Talk:Horcrux/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Horcrux (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 5 >>
Archive

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5

Contents

Snape as the Final Horcux

Alwasys wearing black, his cape is a horcrux or he himself is a horcrux? He can kill himself and ensure that Voldemort does not rise.

Possible the Harry's Advance Potions Book?

A possible horcrus is Harry's Advance Potions Book which he origionally borrowed from Professor Slughorn. It is said to be the property of the Half-Blood Prince, and the most likely wizard to refer to himself as a prince is Voldemort, and he himself is half-blood.

Interesting theory. Maybe you should bring it up on one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix 04:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The book did not belong to Voldemort. The half-blood prince is Snape.

NO FIRST PERSON OR EDITORIALS PLEASE

I just edited the Harry and Voldemort section because someone had put in their own editorial opinion regarding the idea of Harry being a horcrux. Although I think I agree with what they said, this is not the place to say it. I don't actually know how to say what I edited on the history page, so I am saying it here. Also, can someone kindly contact 68.230.107.245 and tell them this, they may be new to wiki (so am I, hence my lack of knowledge on technical workings of pages)

This is "68.230.107.245" here, "BrennaCeDria" (finally remembered to log myself in), the one adding the "Riddle's Award is the horcrux" items a few weeks ago. I've got some text from chapter 13 to follow it up with--about as vague and hidden as the locket was the first time we all read book 5--and I was wondering if my entry can be left more or less intact now that I've got a source? I'll put it up and see what you guys think. *thanks*

Etymology

Could someone please research on where Rowling might have gotten this term?

Good question. I believe crux is meant to be related to cross, form the Latin term crux. "Hor", or maybe "hora" may come from the same language, meaning hour, like a part of the day. Tottaly wrong, yet, thins might be, I think there is a reason, for "crux" might be realted to death while "hor" leads to partionating the whole. --Jotomicron | talk 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I have no major background in etymology (though it is fascinating), but perhaps hor refers to horror and crux to crutch. It sorta sounds similar. The horcrux is a crutch for Voldemort so that he can live forever, although weakened. And the horror should be pretty explainable, considering the sheer horror that goes into making a horcrux. I am probably wrong, but that's my guess.

I agree on the 'hor' as in horror part but couln't 'crux' just mean what it says in the dictionary: "an essential, basic, crucial, or pivotal point." (wordsmyth)? 'Seems to me this Horcrux idea is pretty mutch the essence of the whole Harry Potter series.

What if crux had the most simple of its latin translations and it just meant cross. As the cross is a siginicant symbol today people put great value in. Like an an icon.

Is a Horcrux a total invention of JKR or is there some mythological basis?

The term and specific definition of horcrux seems to be an invention of JKR, but the basic concepts were obviously based on many myths and works of fiction. For instance, I immediately thought of the lich's phylactery, and it seems that many people agreed with me. There are also other influences as can be seen in the introductory paragraph. --Deathphoenix 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

R.A.B.?

How's this: The fake locket is the real horcrux and Voldemort concieved the "decoy" and note as a final protection to the horcrux. Why? R.A.B was alone when he wrote the note, he knew about Voldemort, he somehow got around the potion, he detected the trace of Tom Riddle's magic, yet he was in Riddle's and Dumbledore's time. Would not the wizarding world have heard of this man who was more powerful than Dumbledore? JKR said there won't be any new major characters in HP7, so R.A.B has few potential matches. Those who do match the name are certainly inferior to Dumbledore in power, yet whoever R.A.B was, he was composed enough to write a note after taking the potion (or used stronger spells than Dumbledore had to banish it). These seem implausible. More likely is that Voldemort kept the real Locket for himself and tricked Harry into thinking that the real one had already been destroyed (so said the note); thus, if and when Harry destroys the rest, he has one left in his possession.

Is Sirius' brother R.A.B?

In this case, yes. Regulus Black. see the article about minor harry potter characters. --fpo 05:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Is that canon? Because knowing JKR, until we are told that it is Regulus Black, then it could be someone, (or something,) else! Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Regulus seems the most likely character at the moment, but seeing as we're all saying that she may throw a curveball when writing it...I read somewhere else that one of the owners of Borgin and Burke (we don't know their first names) could be responsible, which is pretty plausible too considering Voldemort basically stole from them. E03bf085 13:20, July 20 2005 (BST)
She has stated that the whole plot for all 7 books was written before the first was publshed, so I would be pretty sure she already knows who it is and is unlikely to change it.81.139.132.104 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Besides Regulus Black (middle name unknown), no one else has been mentioned in the books with the initials R.B. It is entirely possible that J.K.R. is introducing another character, but I feel this is unlikely at this late time in the series. -StaceyV2220


Definition of Crux - The basic, central, or critical point or feature: the crux of the matter; the crux of an argument.

Sounds like a soul to me.

- Zinnober

Speculation

Somehow the last paragraph or two feel like speculation. Any agreement? SujinYH 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed speculation. However, seeing as there won't be definitive answers to these questions for (probably) another two years, I think it's reasonable to leave intelligent discussion like this in the article. E03bf085 11:20, July 18 2005 (BST)


How about this for speculation. Is it at all conceivable that Harry Potter will destroy Voldemort and become a Dark Lord himself. He is interested in the Dark Arts and wants to become an Auror. Potentially gamekeeper turned poacher!!! Love does not conquer all. And R.A.B. has to be Regulus.

It's conceivable alright, I can't really see JK going down that road though. Then again...E03bf085 13:20, July 20 2005 (BST)

As further speculation with Regulus, remember that his brother and friends all became Animagi, so the theory would be known to him. And Peter Pettigrew successfully hid-out as Scabbers for years, and Rita Skeeter likewise has hidden her Animagus status. Plus, with judicious use of the Polyjuice Potion, a wizard on the run could hide out for years as something other than just a kid's familiar.

Is it possible then that Trevor (Neville's toad) could be the horcrux? He's been around the whole series, and played no serious role in any main plot or sub-plot, just the same as Scabbers/Pettigrew up till Book 3.--207.160.210.253 22:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Regulus's reappearance would also solve the problem of the Black family inheritance.

With the false horcrux, while Tom Riddle got Slytherin's locket early-on in his reign of terror, he hadn't as yet racked up a body count large enough to fill a lake of Inferi. One would also assume he didn't sully his wand doing it all himself, but might have taken some of his Death Eaters along with him, if just to cart the bodies of the murdered Muggles. What better way for Regulus to get around the green potion than to swap out the locket beforehand?

I believe that we have seen all the horcruxes so far. i don't see J.K adding a new one in during the last book since Harry will be so busy looking for and destroying them all... Book 1- vold book 2- the diary book 3- ? book 4- nagini book 5- the locket book 6- the ring, the hufflepuff cup...so as you can see i have "found" one to two in each book but book 3 so i think there could be some merrit in this theory. I am new here so I am not sure about posting this but after reading some other posts i saw alot of them are theories to so I hope this is o.k. If it is and anyone can think of one from book 3, please put it down. 69.40.22.45 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC) merrick21

Regulus Black could have the middle name "Alphard". This "Alphard" being the late uncle struck from the family tree for bequeathing his entire fortune to Sirius, allowing him to live with James Potter's parents. This was explained in Grimmauld Place in The Order of the Phoenix. - Kyus.

Also explained, during the Grimmauld Place cleanup operation, is a locket that no-one could open. This could be completely unrelated, but I highly doubt this.

1. It was found in the Black Family home. 2. The whole Mundungus-stealing-from-the-Black-household idea seemed too random, and we all know JK Rowling likes to introduce seemingly uninteresting things that are opened up further in later books. I believe he stole this locket and therefore knows the whereabouts of the Horcrux.

-Kyus.

Final paragraph

I deleted this final paragraph

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS PURLY FICTION. IT IS ON NO ACCOUNT REAL...

But wait just one second. If a horcrux is a soul, It's living. If it's living, by destroying it you kill a part of Voldemort, which would make YOU a murderer. So Harry Potter has a horcrux from killing Tom Riddle's Diary, and Dumbledore killed on too. Would that mean that, for instance, TOM RIDDLE'S DIARY IS HARRY'S HORCRUX?????

As it is unencylclopaedic and makes little sense. Any objections? --Cruci 13:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because you have to specifically want to make one at the time. Thanos6 16:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, it doesn't split your soul to kill a horcurx. You have to kill a person, not a part of one 129.170.202.34 19:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And you have to recite a specific spell to do it. Nightscream 16:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering

As Voldemort's killing curse on the baby Harry rebounded onto him, wouldn't that mean one of his horcruxes had to have been destroyed? I mean surely you need to have part of the soul within the body. As I understand a horcrux removes part of your soul from your body to place in another vessel. It doesn't remove the soul entirely from the body. 210.50.216.161 14:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's the point of a Horcrux: since you have part of your soul somewhere else, you don't need to have any in your body.
No, you do have to have a portion of your soul in your body. Keeping a portion of it encased inside something else prevents you from dying. This MuggleNet editorial explains it nicely: "One way to put this is that a Horcrux is a spiritual anchor securing one’s soul to the living world, so that if the body is killed, the soul does not pass on to the afterlife or imprint itself onto the world as a ghost but merely remains as its damaged self, ready to seek a new body to exist within."--WhyBeNormal 18:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Harry could not have created a horcrux at that moment because he did not make th incantation nor intend to rip his soul apart at the time. No intention, no crime, no horcrux!!!!!!

Horcrux ~ Phylactery

CC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter

I'm glad that I wasn't the only person to think that the Horcrux is like a lich's phylactery. What do you think about possibly expanding this mention to other articles? I find it interesting that what Voldemort does to himself (and its subsequent results on the soul and the wizard's physical body) seems very similar to what a wizard does to attain lichhood in the D&D universe. --Deathphoenix 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has read Inuyasha: Volume One - Yura of the Hair sorta uses her comb as a "safegaurd" for her soul. The only difference is that she keeps her ENTIRE soul in her Comb, while her own body is soul-less.

There are other diffrences as well. As I understand it a lich cannot stay very far from her Phylactery for an extended period of time as it contains the entire soul. Additionally a lich can regenerate a body automatically after some period of time. Dalf | Talk 00:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
That's okay. No-one said a horcrux = phylactery. Only ~ (approximately equal). :-) --Deathphoenix 02:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh I agree. I just think the diffrences and similarties are intresting. Though I think if we look we will find lots of other similar examples in other legends, fantasy universes, etc. Dalf | Talk 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Voldemort doesn't know..."

But Voldemort CHOOSES his horcruxes. (Also, Harry does not have a horcrux exactly for this reason, it seems you have to actively decide to have a horcrux). Dumbledore said Voldemort was one short when he went to the Potter's and I don't think Voldemort planned to put part of himself into his nemesis. He would have marked the great killing with something else afterwards.

However, what do people think about accidental horcruxes? It seems a bit farfetched but this seems to be the only way Harry could be a horcrux...unless the "Flesh, blood and bone" ceremony in book four has anything to do with it...

Is there some similarity between the fact that Voldemort has split his soul into seven peices and that there are seven years at Hogwarts? Anonymous

Well, they do mention in the book that Seven is a very magical number.

When Voldemort's speaking to Slughorn about making Horcruxes he said that in magic seven is the most powerful number. There might be seven years at Hogwarts simply because of the number's power.

accidental horcruxes..

As you have to perform a spell to produce a horcrux, there are no "accidental horcruxes". That makes it also very unlikely that Harry is one.

What if it was intetional? The Potters lived at a place called Godric's Hollow. Harry's wand shot Gryffindor's colors when he found it. Voldemort could not secure anything of Gryffindor's to make a horcrux. Harry could be Gryffindor's heir, with James being killed to make Harry the horcrux.

But part of Voldemort did transfer into Harry, and some kind of linkage did established between Harry's Soul and voldemort's soul. So we do not know how much of Voldemort's soul is placed in him, and if we do, is that sufficicent to make Harry into an accidental Horcrux.

I agree - I think it is unlikely that Harry is Voldemort's Horcrux. In HBP Dumbledore makes a point of saying that it is impossible for Voldemort to possess Harry because Harry has a pure soul. If Harry was his horcrux this would probably not be the case...

"Accidental" here means that Voldemort meant to create the sixth and final horcrux (an unknown object) with the murder of Harry, but thanks to Lily's protection, he failed to kill him and the soul fragment entered Harry instead, who should have been dead. Hence the "accidental": Voldemort meant for something else, and not Harry, to become a Horcrux. Also, maybe Voldemort's soul had already been divided by the murder of James or Lily, so failing to kill Harry would be irrelevant in that respect. Sinistro 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Voldemort has seemingly killed so many people - many more than seven - which means that a horcrux is not automatically created after each kill. I still think it would have to be a conscious parting of the soul on Voldemort's behalf meaning that it is unlikely Harry is a horcrux. HOWEVER - the final horcrux mentioned by Dumbledore is supposed to be an important representation of Griffindor or Ravenclaw...what if Harry is the heir of Gryffindor??? This could tie in making him the final horcrux (I hope not!)...HB

Accorfing to the recent TLC/Mugglenet interview with J.K.Rowling, Harry is not Gryffindor's heir. Sinistro 13:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


My idea of an accidental Horcrux implies that the spell creating the Horcrux has been performed at the same time as the try to murder Harry. (brf)

Flesh, bone, and BLOOD could very well make Harry a horcrux, someone correct me if i'm wrong, just going on memory here. But in the Goblet of Fire, Voldemort needed Harry's blood to be reborn, am i right? Could this mean Harry being a horcrux was used.... i can't really remember.... Or might have something to do with Lily Potter's love she left with Harry as protection and Voldemort having his blood is immune to harry's protection now... someone help me out here please (BLH)

Voldemort wanted to use Harry's blood because of Lily's protection; Voldemort himself said that he could have used any enemy wizard's blood, but wanted Harry's because of the lingering protection. I agree that it doesn't seem likely that Harry is an accidental Horcrux, mostly because it doesn't make sense that a piece of Voldemort's soul would be able to stay, undiscovered, inside of Harry for years, while Voldemort himself can't stand to reside in Harry's body for very long.

Possible Horcrux hidden in Room of Reqirement?

After reader reread the book, they will realize that the vanishing cabinet is there by the chapter of Sectumsempra. So perhaps, one of the horcrux is stored in there? Things mentioned in relative detail:

  • Winged catapult
  • fanged frisbees
  • rusting swords
  • one heavy bloodstain axe
  • enormus stuffed troll
  • Vanishing cabinet (used to transport the Death eater near the end)
  • a large cupboard which have had acide thrown at its blistered surface
  • a skeleton with five legs
  • chipped bust of an ugly old warlock
  • a dusty old wig
  • a tarnished tiara

I suspect that the bloodstained axe can be the one that chopped Nearly headless Nick... and if so, by using it as Horcrux, it will be somethign belong to Gryfindor (in a way) The tiara could belong to Ravenclaw.

There are two ways to protect something: one is to protect it in the midst of powerful magic, as in the locket and the ring, the other is to hide it in junks, such as the diary, which can be excellent if one have souls to spare... And as you can see, one do not spend too much time in this version of Room of Requirement, since all they want to focus is their own stuff. Combined with so much junks, the chance of finding it, unless one know that it is indeed in there, would be difficult.


Although it is very likely that the bloodstained axe is the one used to nearly behead Nearly Headless Nick, that does not necessarily make it Gryfindor property. More importantly, to our knowledge there is no connection between Voldermort and Nick, making the axe insignificant to Voldermort and an awful horcrux. -aMeerHuman

removed section

this looked like fanciful vanity original research, so i ditched it: Friday 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of the name "horcrux" was traced by Deco Ribeiro, who carefuly read the very word: horcrux = hor crux = Hor Cross, Horus Cross, The Cross of Horus.

Hor (or Horus, in latin) was the Egyptian Sky God, one of the majors gods in Egypt. His story is told in the “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever” (sounds like a book Lord Voldemort would love to read) over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ. One of Horus' representations is Harmachis (Heru-Em-Akhet, Harmakis): "Horus in the horizon". It's Horus as a symbol of resurrection, linked with the setting sun. When his father, the god Osiris, was killed and had his soul torn in several pieces, it was Horus and his mother, Isis, who put the parts together so Osiris could ressurect.

The ankh, another major egyptian symbol, was also called the Cross of Horus and Key of Life. It represents eternal life, rebirth, and the life-giving power of the sun. The (now) infamous swastika, used by the Nazis in their flags, is also called Horus Cross. JKR herself compared the Death Eaters to the Nazis in an interview. The swastika, though, was an ancient representation of the sun as well, used in many cultures (from India to Native Americans) as a symbol of good luck. Hitler just stole it - and corrupted its meaning. Swastika is sanscrit for "little thing associated with well-being", corresponding roughly to "lucky charm", and it's believed to have been used originaly as an amulet.

An amulet of eternal life, rebirth, torn souls, ressurection. Maybe an amulet to store part of your soul so you can live forever. Here's JKR's horcrux.

The swastika is a variation of the solar cross, one of the oldest religious symbol in history. It has appeared in various religions including Asian, American, European, and Indian. It's a cross in a circle basically, and it supposed to represent the movements of the sun.

James Joyce said of his book Ulysses that he had put enough puzzles to keep the critics going for decades - which was the only way to keep immortal: perhaps the same could be said of any artwork (including books) that persists.

Hogwarts and Horcrux

Perhaps the building itself is a Horcrux: it was the only place that Tom Riddle felt safe/happy/whatever.


Did the Sorting Hat know of the prophecy - which is why it offered Harry Potter the choice of house? (Anyone wish to create a list of objects that are sentient/capable of initiating action in others - the Sorting Hat, Michael Moorcock's Runestone and Stormbringer, the Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey etc?)

It's been a while since i've read the first book, but if I remember correctly, the sorting hat really didn't give Harry a choice, but rather put him in Gryffindor because Harry specifically asked not to be put in Slytherin. If anything the sorting hat places the student into the house they consciously chose to be in, as Hermione proved when she reveald that she asked the hat to put her in Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw. As for the Hat knowing the prophecy, Dumbledore was the only person to know the full contents of the prophecy until he told Harry, because he didn't discuss it with anyone it's doubtful that the Hat overheard anything about the prophecy until book 5.

althought the hat is stored in dumbledores office, where we have seen him talk to all manner of people.Sandpiper 20:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Final horcrux was created by murder of Frank Bryce

The article says that one of the horcruxes might not have been created because Voldemort might have wanted to create the final horcrux from his murder of Harry Potter, but that he failed. Dumbledore tells Harry that in failing to kill Harry, the final horcrux could not be created, but that Voldemort did make his final horcrux from the murder of a muggle man, Frank Bryce, mentioned in the first chapter of the fourth book.

yeah, but i think one has to consciously choose to create a horcrux.

Original Research

I am removing all original research from the article. When describing ideas or facts not specifically stated in the books, it is necessary to cite a source who developed the theory. You can't create it yourself then put it in the article. Superm401 | Talk 02:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the speculation I removed, is IMHO, ridiculous. A horcrux creation(according to HBP) requires a spell. It can't be accidental. Still, if an external source promotes this theory with justification, you can cite them and replace it in the article. Superm401 | Talk 02:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It is not possible to redirect an avada kedavra curse. However, Voldemort's AK was redirected in Godric's hollow. Assuming that the soul repairs itself shortly after the murder (James's), Voldemort's soul was in two pieces because he just killed Lily. Where did the second part go? --Muhaha 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Is it possible that the silvery hand that Voldemort made for Peter Pettigrew is the final horcrux? After all, Cedric had just been murdered, albeit, not by Lord Voldemort himself, but by Peter Pettigrew. However, Voldemort's wand was the wand used to kill Cedric, so, with murder fresh on his wand, could he have potientially made his final horcrux Wormtail's hand? I also find it odd that Wormtail's hand (silvery and strong) and Dumbledore's (in the 6th book - black and weak) are opposites.

Yes, it's possible. Don't add it to the article. Superm401 | Talk 21:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's very unlikely actually. Voldemort creates horcruxes out of items that have either a very strong, and powerful magical history (i.e. Marvolo's ring, Slytherin's locket, and Hufflepuff's cup), or out of things that hold a special significance to him (his diary, and the snake Nagini). Wormtail is one of Voldemort's most cowardly, and least-capable servants. Thus Wormtail's new hand holds no real significance for Voldemort, nor does Wormtail himself seem like a very reliable guardian for a piece of Voldemort's soul. Finally, Wormtail murdered Cedric not lord Voldemort, so there's no way Voldemort could have used Cedric's murder to create a horcrux.

Harry, the prophecy and the Horcrux

Perhaps Lord V was setting up the Horcrux creation and Lily's activities "diverted" the deposition into something/somewhere unexpected.

There is a possibility that R.A.B. is dead and/or the object taken has been destroyed - the message could be so interpreted.

How ambiguous is the prophecy - is HP only half alive and will develop should Lord V die?

Create a Horcrux by disapparation and Revive from a Horcrux

First of all I try to lay my thoughts down about how a Horcrux is created. This should build up a little theory to find out if Harry himself could be a Horcrux.

It is said that some kind of spell/magic is necessary to create the horcrux "at the moment" the acting person is committing murder. My theory would be:

  • ) At the point commiting the murder the soul is always split into two parts. (Maybe the part which wants to kill and the part which does not want to kill. A schizophrenical act.) After a very short time frame the soul joines again into one piece.
  • ) To create a Horcrux the person has to prevent the joining and this can be done only by moving one part of the soul into something else and take care that it maintains there.
  • ) As we learned in HP6, disapparating has interesting features:
    • ) novices (students to disapparating) can end up teared apart or splinched
    • ) disapparating is difficult. I requires absolute concentration
    • ) one must take care of not ending up inside something
  • ) So all these evidences can account that one has to try to (dis)apparate at the moment of/after commiting murder. The apparation has then to be targeted to the Horcrux. This would move one part of the soul into the Horcrux before the soul could rejoin. The actual Horcrux will be created at the moment the victim dies. (a sort of sealing the whole thing) As with a Avada Kedavra everything goes fast, someone must be experienced with all necessary steps.

Just a theory. Now back to Harry and the possibility of him being a Horcrux. Actually nobody knew exactly what happend at Godric's Hollow on October 31st 1981. What was found at the scene of crime, probably was, according to how the story is set up: - a dead James Potter - a dead Lily Potter - a living Harry Potter with a lightning scar - a corpse of Lord Voldemort As there is no witness of the scene except little Harry the story which is around was founded on what was found at the scene of crime.

What follows now is of what is partly revealed in the books containing assumption of the characters there, as well as some of my assumption: Lord Voldemort moved to Godric's Hollow to kill little Harry. James Potter crossed his way so he "Avada Kedavrad" him away. Now LV enters the house. He pushes aways the mother Lily telling her that he only wants to kill little Harry. Now let us assume he wanted to create another Horcrux. Maybe putting a part of his soul into "something" from Gryffindor. As the name Godric's Hollow anounces there is something from Godric (Gryfindor) there. Maybe a cave (hollow), maybe his grave, who knows. As LV did not find something better (or get it, e.g. the sword) he thought of using the "thing" where Godric's Hollow has its name from. Back to action. LV issues the Avada Kedavra to kill Harry. Focuses on the object to apparate his split soul into (the something there). At that moment Lily Potter sacrifices herself by throwing herself into the Avada Kedavra spell. LV is surprised because he cannot understand the motives of that fact (often cited by Dumbledore). This surprise leads to an unconcentrated moment in which LV thinks "I wanted to kill Harry" and at that moment Lily Potter dies. This act then would create the Horcrux Harry Potter because LV lost concentration, which is essential for correct apparition. This Avada Kedavra would create the Lightning scar (I come back to this later) on Harrys forehead. LV now thinks well, let's have another try on Harry. Now he tries to Avada Kedavra Harry. As Harry is actually now a Horcrux (withour LV knowing) this would mean to destroy his own Horcrux and therefore a part of his own soul. So basically it would mean suicide. That is exactly what happened. Instead of Harry, LV's body was stopped to live.

So lets sum it up. Where are the pros and where are the cons of this theory:

Pros:

  • ) nice explanation of how a Horcrux has to be created.
  • ) explanation why the Avada Kedavra did not work how expected, but it showed that it worked like targetted.
  • ) the Ring of Marvolo Gaunt, if it is that what is at the back of the bloomsbury-book, has a lightning on it, not a scratch. Maybe every Horcrux is marked with a lightning. It would explain Harrys scar nicely. It also would help to find Horcruxes.
It is not a lightning mark, it is a crack. The crack was made when Dumbledore destroyed the fragment of Voldemort's soul that was within it. Remember when Harry saw it before by using the Penseive, it was unblemished.--71.118.103.202 06:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ) introduces something from Gryffindor
  • ) In HP4 LV uses Harrys blood to revive himself. Maybe it extracts the part of his soul out of Harry in that moment. Maybe LV does it because he needs a part of his soul to revive. And using Harrys (he was extremely keen to get Harry for this and no other enemy) allows him to kill Harry later on because then he is no more a Horcrux.

Cons:

  • ) Not really a spell needed to create a Horcrux. But who says it is a spell? Slughorn pretends not knowing the content of the spell. So why should he know that it is a spell at all. Altough by saying it is a spell he does not give too much information away. If he would know that it is apparation and says that, he would reveal everything about the Horcrux, which is definetely not his intention. The same is true for Dumbledore, who also has information about the Horcrux. However, as long as one does not want to create an Horcrux there is also absolutely to know the spell or better said the magical circumstances needed to force the soul at this specific moment into another object.
  • ) in HP4 LV says that what happened to kill him "was some old magic" Lily Potter used. I doubt that Lily Potter was aware of such old magic. Maybe he said that only because his Death Eater servants were watching. Maybe he had no idea what really happened.

3) However the biggest argument on my side against this theory would be that LV definetely did not want to create a Horcrux in this situation. Why should he? Born in 1926, he finished Hogwarts in 1945. He probably had his first Horcrux at that time already, or at least 4 of them shortly after (diary, ring, cup, locket). He wanted to have seven. He rose to the Evil Dark Lord at around 1970. If he thought that seven is the perfect number it would be unwise of having the seven part of the souls (six Horcruxes) not ready at that time and putting himself in the position of being the most wanted. Remember that the prophecy was done in 1980, ten years after his "outing"!

Great theory, but the book notes that creating a Horcrux requires a spell. Apparation does not. Your theory doesn't work. Sorry. Superm401 | Talk 17:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting theory. However, it doesn't seem like a lightnig mark is the indication of a horcrux, as Voldemort's diary had no such mark on it, but was still a horcrux. It's true that Slughorn could have been lying, it seems unlikey, mostly because he had just revealed almost everything about horcrux creation to a young Voldemort, and had no notion that Voldemort would soon create his own. Voldemort destroying one of his own Horcruxes doesn't mean suicide at all. Destroying one cause his no physical pain or discomfort, it merely means that a part of his soul is permanently ripped away from this world. Voldemort's spell backfired because Lily's sacrafice ahd given Harry a very valuable protection that prevented Voldemort from harming him, thus if Harry had become a horcrux that would have in no way prevented Voldemort from killing him.

Revival from a Horcrux'

I am also not sure if a Horcrux has to be destroyed, meaning the part of the soul has to be used which is in a certain Horcrux, in order to revive (Horcrux-store-model). If yes, this would reduce the amount of existing Horcruxes everytime the being is ressurecting. So they would be used up. Of course there could be created new ones afterwards. Actually I like this way of reviving much more then the idea that just the soul is somehow copied from a Horcrux to a new "body carrier" (Horcrux-anchor-model). However that would mean that Peter Pettigrew had to find and use a Horcrux in Albania to move it into that ugly baby. By using Harrys blood LV could have used a second one to join the first one in the baby either without knowing it, or by intention (to make Harry killable by him). According to the Horcrux-store-model-theory the following Horcruxes are used up:

Horcrux-1 (unknown item) ==> used up through weak and greedy Quirrel

Horcrux-2 (diary) ==> destroyed

Horcrux-3 (unknown item) Albania, used to revive through the baby ==> used up

    • The baby was revived using the "milk" of the snake Nagini. If Nagini were in fact a horcrux, this would make perfect sense. --69.138.38.49 06:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Horcrux-4 (Harry, if it is, accidental horcrux) ==> ?used up by LV through blood infusion

Horcrux-5 (Ring) => destroyed by dumbledore

Horcrux-6 (locket) => fate unknown

The biggest problem with the Horcruxes seems to be that no one (except) the Dark Lord knows for sure how many are supposed to be around. I would guess that the Dark Lord would try to recreate used up Horcruxes ASAP in order to reach the magic number again. So there would still be the task of destroying six of his Horcruxes without letting him know. However if it is like this, the diary does not count.

One last thing, which makes me worry. The message with the false locket says: "I stole the real Horcrux". Why the name "real"? Does R.A.B. indicate that this Horcrux has a special meaning above all other Horcruxes? Or does he mean with "real" only the one he took. Maybe R.A.B. was a witness of a murder Voldemort commited having the lock with him. He might have just wondered why Voldemort carries the Lock with him. --84.57.12.124 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it just means that RAB took an object that is actually one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, and left in the cave an object that is not. Superm401 | Talk 21:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Slughorn states pretty clearly that a Horcrux is just a means of anchoring a person's main soul to this world, and is in no way needed to revive someone. When Voldemort fell for the first time, his soul was ripped from his body, and fled the country to go into hiding. The other five pieces of Voldemort's soul stayed in their horcruxes and ensured that Voldemort's main spirit was able to stay earth-bound. the pieces just act as an anchor, and can't actually be used to grant a spirit a new body.

Dumbledore's Picture

When Dumbledore died, a portrait of him was created in his office. Does this mean that if Harry needed to consult Dumbledore, he could just talk to the portrait?

He should be able to talk to the portrait? However, the series has been a bitstingy on providing details about how alive pictures really are. We know they can talk, move, eat, go between pictures, and have personalities that are similar to their personalities during life. However, we don't know whether they remember everything from their life, whether they have souls, whether they think as cogently as they did, or whether they are merely caricatures. Hopefully, some of that will be explained in Book 7. Superm401 | Talk 21:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
If I remember correctly from the second book, Gilderoy Lockhart had several portraits of himself hanging in his office, that seemed to share his personality traits, but obviously didn't contain his soul. Also in the fifth book, the portrait of Phineas Nigellius spoke to Dumbledore about how students hadn't changed from the time he was headmaster. While this is pure speculation I think it indicates that portraits don't contain a person's actual soul, but that they do have memories from the person's past life. However, the headmaster portraits at hogwarts could have unique properties that other portraits don't have.


horcrux inspired by Neverwhere?

the horcrux magical item seems to me to be very similar to a trick used by Neil Gaiman in his book Neverwhere where the one of the main characters(The Marquis de Carabas)alows himself to be killed only because he knows that his soul is locked in an egg, he is later revived with this egg by a friend(Old Bailey).

   -This is an interesting speculation.  It would not be the first time JKR is suspected of being "inspired" by Neil Gaiman ;)
Well, I think - as with the whole Tim Hunter (The Books of Magic) thing - it's obvious they're both inspired by the same archetypes. In this case, the clear precedent is Koschei the Deathless, as mentioned in the main article. I wouldn't say Neverwhere is an influence, though you could list it as another modern example of the same idea. -- Guybrush 17:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
But then you might as well say Gaiman ripped off X-men, as Jean Grey was stored in an egg-sort-of thing underwater when she died as the Phoenix.
As the article points out the story of the external soul (usually in an egg or some such) is very very very old. Most modern examples of it rather than try and change it to be unique actually elude to classic exampels as a sort of literary device. Much like the Dante's inferno refrences in the first Harry Potter book. Dalf | Talk 11:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

But then you might as well say Gaiman ripped off X-men, as Jean Grey was stored in an egg-sort-of thing underwater when she died as the Phoenix. Yeah, Jean Grey herself. Not a piece of her soul.

Much like the Dante's inferno refrences in the first Harry Potter book. Just out of curiosity, what references were these? Nightscream 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Voldemort's Soul Divided into Seven Unequal Parts

I don't know how much relevance this has, but think about this: Each time he makes a horcrux, Voldemort's soul is divided in half. That would mean the horcrux gets half and he keeps the other half. The second horcrux would get half of the half that remained within him, thus making two 1/4 portions of his soul. If he made 6 horcruxes (the final and 7th portion remaining in his body) the final one would contain 1/64 of his soul and the peice that was left within him would be the same. This means that both Voldemort himself (at least before his body was destroyed due to his botched killing curse) and the final horcrux contain a pretty small fraction of his soul. Being that it is such a tiny portion, is it unreasonable to think that it somehow became a part of Harry? Harry could be the final horcrux, but also he could have somehow absorbed the small part of the soul that would have come from Voldemort's body upon his destruction, meaning that the now resurrected Voldemort would have no part of his own soul within him.

Each time he makes a horcrux, Voldemort's soul is divided in half Where did you get this notion? All that was said about the creation of horcruxes was 'spliting the soul'. Voldemort knew that he was going to make 6 horcruxes in total, so he would be prudent to only split 1/7th of it the first time, 1/7th the second and so on.
Here's a formula you can use regarding horcruxes:  S = 1 /(2^(D-1)) when D>=2.
D = the desired number of soul peices.
S = the portion of the soul that is left within the body and subsequently the portion that is held within the final horcrux.
Or it is euqally likley that the dark wizard in question has no controle over how large a piece of his soul gets ripped away. It could be that all the pieces that are in horcruxes are the same size, and what is left is in his body. It could be that the pieces all remain connected in some way (which would explain how it keeps him from dying, and can therefore somehow equalize. It is more likley that the size of the soul parts are inconsequental or that the concept does not even apply to such metaphysical thigns. Either way I do not think that sizes and % are going to play a part in the plot of the final book. Dalf | Talk 00:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
After further thought I suspect (as in total speculation) that the significants of 7 being the most powerful magical number and so on actually applies here in the mecahnics of the thing. The reason that splitting the Soul 7 times is best or for insuring the wizard in question does not die (as opposed to say 1,000 horcruxes) is that the soul in these cases breaks off a 7th. & being some how a magically significant number. Therefore it is possible that the wizard either cannot makre more than 7 (as he would not have enough of a soul left) or doing so would not result in a horcrux capable of sustainning him, or would in some other way push him so far fomr him humanity as to be a sort of extream case of diminishing returns. It is of course totally possible that this will not even be discussed in the last book. Dalf | Talk 11:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Godric's Relics

I see I'm not the only one who noticed that Dumbledore "forgot" about the sorting hat as one of Godric's relics, though, knowing JKR it could be on purpose

Even with the citation to the text, I find this part of the article very weak. The fact that Gryphindor at one time wore the hat does not constitute ownership, being as tons of other people have at one time worn the hat (e.g. every student who enters Hogwarts). Additionally, the sorting hat was in Dumbledore's office and he seems to know a lot about it. I find it improbable that the hat would let something slip in one of its songs which indicates that it belonged to Godric but that Dumbledore would have no idea about this. I think we should decide what constitutes original reserach for this article: i.e. whether we will only include things which the text directly applies to the subject of Horcruxes or if ideas which have been floating around fansites and forums should be included (IDK if we should do this, but if we do, such speculation should be earmarked) 129.170.202.34 19:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Rowling's webpage (Rumours section), the sorting hat is not a horcrux.

Move Regulus speculation to R.A.B.?

Seems to me it would fit better there, if it should be anywhere, though it probably is worth mentioning since it's such a prevalent fan theory. Seems rather superfluous here when there's a separate R.A.B. article, and in any case the huge paragraph on the locket is unwieldy and spoils the flow of the article. Thoughts? -- Guybrush 17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about restoring an edit into R.A.B. because it's a cited piece of speculation. I'd appreciate any feedback you guys can provide on Talk:R.A.B.#Regulus Black theory Thanks, --Deathphoenix 17:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed notes about being similar to The Lord of the Rings

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

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

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

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

But it's not like Rowling drew inspiration from it. As far as I've been told she's never even read LotR.

The Golden Bough and James Frazer

I added mention of James Frazer's 1890 book The Golden Bough which contains a chapter on myths involving someone surviving death by removing their soul or part of it from their body. I think the section on "Horcrux precedents" could do with a edit away form a bullet list and towards a paragraph approach. Since the book in question is in the public domain (and available on wikibooks) we might do well to incorporate some of the information there. I would do it myself but I am not especially good at such things. Dalf | Talk 00:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia mention the R.A.B. theories and not Harry/Horcrux?

I ask this because there seems to be a double standard- the theory that Harry is a Horcrux is usually deleted from the article, while the theory that R.A.B. is Regulus Black has been there for a long time and is apparently allowed. Each is speculation, however. I sense that people's own personal prejudices are getting in the way- the "Harry is a Horcrux" theory is perhaps the most prevalent on the internet, and there should probably be a reference to it, at least as an idea that has gathered popular support.

R.A.B. is a reference in the books to a person this invites a list of people who meet the critera, further I am nto sure anyone in the fandom or out does not think R.A.B. is Regulus Black. The Horcruxes are given with less information and no evidence that a human coudl serve as one. I think looking over the no original research page there is a distinction. Plus citing a source or more for exactly who thinks (someone or some reputable site) is more easially achieved in a credable manner for the R.A.B stuff. Also the books invite speculation on the R.A.B. issue, where as they purport to tell us what the Horcruxes are (for the most part). To put it another way, the articles that cover R.A.B. are not speculating that he is Regulus they are reporting about the universal (and apparently unopposed) speculation in the fandom. Dalf | Talk 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Tolken Scholarship

I have a couple of quibbles over the Tolkien stuff in this article. I'm unsure of my ideas for changes, so I thought I'd talk now and edit in a few days.

First, "The Ring could only be destroyed by throwing it into the pit of the volcanic Mount Doom in which it had originally been forged." is quite misleading. This was the only option open to Elrond and company, but the statement implies that the fires of Mount Doom were the only force that could destroy the ring (which is demonstrably false). Given the tangential nature of Sauron's ring to this article I suggest simply removing the details of the means of its destruction. (The One Ring article shares this flaw, but that's a different kettle of fish.)

Second, the explanation that Sauron forged the ring "to magnify his own power" is correct only in the most abstract and vague sense. It would take little more space and be infinitely more accurate to say "to dominate the wearers of the other rings of power".

I am dubious of some of the other information in the section (e.g. the cutting of the hand), but I'm not enough of a Tolken scholar to question it outright. Peterhutnick 13:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So why didn't you change it yourself? I'm rephrased two sentences according to your comment.

"Possible Horcruxes" - cut out speculation & original research.

I've removed some speculation and what I see as original research from the Possible Horcruxes section. I cut out a sentence stating that Marvolo Gaunt's ring was made into a horcrux with the murder of Voldemort's father and grandparents. This can't be true because Tom was wearing the ring before he even asked Slughorn about the horcruxes. He killed them before he even knew how to make a horcrux. I've also removed a sentence stating that Riddle's diary was made into a horcrux with Moaning Myrtle's death. This is just an assumption; there is no canon proof. Also, Tom didn't kill her, the basilisk did. I removed speculation that Tom made his Hogwarts Award for Special Services to the school into a horcrux, and that he used the murder of Bertha Jorkins to make Nagini a horcrux. The Award horcrux idea seems like original research, and Dumbledore said that the murder of Frank Bryce was probably used to make Nagini a horcrux. --WhyBeNormal 03:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all fronts, though who says that the murder and the capturing of the torn piece of soul have to happen at the same time?  :P But, as you say its all original research (infact its less than that its speculation). Dalf | Talk 06:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding back my entry about Riddle's Award in the Trophy Room with references; when I initially put it in it technically was original spec. but I just *knew* it's it. Now, I've got a chapter to back me up, so back my entry's going. ~BrennaCeDria

I'm not sure you're clear on the meaning of WP:NOR. This is still original research (in Wikipedia's meaning of the term.) The rest of the horcruxes are discussed in the book as possibilities. Your possible horcrux would be most interesting on a HP forum, or maybe on Harry Potter wikicities, but fan speculation (even with justification from the book) is not a solid enough source for an encylopedia. Friday (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I just removed a large section of OR called "Tracking Horcruxes". Friday (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thank goodness. I was just going to add an entry here asking about that very section. Since I'm returning here after a long absence, I don't want to remove what looks to me to be speculation without being sure that there is no consensus on it. --Deathphoenix 19:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Precedents

I don't see why we want the "Horcrux precedents" section, which was just put back in Friday (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. An article about something from Harry Potter should only contain Harry Potter-related information. --WhyBeNormal 01:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It's back in again. I'll remove it. Friday (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This article is about Horcruxesand thus items which hold the soul, not Harry Potter. I'm putting it back in.
Show me a source that says any of these were JRK's inspiration, and maybe you're onto something. Otherwise, it's just original research. Friday (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this article is about any and every item which holds the soul. The title is "Horcrux", to me this makes the topic pretty clear. If someone wanted to write an article on soul-holding items in general, they could certainly try to do so, altho it could easily become just another "List of something" article, which IMO aren't very encyclopedic. To try to say that this isn't a Harry Potter article is fairly ridiculous, IMO. Friday (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that people would intentionally remove pertinent information from articles. The point of mentioning precedents is to provide context for JKR's universe, showing how it fits into the larger realm of history, mythology, and fantasy. Like all modern creators, JKR stands on the shoulders of giants. Those who willfully conceal such clear points of reference are doing her (and the public at large) a great disservice. Frankie 15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyone who wants to can certainly put it back in, altho I still don't see why it should be there. I wasn't trying to willfully conceal anything at all, I was trying to keep the article focused and relevant. If the books explained how horcruxes developed in the HP world, that info would be relevant to this article. An article on a particular new car doesn't need to include a list of all driving machines built before that time, either. Friday (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the newly added bit to the intro text much better than the old "precedents" section. It fits into the article better this way, and doesn't seem strangely irrelevant anymore. Friday (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just removed this section again, for the same reasons given above, plus the fact that Frankie already worked this idea into the article in a much better way than having a whole section devoted to it. If any feels the long section belongs back in there, I'd appreciate some discussion here about why. Friday (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not. I much refer this version because the presence of an entire section encouraged the addition of, IMO, some rather questionable horcrux precedents. --Deathphoenix 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Room for Speculations

I have added an "Other theories include:" to the List of possible Horcruxes for those with there own theories (I did this at school, hence the different IP). Obviously, stick to the personal opinion rule when you add to it, it's there to mention that other people have those opinions, not saying that the opinions are correct.

Wikipedia is not a place for your own theories and speculations. I'm removing this bit. Friday (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This will all be explained in roughly 2 years, so be patient. Until then, relay the facts we do know as published by J.K. Rowling. 216.251.149.130 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nagini?

Nagini's status as a Horcrux is uncertain. Dumbledore suggests the snake as a possibility based on the assumption that Voldemort had not found two other horcruxes at the time. If, for example, Harry were to be a horcrux, it is possible that nagini is not 129.170.202.34 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Peter Pettigrew's hand?

I removed a new theory I've never seen before (along with the old Harry is a horcrux theory): Peter Pettigrew's hand. Unless I haven't been paying attention, this is never mentioned in the book, therefore, it doesn't belong here. --Deathphoenix 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Plural form

Shouldn't it be horcruces? 70.26.109.236 01:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Speculations should be avoided

I've deleted speculations in the "Voldemort and Harry Potter" Section because the do not belong there. There is already a section called "Possible Horcruces". Please, people, stop putting in speculation that has no literary evidence in the books. If you have a theory, at least back it up with excerpts from the text. I personally think that the last section of this article is unnecessary as it only re-states what is already said. I did not want to delete it without some sort of consensus though, so I ask, Yay or Nay? Vanessa kelly 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Suggested split of article

This page has become completely about the specific Horcruxes that Lord Voldemort has created. I think it should be split into two. This page should just talk about what a Horcrux is and a new page should be created for Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes. Long term this makes a lot more sense, especially because once the final book comes out, pretty much all the speculation will disappear. VanJoe 17:33, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the point of this at all. When this article first appeared, I had reservations that we needed one article about this topic. I really don't see that we need two. There are no horcruxes that anyone knows about other than Voldemort's. If your concern is about speculation in the article, I agree that it's a problem. But my preferred solution is to remove it, not split it off into another article. Friday (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. As long as speculation stays out of the article, it's pretty decent for information about Horcruxes. Vanessa kelly 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
But then the article is 90% speculation. Perhaps a restructuring of the article to separate 'fact' from speculation would clarify.
If the article is 90% fan speculation, then we cut out 90% of the text. I think a great deal of the speculation here is cited speculation: because it's Dumbledore's speculation. If you take a look at the history of this article, you'll probably notice that we try to cut out fan speculation: speculation done by characters such as Dumbledore are okay, as long as they are specified as such. --Deathphoenix 18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry's scar as a horcrux

Persuant to comments in the above section, I removed the Harry's scar as a Horcrux theory. I let it stand because I wasn't sure if it was mentioned in any official channels. However, I haven't seen any proper citation for this theory, either in the books, or through official channels, and therefore I have removed this as uncited fan speculation. --Deathphoenix 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible locations

I'm not sure how to handle some of the points in this section. 12 Grimmauld Place & Godric's Hollow are fine there, and "Death Eaters" might be acceptable. I'm not sure about the other points because they don't really rely on possible items that are mentioned in the books and aren't put forward by anyone in the books. Therefore, these rely on analysis and/or some speculation. OTOH, these other points are fairly well written, don't really detract from the quality of this article, and aren't as wildly speculative as other locations. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 18:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually aren't the other items belonging to the four founders specifically mentioned in the books - by Dumbledore? That whole pensive scene about him lusting after the artifacts - and Dumbledore speculating that he thinks it would suit Voldemort's ego to want an item from one of each of the founders? I don't know - I didn't write the points, I just tidied what was there. - Beowulf314159 18:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The items themselves are fine: I'm concerned about the "possible locations" section, or rather, some of the points in this section. 12 Grimmauld Place, Godric's Hollow, and maybe "Death Eaters" are okay, but I don't see any of the other locations mentioned as possibilities by anyone in the book. --Deathphoenix 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah - the other section. My bad. Hmm - yes, if they're not mentioned in the books anywhere, maybe they should be taken out. - Beowulf314159 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of major edits

I've accomplished in seven edits what I probably should have done in two, thus artificially inflating my edit count by five. Since I unilaterally removed a few items that might be disputed, I thought I should mention them here. As mentioned in the above section, I removed stuff that's pure speculation and unsupported by anything in the books:

  1. The Orphange & the Riddle House as possible locations are pure speculation
  2. Hogwarts might be a possibility, but once again, this is speculation. However, due to a couple of items that might be Horcruxes, such as a Gryffindor artifact, this is admittedly a "weak" removal on my part. It probably wouldn't take much of an argument for me to reinsert it, but even so, the Chamber of Secrets, the Room of Requirement, and the Trophy Room are pretty speculative and shouldn't be put in. If there is anything else I did in my overinflated-edit-counted major edit that you disagree with, please feel free to discuss it here. --Deathphoenix 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed passive voice

This edit was an attempt to fix part of my major edit, however, this actually re-introduces the passive voice that I've been trying to remove somewhat from the article. Since I can fix this passive voice and still retain all the information in a meaningful way, I have decided to restore the active voice. --Deathphoenix 13:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a grammar expert but I do not think the case is as simple here, and in anyevent like the version without the superflus word people (especially as how the Horcruxes are destroyed weater by a person or an elf or a natural disaster seems rather immaterial). There is also verb protected to in the sentence .... dunno I think I like the other version. Dalf | Talk 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You make a good point about "people". How about this edit? This still leaves in the active voice without resorting to "people". --Deathphoenix 20:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I like this new version :) Dalf | Talk

Crumple-horned snorcacks

You can get the word "horcrux" by taking 3 letters of each word from "crumple horned snorcacks".

crumple horned snorcacks -> cru, hor, cks -> horcrucks -> horcrux

--Muhaha 19:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)