Talk:Regulus Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B
This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] R.A.B. not Regulus Black

  • The Argument that R.A.B. is not Regulus Black section needs to be rewritten very badly. It's written in first person essay format, which is not even close to how it should be written. I Tried to change what i could but gave up because it is all bad. I recommend the whole thing should be deleted and completely rewritten by someone else.--Nicarmour 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I find this section pretty bad as well. To begin with, Sirius' obviously biased opinion about Regulus is stated as if it were fact, which I find very problematic. Also, the fact that the locket found in GP12 isn't described as gold is hardly an argument against the Regulus theory. It still is a heavy locket and therefore fits the description of the one from the Pensieve scenes. The Kreacher argument is IMO pretty weak as well. First of all, fifteen years have passed and Kreacher could have been in better conditions at the time R.A.B. stole the locket. And second, even if not, Regulus could have gotten help from someone else. His accomplice doesn't have to be Kreacher. Neville Longbottom 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What sort of person made this page? They even put a link to people with the last name of "Young". Someone needs to correct this..... --(unsigned)
Anyone can edit the page, even you! Go right ahead and fix anything that's wrong. -- Nunh-huh 03:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I contend that Regulus Black is hiding under the false persona "Octavius Pepper". --KoopaTroopa211 04:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Should this page contain a snippet about the temporary revelation of R.A.B. as Regulus Arcturus Black? (The Leaky Cauldron posted a confirmation, which is no longer on the site). --TheKtulu7 31 August 2005
I would say, not, since it would seem that leaky is no longer supporting the story except for a cryptic comment about how interesting the last few days have been. It may be that further facts will emerge. However....if they have discovered they were mistaken, I would have thought they would have printed a retraction rather than the cryptic comment. That suggests conflict. Maybe solicitors letters? Sandpiper 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it should, although carefully referencing it as a rumor. Being forced to back off his information because of an uproar does not mean it should be tossed completely from this article. --cpu111, 3:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed the 'Arcturus' from Regulus's name at the top of the article (where it says his name in the template). It's not canon so far, it won't be canon until JK says herself that that's his real name (I won't accept it when Leaky Cauldron says who told them, because it's not JK, it's "he said that JK said..."). If anybody has any complaints, feel free to voice them- I could see this turning into an edit war some day. I have no problem with the section about his middle name, by the way.--Oppolo 19:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I saw that too, and thought it was taking it a bit far to change the info box. Though, for whatever reason, when the original newsflash was removed from the website, they also neglected to revise the changes they had made to his biography name.Sandpiper 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regulus meaning Basilisk

The article mentions that he "might have ties to Griffyndor," however I see no logical conclusion to this arguement. The fact that regulus has a connection with "little king" and that a lion is the king of the jungle is vague and unrelated at best. If anything he would have more ties to Syltherine due to the fact that a basilisk is a deadly lizard. Can someone explain why someone put that he might have ties to Griffyndor or change the article by removing that reference? Thanks.

[edit] Middle Name

A popular fansite claimed to have been informed by a reliable source that Regulus' middle name is Arcturus. [1]

The fansite claim that Regulus' second name is Arcturus has since been withdrawn without explanation. However, one of the editors of that fansite has stated that he stands behind this information. He posted the following on another site (The Leaky Cauldron):

Obviously, Jo is the source of this information. When have you ever known me to post rumors as facts? It's from Jo. That doesn't mean she talked to me directly, of course, but I do know that it came from Jo.
I honestly think that Jo figures she's already told us that it's Regulus. Read the Melissa/Emerson interview. I think she would be surprised that this is even an issue.
I have asked permission to reveal who told me. If they say I can, I'll let you all know. Otherwise, feel free to take this with whatever grain of salt you need to.
Steve
—Comment posted at The Leaky Cauldron.org

It has also been noted from the books that Regulus had a rich uncle whose name was Alphard.

  • I removed this section as speculation and unencylopedic. Tedernst 15:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And I put it back. It is reporting of facts (i.e. the appearance and disappearance of the claim). It is relevant (since it is about Regulus), and perversely one of the more interesting things about him, which actually has happened outside the books. As to the validity of the claimed name, the source appears to be reasonably reliable and it is hard to see why they would have done this entirely without some substantiation. What I have found even more convincing is the absence of any explanation. I do not see why they would not have admitted and explained being wrong if they discovered they were. Sandpiper 17:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Family Tree

Where exactly did all that info come from? Dont you need sources for that kind of thing? I know some of it was from the book, the lestranges and molfoys and tonks etc, but where did longbottoms and potters come from? Raemie 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's from the family tree that Jo put up for donation. Some of it was published in a newspaper and the other half was written down by fans, who went to the auction to look for the whole tree. Which brings me to my question. Where do you edit the tree to put in missing things like the names of Sirius' and Regulus' parents (Orion and Walburga). Neville Longbottom 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regulus, Sirius, and Basilisks

Who keeps deleting the mention that a basilisk egg must be incubated under the Dog Star? Noneofyourbusiness 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it from this article and moved it to Sirius Black (under Name etymology) instead. I think it belongs there rather than here because this article is about Regulus Black, not Sirius Black, and the basilisk egg being laid under Sirius is more appropriate there. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But it's a connection. Noneofyourbusiness 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It IS a connection, but Sirius black is a connection to a lot of things in Harry Potter, and it's not necessary to put that information on every page.--Nnythm 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Atilius Regulus

The name can also be connected to Marcus Atilius Regulus, a famous Roman martyr. This might be a clue from Rowling, saying he died as a martyr. In his story, Regulus claimed to have been given a slow-acting poison in order to help Rome. This was a lie, but it served his purpose. Of course, this does not tell fans if Regulus Black drank a slow-acting poison in the cave, or if this is once again a lie. Hmm, I looked at the wikipedia page for Marcus Atilius Regulus, and there's no slow acting poison. Can we get a citation for this? --Nnythm 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Atilius Regulus supposedly died a martyr, but he did nothing to serve his purpose - rather, he is the archetypal 'moral Roman', caring more for honour than life. So, since the reference in this article appears flawed, and the real person appears to have little to do with Regulus Black (even St Regulus would be a better fit - stealing St Andrew's relics from unworthy Constantine and hiding them in Scotland...), I am removing the reference. Michaelsanders 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, if Rowling was thinking of Atilius at all, it was in an ironic sense. He was supposedly a brave man who resolutely kept his word, at the cost of his life. Regulus Black was a coward who broke his word and was killed because of it. Michaelsanders 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR and Speculation

Can anyone justify the overwhelming Original Research in the "Role in the series" section? I highly doubt it, so I intend to delete soon. John Reaves 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific when making statements like that (it was the same with the Founders). So: what are you planning to delete? A word? A sentence? The section? The article? Michaelsanders 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see I've once again underestimated the grasp my fellow editors have on WP:OR and rules abot speculation-oh well. The two argument sections need to go and various tidbits from other sections. This isn't the place for stating what may or could happen. The article is for what we know. As for the Founders, if you'd bother looking at edit histories and diffs you'd understand and know what was removed. John Reaves 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I was actually referring to your initial lack of specification regarding what you were saying 'don't keep' to on the Founder's page. And your similar initial lack of specification here. You do seem to have developed a habit recently of rushing in without properly explaining yourself. But this is hardly the place. Regarding the 'arguments' sections, they are simply an inevitable feature of such articles. They are summations of what is already being said (and has been said for over a year) in fandom, which wikipedia needs to refer to. Or would you rather completely remove any mention of the RAB is Regulus Black idea altogether, allowing wikipedia to pretend it isn't happening until HPDH confirms or denies it? That seems a little foolish.
Relax. It will be gone when the book comes out. Until then, simply accept that such little pockets of OR will inevitably hang around, and concentrate on those without justification. And cool the anger. Michaelsanders 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You're the last person who needs to be lecturing about "proper explanation" with your egregious lack of edit summaries (see your talk page). The idea is to create something lasting. All this fandom stuff will be moot points in a couple years. Therefore, there is no reason to include it now. I wouldn't be opposed to a sentence or two mentioning the possibility of him being RAB. There is absolutely no reason for these "pokets of OR" to hang around. The "don't keep" was in response to a proposed poll by someone as to whether or not the information I deleted should remain deleted. I suppose "don't keep" was just easier than "should remain deleted". John Reaves 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my 'lecturing about "proper explanation"' was inspired on the mild hypocrisy of your comment regarding edit summaries to me. But I digress. In a couple of years, the fandom arguments regarding RAB will be irrelevant. But they will still serve as a snapshot of what people thought prior to the release of HPDH. My advice is to keep it for now. It serves to inform readers more fully than a brief and unhepful line or two can. And when HPDH is released, we can all come together again, and decide if there is any way to meaningfully preserve the text, or if it should simply be removed. But until then, relax. You say on your user page that you're on holiday, so enjoy it. Calm down. This information has been here for who-knows-how-long without the encyclopaedia crashing. It can wait a while longer: certainly, until you are less angry about the matter. I have put off the inevitably bitter arguments about the Founders so that I can try to have some peace in my holiday (excluding unintentional arguments with insolent thugs on the fandom page). I suggest you do the same here. Michaelsanders 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume that not explaining what this mild hypocrisy is a joke to goo along with the whole "you don't explain anything" deal, if not, you should explain. Don't tell me how to live my life or what mood I should be in. You know that those section are flat out original research essays that undermine Wikipedia - you've shown that you're smart enough to know that. John Reaves 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that it is mildly hypocritical to accuse me of not explaining anything...and, at the same time, show at least one blatant example of not explaining anything yourself (here: you were unclear on the Founders Page, but I admit - following your attempt at explanation here - that it is possible there to understand what you were referring to with 'don't keep'). Now, since it is 1:15 am, I have been online too long, and am tired, I am going to bed. You are welcome to continue this discussion, but I'm not coming back until tomorrow. Michaelsanders 01:16, 30 December

2006 (UTC)

You really have made no effort to look for what I deleted have you? You really should use edit summaries though...quite useful. John Reaves 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, what are you referring to? Because you haven't deleted anything here. Michaelsanders 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to the founders page. Look up like 6 sentences, you'll get it. John Reaves 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Search for R.A.B.

This whole section of theory and speculation is entirely nonsense and goes against all the rules. Thus I wonder why this keeps staying here. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the two subsections for and against R.A.B=Regulus should go. However, the part about the middle name is encyclopedic, and at least a sentence or two stating that Regulus is the only character in the series known to have the initials R. and B. (besides those two which Hermione mentions at the end of HBP) and JKR saying that Regulus would be "a fine guess." It looks like most of that section was written in one sitting by an anon and just went unnoticed until now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I just had another look, it seems I had carelessly jumped into conclusions to disregard the whole section. You're right. The part Regulus Black's middle name and JKR words can be secure, but the rest should be deleted.PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the two arguments anyway PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 11:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that was certainly a bold move. But I wonder if somehow we could salvage the "translations of the Black name" information, which provides some pretty strong "proof" that Regulus (or at least someone with the last name of Black) is R.A.B. Actually, come to think of it, that is covered in the R.A.B. article. Still... --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way, keeping those things (which you mistakenly regard as "strong proof") in R.A.B article doesn't create a precedent for this article. The translations stuff is unnecessary information and only serves the purpose of messing up the article. Hence there's no need to move it back PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edits. Unfortunately fan speculation is still mentioned but I don't think it will ever stay out because of its popularity. John Reaves 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely you miss the point. Other people regard the correlated translation information as strong proof. Thus it belongs in an encyclopedia which reports facts existeng in the real world. Sandpiper 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/g/Talk%7ERegulus_Black_5b57.html"