Talk:Horcrux/Archive 4
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
|
| Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 |
Added short reference to The Lord of the Rings
Some say the "One Ring" in The Lord of the Rings is not a Horcrux or even almost the opposite. The One Ring is however a perfect example of a Horcrux. The most obvious difference lays in the fact that Sauron didn't have to kill anyone to store a part of his essence in the ring, although he must have killed a lot of people. As is mentioned as an argument involving in- or decreasing of the vulnerability it is said that Sauron got more vulnerable, while Voldemort got invulnerable. In fact, they only use a different way to ensure their survival: Sauron makes his ring almost indestructible, while Voldemort makes multiple Horcruxes. Sauron doesn't take the form of his old body but stays alive in a similar way to Voldemort. This brings us to the main difference: Sauron didn't lose much in means of power when his body was destroyed, he only needed time to remanifest himself; while Voldemort got extremely weak, until he regained a body. This last difference may however lay in the amount of power that was stored and the amount that was lost while casting the spell. A remark to the fact that he forged the One Ring to gain power is that he would not magnify his powers in a direct way, as long as he was wearing the ring his power would stay about the same as it used to be or possibly slightly weaker, he would however gain power because the One Ring controls all the other rings. Indeed Sauron is immortal and stays immortal, even after the One Ring is destroyed, he does however loses his form and thus no longer influences the material world, it could be said in another way that a soul will disperce if it is not constricted to a certain area by for example being contained in solid matter. It might be unlikely that Rowling ever read The Lord of the Rings, but it's far from impossible she has heard of the One Ring, especially when The Lord of the Rings became more known because of the movies, so she still might have inspired the Horcruxes on The Ring.
To put things short, I think the One Ring should at least be shortly referenced. I have also rementioned the lich
Tuganax 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think a passing mention that the two bear superficial similarities would not hurt - both are created to make the user more powerful, but in fact make him more vulnerable; both parts of their souls into the Rings of Power, etc - but anythng deeper than that is not necessary. As the above essay makes clear, at a deeper level, the two deviate substantially in function and purpose (although the Nine and the One both unnaturally prolong the lives of mortals, Horcrux fashion); and since Rowling has not officially described LOTR as a source, we cannot give a long-drawn out analysis of the changes she made to a subject she might not have known about. However, LOTR is a cultural phenomenon as well, so a brief mention wouldn't hurt. Michaelsanders 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless some scholarly source has published a mention of the connection between a Horcrux and the One Ring, it is original research. Incidentally, Rowling was asked whether LOTR influences her works, and she claims very little inspiration sprung from the books. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Which is, of course, why both happen to feature a 'Dark Lord', a title which is very rarely used (I've never seen it outside LOTR and HP - though Star Wars comes close)?
- "And a third time, even as he laughed, thinking what he would do now in the world, being rid of the Edain forever, he was taken in the midst of hs mirth...But Sauron was not of mortal flesh, and though he was robbed now of that shape in which he ha wrought so great an evil, so that he could never again appear fair to the eyes of Men, yet his spirit arose out of the deep and passed as a shadow, and a black wind over the sea...to Mordor that was his home. There he took up again his great ring in Barad-Dur and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." (Akallabeth). Hasn't been influenced by LOTR my foot...
- But I digress. There are similarities between the Rings and the horcruxes - enough to allow a throw-away line, if not a long drawn-out discussion. After all, has she confirmed any connection with Koschei the Deathless (and I haven't noticed Voldemort stuffing many parrots with needles of late)? Michaelsanders 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My last remark (hopefully): In the link given by Fbv65edel (close to the end of the page) Rowling says having read The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings and admits there are superficial similarities. I can personally say that when I first read about Horcruxes in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which in fact I read before reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, it immediately reminded me of The Lord of the Rings especially the One Ring of Sauron, already when I read about Marvolo Gaunt and his ring I was starting to suspect a possible connection. I don't want exclude the possibility that J.K. Rowling wasn't influenced by any of the Tolkien-mythology, but it is in fact probable she was influenced to a certain extent. I do however need to make a remark that the Tolkien-books date back (long) before Rowling's first Harry Potter book and so the statement "More recently" is not really correct, so I will adjust this.
Something that is an interesting fact is that Marvolo Gaunt is an anagram of Morgot UnVala, ofcourse this could be pure coincidence, but it's true Morgoth was of the same order as the Valar and the 'antagonist' of the Valar. Even the missing "h" might be explained: Gaunt is the former English name for Ghent a Flemish city, in the Dutch language however Ghent is spelled as "Gent", without the "h". The Gaunt family has other anagrams in its family, the most obvious as it has occured in the Harry Potter books is that of Tom Marvolo Riddle, what can be rearranged to spell "I am Lord Voldemort". Although Rowling probably never intended this similarity. Tuganax 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am rather curious as to why the Rings aren't similar enough to horcruxes. These would be the objects of power created by the Dark Lord to make him more powerful, but which in fact make him more vulnerable? Repositories of fragments of the Dark Lord's essence? Objects of great worth, which others are prepared to kill for? Objects which the Dark Lord figuratively mutilates himself for, but which give him greater power?
- Spot the difference:'The Dark Lord rises to power, but is opposed by a few. Two notable enemies oppose him. Both are killed, but their deaths lead to the destruction of the Dark Lord. Unable to die due to his objects of power, he retreats as a spirit to the lonely places of the world. His objects of power he leaves lying around. Some are used by others to their own ends. The great war leader fails to have the objects destroyed; as a result, he is killed, and many others suffer the same fate because of his failure. Meanwhile a nasty little
Kreachercreature has been hiding away an object of power in its den, until it is stolen by a robber. And the hero of the story embarks on a great quest to destroy the object of power, which will unmake the Dark Lord's plans and magics, and cause him to meet his final downfall.' Well, which story was that? Michaelsanders 10:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK - well as DeathPhoenix has said repeatedly - we still cannot say things like: "...there have been made many comparisons to other objects in modern fiction..." and then state our own theories about similarities between Horcruxes and Isildur's Bane unless we can come up with independant, authoritative, Reliable Sources with proper editorial analyses and matters of fact, outside of the Wikipedia posts and the HP and LOTR fan base, which can be verified by anyone with a click at a footnote. Otherwise it is no more than weasel worded speculation and
gossipOriginal Research which must be disallowed. Verifiability from Reliable Sources always trumps the "truth" or "common sense" in an encyclopedia such as this. Otherwise it is just your opinion - no matter how firm your convictions and how sure you are of the common sense logic. It is our responsibility in the HP Project to do our best to keep the Wikipedia orders of magnitude "tighter" than the typical fan sites, forum and blog pages, and other web riffraff sites out there. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK - well as DeathPhoenix has said repeatedly - we still cannot say things like: "...there have been made many comparisons to other objects in modern fiction..." and then state our own theories about similarities between Horcruxes and Isildur's Bane unless we can come up with independant, authoritative, Reliable Sources with proper editorial analyses and matters of fact, outside of the Wikipedia posts and the HP and LOTR fan base, which can be verified by anyone with a click at a footnote. Otherwise it is no more than weasel worded speculation and
- Could this link: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm
- be a propper source? On this site you can find the text:
- Q.: Hello, I was wondering how much Tolkien inspired and influenced your writing?
- J.K.: Hard to say. I didn't read The Hobbit until after the first Harry book was written, though I read Lord of the Rings when I was nineteen. I think, setting aside the obvious fact that we both use myth and legend, that the similarities are fairly superficial. Tolkien created a whole new mythology, which I would never claim to have done. On the other hand, I think I have better jokes.
- Tuganax 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well you are certainly welcome to quote that, but you cannot use that to prove, nor can you by that quote infer or conclude, that the Horcrux is in any way shape or form similar to the One Ring, since she did not say that, nor was that specific question even asked. All you can use that quote for is to say that any similarities between Harry Potter's world and Middle Earth are "superficial". This does not help your case at all. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- It does prove she read the books and there are similarities albeit fairly superficial. The fact that the question is asked also proves there have been made comparisons to Tolkien. Indeed it doesn't speak specifically of The Rings of Power, or the One Ring alone. Tuganax 23:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just a thought - has Rowling ever owned up to being inspired by Koschei the Deathless, or the Indian sorcerors secreting their souls in parrots? In terms of speculation, making a passing reference to vague similarities between horcruxes and a concept in a book she admits she has read and which she views as having vague similarities to her own work is much less in breach of policy than working in references to The Firebird and myths that she is far less likely to know (they certainly don't seem to be cited). Michaelsanders 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have a point there. If we cannot provide any references to the mythological inspiration of the Horcrux (Rowling: "Why yes, I took the idea for the Horcrux out of blah blah blah.") we should actually remove the section entirely. OTOH, a notable third-party source would be sufficient to put in an illustrative example, say, a review or literary analysis posted by a notable writer or publication saying "The Horcrux was inspired by (or is very similar to) blah blah blah." --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just a thought - has Rowling ever owned up to being inspired by Koschei the Deathless, or the Indian sorcerors secreting their souls in parrots? In terms of speculation, making a passing reference to vague similarities between horcruxes and a concept in a book she admits she has read and which she views as having vague similarities to her own work is much less in breach of policy than working in references to The Firebird and myths that she is far less likely to know (they certainly don't seem to be cited). Michaelsanders 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. Michaelsanders 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with DeathPhoenix. I have no problem at all with posting comparisons of the concept of the Horcrux with anything else in the real world or in mythology - hell, you can even compare Horcruxes to Zeus's magical toenail clippings if you wish (and can find a source!). I do not have a problem with such comparisons even if the objects being compared are actually "sort of opposites" (like the One Ring vs. the Horcrux) - then it becomes contrasting instead of comparing. The only necessary condition for posting such thoughts it to have verifiable reliable sources for such editorial commentary, and it is not just "us" (or the non-authoritative fan base) doing the comparing-and-contrasting work and also the posting - because it then becomes, by definition, original research. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
locket
on which page is the locket in grimmauld place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.15.116 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
- According to the HP Lexicon it's first mentioned in chapter 6 of Order of the Phoenix. John Reaves (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Seemingly irrelevant reference
This is from the description section. "It is unknown what happens if a person with Horcruxes is kissed by a dementor."
It's also unknown what happens if you a person with Horcruxes gets slapped with a trout, but that's entirely irrelevant, as is the reference to dementors, as of right now. Why is it even slightly important what happens if a person with Horcruxes is kissed by a dementor?
- Because the Dementor's kiss takes the soul. Does this have an effect on the other parts of the soul? Are they all taken? Is the person invulnerable to a Dementor's kiss because of their horcruxes? Michaelsanders 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would assume that the dementor's kiss would suck out the soul IN a person. Thus, the remaining soul of the person(with a horcrux) would be sucked out, but the soul of the other horcruxes would still exist, and the person could be revived using those horcruxes as well. GavinTing 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
State of soul
to make a horcrux you must tear your soul, when this happens you remove a bit, but does that mean you now only have half a soul? If voldemort has done this 6 times, is the soul he now is using only 1/64 (2^-6) of a full soul? Does this mean right now harry is fighting a very weak version compared to that he will be fighting at the end? Wolfmankurd 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think he gets the soul fragments back - isn't the damage supposed to be irreparable? As for the division sizes, we simply don't know enough. Michaelsanders 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Horcrux in other literature
Although not expressly stated as a "Horcrux" there are other forms of entertainment or literature that mention the concept, such as Lord of the Rings. The One Ring is a horcrux of sorts that keeps the Dark Lord from dying until the ring is destroyed. I bet that this isn't the place to talk about the concept from other literature and such, but I thought I would mention it, just in case anyone was interested. rlee1185 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Speculation
Should we have a section on speculation on what the other possible horcruxes are? i mean, i know Deathly Hallows is coming out soon, but still...Jammi568 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan speculation site. At times when we allowed some "alternate speculations" on horcruxes, the page quickly becomes spammed with sundry lists of possible horcruxes, from various fanatics who think that any object they can think of that was ever mentioned in the novels or shown in the movies or purely made up at the fan sites "might be a horcrux". The consensus was to avoid all speculation, and report simply what Rowling told us about horcruxes - either from quoting the books (eg: what Slughorn and Dumbledore had to say about them), or from Rowling's interviews and her web site.
- It might make perfect sense to document a short list of popular horcrux candidates, but then we run into all sorts of problems regarding original research and weasel wording, and what qualifies as verifiable from reliable sources, and inevitably difficulties with maintaining a neutral point of view as various HP fans earnestly try to promote their personal favorite horcrux-candidates to the "short list", and firmly disputing other items included on the list or proposed by other HP fans. Previous consensus efforts to make non-canonical lists of "other possible horcruxes" inevitably failed on those grounds. The canonical list is relatively indisputable - anyone can check the books or the web site links. Thanks for asking though. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
that's a shame, but thanks for the answer. Seemed like a good idea at the time though! Jammi568 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Recently, a lot of fan speculations have been added by User:Michaelsanders: it is cited, but cited from a self-published source (fans publishing themselves their theories in a book without any kind of factual verification), which appears no more different than any fan posting his theories on a message board.
If we can accept self-published sources with no other fact verifications than fans saying what they think after the reading of book 6 (ie without any concrete element from JKR), I think it's safe to assume we can also cite all kind of message boards and personal blogs...! Because, if we broke a part of the rule once, why not break it completely ?! Lets this article become the new HP message board ! Folken de Fanel 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the previous decision completely. I like Harry Potter, but I like to think of myself as a rather lukewarm fan, who will read the books, and even read editorials, but won't bother to spend too much time at it and certainly won't post theories about it. From what I have seen of "real" fan sites, some people will argue for just about anything. They spend ages reading these editorials, doing in-depth studies, building Rorshack ink-blot tests for themselves, and never stepping back and saying "Wait! That makes no sense." They sometimes spiral down into a series of assumptions compounded on assumptions, with the eager support of other fans also falling down the same well (and there are always scores of idiots to support *any* half-brained theory as long as it doesn't directly violate canon), until they think that their view of the world is actually more popular, more accepted and more consistent than it actually is.
- Thus even if the statements were not meant to be weasel words when the fans wrote them (many people believe, etc), they may well be a result of this fan-distortion field rather than any malice. However, this makes such statements completely unsuitable for wikipedia. As an example, the statements in the current version of the article that claim (in effect) that "many people believe Harry is a horcrux" may well apply in some fan circles, but I suspect that many, if not most, readers have not even heard of this idea (or the vigourous debate over it within fan circles, which appears, to my untrained and unsufficiently sampled eye, to have not been resolved at all). I strongly suspect that the idea is not notable enough to be included. Thus other, even more far-fetched ideas probably should not be included as well.
Straw poll consensus on Granger-sourced material
Initial proposal
Another intractable reversion war is underway, regarding the works of John Granger, in his published book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?. Granger published some critical analysis with theories based on his studies of the Potter series. Editors such as MichaelSanders et al wish to include Granger's material, as a reliable source providing sourced analyses. Other editors feel this material constitutes forbidden speculation and original research. The Wikipedia's Manual of Style of documenting works of fiction and Notability guideline for Fiction defines parameters such as:
- Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.
- Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
- Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
- Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
- Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.
The question put to a Consensus Discussion (please see Wikipedia:Consensus) is: Should Granger's work be permitted as a sourced analysis of Rowling's work in discussing her books and concepts taken from them? This is not a vote, per se, but an attempt to come to reasonable consensus, so concise but reasoned comments are more valuable than just a yea or nay. Please place your thoughts as Allow or Disallow or other appropriate header, example:
- Allow (example) - Granger's work constitutes a properly sourced analysis on the topic of Horcruxes... (explain why)
- Disallow (example) - Granger's work constitutes pure groundless speculation which is to be avoided ... (explain why)
- Other / Comment (example) - This should be taken to Mediation or the the Arbitration Comittee because the argument is intractable and consensus would be inappropriate ... (explain)
--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other / Comment (example) - These Horcruxes sound very familiar to another popular book. Something contaning a certain ring and a dark lord.
First reactions and replies
- Michael Sanders 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) : Allow : Granger's book analyses the text of the books, and studies what has been presented in the text so far - on the basis that Rowling as an author lays groundwork for plotlines in her work (e.g. diary in book 2); there is also a lot of simple analysis of what has happened so far, which I have yet to write up; but in any case, it is not a simple guess for the hell of it (which would be pointless to the article) but the work of a person with a claim to expertise in the subject. Michael Sanders 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disallow : Lots of sites/sources analyse the books and the text therein, produce such studies, and so forth. We already have a consensus that, as a general rule, such sites are just speculating. What makes Granger's claim to expertise so much stronger than other authors' claim to expertise? 24.15.198.73 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that he's expert, just that he has the means to have a book published. 24.15.198.73 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- To expand some more, here is a description of the book (I assume this is the right book) from amazon.com:
- Six fan-theorists attempt to unravel the clues of THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE. Joyce Odell of Red Hen Productions, Daniella Teo of Mugglenet, Sally M. Gallo of The Leaky Cauldron, Wendy B. Harte and the mysterious "Swythyv" - along with editor, John Granger (author of Hidden Key to Harry Potter, etc.)- provide Harry Potter readers with exciting and insightful ideas of what happened and what will happen based on their close reading of the texts ... ideas that will challenge and engage readers everywhere. Travis Prinzi, creator of THE SWORD OF GRIFFYNDOR website, writes that these essays "will stand as a monument to the kind of guesswork we were all involved in as we awaited the final Harry Potter book."
- In other words, this book is, according to amazon.com, clearly an attempt at speculating at the implications of book six. The fact that it's a book just reflects that it's an interesting and (probably) a well-written piece of work, not that it's expert. 24.15.198.73 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Er, yes, part of it is a study of the implications of what happened in book 6. So what? It's a published work which meets the requirements for inclusion in articles. It's an intelligent analysis of book 6 (hence the name) - if it was simply 'I believe this, so there', it wouldn't be suitable, but it is 'this is what happened, what conclusions can we draw', and thus - provided it is clearly marked as external opinion and not either authorial information or editor opinion - is suitable. Michael Sanders 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- But how is this book not just a matter of "here's what these authors believe, so there"? What makes those particular author's speculations, as the review of this book implies (given the use of the word "ideas" and "guesswork") any more reliable than the slew of web sites out there. The fact that it's a book rather than a fansite only speaks to its marketability (which doesn't necessarily come from accuracy) and the desire to get the work published as a book, and not its "authoritativeness". If we're going to cite something, it's not sufficient that it be "not me", but rather that there is some proof of the accuracy of the information, which you haven't produced here. 24.15.198.73 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Second thread
- Of course disallow completely. It fails every possible rule of Wikipedia:
- -It's not published by a popular editor, it's published by John Granger himself. Given that John Granger wrote the editorial of the book, and that he personally wrote one the chapters of the book, such proximity between the publishing entity and the author of a part of the book clearly classifies this book as self-published.
- -The material has not been subjected to any form of fact checking, because this is merely a bunch of speculations about a book that'll be published in 5 months. There's no mean to check the plausibility of any of these speculations.
- -John Granger himself is a professor of literature and a christian (that's why he first wrote about HP, to find parallelisms with christian religion), thus he can only be concidered an "expert" (or "professional researcher) in his relevant field when talking about the narrative devices in HP or parallelisms with christian religion. However he's no more an expert, or no more in his relevant field when talking about "what will happen in book 7". Thus his value as the editor (the one who collected the various essays) of such a book is close to 0.
- -The various writers responsible for the various theories in the book are no more than fans, ie they're not professionals, they have no reputability, they are not experts. Their values as authors is close to 0.
- -The book and its content has not been previously published by a reliable, third-party publication.
- -Finally, the consensus on this article is "no speculations allowed".
- Also, what we should disallow also is Michaelsander's attitude. You can't just revert anything you don't like without even justifying it and impose a content that violates every princle of Wikipedia. For the last time, a source is not enough, it must be reliable. Really, Micheal, you've been blocked three times, now, and you're still on the verge of 3RR ? ?Folken de Fanel 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, I pay more attention to reputable and long-serving editors that I respect than anonymous editors who appear to be stirring up trouble - T-dot gave me the go-ahead, provided I followed his advice to clearly demarcate it from the authorial information; by contrast, I should explain an already settled question to a trouble-making IP (I'm assuming it was not you, Folken, and that you have merely scented blood once more). As for the notability factor, see User talk:T-dot - I'm not going to repeat myself again. I explained there that Granger meets the required criteria for published sources. He is qualified in English literature (which HP is), and is, to a large extent, a recognised expert in Harry Potter; which makes his analyses of the books, and those analyses he sanctions, worth more than those of some non-entity on a fan-forum. You want his standpoint on the books, read his work.
- No, Granger doesn't meet the required criteria for published sources. It's a self-published source, with no form of fact-checking, which is the very incarnation of unreliability because its authors are not in any way professional researchers in their relevant field. In fact, it is all but a valid source. T-dot can say what he wants, it won't change the problem. It's a perfectly unreliable source and it cannot be used here. You do not use message boards, you do not use this kind of books, because it's exactly the same.
- Granger is not a recognized expert in HP, he's qualified in english literature and christianity, and that's about it. He's not an expert as far as unpublished stories are concerned, he doesn't have any confidencial info about HP7, he's not in contact with JKR, and he cannot see the future. He can analyse what he wants about narrative devices and christianity in HP, however here HE IS NOT ANALYSING ANYTHING since book 7 is not published yet. Those non-analyses he "sanctions" are ABSOLUTELY NOT better than others , because everyone is in the same situation: no one has read book 7, and no one can know what will happen in it. Every single fan posting his theories on a message board is worth the authors of this book. Folken de Fanel 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Moderator interruption
- For the record - I am attempting to remain as a neutral moderator or facilitator in this discussion. I laid out on my talk page discussions and elsewhere what I think would be the requirements for declaring Granger's work as either a valid reliably sourced analysis, with the justification for providing such analyses based on the Manual of Style and Wiki Guidelines on articles about fictional literature (see links above); or as disallowed speculation and original research that has not been critically evaluated for accuracy or reliability by 3rd party "experts" in the field. I have not read Granger's works or evaluated it in any way. What I told Michael is that IF we can count Granger as a reliable source, then "this" is how we should present his work within Rowling-subject articles, such as Deathly Hallows or Horcrux: as a separate "sourced analysis" section, and fully attributed to Granger. This differs greatly from allowing anonymous editors to post personal pet theories - Granger's work is in the public domain, and is verifiable to the extent of it is what he says. That said, I agree that if Granger's work CANNOT be declared a suitable reliable-sourced analysis, then it should not be included. The Wiki is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive - especially in the matter of works of fiction. I am inclined to believe that Granger's work may be suitable for analysis of materials in the first 6 books, but projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice. I think the Wiki policy allows us to document the knowledge base, and I am not convinced that Granger's work is disallowable only because of the nature of the publisher. It seems that this is the only hang-up for allowing Granger's work - the publisher. If a different publisher, say Scholastic Books, published it, would that suddenly make Granger's material a reliable source? What would be the requirements for an independant published analysis of Rowling's books to allow for inclusion as sourced analyses? What is the threshhold for inclusion that would satisfy Folken et al? This is what I am trying to capture. One thing we need to think about, in addition to the Wiki guidelines for articles on works of fiction, is that some of us may be engaging in a little WikiLawyering - such as:
- Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
- Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and
- Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
- Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
- I think we may be to the point where we need to call for Mediation or Arbitration, since neither side of the issue seems to be interested in reaching a sensible compromise or consensus. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the record - I am attempting to remain as a neutral moderator or facilitator in this discussion. I laid out on my talk page discussions and elsewhere what I think would be the requirements for declaring Granger's work as either a valid reliably sourced analysis, with the justification for providing such analyses based on the Manual of Style and Wiki Guidelines on articles about fictional literature (see links above); or as disallowed speculation and original research that has not been critically evaluated for accuracy or reliability by 3rd party "experts" in the field. I have not read Granger's works or evaluated it in any way. What I told Michael is that IF we can count Granger as a reliable source, then "this" is how we should present his work within Rowling-subject articles, such as Deathly Hallows or Horcrux: as a separate "sourced analysis" section, and fully attributed to Granger. This differs greatly from allowing anonymous editors to post personal pet theories - Granger's work is in the public domain, and is verifiable to the extent of it is what he says. That said, I agree that if Granger's work CANNOT be declared a suitable reliable-sourced analysis, then it should not be included. The Wiki is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive - especially in the matter of works of fiction. I am inclined to believe that Granger's work may be suitable for analysis of materials in the first 6 books, but projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice. I think the Wiki policy allows us to document the knowledge base, and I am not convinced that Granger's work is disallowable only because of the nature of the publisher. It seems that this is the only hang-up for allowing Granger's work - the publisher. If a different publisher, say Scholastic Books, published it, would that suddenly make Granger's material a reliable source? What would be the requirements for an independant published analysis of Rowling's books to allow for inclusion as sourced analyses? What is the threshhold for inclusion that would satisfy Folken et al? This is what I am trying to capture. One thing we need to think about, in addition to the Wiki guidelines for articles on works of fiction, is that some of us may be engaging in a little WikiLawyering - such as:
Continued discussion
- I actually don't have a problem with the source per se in that I don't care that he he edited and wrote part of it. I'd have the same problem if Scholastic Published it. My point is that all the relevant section of this article is doing is "projecting theories into the 7th book", which is speculation. Thus, your point of being on "thin ice" on this matter is really my objection to this section. Since only JK Rowling (and a *very* few other people, all of whom have almost certainly been sworn to secrecy) really knows what's in book seven, anyone else is speculating. It's one thing to record a claim that Book 6 itself speculated some of the remaining Horcruxes -- that is part of the material of Book 6 itself, and thus valid discussion -- but it's quite another to cite another reference that has no particular basis for being a "crystal ball" into book seven. I just want to know what makes this book more reliable than a fan site, which has already been deemed invalid as a source for speculation. And simply being a published book doesn't cut it, as all that's really needed to be publised is to be well written/entertaining/marketable enough to sell -- one can be any or all of these three without being authoritative, especially since Granger's book is not marketed to be particularly authoritative on the events of Book 7 -- it's marketed to be intelligent theorizing; i.e. speculation. 24.15.198.73 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I should also note that at least the part reference in this about Harry being a horcrux is *itself* only quoting the speculations of many fans. At the very least, this is therefore clearly only fan speculation, and not Granger speculation (which, as I have noted, isn't something I'm inclined to give much more credence anyway). 24.15.198.73 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've already said it, the main problem is that "Who killed Dumbledore" is not stricly analysis of published material, but "projecting theories into the 7th book" as T-Dot said it.
- We're clearly out of the principle of reliability. As it was noted by 24.15.198.73, only JKR and very few people can be reliable as to "what will be in book 7". In that case, any one can present a "plausible" theory on book 7. Because how can we know for sure which theory is right/wrong ? The risk here, is that if we allow WKD as a source, then I see stricly nothing which could prevent fan websites and even messages on forums being used as sources. The inclusion of WKD is an open-door to a massive OR violation, because who can say WKD is more "accurate" than other collections of theories ? The only difference is that a book is published. However is it enough ? Anyone can pay to have his own theories published.
- I've said it elsewhere, Granger is a literary professor and a christian. His first 2 books were about the literary devices used by Rowling, and parallelisms with the christian religion. These were stricly analyses on the published content, and were made by someone who had insight on the subject treated. Even if these books were also self-published, they were made by a reliable author (because he knows what he's talking about), and thus I would accept these books as sources without any objections. However, T-Dot, even you have noted that with WKD, we're not even dealing with analyses on published material by reputable professors, but merely speculations by fans and by people who do not have any reliability as far as the future content of book 7 is concerned. The fact that it's a self-published source which do not have any reliability (contrary to other books by Granger) adds even more to the problem. Folken de Fanel 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is perfectly in line with wikipedia conventions and practices to note the analyses and beliefs of experts, provided it is based on evidence. The issue has nothing to do with whether anyone is likely to be right, since we are not aiming to guess what will happen in the next book; rather, we are aiming to write what is being said about the book, and so, provided the writer is notable enough to justify having his writings or those writings he supports noted in an encyclopaedia article, there is no problem. He may be wrong, he may be right. That os irrelevant to our task, which is to write as thorough and extra-universe an article as possible. And as I have already explained, Granger meets our qualifications for expert thoroughly enough to have his source-based opinion quoted, provided it is made clear that it is his opinion, rather than either Rowling's statements or our opinion. Michael Sanders 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're wrong.
- There's absolutely not a single expert involved in WKD, it's a collection of fan speculations. There's absolutely no "analyses" involved since book 7 is not out yet. Beliefs are only accepted when dealing about professional researchers in their relevant field, who have previously been published by third-party sources: this is absolutely not the case here, since there's not a single professional researcher in his relevant field involved, and since WKD was absolutely not submitted to any form of fact-checking.
- Then Michalesanders, stop twisting what we are saying here. The matter I'm discussing is not whether WKD is even remotely plausible. It's that this kind of source is clearly unreliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. If it was merely a question of "what's plausible", then every single fan on earth that has posted one day a theory on a forum would be cited here. But of course, we can't do that because WP imposes quality criteria to the sources used, and WKD is no expection to the rule: it's perfectly unreliable. Folken de Fanel 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and Folken - I'd stand away from the glass-house before chucking those stones. You were blocked at the same time as me for - what - 11 reverts in 2 hours, was it? Michael Sanders 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't play this game. You've been blocked 3 times: a total of 103 hours, each time for 3RR and edit-warring. And only a week after having been unblocked, you're already involved in an edit war ? Guess your last 48-hours block was not enough for you to understand...Folken de Fanel 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and Folken - I'd stand away from the glass-house before chucking those stones. You were blocked at the same time as me for - what - 11 reverts in 2 hours, was it? Michael Sanders 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Moderator Question - Dumbledoreisnotdead.com web site vs Granger?
If I may interject into the discussion with a question: There is some similarly speculative but sourced material posted and discussed at the Albus Dumbledore article in an External Reactions section - referring to the old DumbledoreisnotDead.com web site (now restructured as BeyondHogwarts.com). This provided I think a permitted precedent for Michael's efforts to post "External Reactions" on other topics, such as Horcruxes. That DumbledoreisnotDead.com material was permitted, right or wrong, after a lengthy debate. It seems to me that it is not much different from Granger's work. Thus if discussion of sourced information from DumbledoreisnotDead.com is allowed as a permitted "sourced analysis", should we not also allow Granger's analysis? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- That's a totally different thing. The "Dumbledore is not dead" thing is not a mere theory among others as this WKD book is. It was (is ?) a major popular reaction to an event in book 7. In that case we can say without doubt that this opinion spread through most of the HP fanbase.
- But read carefully, I'm not saying it is a plausible theory and that's why it should be in the article because, we never know, it might prove right in book 7. Not at all.
- It went really far, at the Radio City Music Hall in 2006, when, in front of 6000 people and JKR herself the "dumbledore is not dead" issue was debated. Each time it was mentionned the crowd applauded. JKR was even forced to reveal something she wanted to remain secret until book 7 is published, she even mentioned the website.
- If that's not a major fan reaction...
- You see, that's why it's notable. But not because Wikipedia has become an annex to Lexicon, publishing every possible theory on book 7, because "we never know"....
- So really I find your example really off topic. By the way, while the mention of dumbledoreisnotdead.com is acceptable in the article, I think all these mentions of precise theories (not the fact of believing D is not dead, but the development of theories as if we were on HPLexicon-pedia) would not be necessary.
- But as far as WKD is concerned, that's really not the same thing. It's not notable in any way. It's obvious certain people want to use it as a source just for the sake of speculating and turning WP into an annex to the HP Lexicon, not to report a major popular reaction which forced JKR to reveal a bit of her plot in front of 6000 people. Folken de Fanel 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Moderator Comments
OK I hear you - but please remember Folken, I am acting as a neutral mediator, facilitator, and moderator here - stepping out of the opinion-giving, and asking the "team" here the appropriate and important questions to determine what is (and is not) acceptable for posting in the HP Project articles, and in particular, WHY. You are welcome to decide a question is "really off topic" if you wish, but that is not particularly appropriate in this "brainstorming" environment. The example brought up, in the moderator's view, is totally appropriate as a discussion point, whether you personally agree, or approve, or like it, or not. Our purpose here is to come to a compromise or consensus, and we do that by looking for common ground and reaching agreements, not just throwing up walls by claiming someone or something is somehow "really off topic". Now - I think I hear you saying that the difference between the unacceptable Granger's "WKD?" book (and his website) and the acceptable Dumbledoreisnotdead.com web site is that DDIND is a reflection of the views of thousands or HP fans, but that WKD? represents the views of one person - Granger. OK well let's run that viewpoint up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. If I did not phrase your statement correctly, then please clarify below. Let's try to keep it simple and straightforward, so we know exactly what we are trying to discuss, and avoid going off on tangents. Remember our guidance should be the Wiki Policies and Guidelines, not our personal beliefs and biases. Discussion anyone? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion resumes
- Are you deliberately misunderstanding the issue, Folken? This isn't about the plausibility of any theory, this is about saying in an article, "that's what's known from the text, now here's what can be reliably sourced as being said outside". All that is required is that we properly source what we claim is being said, so it isn't our original thought (i.e. Original Research), and try to meet the notability factor (i.e. 'Harry Potter wizard-in-chief Joe Bloggs from Swindon' isn't notable; a man with a relevant degree, recognition as an expert in the English literature and this subject in particular, whose work is published and thus subject to the vagaries of criticism, is notable - enough.). This isn't about theories, whether notable or non-notable amongst the fan base (which should be noted, but are difficult to do so, because it is hard to precisely source 'a widely held theory' without recourse to the web - which, you would note, is not allowed; DDID only scrapes through because of the reported and thus easily cited yelling in the Albert Hall); it's about saying what the experts think (have you looked at Lord Voldemort? Sourced comparison between him and Hitler. Surely predicting the result of Book 7?), about stating what is thought outside the HP-universe. Michael Sanders 22:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Michael, accuse me once more of "deliberately misunderstanding", or any kind of bad faith accusations with hints of your usual scorn, and you'll get proper warnings of personal attacks.
- I'll repeat once more. We're not talking about analyses of published material here. We're talking about speculation about still unpublished material, with no way to prove the reliability of such theories.
- There's no expert in "speculations about HP7" involved in WKD: Granger is a literary professor and a christian, thus his relevant fields are literary devices in HP and parallelisms with christian religion (whch were the subjects of his last 2 books). He's not an expert as far as "guessing the plot of the next HP" is involved. As I've said, we can use his previous books as sources because they are on something that he knows. However he does not know what will happen in book 7. No reliability whatsoever.
- Then, the fans that have written most of the speculations are not profesional researchers, they're not in their relevant field, they cannot see the future and guess the plot of HP7 better than Gragner or any one else, thus they are unreliable.
- There can be no expert as far as book 7 is concerned. No one on Earth, expect JKR and a few people at Bloomsbury or Scholastic, know what's in book 7. The others, fans, etc, don't know anything about book 7 and don't have any means to know: what they're doing is merely guessing, like at the lottery. There's nothing reliable in guessing and "crystal ball-ing".
- To T-Dot, where did you get that I'm preventing you to debate ? You wrote your argument, and I merely said it didn't correspond to the case we were discussing.
- Precisely, I'm saying that DIND is not a theory, but a major popular reaction that prompted JKR to reveal a plot point she had not intended to reveal right now. Its inclusion was not because it was an "elaborated theory made by expert and literary professors", but because JKR reacted to it in front of 6000 persons. It was a major event in the HP fandom, and had not JKR reacted to it, I would have been strongly opposed to its inclusion. We're not praising the "wonderful intellectual work of experts of HP who may have found a key to book 7" by accepting refs to DIND, we're acknowledging the fact that some fans, whatever they thought, by their strong reaction to a certain fact in book 6, managed to have JKR say something she had not planned to say. That's why the section is entitled "fan reaction" and not "fan speculations" (and in this respect, I think it deserves a little clean-up). Folken de Fanel 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're not talking about analyses of published material. Can you point out to me where the Mirror of Erised would have been hinted as a possible horcrux in book 6, for example ? Folken de Fanel 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Short answer: the writer argues that the mirror would make sense for narrative reasons (constant theme of mirrors and reflections, playing a central role in each book - Erised in 1, mirrors protect from the basilisk in 2, time-turner allows two sets of people + patronus as 'reflection' of James in 3, priori incantatem produces "echoes, like strong reflections" of victims, plus Crouch mirrors Moody in 4, 2-way mirror plus time-turners and prophecies - both "can be considered mirroring devices" - in 5, penseive memories can be considered form of mirroring + Vanishing cabinets - 2 mirroring objects - in 6; also idea that family appeared to be alive in mirror, but "not a reality, but a dangerous dream"); fact that stone (another method of immortality) was hidden in the mirror, which is connected to those who are either dead but appear not or who should be dead but aren't; "Wouldn't it be ironic if the same object that housed the Stone that would give him a body also held a piece of his soul"; logistically, mirror is grand, beautiful and powerful enough to have belonged to a founder; "I would expect Ravenclaw's heirloom to be suggestive of intellect...it involves that which cannot be touched, like air, Ravenclaw's element. Mirrors involve reflections, which are synonyms for thoughts. This mirror can thus be associated with intelligence as with aspirations and even the impossible. Also the only person...able to give Harry the same hope about seeing his parents again as the mirror of Erised was Luna, the seer of impossible things who belongs to Ravenclaw House." And thus, it is the writer's opinion(and thus, to all intents and purposes, of Granger who published it in his book) that Erised would fit what has been described in the books so far. It is all source based analyses of what has been in the books so far. Anything else? Michael Sanders 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just asked you where it was said, and you just couldn't answer. Thank you, you've proved my point: there's absolutely no analyses, but merely speculations. The authors impose selected themes at their own convenience, they do not use themes that are directly mentioned as far as horcruxes are concerned. Folken de Fanel 01:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to ask how the previous statements differ from the posts, blogs, and analysis found on many different fan sites. This seems like just the kind of editorial the fans would love, and would love to argue about, and would fight over (I personally feel that such arguments are a huge waste of time). If we can't reference an editorial that speculates wildly (like the arguments outlined above, and there are plenty of such editorials, thank you) why is this self-published book an improvement, and why should it be otherwise exempt from Wikipedia's policies?129.2.106.74
Another view
- As the original reverter, I must also state disallow. While I appreciate reading and enjoying Harry Potter forums, I agree with the logic on this page that forbids such speculation from being on Wikipedia. Michaelsander seems to think that just because a book is published, that it is somehow a good source and one that can be cited. In this case, however, the book is clearly an extension of the kind of speculation that appears on all fan sites; the author list, if nothing else, proves that. If we cannot reference 'Mugglenet' or 'The Leaky Cauldron', even in the case of really good editorials, this book should be out as well. The fact that it is self-published then takes its credibility as a source down even further. If it is true that Michaelsander is the publisher, then we must certainly ban the references simply on principle. Amazing numbers of kooks, crackpots, and wannabes try to bend Wikipedia to their viewpoint by referencing their own published materials. 129.2.106.74
- It seems you are a bit mistaken. Michaelsanders is just a wikipedian who is editing the article with the source he thinks are "good" (and which are not, in fact). But he's not the publisher of the book that is being debated.
- John Granger, who wrote various part of book, is the publisher. That's why I'm saying it's a self-published book: published by the author himself (but it doesn't necessarily mean "published by the Wikipedian who proposes it" ^^).
- Besides that, I totally agree with you. Folken de Fanel 10:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that correction. I apologize for my mistake. I wanted to add, however, that there are many articles on Wikipedia where even published articles are not considered valid sources simply because they are published; this is typically because the journals they are printed in or the publisher they are printed by are non-notable or otherwise deemed unreliable. Our claims that this particular book is not notable and not distinguishable from fan sites, which were deemed inappropriate, is what must be refuted, not the fact that it is a published source, which is unmistakably true, or that the analysis is detailed and careful, which is also true of many fan sites. 129.2.106.74
Response to 129 and another take on this (necessary break for ease of editing)
In part I agree with you. My difficulty with quoting Granger is with the issue of balance, not noteability. I find this refusal to sanction quotations from the acknowledged experts in this field, Lexicon, Mugglenet, TLC, Hpana, etc, as completely absurd. Absurd because it contradicts the evidence that these sites have been acknowledged as useful and informative on all aspects of Hp, and also absurd because they are not preculuded by any of the rules of wiki. Wiki does not ban fan sites. It merely says they should be used with caution, and I entirely agree. I have had some discussions with people over the issue of to what extent wikipedia, a well known fan site, should be considered a reliable source. My analogy and debate rather suggests that eg Lexicon should be given more weight than wikipedia. Not, perhaps, if someone understands wikipedia and is able to go through the history of a page and make an assessment of how good the editors there are, but in general: if one should rely on a page from wiki, or a page from lexicon, then Lexicon whould be preferred. The reason is that lexicon is prepared by informed professional editors who have a vested personal interest in maintaining the accuracy of their site. Articles are fact checked, peer reviewed and only presented in a finished condition. Wiki pages may be sheer rubbish. Who knows whether they have been fact checked by anyone? who knows if anyone has gone over them and reviewed the content. Wiki has lots of rules, but many fewer contirbutors on a given page, each writing and publishing their own articles.
Relatedly, but slightly at a tangent, my librarian and I were discussing medicine. Should the doctor cutting someone open rely on wiki, or on surgery weeekly? The answer is, surgery weekly, I think. Wiki is not 'safe'. It is probably pretty accurate, but not written to err on the side of safety. It may include an exciting new trick for grafting someone's kidney onto their liver, but is this tried and tested? Do I want my surgeon checking wiki to see what is new in his subject? No, I don't think so. Why not? because wiki is a fan website, and not reliable enough. Now, HP. Do I rely upon a fan website in this case? The answer is yes, I do. Why? because the nature of the subject is different. Some people seem to be taking a very blinkered approach to this argument. This is FICTION! No one dies if the reader follows our suggestions. Readers KNOW this is fiction. Just like the crazy argument that all article should be written out-universe in case people are misled. Do people here seriously believe other people think HP is real? What constitutes a good source in one field may be a bad source in another. We are currently writing articles which are mainly interesting to readers because they help people to understand the story better. WE ARE NOT HERE TO SIMPLY RE-TELL THE PLOT. Remember that rule? Yet crazily (again) the rules are also interpreted by some to prevent us doing anything else.
There are two interesting aspects to a book outside of the plot itself, which anyone can get by reading it. One is historical background, trivia such as the title being released using a hangman game. The other is explanation of the plot, which goes beyond the simple story. This involves reorganising the events to explain what happened, speculating on why characters do what they do, why the author did something a particular way, what works may have influenced her.
This second category is not black and white. It is speculation all the way. This is a recognised field of research which has existed for a very long time. At school there was a whole exam on 'English lit', which used two or three books as examples, but was really about learning to analyse literature in general. The proper standard for a source for this kind of information is not 'surgery weekly'. Not that I would refuse to quote a recognised journal in this field, but that I do not require the same level of precision and certainty as, I hope, that journal must provide. What I seek to use here to make the articles useful to the audience is the kind of source which is expert at providing the information needed. That means, here, fan sites. Not bad fan sites, but good fan sites. Choosing them is not difficult: we have even been recomended some by the author. Then, there are also a small number of publications. Granger, for example. These DO have a higher level of respectability. The fact of being published on paper implies that there is a financial stake in their printing. It implies people are willing to pay for the information. It implies noteability for doing something which most fans do not do.
The proper criteria which editors should be using in including this stuff is balance, not accuracy. The question should be, 'what are the major circulating theories about horcruxes', and 'are they each given proper weight in the article'. Then they should be included with mention of where they came from. Reliability is absolutely not required. It is, frankly, impossible (as Folken says, the last book is not published yet). What we are expected to provide is a balanced explanation of the possibilities. That is what accuracy means in an article like this. Sandpiper 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Seven Points
- 1) refusing to sanction quotations from Lexicon, Mugglenet, TLC, Hpana, etc, is absolutely not absurd. Because they are NOT "acknowledged experts" in any way. They are mere fans, period. Their theories are no more likely than any other because they don't know anything about book 7 more than we do. Thus they're not reliable.
- 2) if you find lexicon so superior to Wiki, then go there and leave us alone, that way you'll not feel obliged to turn Wiki into a Lexicon-bis, including the speculations...(by the way, there are no professional editors involved).
- 3) Wiki is not a fan website. (which brings us back to 2) : I see very well what you're trying to do. By saying Wiki just sucks, then we should just make it a mirror for fansites, which are just great, written by 14-year-old "professional editors" etc. Well, it just doesn't work like that, so stop this. If you really hate Wiki as much as you say, just leave).
- 4) Helping people "understanding better" doesn't mean "creating our own stories to fill in the gaps untill the last book is out". If we are not here to retell the plot, we're are not here to invent a new one either. By the way, theories and speculations can't help people to understand, because these theories do not correspond to JKR's plot. Sandpiper, if you wanted to write fanfiction, then you are mistaken, because Wiki just isn't the place for this.
- 5) you're again mistaken here, "information" is not "groundless speculation".
- 6) What makes your behavior really shameful, Sandpiper, is that you're just the opposite of a "wikilawyer": for you, every single rule on Wiki should just disappear for your own convienience. The OR rule ? Forgotten ! The "Reliable source" rule ? Vansihed ! Wikipedia has become the world of fan speculation, now it's just a forum for Lexicon. At least your behavior is not unexpected, because after claiming revert wars were good for Wiki, we're not surprised to here you saying the NO OR rule should be suppressed. (But don't be mistaken, you won't succeed in changing Wikipedia. Go away and create your own website. But you won't hijack Wikipedia). Folken de Fanel 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- 7) I've just read your edit summary: you're again mistaken. The most essential information is the plot of book 7, not what people think it will be. Folken de Fanel 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
- Folken, you have an odd take on life. There are two old established rules on wiki. One is 'Be bold'. This is frequently the first thing told to new editors. Another is 'Ignore all rules'. It is a firmly established principle that there are no no absolute rules, except possibly that the website's founder reserves the right to do anything he deems necessary.
- 1) you still miss the point, which is precisely that no one knows for certain what is in book 7. Everyone is speculating like mad and this is what we should be reporting.
- 2) If wiki is worse than Lexicon, then obviously it needs more help. Lexicon is well established and well run. This is literally true, Folken. wiki is a high maintenance work, because it is a fan site where the fans literally post absolutely anything they like.
- 3) which indeed is related to (2). What else would you call it, other than a fan site? Do you write about subjects that interest you, or ones that don't? It is written by fans. And what makes you think it is not written by 14 year olds? Or that Lexicon is not written by literature professors in their lunchbreaks? One of the nicer things about the internet is that it allows people to edit anonymously and just be judged by their ability, not their age.
- 4) I don't invent stories or theories. I report ones I have seen elsewhere, and I believe this is what others do too. This is precisely what people are supposed to do on wiki. People want to know this sort of information. You greatly underestimate Rowling if you believe her last book will not be based firmly on the events of the preceding ones in a way which is at least predictable in retrospect. Looking ahead it is not possible to select the one possible path the story will take, but it is definitely possible to predict the general course, or select more likely ones.
- 5) information is many things. Telling people about existing speculations is indeed informing them about the world as it is.
- 6) See introduction re the rules of wiki. But I do follow no OR, and I report reliable sources. The theories reported her are not OR, and are from sources reliable in this context. At least as much to the point, they are also the best sources available.
- 7) Again wrong. Funnily enough I agree with some of those who have devised 'rules' about this. We do need to explain the plot as it is relevant to a topic, but there is no real point to extended encyclopedia articles like these if they do not leave the reader understanding the plot, not just knowing it. Sandpiper 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't mistake me. I am not rubbishing wiki. I am pointing out that in many ways Lexicon is significantly better. It is you who is seeking to argue that internet fan sites are worthless. Sandpiper 07:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Re-Replies
- "Ignore all rules" doesn't exist. You've just invented it. If you, personally, don't want to respect the rules, that's your problem, and you'll get what you deserve for it. But don't try to act as if you were right because it's not the case.
- 1) Well, since WK is not a crystal ball and is not a publisher of original thoughts and since those speculations concern a minority of the whole fandom (and for that, see the very well written message here [1], and given that such theories can be see as fancruft, I really can't see why any of this would be admitted here. And since you seem yourslef to agree there's no reputability among fan theories...
- 2) Then Wiki needs to develop by itself and for itself. It was not created to be the perfect mirror of HP fansites. Again, you seem to really miss detachment here: Wikipedia certainly not limits itself to HP article and other fictional things. But anyway, go and tag Wikipedia itself for deletion, then, if you find it so bad.
- 3) We're not talking about fans. We're talking about competent people who know what they're talking about, AND also people who don't necessarily know it. But in any way, it's not a fan website. You give to the word "fan" a meaning that is too pejorative in the Wikipedia context : because for you, "fan" means fan theories and fanfictions, and other fancruft and egotistic stuff...
- 4) No. On Wikipedia you are supposed to write what is factual and relevant and notable. You are not supposed to write your own stories, and I again remind you of the notability criteria guideline for articles of fiction which states that "Fiction not yet written may be considered speculation (again, not by default, but often so) which is grounds for deletion because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games, etc."
- No people do not want these kind of non-informations. They go to Lexicon if they want to find theories, but here the aim is absolutely not theories.
- You greatly ovberestimate yourself if you think you or any fan can guess the plot of HP7. Anyway, with you we're back right to what someone said earlier: " From what I have seen of "real" fan sites, some people will argue for just about anything. They spend ages reading these editorials, doing in-depth studies, building Rorshack ink-blot tests for themselves, and never stepping back and saying "Wait! That makes no sense." They sometimes spiral down into a series of assumptions compounded on assumptions, with the eager support of other fans also falling down the same well (and there are always scores of idiots to support *any* half-brained theory as long as it doesn't directly violate canon), until they think that their view of the world is actually more popular, more accepted and more consistent than it actually is."
- You're talking about "predicting the general course" ? But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ! You're talking about "selecting the more likely ones" ? But who are you to do that ? Have you read book 7 ? Are you able to see the future ? No. So drop this.
- 5) This is not information. This is POV pushing.
- 6) OR is what doesn't come from reliable source, so any theory is OR by definition, because there are absolutely no reliable source as far as unpublished books are concerned. No one is able to see the future or to read the mind of JKR, so no theory can be reliable.
- 7) Again you're wrong. Fan fiction doesn't correspond to the plots of book 6 and 7, so no, people won't understand the actual books by JKR, with other external plots written by other authors. Again, you lack detachment. Folken de Fanel 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- If Lexicon is better, go there and don't try to make WP a mirror of it, because that's not why it was created. Folken de Fanel 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In closing
Folken, I think perhaps people do not understand the scale of HP. For example, I have never seen more adults sitting on trains on the London underground all reading the same book, on their way to and from work. Guess which? Guess which they will be reading in July? Consider, therefore, just how many intelligent, informed adults are motivated to contribute to articles on HP on websites. Children have absolutely nothing compared to adults, when it comes to becoming obsessively involved in a subject. Witness this debate.
I read the article on fancruft. All it says is that sometimes some editors accuse material of being 'fancruft', intending to disparage it, but that the term has no relevance to whether material should be included, or not. What we are discussing for inclusion in any articles is not fan fiction. It is literary analysis by fans.
I have stated repeatedly that I respect fans as highly motivated contributors to anything. Whether they are good contributors, or bad contributores, has little to do with their being 'fans'. Wiki is unquestionably a fansite. Many of the editors are fans of wikipedia itself, while others are fans of particular subjects, and so contribute to articles in that area. No doubt some editors are professionals paid to influence public opinion on a particular subject, but most are here because they enjoy editing wiki. They are fans of wiki. They write the content. wiki is written by fans: therefore it is a fansite. The reason I bring this up, is because anyone who holds the opinion that fans are incapable of producing a worthwhile source of information has no business setting out to develop an internet encyclopedia like this. The two views, that fans cannot create a worthwhile website, and that fans can create a worthwhile website are contradictions. This contradiction can only be squared by accepting, as is stated in the content rules on wiki, that each particular website should be considered on its own merits. One criteria which is not helpfull in doing this is whether or not it is written by fans.
I also again point out that the HP articles on wiki are not about book 7. They are about books 1-6. all the articles, including this one, discuss information already written and published. No one has written anything about the text of book 7....because we do not know the text of book 7. Everyone here is writing about books 1-6, and how the story must continue based upon what has already been stated. These are detective novels. Rowling has confirmed this. The books are designed to allow readers to make informed guesses about what is going to happen next. There are different series of books where this would not be true. These particular books were all plotted before any were published. Rowling wrote the last chapter first. They are all written with care to ensure that the information given will lead to the final conclusion, whatever that is. As the series has progressed, the number of things which must happen has increased, and the scope for new unrelated things has reduced. Rowling has added to this, giving helpfull hints when she judges the time is right. Sometimes informing fans that a particular speculation is completely wrong.
It is totally wrong to say that we do not have a very good idea of what will be in the final book. But whether it is wrong or not, it is a fact, and a very noteable one, that this book has created more interest than any other in publishing history. Whatever way you argue about it, very few novels have companion books written about them by other authors, explaining the story while it is still incomplete. Or parodies written, similarly while the source book is unfinished. Wiki reports what is. Wiki fails as an encyclopedia if it does not include a properly balanced description of what is believed about the books. This is rather where 'Ignore all rules' comes in. I do not believe it is necessary to ignore any rules to report what is believed about book 7, but that rule simply states that it would be correct to do so in order to create better articles about HP.
(oh, I think I should point out that the English word 'may' means 'might', or 'could sometimes be' in the context of the rule which you cite about crystal balls and fiction. The rule states that in some circumstances writing about fiction which has not yet been released may be considered speculation. Happily, because of the huge amount of information already released telling us what will be in the final book, this in not such a situation) Sandpiper 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care about your fansite stuff. Think whatever you want, you won't change WP, and any edits that violate the rules will be reverted. Also don't care if you think you already know the content of book 7.
- However I have to insist that have not seen any literary analysis here. In literary analyses, you study the style, the narrative devices employed, etc. However you don't speculate on future and still unknown diegesis. I have classes of literary analyses at the university, and I know it absolutely doesn't correspond to such in-universe over-speculative material you guys try to impose. We don't speculate just for the sake of it, or for the pleasure of saying "hey, I was right in think this would happen after that !") we know the whole book and thus we're able to perfectly judge the relevance of particular words in relation to the end of the book, and again, it's not for the pleasure of speculating, but because such elements have a stylistic and narrative importance (notably prolepses). What you propose here is just speculation for speculation, centered on a still unknown diegesis, whithout any hint of analysis. No, taking an event in the diegesis and merely saying what may happen after is absolutely not analysis, I'm sorry. It's mere speculation, and we get scolded each time we do such in-universe over-speculative statements, such as "this character, after this, may have done this or that, had this other character said this....". This is absolutely irrelevant and simply isn't literary analysis. We study the diegesis only when it can be used to analyse the narrative discourse. And in any case, mere fans getting over-excited over unknow story elements doesn't correspond to any kind of "analysis". And please don't pretend these theories are on book 1-6 becasue that's completely wrong. The mirror of Erised as a horcrux, for example, cannot be found any where in the books. When we have read book 7, however, we will be able to analyse what elements from previous books were proleptic concerning the diegesis, but that's not possible now, and we are not allowed to speculate just for the sake of speculation (too much in-universe and non-notable). Folken de Fanel 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps in your classes you studied finished books? This one isn't, which is by and large precisely the reason everyone is interested in it. It is pretty absurd to write any article and deliberately leave out the information which most readers here will be seeking. As to erised and specifically the section you have repeatedly deleted, it is not written how I would have done it. Specifically, I would have used references to Lexicon, mugglenet etc discussing possible horcruxes... for reasons of balance. However,it is my judgement that although the section is flawed, the article is better with it than without. If I get time I may hunt out some more information to add. Sandpiper 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- But we don't study unfinished books (and we all have to read them to the end). Or at least, in the case of yet to be completed works, we just don't waste our time in trying to guess what will happen in the future books because that's really not the point. The diegesis for the sake of diegesis is really not a part of analysis.
- What you fail to understand is that if you don't know the end of the book, you're perfectly unable to find proleptic elements, which are relevant in detective stories, for example (proleptic elements are hints about what will happen in the future diegesis. How can you spot them if you don't know the rest ?). That's what is relevant in an analysis. Otherwise it's totally uninteresting.
- As to the "information the readers will be seeking", they'll find them in book 7, we're not here to write book 7 before its release.
- I repeat, analyses aren't diegesis (story) for the sake of diegesis.
- And please rememeber, no non-notable material from unreliable websites. We're not going to repeat the DH dispute.Folken de Fanel 00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps in your classes you studied finished books? This one isn't, which is by and large precisely the reason everyone is interested in it. It is pretty absurd to write any article and deliberately leave out the information which most readers here will be seeking. As to erised and specifically the section you have repeatedly deleted, it is not written how I would have done it. Specifically, I would have used references to Lexicon, mugglenet etc discussing possible horcruxes... for reasons of balance. However,it is my judgement that although the section is flawed, the article is better with it than without. If I get time I may hunt out some more information to add. Sandpiper 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a phrase,'with the benefit of hindsight'. Obviously, people have no choice when analysising most books but to do so in full knowledge of the ending. In this particular case, we are in the position of having to analse a book with the last 1/7 missing. For a single novel that might correspond to having the last 3 or 4 chapters missing? I think by that stage you would expect that an awful lot would be known. In fact, just about everything except the last dramatic twist and final unmasking of the villain. Just so here. There are some 2500 pages already printed to talk about, never mind the authors helpfull hints. I have absolutely no doubt that anyone finding a Shakespeare play with the last 1/7 missing would be spending lots of time analysing what was in the missing section. Just so here, that is what people have done. We just report it. Sandpiper 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, people have done just that: from a single allusion to a play named Love's Labour's Won, and the contents of the extant play Love's Labour's Lost, Shakespearean scholars (and others) have attempted at various points to reconstruct the play.
- The issue here, as I keep saying (and as Folken keeps ignoring) is not whether Granger, or anyone we publish in an article may or may not be right in their guesses, or analyses: hell, for all we know, Rowling was lying when she claimed Dumbledore was "all that is good"! The question is, rather, whether their opinion and statements are worth being included in the article: whether their input improves the quality of the article, whether they are notable and reliable enough to feature in the article. And, in my opinion, as little worth as that is, Granger is notable and reputable enough to have his opinion, and those opinions he fastens his name to, featured in these articles - provided they are clearly marked as 'expert' opinion rather than as canonical fact. The man is qualified in English Literature (which, I remind you, these books fall within the remit of); he has been quoted in articles, and appeared as a Harry Potter 'expert' on television; he has been published by 3rd party publishers (Looking for God in Harry Potter - Tyndale House). His opinion, then, is usable by wiki standards. More to the point for the purposes of Harry Potter, he is a pretty well-thought-of and respectable writer in HP - as even Folken acknowledged. And so, his work is worth being utilised in this article.
- Any questions? Michael Sanders 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- "In their relevant field". That's all. Granger is not know for having made accurate guesses on the plots of future HP books, and as I have undisputably proven, literary analyses don't include gratuitious speculations on future plots.
- Granger is not an expert in HP future plots (because this book is a compilation on theories about future plots, NOT a literary analysis). He's no more notable than anyone, neither are mere fans. Folken de Fanel 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- "In their relevant field". That's all. Granger is not know for having made accurate guesses on the plots of future HP books, and as I have undisputably proven, literary analyses don't include gratuitious speculations on future plots.
- Any questions? Michael Sanders 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
On "Ignore all rules"
- "Ignore all rules" doesn't exist. You've just invented it. If you, personally, don't want to respect the rules, that's your problem, and you'll get what you deserve for it. But don't try to act as if you were right because it's not the case. -
- Folken: WP:IAR. Read the rules. Michael Sanders 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, adding nonsensical and groundless fan speculations, from dubious self-published sources, is not going to improve Wikipedia, so we're not in a case of IAR here...Folken de Fanel 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Larry Sanger on "WP:Ignore" [2]:
- "I am the author of the "ignore all rules" rule on Wikipedia. Some months after I humorously proposed that, I rejected it because other people were taking it seriously. The intent behind the rule initially was that people should not worry about getting formatting right and getting every single detail of policy under their belts before they started contributing.
- It's OK if you don't bold the subject of the article. Someone else will fix it, and you will learn simply by being corrected. That is all I meant by "ignore all rules." I certainly didn't mean that you can behave like a jerk and no one will care."
- Folken de Fanel 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Happily others thought he had a good idea. I see the rule is approaching its fifth birthday. Sandpiper 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You have 'indisputably proven' nothing, Folken.
Granger is fairly renowned in HP - hardly a household name, but a pretty well known figure nonetheless. He's had his work published by independant publishers, he's spoken at events and given interviews; that makes him reputable enough for wiki-standards. And it is merely your opinion that he is not an expert (many, many people would disagree there).
And those sections of the article you object to contain not "predictions" of what will happen, but rather consideration of what has happened in the books thus far, and his opinion of the effects of this, or his opinions of what has so far been in the books that has the potential to prove relevant in the later books. Working on his hypothesis (commonly accepted) that Rowling writes according to patterns, and that relevant plot points in the books are signalled prior to the actual relevance.
Moreover, we are not interested in whether his analyses of the books will prove correct, as such; all we are interested in is whether his work is worth being used in encyclopaedia articles. Michael Sanders 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have undisputably proven everything, Michael. Contrary to you, I know what's really literary analysis.
- "In his relevant field". It doesn't matter if he's renowed for things that have nothing to do with our matter. Granger has not proven very accurate in guessing the future plots of HP books, so no reliability. Use his literary analyses where he compares HP with christianity if you want, because he was in his relevant field back then.
- When mere speculation is concerned, there's no reliability.
- You're trying to find different turns of phrases to say "this book blatantly speculates".
- But there is no analyses in WKD, only speculation. And speculations aren't the focus of Wikipedia. No OR, no self-published, no unreliable, only fact checked...Does this reminds you of anything...? Folken de Fanel 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- "I have undisputably proven everything, Michael. Contrary to you, I know what's really literary analysis." And the jaw drops. Tell me, 'Foken de Fanel', if you 'really know literary analysis', then why are you writing fan drivel on computer games and a kids book for wikipedia, instead of dashing off your latest text on the use of physical alienation versus pychological alienation in À la recherche du temps perdu?
- "Such an argumant attitude is not at all helpful to wikipedia", Michaelsanders. Folken de Fanel 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- "I have undisputably proven everything, Michael. Contrary to you, I know what's really literary analysis." And the jaw drops. Tell me, 'Foken de Fanel', if you 'really know literary analysis', then why are you writing fan drivel on computer games and a kids book for wikipedia, instead of dashing off your latest text on the use of physical alienation versus pychological alienation in À la recherche du temps perdu?
- Such an arrogant attitude is not at all helpful to wikipedia. As you would know, if you had the slightest conception of how to behave here.
- It's you who don't have the slightest conception of how to behave here. If you're not willing to debate anymore, but only to openly display your hatred towards me, you can leave. Folken de Fanel
- Such an arrogant attitude is not at all helpful to wikipedia. As you would know, if you had the slightest conception of how to behave here.
- To business:yes, Granger speculates. Well done. That's what literary critics do. They look at the evidence, at the text, and say, "these are the conclusions I draw from the text". As, of course, I am sure you already know, as a literature student. That's what Granger's book does: he, and the writers whose work he includes in his book, look at what has been in the text so far, and say "This is what I think this means." The issue is not whether the book is right or not, the issue is whether Granger is considered worthy enough to have his work referenced in this encyclopaedia. Which, I am sorry to say, you have not adequately disproved.
- No, literary critics don't speculate, they analyse, they criticize, but they don't speculate. They do not take a sentence and use it to guess what will come next. That's not literary analysis. If the simple fact of saying "well, now here's what I think will happen" is literary analisis, then a 5 year old kid can be concidered a literary analyst and equally be used as a source in the article. If you had only bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know that literary analysis focuses on the narrative devices, the way the author says things, not on future diegesis that the reader has no mean to know. Besides, you can't analyse what doesn't exists yet.Folken de Fanel
- To business:yes, Granger speculates. Well done. That's what literary critics do. They look at the evidence, at the text, and say, "these are the conclusions I draw from the text". As, of course, I am sure you already know, as a literature student. That's what Granger's book does: he, and the writers whose work he includes in his book, look at what has been in the text so far, and say "This is what I think this means." The issue is not whether the book is right or not, the issue is whether Granger is considered worthy enough to have his work referenced in this encyclopaedia. Which, I am sorry to say, you have not adequately disproved.
- And really, you need to read the rules properly. Rules regarding speculations and OR apply to editors, not to the sources we use: we cannot speculate, or write up our own hypotheses in articles here. Our sources can do so freely, so long as the writer is considered worth being used in the article. Michael Sanders 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- OR applies to editors and sources. You need to read the rules properly. Well, the writer you're using is not concidered being worth used in the article. Folken de Fanel 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- And really, you need to read the rules properly. Rules regarding speculations and OR apply to editors, not to the sources we use: we cannot speculate, or write up our own hypotheses in articles here. Our sources can do so freely, so long as the writer is considered worth being used in the article. Michael Sanders 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Literary critics do speculate, Folken. Sorry to burst your little bubble, but – yes, they do. Ask anyone. They look at what is said in Hamlet, and say, "How much do I think came from Ur-Hamlet?" They look at what flowers Ophelia hands around, consider the meaning of the flowers, and decide that Claudius was handed the rue. They speculate about the relationship between an Emily Dickinson poem and her life. They speculate about the effects a trip to Egypt had on Gustave Flaubert, they speculate about everything. Did Heathcliff rape Isabella, could Catherine and Heathcliff survive, to what extent s a book a product of its time, what was a character thinking, what might have happened. Critics do all that. We write it up here.
- I have no need to ask "anyone", I know, that's what I do, that's what recognized professors teach me to do. And I know that your idea of literary criticism and analysis is completely false...Folken de Fanel 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Literary critics do speculate, Folken. Sorry to burst your little bubble, but – yes, they do. Ask anyone. They look at what is said in Hamlet, and say, "How much do I think came from Ur-Hamlet?" They look at what flowers Ophelia hands around, consider the meaning of the flowers, and decide that Claudius was handed the rue. They speculate about the relationship between an Emily Dickinson poem and her life. They speculate about the effects a trip to Egypt had on Gustave Flaubert, they speculate about everything. Did Heathcliff rape Isabella, could Catherine and Heathcliff survive, to what extent s a book a product of its time, what was a character thinking, what might have happened. Critics do all that. We write it up here.
- Folken, you alone do not decide that a source is not worth being used in an article. And &ndashl; just for the record – it is rare for 5 year olds to write books of literary analysis. Michael Sanders 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- But I've never said me alone could decide this. The established rules of WP have done it for me. I'm only following them. As usual, if you don't like these rules, you can always create your own wiki where no one will contradict you. But as long as you are here, don't forget that you alone do not decide that a source is worth being used either...
- And just for the record, I don't care, you said literary analysis was only speculatig about unknown plot, then according to your logic a 5 years old kid is a literary analyst. If you realize your logic is not as perfect as you thought earlier, maybe you should drop it. Folken de Fanel 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The established rules are quite clear: published sources, provided the author is reputable enough, are considered acceptable. And a five year old would - under normal circumstances - be incapable of describing the reasoning being his or her assertions: hence, not an analysis, merely a hunch. Explain the reasoning - analysis. Surely your esteemed professors have 'learned' you that? Michael Sanders 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The established rules are quite clear also: self-published source, above all when the author is not reputable enough, and is not in his relevant field, and when the source is not fact-checked and not previously published by third party sources are concidered unacceptable.
- A five year old would be capable of describing his reasoning.
- Analysis is not explaining speculations. Analysis is analysing. And you analyse published material, you can't analyse something which doesn't exists, so WKD isn't analysis since it's doesn't analyse anything and since it doesn't even concerns published material. Folken de Fanel 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with michael, and repeat the point that secondary sources are expected to speculate about primary ones, and we report it. Now, there is a caveat which argues that sources making wild claims should be treated with more caution than those making reasonable claims, but I have to say that all these sources about HP make very reasonable claims. By and large, all they claim is that their suggestions are possible. An exceptionally reasonable claim. On the whole, the sources are only used to demonstrate that there is debate on a subject. It really could be utter drivel, and we can still reasonably report that there is a debate, and what about. But as i say, it is not unreasonable speculation. The proper course, if you don't like what Granger has to say, is to find someone else who has written on the subject who disagrees with him, and cite them as opposed to Granger. Sandpiper 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I have to repeat that self-published sources can only be allowed under certain conditions, such as fact-checking, author in his relevant field, etc, to which this source just doesn't corresponds.
- To report that there are speculations, you just have to find an external source mentioning it. Citing a self-published source and developing its theories is too much POV. It doesn't offer any detachment, and since its self-published we have no notion of its notability, since the only intermediate between the source and Wiki is the contributor. That the source would be "notable" is the contributor's own opinion, the real notability is when the source is cited by other, external sources, which are not the contributor.
- And for the last time, it's not about whether Granger is right or wrong. It's that we cannot use that source. Folken de Fanel 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)