - otherwise it's just fan speculation and these pages are fighting a war against every fan wanting to stuff an unsupported "pet theory" in Wikipedia. - Beowulf314159 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

First of all, I want to apologize for the abrasive, snarky, and semi-flame tone of my reply; you were kind to overlook it.

As to the issue itself: it really has nothing to do with what I think, or don't think about Harry Potter. Personally, I think it's very possible that the fragment of the soul is destroyed, or possibly rejoins the remainder of the soul. I don't think the sentence as you want to state it is necessarily wrong.

However, it has to do with the issue of Wikipedia articles, supportability of claims, and implying or stating propositions as facts when the evidence is not there. You know the story about 4 logicians on a train in Scotland who see a single white sheep in the countryside?

"We may conclude sheep are white."
"No, we may conclude that sheep in Scotland are white."
"No, we may only conclude that at least one sheep in Scotland is white"
"You're all wrong. All we can conclude is that one sheep in Scotland is white one one side"

For Wikipedia, #4 has it right. Wikipedia isn't a place to advance theories, speculation, discussion, or viewpoint. It's not a discussion forum; it's not a place to publish thesis about topics; it's an encyclopedia. Which means that it presents the substantiatable facts, in an organized logical format, with only as much text and "filler" as is needed to make the material comprehensive, unified, and accessible to the "idealized reader" - who is intelligent, interested, but totally ignorant of any of the material, or it's implications.

The treatment of substantiatable fact means that unless something can be presented with citation and example, it doesn't belong within the Wikipedia.

Your claim/implication that "the fragment of soul is always destroyed when the physical form of the Horcrux is destroyed" can not be substantiated by any example, or author comment that I am aware of. If such evidence exists, I will be quite happy to let the claim stand; it will be one less thing I have to worry about "creeping in" to the Harry Potter pages.

Another "ideal" I have about Wikipedia is that all people's contributions, and all people's ideas should be treated the same; "equality under the law". I cannot, in good faith, allow one unsubstantiated "fact" in over another. This is why I do think it's "opening the floodgates". If we let in one implication because it seems "reasonable to us at the time", then how can we deny ideas that don't seem reasonable to us but seem reasonable to someone else? Is our view "special"? Does "our" taste hold up just because we got here first? I don't think so.

Instead, I believe that everyone's ideas and contributions should be subject to the same scrutiny, namely that if you want to include a "fact", or even an implication, it has to be able to be substantiated.

This is why I am so adamant about not letting a relatively minor non-substantiatable implications into the article. To me, it is either the beginning of the introduction of some sort of arbitrary "editorial viewpoint" by the people who happen to be here first, or it opens the article to whatever "pet theory" people want to include without evidence.

I don't really care what happens to the fragment of a soul when the Horcrux is destroyed, but I do care about a reasonably written article, and holding everyone's contributions to the same standards.

</MyViewsAndOpinions>

Beowulf314159 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sheep??.....Sheep??. Please dont tell me there's now a half white sheep wandering round Scotland, and it's one of the missing Horcruxes!! This page is giving me nightmares Death Eater Dan 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, I took great offense at what Beowulf said above. My theory was that Lord Voldemort's belly button lint is a Horcrux, not Harry Potter's belly button lint. I demand that you publish an immediate retraction or I will make this demand again. --D e ath phoenix 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Both wrong! The missing Horcrux is the sheep's belly button lint! Specifically chosen because of the prophecy of the "twice dyed sheep". - Beowulf314159 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The point of a Horcrux is, as Professor SLughorn explained, to keep part of the self hidden and safe, not fling it into somebody else's path and run the risk that they might destroy it— as indeed happened: That particular fragment of the soul is no more; you saw to that.

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

However a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul

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

Cool. Seems like the issue is solved - finally someone did the research and dug out the supporting evidence :) Do the citation templates for the HP books allow page numbers? Looks like the tug-of-war over this point is a done deal. I for one am relieved.

Beowulf314159 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the brownish box with the quoted text, that is {{motto|message here}} and based on the color scheme I think its ment for talk pages (that and it only being used on 6 pages in all of wikipedia all of which are talk pages). Though I suspect we do have a template with formatting for book quotations somewhere on here without having to cook our own. I would suggest looking at articles about well known books and authors to find one. I may do so tomorrow. Dalf | Talk 10:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hagrid prepared us for Horcuxes early in HB1

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

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

Ravenclaw's necklace

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

That's nice - but don't you think if the cursed opal necklace was a Horcrux, that Dumbledore would have immediately recognized it as such, as soon as it arrived, and sought to destroy it, rather than going off on a dangerous journey with Harry to seek one elsewhere? The list of "Possible Horcruxes" as posted in the main article is not just an arbitrary list of items that various fans thought up and posted because they thought they could conceivably be a Horcrux; or things that they saw posted on some fan site or somebody's blog page (like Harry, the Sorting Hat, the Sword, the Scar, the Mirror, ad nauseum ad infinitum). These extraneous items are invariably removed whenever they appear, as purely speculative. The "approved" list are those items specifically mentioned by Dumbledore in the Horcrux discussions with Harry. Nothing else should be "allowed" on Dumbledore's list, until Book 7 is released and the truth of the matter is established - unless JKR herself reveals more information on the subject in a documented and confirmed interview. (Contd...) --T-dot 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was sure that argument would come up, so here are a few doubts I have. I know Wikipedia has a policy against original research, but I believe it means mentioning unverifiable points or specualtion as a concrete fact. Is it also against policy to mention 'fan speculation' as 'fan speculation'? Because if it so, then there are many inconsistencies in the use of it. For instance, the Grimmauld Place article has the line --> "Current fan speculation is that an unopenable locket, found during the cleanup of the house in book 5, once belonged to Salazar Slytherin, and may be one of Voldemort's Horcruxes." <-- Also, if you go over to the R.A.B. article, the list of possibilites of R.A.B. are almost entirely speculative. I don't think I've come across JK Rowling having discussed all those names in her interviews (if she has, then there aren't any links or references to them on that page), and General Discussion Forums have been provided as External Links. So can someone please clarify how the rule is to be applied? Thanx. --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate the speculation R.A.B. article for everything but Regulus Black because everything else in there is idle fan speculation that isn't cited anywhere. But just because something is in another article, doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in here. Personally, I'd like to get rid of those things, but I promised not to unilaterally act against consensus, and at that time, I was one of few voices arguing for its removal. --D e athphoenix ʕ 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

About the R.A.B. article - while that page itself certainly is full of idle speculation, there is at least some support for "it" being Regulus Black - in the documented interview with JKR. The other names are frankly a huge annoyance and are excellent candidates for being rounded up into a cage of "Other RAB Names Frequently Mentioned in HP fandom" ... and then dismissed and drowned in the lake as speculative. Having such annoyances on other wiki-pages never justifies spreading such vermin and disease elsewhere. --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Locket: The point I was trying to make is that I believe there is (or should be) a very clear and obvious distinction between DUMBLEDORE's speculations with Harry on what items might be Horcruxes, and what some FANS might come up with out of their imaginations. Dumbledore's "ideas" are essentially reflective of Rowling's Intentions, since she wrote what he "said" about the Horcruxes, and that is pretty much all we have to go on. This does not necessarily mean that Dumbledore was 100% "correct". It could well be that Rowling threw in some bogus Horcrux(es) in the canon of texts, just to make Harry's "job" a little more interesting; but even if she did then they should still be mentioned as canonical horcrux candidates, as mentioned by Dumbledore (on his "authority") until the "truth" comes out in the next book or some authoritative interview with JKR. Fan speculation on Horcruxes should be largely left to fandom and off the Wikipedia. But The Wikipedia should list Dumbledore's "official" list of Horcruxes, at least until we find out otherwise. Is that clear? As for the cursed "Opal Necklace" - it still seems a certainty that Dumbledore would have immediately recognized it was a Horcrux, and promptly destroyed it, or at least told Harry it was a Horcrux, and not suggest in later conversation there was another Horcrux out there instead for Harry to have to track down and destroy. --T-dot 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, but R.A.B. does not specifically mention that the stolen Horcrux was indeed a locket. I'm not really denying the locket was indeed a Horcrux, but since the list of 'Possible Horcruxes' is based on all that Dumbledore theorises, then the locket belongs there. After all, even if it may seem painfully obvious, we don't have concrete proof about the locket being a Horcrux, just Dumbledore's assumptions on the matter. --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But Dumbledore's assumptions and speculations are canonical - unlike the fan speculation. See the difference? --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And Dumbledore's assumptions and speculations fall under the list of 'Possible Horcruxes', which is the right place for Slytherin's locket. --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Thanx, but where do I get to see the Gold star? --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We might have to bust you down from a gold star to a bronze - for starting an argument on purpose and with an agenda - and admitting you did it: I was sure that argument would come up, so here are a few doubts I have... Perhaps Deathphoenix will consent to give you one of his Good Humor ones ... :) --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really start the argument with an agenda or purpose, nor did I intend any humour, but if you say so, I wouldn't really mind the Good Humor barnstar. --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the "Etymology"

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

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

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

All wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have some great feedback there. I don't remember why we left it in, perhaps it was because it was cited (even though it was speculation). Could you remove the offending sections yourself, since you seem to have extensive knowledge of the subject matter? --D e ath phoenix 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All in favor of deleting all speculative and/or dubious word "etymologies" in the various Harry Potter pages - AYE! ... those opposed - ... ? -- T-dot 17:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yank it. I don't think we need fan speculation at all, personally. Friday (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Looks like a convincing argument that the section is bogus. Someone should doulbe check eventually but at the moment it should be yanked.~~ I am opposed, it shoudl be cleaned up (and according to DIctionary.com again English crux has as one of its definitions exactly the phrase used in the article, that is I like the current shortened section. Dalf | Talk 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I will moderate my stance a little by saying that I do nto think the section is as wrong as the original poster says. The fact that JKR constructs madeup words using bits and pieces of Latin and such is well estabilished. The process she used in additin to the fact tha she made it up is prefectly valid for incluson in the etymology of the word. According to dictionary.com an Etymology can include or does include both the origin and the History (i.e. how she came up with it) of a word. While Latin might not have shortened words when constructing words out of other words this information is always relavent. The fact that the wording is bad in this case means we hould at least cut it down, but I think it is significant that the not only has that speculation been made but that it is likley enough that most of the fan comunity (and I suspct at least some media sources) have gone with it. The last statment that Rowling had in mind the word "horreum", a barn or granary, is almost certainly as incorrect as anything can be. Do you honestly think this is wrong? I think it migt be wrong but almost certainly? Dident she use to teach latin? Are there any other latin words starting with with hor- that she might have ment? What is almost certain is that she had someething in mind. However, for the short term I think we can still ynak the section, pending researching and documenting it a bit more. Dalf | Talk 19:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the etymology is accurate. That's why we have the NPOV. The Lexicon is a notable fan site; thus, it's valid to report their opinion on the etymology. It would also be valid to report contrasting opinions from notable sources. Unfortunately, the "convincing argument" is original research, and irrelevant. Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You realise that mugglenet is the largest HP fansite? Larger than the lexicon. More to the point mugglenet is one of two fansites that JKR has had direct dealings with, and one of the few that have been featured on her own website. The refrence in the article is attributed and described in conditional terms may etc. Further it is an answer to a legamate question that many readers will have, How do people think she derived it I do not see how NPOV comes into this though I take your point about NOR (though I disagree on its application in this case). Dalf | Talk 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant mugglenet is a notable fan site (though the lexicon is also, and is honored on JKR's site). I agree that the mugglenet's claim should be reported in the article. I was saying "All wrong. [...] 'crux' does not come from 'crux' [...] " was original research. Sorry for the confusion. Superm401 - Talk 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Looks to me like you replaced documented speculation from a reputable source with undocumented speculation. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to concur. In its current state, it looks to be speculation. It shouldn't have stuff like "many readers believe", or stuff like that. --D e ath phoenix 17:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the paired down section just before it was deleted and merged was perfectly fine. Dalf | Talk 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Possible locations - Godric's Hollow - 3 reasons?

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

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

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

That's some good feedback. I'm not sure why I left it in before, but Godric's Hollow seems like speculation to me. How about you guys? --D e ath phoenix 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A link between Godric's Hollow and horcruxes does indeed sound like weak speculation, and as such, doesn't belong. It's just one of many possibilities. --Anthony Duff 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yank it! There is no indication in the books to make this a more likley location than any other - it's pure speculation. Death Eater Dan

18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yanked. Thanks for the feedback, folks. --D e ath phoenix 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

You know what? I actually have no objections to the removal of this entire section. I'm not sure how other people feel, but I agree with you in that this section could be yanked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me. Death Eater Dan

(Muahaha) 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section for now. Anyone wishing to put it back please discuss it here first. --Bluerain 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Godric's Hollow is a likely place for a Horcrux because Godric could be Godric Gryffindor, meaning that the Horcrux could have been one of Godric's possessions (or the house itself). I think that it could go in the possible locations section. Oli 10:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is, once again, an excellent example of Original Research and Speculation. It may well prove to be true - but the fact is, it is still only pure speculation, and does not belong in the article as if it were encyclopedic and canonical. Now IF Dumbledore had told Harry in one of the Books something like: "Harry my boy, it is possible that Voldemort created a Horcrux back at your house in Godric's Hollow when he killed your parents, and it might still be around there somewhere, perhaps in the form of the Godric Gryffindor Estate dinner plate that your mother won when she earned 500 points for Gryffindor for rescuing Severus Snape and the rest of the Hogwarts Students from further attacks by Fenrir Greyback ..." - THEN we might have something to go on. Speculation documented in the Books by a Character is fine for inclusion in the encyclopedia, as are hints and tips revealed in interviews of the author. Random speculation by fans and researchers is not, and neither is weasel wording it by saying things like "many fans believe that there might be a Horcrux at ...". --T-dot 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Oli 10:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

mechanism

I think we have been doing a really good job of keeping the fan speculation and personal opnions out of this article. That is a good thing, but I think some of us havebecome over enthuastic to that end. While it is true that we are not given a highly detailed descrition of all of the mechanics of how Horcruxes work, that does not mean that the books do not talk about the subject at all. I just reverted User:Deathphoenix revert of a series of edits which form looking at the history is consisten with other edits removed by other authors. The edit summary for the removal was that it was hyperbole and discussed the mechniasm which we don't know. The problem is that every single bit of removed text is almost a direct quote fomr the book. Not close enough that I would worry about copyright violations but I dare say its a close thing. Chatper 23 of HBP does say:

"Then, even is one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undammaged" (HBP page. 497)
See the other conversation on this talk page about weather the destruction of the Horcrux results in the destruction of the fragment within it.
"'But how do you do it?' 'By an act of evil—the supream act of evil. BY committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the dammage to his advvantage: He would encase the torn portion —' 'Encase? But how—?' 'There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!'" (HBP p. 498)
Later there is a discussion about Toms psychology and his resulting choice of objects, during which the use of living animals is discussed.

I am all for keeping this encylopedic but lets make sure things are out of line before reverting them. Dalf | Talk 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the revert was overethusiastic. However, it is also not the job of people to disprove things they are removing - but it is the job of people to provide reference for things that they add. I realize that the person who added it is new, and they can be excused for knowing that yet.

The revert was a mistake, but I think given the history of the edit wars on this page, and the fact that no refernces were given, it's an understandable revert, even if it should be undone.

Since you found all the relevant sections in the text, do you think you can add the reference templates to the article itself? - Vedexent 12:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If some of these are from the book, that's fine. However, as mentioned above by Vexedent, I would really have preferred if the editor had provided a citation. Some of the stuff we've had to remove was simply uncited stuff so it's very difficult to seperate chaff from the wheat. If inline text in this article contains direct quotes, you must put them inside "quotation marks". How do we know what text is directly quoted from the book and what is a Wikipedian's paraphrasing? However, I'll admit that I only gave it a brief thought rather than the extended analysis that I have to give here. That said, here's what I think about some of the specifics from Dalf's re-revert:

The "earth-bound and undamaged" is fine. My mistake (and apologies) for not recognising the direct quotation from the book.
"the ultimate act of evil" and "is so evil that it" is the hyperbole I was talking about. The article can be informative without having to resort to this dramatic phrasing, which is perfectly fine for a novel, but not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
1. I agree. The wording of the Creation section is clumsy and tends to hyperbole. The use of the same adjective ("evil") four times in rapid succession is a sure indicator of poor writing. --Anthony Duff
Changing "a spell" to "unspecified spell", well, this is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't think it's necessary to mention unknown things, but since is really just a matter of personal taste, either one is fine by me.
1. "unspecified spell" is redundant, inefficient and silly. Every spell is unspecificed unless specified.--Anthony Duff
Adding "even animals can be used", this expansion seems redundant with the phrase "There is no apparent limitation on the nature of items that can be made into a Horcrux", but once again, this is just a matter of personal taste, so using it or not is fine by me.
"because of his own arrogance" seems to be a POV statement and OR that should be removed unless someone in the books actually said that Voldemort would choose these sorts of objects "because of his own arrogance".
"objects 'worthy of the honour' as Albus Dumbledore put it" seems to be redundant and unnecessary, but on further reflection, this is another matter for personal taste.
1. (Both points 5 &6) It should be moved or removed because it is a tangent on a tangent. The section should be confined to Creation. An individual's motivation in the choice of the object is too much of a ramble. --Anthony Duff 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In summary, I agree that I made a mistake with 1. 2 and 5 should be removed unless 5 is a direct quotation from the book, and the rest (3, 4, and 6) are matters of personal taste. Since you reverted my edits, I'll take that as a sign that you endorse 3, 4, and 6. I don't, but I don't go edit-warring over matters of personal taste, so be my guest. --D e ath phoenix 13:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

2 is also a near direct quote. I think rewoprking the sentence and actually including the quotes for 1 and 2 is what we should do. I was not actually singling this edit out and I hope that you don't feel I did. I was using it as an example. The total text discussing Horcruxes in HBP is only in the area of 15-20 pages, spread out over a few chapters. I was just wanting to make the point that a lot of the 'regular' editors here who like to take firm stances on things would save save a lot of posts on the talk page if they just took a minute and double checked. Actually just re-reading the one chapter and skimming for other mentions goes a long way.

As for the others:

unspecified I think is not redundant as it answers the question "what do we know about the spell?" In this case the word unspecified actually does contain useful information about what we know (or don't know).
4-6 is also I think significant as most of a chapter in the book is devoted to a discussion of Voldemorts reasoning in the selection of Horcrux opbjects. His pride and psychology play a major part in that discussion which lasts I think several pages. Further since a significant portion of the next book is necessarrally going to be about Harry searching for the Horcruxes, and since we are (with very good rason) excluding fanspeculation, this becomes the only from the book source for information about cluse to the rest of the horcruxes. Infact rather than remove that section I think it should be expanded. Dalf | Talk 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, Dalf, do so, as long as it is firstly about horcruxes as opposed to Voldemort, otherwise it belongs on the Voldemort page. A separate section on Voledmort and his horcruxes might be good.--Anthony Duff 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well since the only Horcruxes are the ones in HP and the only ones in HP are Voldemorts, and the only point that they exist at all is the quest to figure out what they are where they are and how to destroy them, then I think its worth including here and not in the article on Voldemort even if the section focuses on the specific Horcruxes and the psychology behind thier creation. Dalf | Talk 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's such thing as too many quotes, and that quotes should only be used if they add value to an article. Is there any value in explicitly stating at murder is "the ultimate act of evil"? Does it add value to an article to go away from Wikipedia's longstanding tradition of neutral point of view to state that Voldemort chose these kinds of objects "because of his own arrogance", or is it enough to simply state that he likely chose objects of sentimental and monetary value?

As for whether a paragraph or section of text should be in the Horcrux article or the Voldemort article, I think it depends on whether that paragraph or section talks about Voldemort's horcrux, or Voldemort himself, and that's all I have to say about that. --D e ath phoenix 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part though I don't think the article is claiming that murder is the ultimate act of evil only that apparently from a magical perspective in the Harry Potter universe it appears to be. From that perspective and the implied possibility that it will become significant in teh next book I think its worth not removing (though I am not sure I woudl have added it myself). The part about Voldemort on the other hand I am almost 100% sure is going to be very significant in the last book and was already made a significant deal of in the 6th book. This sort of argument for not including these details is to me a good argument for why there are too many Harry Potter articles in general. We remove these thigns that do not exist fomr the context of the books and then eventually our thinking starts to imagine them as real ideas or objects in their own right and we start to question the relavence of the materail that they come from. That is to say, I think the material most significant to this article is how horcruxes are mixed into the Harry Potter universe. The Half-blood Prince was almost totally focused on Harry learning about Voldemorts past, about how he thinks about what motivates him. The Horcruxes aside from being the device Voldemort has used to protect himself also serve to teach Harry about him. Information that that books (and JKR) makes perfectly clear will be intruamental in Harry's eventual defeat of Voldemort. The way the info is written in the article is not that good, but just because tis written poorly does not mean it does not belong. If someone wants to go dig up some critques of the books I am sure they will find a large section devoted to discussing this very topic short of that the only verifiable refrence we have is the book itself. Dalf | Talk 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry is a horcrux theory

Hey ... In the book when voldermort created 1 of thoes horcrux he didn't want it around him anymore and he hid it (except with the snake (whome i dont belive is 1)) ... when harry is close to voldermort his scar starts to hurt is it possible that the reason that he dosn't want the horcrux's near him is because they dont want to be near him and therfore this MAY provide evidance for Harry being a horcrux ... hmmm

Yes, very interesting. If you want more responses to your theory, you might want to try to post your theory in one of the fan forums. You'll get more responses there because Wikipedia is NOT a fan forum. --D e ath phoenix 13:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What he said and: Well gosh "hmmm" (is that your name?) - Voldemort sure got up close and personal with Harry in Goblet of Fire - touched him on the face even (after he had some of Harry's blood of the enemy, forcefully taken in him). And then he tried to kill Harry. Now please explain why Voldemort would want to A-K the life out of "Harry the Horcrux" - thus destroying his own soul fragment? Preposterous. The Harry / Scar is a Horcrux fan forum fanatics need to rethink their faulty theories, and for goodness sake keep them off of the Wikipedia. --T-dot 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lock the page?

The article seems stable. There hasn't really been any meaningful major edits in a while. The facts seem all hammered out - at least until the next book. All that seems to happen is that the same old tired noise of "Harry is a Horcrux", and "The One Ring is kind of a Horcrux" keep getting added by anonymous contributors that think they're being original and helpfull.

So - is it worth locking the page for a bit? - Vedexent 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the persistence of these tired old edits, I don't think it's appropriate to lock the page. It clearly doesn't receive the edit warring or persistent vandalism (which these editsare clearly not) that other articles receive prior to being protected. Take a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy for more information on what types of articles are appropriate for protection. --D e athphoenix ʕ 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Riddle's diary image

The image of Riddle diary is from what has been depicted in the CoS movie, and hence, I feel, is not suitable enough to illustrate the diary as is depicted in the novels. I feel it should be removed, or at least the mention that it is a movie screenshot be made. --Soumyasch 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly makes it "Unsuitable"? It is a picture of an open book that is mostly blank... which is what the diary was. It is also explictly stated on the image's page (click on the image) that it is a screenshot - read the copyright notice. Did you have a better candidate picture you wanted to replace it with? - Vedexent 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This screenshot demonstrates an example of the diary, which is the only horcrux that has been seen in a movie. I don't see how this is unsuitable at all. --D e athphoenix ʕ 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lich?

I'm not part of this thing, but i notice that the lich isn't mentioned here at all. while the horcrux being equivalant to the phylactery is unproven, it at least deserves mention

No, it ~~does~~ doesn't (oops, my bad - V) really deserve mention. Neither does the "one ring" or a handful of other "borderline similarities with my favorite fictional universe". The article is written to make reference to Harry Potter material only, with the only external examples for clarification being to a serious, published, work on mythology which is available (and linked) in Wikisource. This is an Encyclopedia; you can't expect the average reader to be familar with "Dungeons and Dragons". - Vedexent 11:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Vedexent means doesn't ;-) I was one of those folks who immediately thought of the lich and phylactery as being analgous to the Horcrux, but in the interests of consistency, the examples given in the "mythological inspiration" section are really that: items in historical mythology that are similar to the concept of the Horcrux, and they were included for illustrative purposes only. While I used to play D&D a lot, I don't think things in D&D or Lord of the Rings really count as serious historical mythology, and therefore don't need to be included. Read the HTML comments carefully. The examples we give are for illustrative purposes only, and therefore don't need every single example of something trying to cheat death. --D e athphoenix ʕ 15:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a fan forum? Harry the Horcrux

Okay, when I came to this article, I was very surprised to see that no mention was made of the possibility that Harry might be a horcrux, smply because it is one of the most popular fan theories in HP fandom. On viewing the archived talk page, I saw that there had been plenty of discussion over whether Harry might be a horcrux or not, with people on both sides spouting the same tired arguments. "He might be one because..." "He can't be one because..." etc. Now, last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a Harry Potter fan site, and even this talk page is not the place for an issue that is largely unresolvable until the release of the final book. Because it is unresolvable - there is no concrete proof either way. Can anyone, without resorting to discussion of the text (because that way lies assumption and subjective interpretation), tell me exactly why this hugely popular theory is inappropriate for inclusion on the page. I'm talking about a one-liner "There has been much speculation among fans that either Harry or his scar may be one of Voldemort's horcruxes.", with maybe a couple of points about where the theory arose, and what the arguments against it are.--Victim Of Fate 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Any such discussion would have to focus not on the theory but on the people who have the theory in order to meet Wikipedia policies about original research, verifiability, and references. That would open a can of worms of including every variant of the theory and counter argument that is out there simply by linking to someplace in the fandom that supports the idea. Don't think that simply mentioning it would not open such a can of worms because if we did some people would insist that the mention violated NPOV unless they could include their refuting the theory and then others would insist that to be NPOV they needed to have their say in the article too. Look at the mess that is a in a lot of the HP articles where fans want to include every little conversation a character had that they think is significant to the characters personality. It would get out of hand quickly, further I actually think it WOULD violate NPOV to include any speculation and not all speculation (no matter how well referenced) since including any implies that we have looked at the speculation and judged some theories reasonable enough for inclusion and others not. As you stated this is not resolvable to everyones satisfaction until the next book comes out so not including any speculation, except a mention that speculating about the Horcruxes is common, leaves the reader aware of such speculation but prevents Wikipedia from being a source of it. There are links to places in the fandom where they can go for that. Dalf | Talk 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, this article and others on various aspects of the book do refer to popular theories, most notably the Regulus Black article. Is this not speculation?--Victim Of Fate 09:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is, however, it was notable enough to be mentioned in an interview between Rowling, Emerson, and Spatz. We had a lot of problems with Regulus Black being mentioned as a "most fans believe" until someone (Superm401, I believe) had the brilliant idea of citing the interview in response to the theory. Until the "Harry is a Horcrux" (and the related "Harry's scar is a Horcrux") is notable enough to be mentioned by Rowling, there's no reason to be put in. --D e athphoenix ʕ 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, additionally this is ment to be an encylopedia and most encyclopedias do not indulge in the sort of litrary analysis we are talking about here. A lot of the edits in the HP space move in the gernal direction of making CliffsNotes. Dalf | Talk 03:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We can easily make it NPOV. How about "Some fans also believe that Harry's scar is a Horcrux, while others disagree". This is surely NPOV. As for your other point, well surely Regulus Black being mentioned in the MN/TLC interview is just proof that Spartz and Anelli found it notable, not necessarily that Rowling did. After all, she is answering the questions, not asking them. Regardless of their position of influence in the Harry Potter fan community, Melissa and Emerson are just fans like the rest of us, and the fact that they think something is notable is only as important as hundreds if not thousands of fans debating the "Harry/Scar Horcrux" theory for hours and hours on fan forums. Furthermore, I'm sure if Melissa and Emerson had brought up the theory in the interview, Rowling wouldn't just have said "Sorry, that's not very interesting, lets talk about something else." Kidburla2002 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and is original research. Until Rowling mentions it (likely to disprove it), it doesn't need to be mentioned here. we've been pretty strict in removing fan speculation. Right now, the only possibilities mentioned in here are those mentioned in the books (mostly by Dumbledore). Even if Rowling mentions it on her site, we still have to discuss its notability before mentioning it. Is it encyclopedic to mention a fan theory? Right now, definitely not. If it becomes notable enough to be explicitly disproved by Rowling, perhaps, but it still needs to be discussed if she does. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Wikipedia is not obligated to host every little pet theory and hypothesis - even in the context of "some fans think this and some do not". We already have an "authorized" and "canonical" list of all 6 Horcruxes (7 soul fragments) from Rowling, via the Dumbledore-Potter conversations and Pensieve memories. Any other theories and fan speculations are not encyclopedic. Otherwise: goodness - I have a reddish rock in my back yard - Evilphoenix and I believe it could be a Horcrux because it also has a sort of lightning bolt shaped crack on it (and sometimes seems to glow), while Deathphoenix and Serendipodous both think it is just a cracked rock with some shiny minerals, in a sunny spot. By Kidburla2002 standards, we must post that on the page under "Possible Horcruxes", because some fans think it is and some don't? Ahh - no. When Rowling says "Yes - Harry's scar is another Horcrux" on her web site, or in an interview, or in Book 7, then we can post it. What she HAS said is things like "The Sorting Hat is a Horcrux? No, it isn't. Horcruxes do not draw attention to themselves by singing songs in front of large audiences." [5] While Harry himself has not yet stood up and actually sung or recited poetry in front of large audiences (that we know of), he has done almost everything else imaginable in front of large audiences (Quidditch, Tri-Wizard Tournament, etc...) --T-dot 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Horcrux Spell

Is that section about it being the Horcrux creation spell being what kills the victim in the books? It was my impression that the sequence of events ran: Commit murder (evil act tears soul apart) -> Cast Horcrux creation spell on physical object -> soul fragment is transfered/trapped in object. However, my impressions are not always right. It is possible it explains it differently in the books, although I don't know where. - Vedexent 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't explain it differently. But there is something wrong about the explanation. I have been influenced by a theorist: see this page (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html). But in brief: Riddle did not directly murder Myrtle. Or Hepzibah Smith. He manipulated a basilisk and a house-elf into doing it. He wasn't even around when the old witch died. So it is unlikely that Riddle, who doesn't seem to feel much remorse about his behaviour, would have been particularly bothered by something he had not directly done.

Slughorn mentions a spell to create Horcruxes, regarding this as most terrible. Yet, why would the simple utilisation of pre-existing damage be more terrible than the act of killing?

Harry may have indirectly killed twice, or more. Quirrells death may be suspicious: the film regards him as having simply killed him (in self-defence) at the age of eleven. He was guilty about having led Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black to their deaths. And his assistance to Dumbledore in drinking Voldemort's potion in the Horcrux cave certainly weakened Dumbledore sufficiently to make him unable to properly defend himself. Is his soul now shredded?

If you kill in self-defence and feel remorse, is your soul divided? Can you then make a Horcrux, to be put to good use?

How could Lily Potter's sacrifice block Avada Kedavra? It is an unblockable (by magical means) curse. And Lily's charm is certainly known about Voldemort at sixteen years: he says that he 'should have considered it'. But why then has nobody else done so? And we are only basing our opinion that Avada Kedavra was used on Harry on the presence of Green Light and the word of an impersonator! The explanation of the Horcruxes is either not full, or botched, or deliberately misleading.Michaelsanders 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I must admit I hit a "red flag" as soon as I hit "I have been influenced by a theorist". Let me make Wikipedia policy in general, and this page's more "unofficial policy" in particular, very clear:

If it cannot be referenced in a publication by contributing authors (in this case only J.K. Rowling) it is classed as original research (or in the case of Harry Potter "Fan speculation - you make reference to "a theorist") and according to the Wikipedia guidelines has no place in Wikipedia articles.

I apologize if that sounds a bit harsh; it is not meant to be, and I'm not trying to "jump down your throat" for putting material in an article. Wikipedia thrives on contributions, and your desire to help out is appeciated. I'm just trying to explain why we tend to take out things that aren't traceable back to one of the novels, interviews of J.K. Rowling, or "official" material on her website.

Fan theories are fine; they're part of the "fun" of the Harry Potter novels for many people, as can be seen by the large amount of speculation on fan discussion sites :) But such speculation doesn't really have a place in an Enclyclopedia article.

If you keep the guidelines in mind, we're more than happy to have yet another contributing editor. Good luck :) - Vedexent 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! (I seem to be making a habit of treading on peoples toes). You are completely in the right here. However, would I be able to say, "Some fans of the books have pointed out that the authorial explanation appears incomplete or flawed, because...etc. However, JK Rowling has stated nothing on the matter, making this speculation, etc." ? Or is even that being too flawed? In the matter of what is canonical, however, we do know that we can't trust Crouch Jr, and that Avada Kedavra is not the only spell which emits green light (Ron's non-verbal slug curse also emits 'a jet of green light'). And if the effects of Voldemort's presumed Avada Kedavra on Harry are to be taken as standard (which is implied when several characters refer to the curse as having been repelled onto Vold.), it doesn't seem to be AK. Michaelsanders 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Soul

I have a few questions.

Why is it that if a persons soul is destroyed, they die, but if a Dementor sucks it out it is still possible for that person to live?
What does the soul actually do? Does it contain memories, powers, personalty?

Can someone please answer these questions?  Thanks.  (11987 12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

Re - Q#1 - Did you try reading the article on the Dementors?

Re - Q#2/3 - Did you try reading the article on the Soul? --T-dot 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Horcrux Identified in rereading

I feel a horcrux is easily identified. Reread Chamber Of Secrets. A quote from Sorcerer's Stone "Gringotts is the safest place in the world fer anything yeh want ter keep safe -- 'cept maybe Hogwarts." So the Horcrux is at Howarts itself something senemental to Voldemort Ron Identifies it"I know that name .... T. M. Riddle got an award for special services to the school fifty years ago."

And after that they got to look and discover

"Riddle's burnished gold shield was tucked away in a corner cabinet."

"However, they did find Riddle's name on an old Medal for Magical Merit, and on a list of old Head Boys."

I definatley Feel that Either is a missing Horcrux. It truley would make Voldemorts' day by hiding a Horcrux right under Dumbledores' nose.

(the prev. posted on 20:02, 21 May 2006 by Tateer28 / contribs)

Wonderful! A terrific example of speculative Original Research - which certainly belongs on all HP fan pages and personal blogs on the subject of Voldemort and his Horcruxes - but it is absolutely forbidden in the "just the facts please" Wiki encyclopedia. Dumbledore provided us in Book 6 with all the authorized "canonical" possibilities for Horcruxes - and has told Harry what he needs to do about them. JK Rowling has "backed" Dumbledore's "guesses" by saying he is "never very far wide of the mark". Anything beyond Dumbledore's list is pure speculaton, at least until Book 7 is released, or until JK Rowling herself releases more information, inadvertently or otherwise, in a verifiable documented interview. Thanks for your commendable original research efforts though! --T-dot 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have to say the reason that I chose to reread the book was per the Recomendation of JK Rowling. As quoted on the Leaky-Cauldron. "ES: It seems like it would be impossible. If Harry had gone to the cave, he never could have done it on his own, it seems like.

JKR: Well, I'm prepared to bet you now, that at least before the week is out, at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books. " This Particular statement was what led me to reread and come to my conclusion.

Yes - and most speculators have interpreted that statement by Rowling to refer to the "unopenable locket" discovered at the Black mansion while Harry and the others were cleaning up the place. Besides that presumed (but still speculative) Horcrux, which may have been Slytherin's, we have Hufflepuff's cup and Ravenclaw's necklace or something else once owned by the Hogwarts Founders, and then Nagini rounding out the top four "most probable" remaining Horcruxes, as suggested by Dumbledore. It makes little sense that Rowling would have stated that Dumbledore is never far wide of the mark on the matter of Horcruxes, and then thrown in something as remotely far from Dumbledore's speculation as Riddle's old medals and other items left behind at Hogwarts, as you say "under Dumbledore's nose". That is right up there in with the Harry's Scar, Harry himself, Ginny, and other frequently suggested but equally absurd Horcrux candidates. You might as well speculate that your toothbrush is one of the Horcruxes. --T-dot 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The known relics are a pentacle from Slytherin, a cup from Hufflepuff and a sword from Gryffindor. Given that these are three of the four suits of the minor arcana, I think it strongly suggests that Ravenclaw's relic is a staff or some sort of special wand. Just my two cents. grendel|khan 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh!!! The Locket in OP. What a strange thing that a locket located in The Black House. A locket that "a heavy locket that none of them could open" would not be identified. A locket that would be marked with a snake most likely. But yet nobody notice it and it is tossed to the trashed. I find that very odd for all the wizards in the house to attempt to open this locket. And It is disregarded so easily.

Well we are moving quite far and waide of the point of Wikipedia here into the land of fan speculation. But, lets just say that given the most common idea for R.A.B. in fandom being Reglus Black, and given that #12 GP was his house it makes sense. Your objection that essentially, "wizards would have noticed" does not adaquatly account for the fact that they were sorting thouth literally hundreds of hold musty, cursed, dark, decaying, or otherwise unplsant (and unintresting) items. One of the aspects of JKRs univers that does not always make it into fanfiction is that decent wizard folk do not generally exprss that much intrest in dark objects and they were all pretty much assuming everything in the house was dark the only time anyone took much notice of any pspecific item was when Kretcher tried to save it (which is incidently probbly where the locket is). Dalf | Talk 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In Chamber of Secrets (JK Rowling,1999) Chapter "Dobby's Reward", Dumbledore states the following to Harry: "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore clamly, "because Lord Voldemort ... can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..."

It seems to me that this is a clue that could be referring to Harry, or Harry's scar as being a Horcrux. After all, Harry is in Gryffindor, so it could be said that "Harry" is the "something of Griffindor's" that Dumbledore referred to. [DAB] [17 August 2006]

Yes, Harry's scar is the Horcrux has been mentioned before, but how you got to there as a result of rereading is very interesting. Perhaps you should post your findings to one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Locket Location

In the Order of the Pheonix when they are cleaning Number 12 Grimwald place they found “a heavy locket which no one could open.” (pg. 116) If R.A.B. is really Regulus, then this could very well be the Horcrux. Should this theory be listed or no? I wouldn't be the one to know. (posted by anon. User:63.22.208.139 at 17:48, 15 June 2006)

The locket and it's possible location has been discussed and debated all up and down this page and over on the R.A.B. article and discussion page and elsewhere. There has been general agreement that the Slytherin Locket is (or was) probably a Horcrux, mainly because Dumbledore said so, and it was "seen" by Harry in the Pensieve and thoroughly discussed with Dumbledore. Whether the unopenable locket at Number 12, Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin Locket is debatable. There was no indication in the text of there being a Slytherin seal on it, or any sort of snake, or "S", or other symbol that would suggest it was Slytherin's. Furthermore Dumbledore was present at 12 Grimmauld Place from time to time, and it seems he would have noticed the magical locket and detected that it was a Horcrux, and either taken care of it himself, or mentioned to Harry to check on it, rather than adventuring off to the Cave with Harry to get it. On the other hand we have the locket sort-of perhaps re-appearing at the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade after being in the apparent possession of Mundungus Fletcher, who had some goods stolen from 12 Grimmauld Place, and the bar man who is evidently none other than Aberforth Dumbledore. The point is - all of this is speculation and/or original research, and not undeniably confirmed or denied by J. K. Rowling, either in the canonical text or in any of her interviews. Generally speculation and original research is strongly discouraged on the Wikipedia, although admittedly some is allowed in moderation, if there is a strong consensus among the "veteran editors". Thank you for asking! --T-dot 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. see: original research for further information. --T-dot 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of a horcrux

I have removed the statment that JKR implied that destroying the soulfragment involved mroe than destroying the horcrux. The basis of that being added was an unanswered FAQ poll on here site. The question was: - Does the destruction of a Horcrux involve more than the destruction of the object? First of all I don't think this question being on the list imlies anything as it ends in a questionmark and I understand msot of those questions are generated out of the fandom. That is they are questions people want answered not clues. Further even if they raised a legitimate question (which this one anyway does not) including an answer to the question in the article as if simply asking the question were enough to imply the answer is especially bad. Look at the next runenr up question: - Why did Voldemort want the Philosopher's Stone if he already had his Horcruxes? are we to take this to mean that Voldemort did not want the Philosopher's Stone? In her answer to one of the previous poll questions JKR even says that some of the poll questions do not have intresting answers. Dalf | Talk 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Voldemorts murders and soul fragments

I removed the parenthetical (while it is likely that Voldemort has killed more than six times, the resulting "soul fragments" were not extracted) from the article on the basis that the book never says that the act of murder itself creates a soul fragment only that that it "rips the soul apart" though it does refer to "encase[ing] the torn portion" (HBP p.498) it does not necessarily imply anything about what happens to the soul afterwards if it goes back together, or whatever. As written it could be taken to mean that you could commit a murder and then use that murder to create a horcrux at a much later date. Mostly I removed this because it felt unnecessary, another little detail to show how smart we are that really is just cluttering up the article. That said if you replace it please change likely with known. I think if you list the actual murders from the books you get a number bigger than 6. Frank Bryce (old muggle), his grandparents, father, Bertha Jorkins, James and Lilly potter, that makes seven. Dalf | Talk 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out that Slughorn said nothing about it being the spell that creates the fragment - but that the act is what "rips the soul apart". Now the implication is that the 'spell is what does that. We don't know that anymore than the first assertion. The previous version didn't assert that murderers are now a big bag of soul bits. Whether portions rejoin the collective soul is another issue entirely. In an effort to be "perfectly fair" the issue is getting way too complex. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No I agree Slughorn does say that the act rips the soul but he does not say what happens if you don’t capture the part. Does it go back? Does it rip them into 1/7th parts automatically since 7 in a magical number and voldemort figured this out? Etc. I am not saying the removed sentence asked any of these questions but it was not necessary and it implied a degree of knowledge about the process that we don’t have and it included useless information, the total number of people killed by voldemort really does not matter to the article. Dalf | Talk 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does killing in self-defence tear apart the soul? Or in the line of duty (do aurors get their souls ripped up)? Or manslaughter? Because whilst these are not necessarily murder, many of those who inflict them would certainly feel guilty. Or is the soul torn when the murderer doesn't feel guilty: meaning that the key is not the act of murder itself, but the refusal to feel remorse. How does euthanasia fit in? That is murder in action, if not in intent. Michaelsanders 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All good questions all of which are impossible to know since it is a fictional universe and JKR has not given any clues to this, and all the more reason to stay away form speculating at all. We do not from what iv given in the books know the mechanism or the mechanics of this process except for about 2-3 sentences of text in the books and as far as I know nothing from JKR herself. I propose we find a way to work those two or three sentences into the article and totally scourgify all other sentences that have or depend on implications that are not clearly known. Dalf | Talk 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dolores Umbridge?

Nagini may actually be an Animagus, disguising herself as Dolores Umbridge. Firstly, back in book 5, when Umbridge seizes Harry's arm, Harry feels a sharp twinge in his forehead. This may be because a portion of Voldemort is enclosed in Umbridge. We've also all known how villainous Umbridge is...so perhaps, Umbridge really is a villain and pretending to work for the Ministry of Magic? Since Umbridge came to Hogwarts, we have never seen Nagini in a snake form except for when Nagini attacked Arthur Weasley. Perhaps Umbridge had attacked Mr. Weasley while the others weren't looking? She also exhibits some characteristics of Voldemort (no fear to do villainous things such as set Dementors on Harry or express greed and eagerness to torture) and snakes (very sharp teeth)... from Anon.

Actually I am Dolores Umbridge! Well except for those times when I have to go visit my family then dobby fills in for me. However I am not going to include the amazingly revealing information in the article because it woudl be original research. Dalf | Talk 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hufflepuff's Cup

I believe that the location of Hufflepuff's cup is located at the exact place where Horace Slughorn stayed when he was in hiding. Voldemort may have hidden the Horcrux at Hepzibah Smith's house, as he usually guards all Horcruxes that he creates in the places he retrieved them. Well, since Voldemort supposedly found the cup at Hepzibah's house, he may have hidden it there. In the beginning of the the sixth book, The Half-Blood Prince, J.K. Rowling tells us, "If Harry were to have guessed who lived here, he would have guessed a rich, fussy old lady.", making an implication to Hepzibah Smith, who indeed inhibits those qualities. Hepzibah Smith is also a wealthy, fancy house...well, didn't Harry visit a wealthy, fancy house to pick up Horace Slughorn? I'm even guessing that the goblet that Slughorn retrieved when he wanted a drink was the Horcrux itself...

Slughorn was staying in a muggle residence which he explaines is easier than a wizarding one since you can simply use a freezing charm on the muggle security system (Though apparently bringging your larger furnature in such as a piano has to be done with care so the neibors don't see) Dalf | Talk 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/r/Talk%7EHorcrux_Archive_2_943a.html"

Category: Talk archives