Talk:Horcrux/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Latest Removal

Let me say this clearly. There is no consensus for removal of that text. The consensus, if anything, is for more information. The only people favouring removal is yourself Folken, and an anonymous IP, whose opinions don't count in such matters (because of the risk of sock-puppetry - for all we know, 129.2.106.74 is you); Sandpiper appears to agree with the general inclusion of fan ideas and analyses from wider sources; I still support the general inclusion of sourced information from books, with a possibility of websites if it can be agreed; T-dot, like a sensible moderator, has voiced no affirmative views for or against. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and your blatant kickinhg off of hostilities again bodes very ill for you again. Michael Sanders 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this text comes too late. In the future, justify any of your acts before doing them.

There is of course consensus. It was established in the Deathly Hallows article that fan speculation, even if sourced from fan websites (which have been established as unreliable, not-notable) was not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia and couldn't be used as a source.

It has been established that the book "Who Killed Dumbledore" was equivalent to fan websites (because it was written by fans from these fan websites), thus the WKD book as been established as not suitable for Wikipedia.

Even T-dot has admitted that "projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice".

And you failed to provide any justification as to why WKD should be concidered as a reliable source. You don't agree with me and anonymous, ok, but besides merely being opposed to us, you have said nothing else, you have not written any valid argumentation.

Then, saying than anonymous do not have a right to express themselves on Wikipedia, and bad faith (and groundless) accusations that any anonymous here is necessarily my sock-puppet doesn't concern our issue. At best, it proves that you are very agressive and scornful, that you are willing to ignore any other opinion than your own, etc.

It has already been established that WKD was not analyses but speculations.

There is obvious consensus, and your hostile behavior is very bad for you.Folken de Fanel 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Any way you have absolutely no reason to complain because WKD is still mentionned in the article. It's a very good compromise. So except if you're here only to create fights between contributors, and creating revert wars just for the sake of it, or claim the ownership of the article by preventing anyone to improve it, I can't possibly see why you would still complain. Folken de Fanel 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a book, written by a man who has a good claim to expertise in the subject. There was nothing said on the Deathly Hallows talk page about books, and no clear decision about websites. And, frankly, you on your own is not any sort of consensus. So that's all I am going to say today. Rest assured that I will be putting the text back to the unmeddled version tomorrow at 18:16 precisely. And then we will discuss this again like adults. You attempting to suggest that your POV is a consensus will simply cause more trouble. Michael Sanders 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a book, written by a man who has a good claim to expertise in the subject. There was nothing said on the Deathly Hallows talk page about books, and no clear decision about websites. And, frankly, you on your own is not any sort of consensus. So that's all I am going to say today. Rest assured that I will be putting the text back to the unmeddled version tomorrow. And then we will discuss this again like adults. You attempting to suggest that your POV is a consensus will simply cause more trouble. Michael Sanders 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a book, published and partly written by a man who is not an "expert" in the subject (John Granger has not proven particularly notable for guessing plots of future HP books in the past). Because the subject of WKD is speculations about book 7, and unless I'm mistaken, Granger has not read book 7.

It is a book, mainly written by fans from fan websites, who are not experts on anything and who have not read book 7 either.

On the DH page, it was clearly said that fan websites content was not allowed, and WKD is fan website content.

I'm of course not on my own.

First, you won't revert anything before you have provided enough justification for it. Please be assured you'll face the consequence of any blind and unjustified revert you'll make.

If you want to discuss, do it before doing anything else. And if you want to discuss, find valid arguments. Bad faith accusations and insults, and erroneous qualifications of the WKD book won't be allowed anymore. Folken de Fanel 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read Michael's version over and over, and there's not a single hint of analysis. This matter is settled, WKD is not an analyses book, merely a speculation book.Folken de Fanel 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

references, useless page numbers

Why is this article citing page numbers of the US books, which are totally useless to UK readers? A US page reference can be 150 pages off compared to a UK one. That's why most websites use chapter references as a workable compromise. Also note, I have come across at least one example where the same company is producing different versions of the same book with different page numbering. Sandpiper 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I prefer to quote books by chapter number ... which does not change between editions and versions. Page numbering often depends on font sizes, chapter and paragraph styling, and use of illustrations. The US Scholastic edition is available in at least two font sizes: regular and large print. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules, anyone?

well how extraordinary. Folken just reverted this article to his version six times in 24 hours. Please stop doing that. 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When you'll stop reverting to add OR and fancruft...Folken de Fanel 00:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, why not report him to WP:AN/3RR? John Reaves (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because he would have to justify his own reverts, or because it would probably lead to another block for Michaelsanders (or maybe Sandpiper himself, since his disruptive reverts are also concerned)? All the reverts I have made were necessary, in order to repair the near-vandalism reverts by Sandpiper (reverts without even attempting to justify them, just for the sake of creating yet another fight with me and for the sake of provocation).

And you, John Reaves, why not leaving me alone instead of tracking me throughout wikipedia in order to write mean comments about me? Folken de Fanel 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all subject to the reviewing admin, not a given result. It's kind of hard not to see you considering the ridiculous amount of edit warring you do to articles that have been on my watchlist way longer than you've been editing them. John Reaves (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see there is a first time for everything, and I have taken your advice. I also see why there is a difficulty with this process, it took me an hour. Still, perhaps next time I shall be be quicker. Sandpiper 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And so to begin again

Right then. I am going to put the article back to the version in place before Folken decided he alone represented consensus. And we are going to calmly discuss the issue properly, and not attempt to escalate it to conflict by removing it again, unless there is clear will of editors to do so. Michael Sanders 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK well then ... might I now suggest that if this is to be the chosen way of presenting Granger's work (and potentially other's published and reliably-sourced materials), that we might want to find a way to balance Granger's Horcrux theories with some counter-theories, perhaps available from other sources. That would represent the "Criticisms" part of that "Theories and Criticisms" segment, and avoid a WP:NPOV argument if the WP:RS arguments dissipate. It seems to me that the Scarcrux theory has been shot down repeatedly on various grounds, as were some of the others mentioned. The opal necklace, for example, and assuming that is the one being discussed by Granger, was rather thoroughly examined after the Katie Bell incident, it seems to me that Dumbledore, who was searching the countryside for Horcrux clues, would have spotted that one right away as soon as it arrived at Hogwarts for inspection. In any case, if we can keep the alt-Horcrux section neutral and balanced, then it will be more defendable, I think. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! This is exactly the sort of thing that was shot down in the first place, by consensus. The consensus was that only horcruxes established by the books 1-6 could be included precisely because the doing anything else would open the floodgates, and everybody's private speculations (which range wildly over all kinds of nonsense) would have to be included. The article would quickly become an incoherent mess of worthless and soon-to-be-outdated speculation.

The scarcrux theory has been proposed and shot down many times---on fan websites. The mirror of Erised has been proposed and shot down many times---on fan websites. These theories are by no means established within the fanbase, as can easily be seen by looking up the appropriate editorials (and comments) on fan websites, and they have no special status except as wild speculation. As someone who is familiar with the debates on the subject, including these kinds of materials is simply ludicrous.

This leads into the crux of the problem. As someone who is familiar with the editorials and discussions, and who has read the websites of the people who helped author the book WKD, I can say with certainty that WKD has no special authority within the fanbase or the world at large. It is simply an extension of the discussion which has taken place on all the fan websites. However, Michaelsanders has been using the simple fact that these theories have been published to give them a special status which they don't deserve. The fact that the book is self-published simply reflects this basic problem.

Thus I agree that if we include Granger's book, we must include rebuttals. This is absolutely necessary because there are rebuttals aplenty; the conclusions are fiercely contested. However, these rebuttals are mostly on fan websites, because that's the level where Granger's work exists. The fact that he has convinced you that Granger's work is a decent source that must be discussed on Wikipedia, and that people who disagree must also have published in order for their disagreements to have merit, is amazing and wrong. 129.2.106.74

Wait a second - I haven't been convinced of anything. I meant to clearly emphasize the point that IF we are to include Granger's published theories in the article(s), THEN we probably ought to balance them with countertheories and rebuttals, from similarly qualified sources in order to remain neutral. I'm not convinced that the "reliability" of the Granger publications is settled either way: there seems to be an ongoing, intractable dispute that may require intervention through formal mediation or even arbitration to settle once and for all. My agenda here is to ask the questions and lead us to maintain high quality articles, not to push either a pro- or anti-Granger position. Apologies for confusing you on this matter. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. If we can find other sources of the same standard arguing against the points currently raised in the article, or making new points, then by all means they should be included. Does anyone have any suggestions (e.g. Scarcrux - if it has been repeatedly shot down, it should be pretty easy to source refutations of the suggestion that the scar is a horcrux). Michael Sanders 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd remind the IP that I am not the one who insists that we cannot use online sources. Find any rebuttal of the claims in WKD - online or published - and I would see no harm in including it. However, the point remains that certain editors whom we all know so well insist that we cannot use online sources, because they are - in his view - unreliable; whereas WKD, and other published sources, are by wikipedia standards of inclusion incontrovertible.

Furthermore, the consensus in this article was that we used only comparisons or suggestions that could be sourced - e.g. compare horcruxes to the One Ring only if we could find a source making the comparison. I don't believe any stipulations about the quality of the source (provided, of course, that it was not a forum).

As for the question of being up-to-date: the whole point of wikipedia is that, as soon as information becomes out-of-date or irrelevant, it can be swiftly removed. The impending publication of the new book is no reason to make these articles any less thorough whilst we wait. Michael Sanders 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to read the comment above by 129 saying that the notion that harry/harry's scar is a horcrux had been repeatedly shot down. To say this suggests to me ignorance of the fan debate, rather than familiarity. I suggest looking at the mugglenet forum here [1]. The discussion thread on 'assuming Harry is a horcrux' is on version 5 (because of excessive number of posts), and is pinned at the top of the list of topics because of its considered importance. I was rather surprised that it had been removed from this article, because frankly it is a widely held and highly credible theory. The debate there has been split, because of repeated wrangling between people who vehemently believe and those who similarly aggresively disbelieve, so there are separate threads for debate amongst those who believe, and wish to consider the implications, and those who support other horcrux theories. That is as one might expect. The point though is that this is a widely respected theory, considered sufficiently important to place it at the top of the list for consideration. We should be doing so also, although the other thread, on other suggestions for horcruxes is also worth a read. I don't doubt they have some editorials/articles discussing this subject and outlining the main contenders.

Some time last year, I think, I classed myself as a sceptic on the subject of Harry being a horcrux, but I settled down for a long read of forums on the subject and came away convinced it was a credible suggestion. The big problem we have with literal evidence in the books is that everything is from Harry's perspective. So never mind whether other characters know the truth of a particular point, we only ever get to see what they are willing to tell Harry. So I had to concede the argument that if anyone, say Dumbledore, really believed that Harry was a horcrux, their first difficulty would be telling a child that the only immediately obvious way to dispose of Voldemort would be to kill Harry first. Hmm. Now, I'm reasonably convinced that if it turns out Harry is a horcrux, some means will be found to deal with it, but from the perspective of our chief horcrux hunter, this would very much be something to put off disclosing to Harry until some cast iron solution had been found. Then, Dumbledore does express a view that Voldemort had intended to create a horcrux on the occasion of Harry's death, where we all know Voldemort's spells went somewhat pear shaped. It is clearly stated that a living being can indeed be a horcrux, and Harry has this mysterious and frankly unexplained link with Voldemort's mind, not to mention aquiring a slice of his magic powers. How did that happen, exactly? There is quite enough evidence to make this idea credible, and that is why people give it serious consideration. Sandpiper 23:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Having various theories developed and eventually shot down doesn't change the fact that the consensus of the article is being ignored. "No theories". That's all.

If we begin to publish unreliable theories from such bad sources as WKD, nothing will prevent future users to publish their own thoughts directly.

Because with the inclusion of WKD, the "reliable sources" rule has been violated. Who could then oppose to a violation of OR rule in this conditions ? Any fan in the world is as "reliable" as Granger, thus what could we possibly say to someone willing to post his own theories ? Nothing. Folken de Fanel 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so childish. Have you had a book published, Folken? Or have I? Has Sandpiper, or T-dot, or the anon IP, or any editor here?

No? Then we can't post our ideas, because we can't source them. Granger, on the other hand, has had his work published, and is well-known as an expert in Harry Potter. That satisfies wiki rules. Michael Sanders 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

Just to inform all those involved in this debate that I have reported User:Folken de Fanel at WP:AN/3RR, since he has attempted, once again, to remove sourced statements from this article that are currently the subject of this debate, in his attempts to precipitate a full conflict again, in the process breaking the 3 revert rule: he claims to have consensus on his side, despite the fact that any consensus seen in this sparsely attended debate thus far has been against his viewpoint, and despite the fact that myself and Sandpiper were both clearly opposed to his most recent actions – which, given that this issue is still being discussed, with no clear endpoint at present, were a gross violation of all conventions, particularly since he attempted to claim that his flagrant breaking of the rules was due to the reversion of vandalism. I trust that no other editors currently involved in this discussion condone his actions; given that the controversial data in the article is sourced (the question being whether it is appropriately sourced), it is a simple violation of all wikipedia policy and etiquette to remove it unless there is either clear will to do so or no opposition to doing so – neither of which are the case here. I trust that all other editors here will condemn Folken's actions, rather than emulating them, since such behaviour (I am sure you will all agree) is profoundly unhelpful to the solution of this discussion and the running of this article. Michael Sanders 00:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

BS. Have you looked at what I have removed ?

It was pure OR, that had nothing to do with WKD and which was here way before you created your little mess with it.

Through these debates, guys, you seem to have overestimated yourselves and your opinions...Whatever you think, original research is still forbidden on Wikipedia and not subjected to consensus or whatever (besides, I have not seen a single attempt at discussion from you or Sandpiper in this talk page, which mean there was no opposition whatsoever...reverts being only the expression of your hatred for me).

Besides, Michaelsanders, you were specifically forbidden to use such theories in the section which specifically talks about Dumbledore's speculations in book 6. Since I don't remember Dumby talking about the locket being possibly hidden at 12 Grimmauld Place, either you give me page number in book 6 or you just drop this.

As far as template vandalism is concerned, well, WKD is a self-published source, whether you like it or not, and the use of such sources goes with this templates, which illustrates the ongoing debate on this talk page. Removing it is lying to the readers and hiding them the fact that this source is highly disputed... Folken de Fanel 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, please restrain yourself from profanities. And please, please, rad the rules. Original Research, within wikipedia, is purely the product of an editors own efforts, with no traceable source. If it has a source, it isn't OR. More to the point, you know perfectly well that you should not have been attempting to start up a dispute again by removing the contentious information without any consensus to do so. Moreover, the source only appears to be highly disputed by you - so a template would not, in any case, be justified. If it can be sourced, it is subjected to consensus (i.e. general agreement: that is what "consensus" means, Folken). You also appear to be ignoring the strong arguments against you by both myself and Sandpiper. Good for you. That'll help, won't it. As will, of course, whining personal remarks that we all hate you. Folken, the page is now protected with the particularly contentious section included. So you need to start discussing, instead of trying to force your will on this article. Michael Sanders 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I protected the page because it's a hot edit war where people are talking through edit summaries instead of trying to work things out. Take a deep breath. And talk this out here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

article structure

Ok here's what I think. It is reasonable to structure the section 'possible remaining horcruxes' as a list of specifically those suggested by Dumbledore in the book, and leave out specultaion from this section. However, the title needs changing because it is not 'possible horcuxes', it is only those suggested by Dumbledore.

The section called theories and criticisms needs re- structuring.

It should start with a para on RAB, the black house and the locket possibly being at Grimmauld place in OOP. This is an established theory which first appeared about 1 day after publication of HBP. The para should mention lexicon, mugglent, etc references as well as Granger, and I have another for you, David Langford, 'The end of Harry Potter', published by Gollanz 2006. I am happy to see that Langford already has the acolade of an article about him on wiki as an established writer both of fiction and as a journalist and critic on the subject of SF.

It should have a paragraph on Harrys scar=horcrux. Again, this is an established theory started rapidly after publication. same three refs.

There should be a further para explaining about other suggestions. I note Langford also comments that the mirror of erised had clawed feet, and argues this might be a link with Ravenclaw. He goes on for a couple of pages about Harry, and a couple about the locket.

Folken. Please note. You may argue that these comments are not widely held, but it is simply not true. I have a copy of Langfords book by chance. michael has Grangers. There are lots of others, and I am sure they also mention these things. They could hardly not, since they are extremely widespread. Personally, I had in the past seen their omission from this article as exactly that. A failing where the article does not report what it should, but I did not see it as sufficiently important to argue. However, since you have made a point of this, the information properly belongs here. As I posted before, if you wish to dismiss these theories, find a source which argues they are incorrect. I doubt you will find one. But as you no doubt appreciate, even a source arguing they are wrong implicitly acknowledges that they are widely debated and thus noteable and worthy of inclusion. Sandpiper 09:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There will not be a single ref to fansites.

Don't make notability claims that aren't true. A book that the author published himself is not and cannot be notable.

Widely debated is not notable. It must be reported in notable and external sources (ie not fansites, not threads in message boards, not books self-published by fans).

It's not whether the theories are correct or not, it's that WP isn't made for speculation (it is not a crystal ball). Folken de Fanel 11:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper's idea sounds excellent – the more sources for the article, the better, and a fixing up of the wonky bits of the article would do well. And of course, we can also refer to what has been said on fansites, provided we source it from the respective books (Granger's book mentions fansite debate a bit).

Folken, if it's been reported in a published source, and the writer/editor/publisher of that source is notable enough to be considered an expert in the subject and has had work published by third-parties before, the source is suitable for wikipedia inclusion. That's what the rules say. I suggest you read them. Both Granger and Langford have been published before by 3rd parties (I don't believe Gollancz is a personal printing press anyway, so it is likely that Langford had this book published according to conventional form), and are considered experts in Harry Potter; therefore, they are suitable for inclusion in the article.

No, the writer/editor/publisher of that source is not notable enough to be considered an expert in the subject because he has not proven particularly accurate in predicting the future plots of HP books, since that's the subject of WKD. Granger is a literary professor and a christian, thus the only subject he can be concidered an expert is literary devices and parallelisms with christianity, which aren't the subject of the book.

Read the rules, the source must have been previously published by third-party editors, which isn't the case.Folken de Fanel

His accuracy in predicting events is not relevant, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: your apparent attitude, that we can include a writer if s/he has proven accurate at predicting plot points, but can't if s/he hasn't, is against the rules, which allow us to include any data from experts, but which, in the case of articles on novels, expects us to firmly distinguish from canonical certainty - effectively, we have to say, "this is what such and such thinks about so and so." Your attitude, however, is flawed. Michael Sanders 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And, finally, speculation as disallowed by wikipedia is speculation by us. If it is being said by a notable person that "in his opinion, such and such will happen", we can write in the article that "in so-and so's opinion, such and such will happen." That's how wikipedia works. Michael Sanders 13:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It works if the source is valid and not self-published, which isn't the case. Folken de Fanel 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I am totally bemused by your attitude towards websites which debate and explain Hp, Folken. What do you have against them? Did one of them do something to upset you? They are widely established, been running for years and are supported by Rowling. I would have to say, they taught me what I know on the subject. They have taught many others too. Are you deliberately trying to suppress information on this subject? Sandpiper 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I am totally bemused by your attitude towards me, why don't you want to understand I'm merely following the rules and that fansites aren't covered by them ?

Because, as I understand the rules, you do not follow them. Sandpiper

Besides, don't even try to accuse me of anything. Fansites aren't all-mighty, and Rowling has not approved theories.

but she has, see her recommendations on her website re reliable fansites. She has repeatedly encouraged fans to speculate about her work. Sandpiper 00:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk about information because it is not. Folken de Fanel 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Information is anything with meaningful content. Both books referenced are informative about HP. The websites undoubtedly are, I judge by the increase in my own understanding of the subject. Sandpiper

proposed replacement theories

I suggest the following as rewrite of the current theories and criticism section (Sandpiper 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)):

Use of questionable sources, too much OR anyway (and weasel words won't help here). Folken de Fanel 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not questionable (in what way are they?), no OR or weasel wording. Michael Sanders 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are questionable (in that they are groundless speculations and attempts at reading a crystal ball), there is OR and weasel wording, read carefully. Folken de Fanel 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No Folken. it is YOUR OPINION that they are groundless speculation. Your opinion is OR and is not includeable in wiki. We quote what they say, whether it is groundless or not. (though in my opinion it is not groundless and accurately reflects public opinion) Sandpiper 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No Sandpiper, it is YOUR OPINION (see ? I can shout also...) that they are not groundless. That's what you believe, and we don't care about this. Prove they are not groundless. Give us a manuscript of book 7 and let's compare.

My opinion is not OR (because the rules are not OR). Your theories are OR. Don't talk about things you don't know. Go and read the rules first.

You don't quote what they say because it's unreliable.Folken de Fanel 10:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, what is it that you don't understand here? Your suggestion that we compare Granger's and Langford's work to the manuscript of book 7 demonstrates that your only interest is in crystalballing - you think that we should be posting any old rubbish, provided it conforms to what you think will happen in book 7. Whereas, wiki rules state that you can't do that. What you have to do is report what the experts are saying, regardless of whether you consider them to be accurate or not. And if there is published evidence that the analyses/speculations/thoughts of Granger et al are wrong, or published criticism of their accuracy, you quote that, too. Wikipedia does not allow its editors to apply their personal biases; it merely demands that you present the best texts available to create the best article possible. Which is what some of us are trying to do. Michael Sanders 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How dare you say such stupid things ? It really the proof that's you who don't understand anything. I have no "interest" in crystalballing, since that's what I'm removing from the articles. Theories and things that are groundless, subjective, POV-oriented (in short, all that is forbidden on WP).

I have personally no interest for HP7 theories on Wikipedia. Whatever I think or expect about book 7 stays in my head, and doesn't influence my edits on WP, unlike you.

If you want to be blocked for diffamation, your on the right way. Quote me saying that I would like to "post any old rubbish, provided it conforms to what you think will happen in book 7". Show proofs of that in my edits. Show me how the material I remove would reflect what I think about book 7. Show me how removing blatant OR and leaving only what's in the books would reflect what I think about book 7 ?

How do you know what I think about book 7? Tell me precisely what I'm supposed to think about book 7.

Unless you provide enough proof for all this, you're going to get into serious troubles.

It's the last time I say it: If you're not here to discuss the content of the articles, but merely to bully me and to use every single occasion to openly display your personal hatred towards me, if you continue to forget there are articles to care about here and instead you use every possible content debate to insult me, you will be blocked for "No personal attack" violation. And just for the record, trying to reverse the situation and trying to accuse me of YOUR fault and YOUR policy violations, just because you can't find anything constructive which would prove your point in the debate, won't help things, it will only make them worse, for YOU.

If Granger's speculation don't correspond to Wikipedia standards, insulting me won't change anything.

And if you can't stand that I "dare" to disagree with you, then go and create your own Wiki, you'll be free to post any speculation you want without opposition. As John Reaves suggested you, you can go to the Harry Potter Wiki where OR and "fancruft" are perfectly acceptable, according to him. Folken de Fanel 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Theories

In Book 5, "a heavy locket that none of them could open" was mentioned in passing by members of the Order of the Phoenix while cleaning the former Black family home at 12, Grimmauld Place. The locket was thrown away along with many other unusual magical objects. One former resident of the Black house was Regulus Black, who is one of the leading candidates for R.A.B., who took Voldemort's horcrux locket. (Rowling was asked on publication day of 'Half-blood Prince' whether RAB was Regulus Black, but only gave an obscure answer). The horcrux locket fits the general description of the locket at Grimmauld Place, but no mention was made of any specific identifying features (for example, it was not noted as having an 'S' on it). Mundungus Fletcher was seen in Half-blood Prince in possession of items 'liberated' from the Black house, while the family House Elf, Kreacher was also attempting to keep souvenirs for himself. Forum posters noted after the release of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince that if the Grimmauld Place locket is the Horcrux, then, being an heirloom of Salazar Slytherin, it may require Harry to speak parseltongue to open it.

A theory which has received considerable attention is that Harry's scar is a horcrux. Dumbledore told Harry he believed it was Voldemort's intention to create a horcrux on the occasion of Harry's death at Godrics Hollow. Voldemort's spells somehow went wrong, and Harry famously survived with his lightning bolt scar, but also sharing some of Voldemort's magical powers and with an unexplained link between their two minds. Dumbledore also confirmed that living creatures may be horcruxes. According to many fans, and a number of published works including Granger and Langford, the explanation may be that Voldemort's failed spell caused Voldemort to die, and Harry to become the horcrux. This theory has also been tied into questions of whether Harry can survive the final novel, since the only two horcruxes disarmed so far were both destroyed. Harry's scar is "a mystery that is central to the series", and which has been described in the novels by Harry as "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?"

In Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? (editor John Granger), several other potential horcruxes are suggested. These include objects such as the Mirror of Erised (in keeping with a theme of reflection and mirror images in Rowling's work), Tom Riddle's award or medal (these bearing his name and testifying to his glory), the goblin-made tiara belonging to Molly Weasley's Aunt Muriel (since it would symbolise Voldemort's desire to be a supreme ruler), or the cursed opal necklace (opals and ravens have certain features in common). Langford also suggests the mirror of Erised, observing that its 'clawed feet' suggest the eagle symbol of Ravenclaw.

The ‘sixth horcrux’ is suggested as being a relic of Gryffindor that was transformed (possibly a wand) or Voldemort's own wand (as a symbol of his own power, and—because it contains a phoenix feather—of immortality).

Comments

One objection: "The horcrux locket fits the general description of the locket at Grimmauld Place" ... perhaps this is just a matter of wordsmithing, but there is no "general description of the locket" found at the Black residence. All we know is it was "heavy" and that nobody could open it. We do have some basic descriptive information of the Slytherin locket from the information segments retrieved in the Pensieve (heavy, golden, Slytherin's mark - an ornate, serpentine S). In any case it is a significant leap to make the claim as written, and it implies that we know something that we do not, in my view. I would suggest deleting that misleading statement. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest referencing the descriptions from book 5 & 6: i.e. similarities between the horcrux locket (described as ... [ref HBP]) and the Grimmauld Place locket (described as ... [ref OotP]) have been noted as similar [ref Granger and Langford]. That way, the burden of mistakes is placed on them (and thus not wikipedia's problem), not us (which would be our problem). However, it all looks a distinct improvement, and I'd happily go along with it. Michael Sanders 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The only "similarities" between the two lockets, in closely examining HBP (ch. 20, p. 437, US Scholastic) and OoTP (ch. 6, p. 116, Ibid), are the words heavy and locket. That's it. If Granger and/or Langford imply there are more "similarities" in the "general description of the locket(s)" mentioned in the books or elsewhere, then either we would need to see the canonical proof, or else it does not bode well for their credible reliability. It approaches a fabricated (and false) mis-quote. Again, I am not sure we can sustain that statement, however we attribute it. Posting it, and then blaming Granger for it, seems a little shifty to me. Just my view though. Comments? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll get back to you on that tomorrow (and would simply have left this until tomorrow; however, last time I did that, someone read it as lack of opposition to himself. Michael Sanders 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if cited from the book, the descriptions are OR (synthesis of published material to advance a position). User:Folken de Fanel (corrected by Sandpiper 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no OR there, or synthesis, merely saying what the sources say. In what way is there synthesis or OR? Michael Sanders 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is OR, there is synthesis. The source doesn't say the horcrux is in Grimmault Place. Folken de Fanel 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know, have you a copy? Langford does say that. Sandpiper 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Granger's book says, in essence, that the two share similarities, there is established plot relevance between the DEs and Grimmauld, and thus it would make sense as a horcrux. Not a prediction, merely good, honest, source-based analysis. Michael Sanders 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ican't say what Granger says as I havn't read it, but Langford goes through the whole explanation as I detailed here re Harry and scar, and locket at Grimmauld place. What Langford says is that Most readers who have been following the saga closely have convinced themselves that the truth of the matter is roughly as follows..[stuff about RAB]..The real Horcrux was then 'hidden' in plain view among the Black family's assorted oddments I'm quite happy to simply say a heavy unopenable locket was found there, but maybe Granger said something more precise. Maybe Langford did elsewhere:he wanders a bit coming back to the same thing. Sandpiper 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In his main section on this Langford simply mentions the GP locket and states it is widely accepted that it is the same one. Sandpiper 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't care about what you think about what these people say (and there is no analysis). OR is OR.Folken de Fanel 10:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think most of the stuff in Langfords book is original. He says so himself. However, he has made a collection of what is believed about the books and organised it into a helpfull guide to understanding the series. If you fail to understand why this is exactly and precisely the sort of thing which wiki does include, then I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by arguing here. You yourself have repeatedly argued that wiki quotes sourced material. This stuff is, frankly, blindingly obvious, and the only reason we are belabouring this is because you are making a point of insisting upon sources. The main reason there is not much more about this immediately available on the web is that it is old news. Consensus on this amongst fans was reached within a month of HBP being published. Sandpiper 11:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

in light of the above, I suggest for the first para this:

In Book 5, "a heavy locket that none of them could open" was mentioned in passing by members of the Order of the Phoenix while cleaning the former Black family home at 12, Grimmauld Place. The locket was thrown away along with many other unusual magical objects. One former resident of the Black house was Regulus Black, who is one of the leading candidates for R.A.B., who took Voldemort's horcrux locket. (Rowling was asked on publication day of 'Half-blood Prince' whether RAB was Regulus Black, but only gave an obscure answer ). Many readers who have followed the series have concluded that this locket is the real horcrux, even though no mention was made of any specific identifying features (for example, it was not noted as having an 'S' on it). Mundungus Fletcher was seen in Half-blood Prince in possession of items 'liberated' from the Black house, while the family House Elf, Kreacher was also attempting to keep souvenirs for himself. Forum posters noted after the release of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince that if the Grimmauld Place locket is the Horcrux, then, being an heirloom of Salazar Slytherin, it may require Harry to speak parseltongue to open it.

• I think the list of refs needs tidying up as it keeps repeating the same thing put different pages. This may need to wait until we put it into the article, because it is hard to sort them out with multiole versions all her on the same page. Sandpiper 11:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything from "In book 5" to "Voldemort's horcrux locket", and "Mundungus" to "for himself" needs to be sourced, otherwise it's synthesis to advance a point...

"Forum posters" ? Not notable.

"paresltongue to open..." ? Not notable.Folken de Fanel 11:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. I could write ref..Langford..ref against every single sentence clause, but that would be stupid. Langford is stating the claim that it is the same locket. Any other information is merely there to make it clear which locket we are talking about, and indeed precisely which passage in which book it comes up. Langford also goes on to discuss Kreacher and Mundungus, and the likelihood that Mundungus may now have the locket. Sandpiper 12:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does.

And yes you are going to reference evry single line you write because WP is not here to publish your own theories.

I repeat, everything from "In book 5" to "Voldemort's horcrux locket", and "Mundungus" to "for himself" needs to be sourced, otherwise it's synthesis to advance a point...

"Forum posters" ? Not notable.

"paresltongue to open..." ? Not notable.Folken de Fanel 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[on a side note, I'm leaving on holidays for the next 3 days, so please don't take my absence of comments for a silent approval of your proposed edits.]

• "Many readers who have followed the series have concluded..." constitutes weasel wording and would be difficult to sustain. How many is "Many" - nine? Millions? If it is "a majority" then we would need some stats to back it up - eg: "67% according to a poll by Reuters". If it is simply large numbers, relative to the general readership or a special class of fans, then we still need some numerical basis. If it is a direct quote from Granger or Langford, then we need to say so: "According to Langford et al, many readers in the HP fan base have concluded...". Just trying to keep it tight here. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to reprasing so that it says: David langford argues that most readers have concluded, which if you note the exact quote from him I posted above, he does. Sandpiper 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3rd revision, opening para

In Book 5, "a heavy locket that none of them could open" was mentioned in passing by members of the Order of the Phoenix while cleaning the former Black family home at 12, Grimmauld Place. The locket was thrown away along with many other unusual magical objects. One former resident of the Black house was Regulus Black, who is one of the leading candidates for R.A.B., who took Voldemort's horcrux locket. (Rowling was asked on publication day of 'Half-blood Prince' whether RAB was Regulus Black, but only gave an obscure answer ). According to Langford et al, many readers who have followed the series have concluded that this locket is the real horcrux, even though no mention was made of any specific identifying features (for example, it was not noted as having an 'S' on it). Mundungus Fletcher was seen in Half-blood Prince in possession of items 'liberated' from the Black house, while in Order of the Phoenix the family House Elf, Kreacher, was also attempting to keep souvenirs for himself. Forum posters noted after the release of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince that if the Grimmauld Place locket is the Horcrux, then, being an heirloom of Salazar Slytherin, it may require Harry to speak parseltongue to open it.

From "In book 5" to " Voldemort's horcrux locket", text needs to be sourced, otherwise it's OR. Folken de Fanel 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is sourced, it says 'in book 5'. If you mean, that Regulus was RAB, then read the mugglenet interview and what Rowling said, when asked. She does not exactly confirm he is definitely RAB, but she certainly says he is a leading candidate. Are you saying she is a bad source??? But yes, we can rephrase the sentence: 'According to Langford et al, many readers who have followed the series conclude that RAB is Regulus Black, and that the locket found at his family home is the horcrux, .....' to make it clear that the inference of identity is also sourced to him. Sandpiper 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks perfectly fine to me: so long as everything is carefully attributed, it can hardly be complained about. Michael Sanders 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then , because there's no attribution from "In book 5" to " Voldemort's horcrux locket" (if the book says the locket horcrux is hidden at Grimmault Place, please provide precise quote, page and line ref), text needs to be reworded, otherwise it's OR. Folken de Fanel 08:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. The first time the paragraph says that the locket at Grimmauld place is tha horcrux is after it says 'according to Langford et al...'. The paragrah introduces the things we are talking about quite factually. It then goes on to explain why we have mentioned them, because Langford said so. That is what it says. Sandpiper 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then read the rules, more particularly WP:SYN.

The first time the paragraph says that the locket at Grimmauld place is in the very first sentence, written by and reflecting the opinion of the contributor.

There is nothing factual in associating the fake horcrux and the locket in Grimmault Place. Unless you have already read book 7, in that case I'll ask you to show us where we can have it also. Folken de Fanel 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The paragraph certainly does make a case, but that case is explained half way through to be the one stated by Langford. That is how someone reading it would understand it. I appreciate that you quite often have a different interpretation of written english to others, but stating facts does not constitute making a case until it is explained how they may fit together, and here that is clearly attributed to Langford. Sandpiper 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you don't agree, the fact is that this paragraph is a synthesis and will never be allowed in any article. Read WP:SYN, and if after that you still don't want to make efforts, then you should stop editing on WP.

The first time the paragraph says that the locket at Grimmauld place is in the very first sentence, written by and reflecting the opinion of the contributor.

Again, there is nothing factual in associating the fake horcrux and the locket in Grimmault Place. Unless you have already read book 7, in that case I'll ask you to show us where we can have it also.

Folken de Fanel 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken. There is evidence in the books that the Horcrux locket and the Black House locket are similar (although described too vaguely to be firmly noted as identical) - although it would be OR to point that out without a source. Happily, however, we have one - Longford, who makes the association himself (no doubt prompted by the myriads of forum posters who did likewise - but they aren't published). [WP:SYNTH]] refers to wikieditors making 'novel' (i.e. not seen outside wikipedia) associations between features of published evidence - e.g. saying, "It is known that the person who will destroy Voldemort will be born in the 7th month. It is known that Hermione was born in September - "Seventh month". Accordingly, Hermione must be the person who will destroy the Dark Lord." (If you could get a source of that, however, you could reference it in the relevant articles - "Critic John Whatsisname suggested that Hermione could be the person who will destroy the Dark Lord..."). However, there is no Synthesis here - the combining of two published assertions to create a new 3rd assertion. The assertion is made by Langford himself, and consequently is allowable. Michael Sanders 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.

From "In book 5" to " Voldemort's horcrux locket", text needs to be sourced, otherwise it's OR.

Folken de Fanel 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Errors

Somebody please capitalize all instances of 'Horcrux'? And the article says Harry put his sock inside the diary. This is true for the movie, but my copy of Chamber of Secrets says Harry put the diary inside the sock. I think I spotted a couple other points of confusion, but I got distracted reading this talk page and I forgot them. MercuryBlue 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit doubtfull about that: would you capitalise all instances of 'chair' or 'wand'? Sandpiper 08:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Look in the books, it's capitalized. John Reaves (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on checking a UK copy of COS, but youre quite right, the US one is as you say re socks. As to horcrux, the fact that one source uses a particular method of capitalising does not necessarily mean that wiki does the same. Sandpiper 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

liches? DnD?

No mentions to liches in the article? they are a very similar concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.241.255.250 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I too am surprised there's no mention of a lich phylactery (i.e. D&D version).Jrbaker 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I recall someone mentioning it once. Can you find a source which discusses the parallel to the useage of horcrux? Sandpiper 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculations and WKAD

Despite months of debates, no one could establish with certainty that WKAD was a valid source. There was all the time required for proper debate, and eventually, it stopped some weeks ago. With no more debate, and still no clear justification given for inclusion, the concerned paragraphs are removed until further debate clearly establishes (which wasn't the case in the last one) the validity of the paragraphs. Indeed, highly controversial and potential policy violations cannot stay longer in the article (which was already blocked for a long time).

If people want to try to justify the use of WKAD as a source for speculation, please take a look at this:

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper):

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

According to this, we can create a very simple way to check the source:

• Who wrote WKAD ? WKAD is edited by and partially written by John Granger.
• Who published WKAD ? WKAD is published by Zossima Press, led by John Granger.
  • WKAD is a self-published source.

• Who is John Granger ? A literary professor and a christian.
• What were John Granger's previous contributions to the world of HP ? Analyses of literary devices, of the success of the books, and of christian themes in HP.
  • John Granger's "relevant field" is analysis of literary devices and christian themes in HP.

• What is the field of the book WKAD ? Speculations, theories, crystal balling about the future plot of the still unpublished HP 7.
• Is the field of the book "analysis of literary devices and christian themes in HP" ? No.
  • John Granger is not in his "relevant field" when writing about Speculations, theories, crystal balling about the future plot of the still unpublished HP 7 (unless he has special powers to see the future or to read the mind of JKR, or if he got a "leaked copy" of HP7).

• Can the subject of the book (Speculations, theories, crystal balling about the future plot of the still unpublished HP 7) be professionally researched ? No because unless the researcher has ming-reading/seer abilities, all of this remains completely unsubstanciated, it's merely lottery.
  • If the subject itself cannot be notable and reliably sourced by definition, then it should altogether be rejected.

• What is the primary content of the book ? Various fans from forums write their own theories about the end of HP7.
• Are these fans "professional" or anything ? No. They're merely forum users.
• What are their sources ? None, except their own imagination.
  • perfect non-notability.

Using this guide, it has been established that WKAD wasn't a reliable source, and that speculations from fans were not even worth including in the article. If no contradictory answers can be undisputably established for the 5 points covered here, the matter is settled.Folken de Fanel 09:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate stopped because everyone except Folken agreed that both Langford and Granger were acceptable sources. Some people agree that simply referencing mugglenet or Lexicon is entirely sufficient without the need to reference any book. I think Folken, that if you saw a man driving a ford car along the road, you would claim he was unable to drive a renault. Sandpiper 09:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There was michaelsanders and you, against me and an anonymous contributor. The very same was also contradicted in another article talk by a third user. You have a stranger conception of "everyone". Should I also remind you that in another article, speculations were deemed unincludable by 5 voters ? It's not a question of finding "sources", it's a question that the sources (and the subject) are all rule-compliant and includable.

The discussion stopped because you couldn't find anything to answer to the fact that your source was not acceptable. So please, unless you can undisputably prove, through the previously established process, that WKAD isn't includable, don't revert or your edits will be concidered disruptive.Folken de Fanel 09:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you're near the only to argue nowaday only because people are tired to argue with you. You make a loooong rant against granger as source but you carefully avoid to state than David Langford is used as source too... - phe 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, when I argue about Langford on the french wiki and that you refuse to answer me ? Folken de Fanel 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to confuse people, we are here on en: afaics, I answered on fr: your questions but don't try to get people to read both wiki to follow the trouble you're causing. Reread that please [2], it already contains anwsers to exactly the same question you're asking again and again until people are tired to dicuss with you. - phe 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you're making personal comments to me, to it's normal that I answer with personal and inter-wiki details about the troubles you 're causing.

If you want to play the "re-read" game, then re-read what I've posted here and on various talk pages. Folken de Fanel 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Folken, this is frankly nonsense, and it is time some people realised why. Sources are material from experts in their field. If you want to know how many car tyres from a particular make are sold in a little village somewhere, then the best source is the man who owns the only tyre shop in that village. We are reporting the very real and widespread interest and debate about the books. So the people who are experts are those engaged publically in this debate. Whether they are right or wrong is totally beside the point. All that matters are that they are respected and eminent in this particular field. This has been plainly demonstrated, so stop claiming black is white. Sandpiper 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sources" are not material from experts in their field. WKAD is a self-published book, by someone who is an expert in the theme of christianity in HP, which absolutely do not correspond to the subject of this book which is "Speculations, theories, crystal balling about the future plot of the still unpublished HP 7". Granger is not an "expert" at guessing the plots of future HP books. There can be not expert at "guessing the plots of future HP books" because it's crystal balling.

No one here is arguing about the sources being right or wrong except you.

You claim this has been "plainly demonstrated", yet I see see no plain demonstration, only you, merely claiming something and refusing to prove it, only relying on your certitudes and hoping that constant pressures and policy violations will weary other users. And above all I see that you still can't answer my little chart above...Folken de Fanel 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear, the next person who'll add speculations and bad sources, without discussing it first and reaching a consensus with the other contributors, will be concidered a vandal and receive proper warnings. That's enough. Folken de Fanel 10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that all human beings are thick, there can be no such thing as a detective because people are unable to analyse information or follow clues? Surely that denies the whole of human development. I remind you once again, that Langford mugglenet, Granger and apparently some 100 others have sold books about these books. Why do you persist in pretending they have not? Sandpiper 12:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And after claiming that I'm stopping human evolution by preventing you to add unencyclopedical content to WP, I'm sure you're going to claim, as you did so many times before, that I support the nazi ideology ?

Can you please show me where I would have said they have "not" ?

You still fail to understand that the problem is not "true/false", but reliability and notability. You still haven't answered the little chart above, dedicated to these problems of eliability/notability.

On a side note, more and more contributors are against your views, now 3 different persons have reverted you, and others have contradicted you in debates, to which you refused to answer. How long are you going to so openly violate the rules, when the consensus against you is becoming more and more obvious ? Why can't you just stop your mass reverts and try to discuss ? Folken de Fanel 12:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi? who ever claimed you were a nazi? Now, grindelwald probably had something to do with the nazi party, but I don't regard that as a significant issue. I have yet to see any consensus disagreeing with my essential point, that failing to mention theories originating from those who have read the books is rather absurd. Also, I have yet to see any sensible argument that Langford, in real life an encyclopedia writer about fantasy, is in any sense a bad source for reporting what fans believe. he is a recognised expert in this exact field. Sandpiper 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you start having memory problems, now...Anyway...

So, 5 different persons disagreeing with you on the same subject is not "consensus", you think ?

Langford has never written anything on HP before, doesn't even cite his own sources (so unreliable), talk about non-notable trivia (crystal-balling from restricted fan circles isn't the focus of WP).Folken de Fanel 12:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know where Sand claimed « many times » you're supporting nazi, that's a grave charge. - phe 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed it even once. Sandpiper 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[3]: "This is very clear, fans, no matter how many times they've read the books, aren't "experts". Experts have been officially recognized by academic institutions. (FdF)"/ "Oh dear me no. So the Nazi holocaust was all ok then, because the legitimate authorites at that time said it was? Sandpiper"

[4] "Oh dear, were not back to that old chestnut, that the only valid source on what the nazis did in WW2 to those in concentration camps is information 'officially' released by the Nazis themselves? "

Folken de Fanel 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As you point, Sand never claimed you're supporting nazi. And Sand open a good problem, must only writer of some books allowed to comment on their books ? Apparently you think yes. - phe 23:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sandpiper claimed I supported the nazis. Maybe you should try to learn english.Folken de Fanel

Sighs, you continue trying to upset people... - phe 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

since we are now debating it, Folken, I think you owe me an apology. Sandpiper 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the other way around.Folken de Fanel 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't workin a PR department,by any chance? Sandpiper 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are books predictable?

I was loathe to add my voice to this ridiculous conversation, but the idea of adding someone's "speculations" about the outcome of a fictional book is absurd. This isn't "historical investigation" with theories based on sound, empirically gathered clues, but from passages in a book. No one can be an "expert" in the prediction of a book's outcome except, by definition, the author. In this case, the only "speculation" which should be allowed is if Rowling herself alluded to the identity of other Horcruxes. Other than that, they are simply uneducated guesses. The only difference between Langford's (and others) guesses is that they had the fortune of being published: and THAT is the only yardstick by which you measure inclusion into an encyclopedia, Sandpiper??? Some yardstick. I'm sure if you look hard enough, there are a lot of published speculations you can add to every popular fictional series listed in Wikipedia. But my vote for this article is to remove such absurdities. Ccrashh 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I think you miss the point of why people like the books, and why they are not relegated to the childrens section. They are detective novels, essentially one big novel with only the last section missing. Rowling has made many comments that the plot was written entire and could not possibly be changed now, because everything so far leads up to the planned ending. I don't know how much you have read the books, or researched this topic, but if you do then you will see that I am correct in saying this. The massive interest and analysis of the books is precisely because they are planned mysteries, and it is indeed possible to accurately predict the outcome. That is precisely why people have written books about it, because they are not simply guesswork, but reasoned conclusions, and others can readily see that this is true. This is not to say that everything can be predicted, obviously. Some things can and some can't, and I am also sure that this is precisely as Rowling intended. She even said she wanted people to ask her if RAB was Regulus, immediately after publication of HBP. She was pleased that people had been following the books sufficiently to have identified the clues deliberately placed there for them to find. Other issues are slightly less clear, such as Harry's scar being a horcrux. Whether or not this turns out to be true, it has been a topic of great debate and certain conclusions have been drawn from the various comments in the books. When I first read the suggestion, I though it ridiculous, but having read the collected evidence, it is not. You may regard novels as random jottings, but if this one turns out to be, there is going to be a lynch mob sitting outside Rowlings house. Everyone else thinks the ending, whatever it is in detail, will follow smoothly from everything which has gone before. Sandpiper 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia, not a venue for unfounded speculation, regardless of how educated the "detective", or how obvious the clues. Analysis to find literary meanings can be mentioned as "These sites/books have many theories regarding the meaning of this or that", but to add them into a Wiki article is improper. The popularity of the books notwithstanding, speculation has no place here. Point to me another well-written article based on a work of fiction that includes speculation...Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time? Nope. Ccrashh 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the wheel of time. It strikes me that it does exactly what wiki articles about fiction are not supposed to do. It simply re-tells the story. Having had a look at the guideline for writing fiction, perhaps this is not surprising, since the guideline is obsessed with how to present plot information rather than what else ought to be in an article. i looked up literature 'good articles', and again didn't find many. Perhaps you might peruse 'Green Knight', which is a GA, or even Treasure Island. you will notice that both make use of external sources talking about the subject of the article. I don't really see how any wiki article can reasonably be created which is informative to readers unless it uses external sources. There is absolutely no difference between the opinion of 'Goldhurst, William. "The Green and the Gold: The Major Theme of Gawain and the Green Knight." College English, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Nov., 1958), pp. 61-65' and that of 'Langford, david, 'The end of Harry Potter'. I havn't a copy Goldhust and I just picked it randomly from the refs to the green knight, but it would appear to similarly be discussing the book(s) in question. The issue of reporting the opinions of sources is exactly the same in any article. Opinion and speculation is exactly what most sources are. If you don't understand that, then I think you misunderstand what human knowledge is. Human knowledge is just stuff we made up. Experience shows that the received and believed wisdom of this generation will be largely disproved in 100 years. So, speculation is exactly what most of wiki is composed of. Why do you think this article should be an exception? Sandpiper 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You constantly refuse to see the point others are trying to make. This is not literary analysis...if RL Stevenson were to be in the process of writing Treasure Island 2, I don't think speculation as to its content should be allowed. Regardless of the pedigree of those writing the speculation. IF (caps on purpose) the book is published, then literary speculation and analysis is valid. Essentially, you are putting crap into the article that will be superfluous in less than a month. Not a way to write an encyclopedia. I still think you are wrong, as do many others. As for your assertion that Wiki is mostly composed of speculation, you are wrong, I am glad to say. But fine, since your panties in a wad over this, I will let it be. Come July 21st...boink..it's gone. Ccrashh 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that come 21 July it should be. Rowling made $1 billion from these books, despite a number of 'critics' claiming she is a bad writer. She didn't get it for her outstanding ability with words, but with content. She got the content and style of the books spot on. If this does not carry through to the 'finished' wiki articles, we will have lost a very important element. (approx $999,999,000,000, I would think) A part of this is the phenomenon of the touted 190 books written about Hp, primarily talking about its plot, along the way. That is unprecedented. Are you really saying it doesn't deserve mention in wiki articles? I agree that sort of thing is not normal, but if 190 authors had written books debating what would be in Treasure island 2, don't you think we should have covered them? Folken sometimes accuses me of making an argument for inclusion of this material by including quotes from Rowling talking about fans working out her plots. He also is missing the point. Rowling really has encouraged this parallel process of attempting to solve her riddles. She enjoys it. I understand exactly why: if you spend so much effort doing something it isn't the money which matters (not on this scale), but the fact that so many people have been swept up in it. That a sizeable fraction of the world population is sitting down puzzling over how this will come out in the final volume. Having spent so much effort setting up a puzzle book with a solvable solution, she wants people to solve it. She gives hints to help solve it. She can't give the ending away before time, but still she wants people to work at it, and even get there. I am fascinated to see how this will come out. If she has done it well, the book will contain all the stuff widely predicted, but it will also contain enough essentially unpredictable twist to keep us reading and leave us satisfied. Some commentators still doubt she will be ble to do this, not least because the books taken as a whole have swung about quite wildly from volume to volume, but I rather think she will.

As to the philosophical issue of speculation, and the real issue of speculation. The heart of literary analysis is speculation. Find a critic talking about a book. Then find another, see, did he say the same things? It is a matter of opinion, intrinsically. By training I'm a scientist. Just watch people squabbling over theories of how the physical world works. Theories used to make real machines, produce real world results. But that does not stop them being wrong, approximations to the truth. This is a fundamental point which I think every scientist should understand. There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything commonly held as fact is subject to some level of inaccuracy. Got a wiki article on the Iraq war? lucky if it holds steady for a day in the face of conflicting views. Where is the real truth? will we know in 10 years? 100? What price global warming? real, imaginary, serious, minor? CDs, eternal stores of treasured digitised recordings preserved for all time, or tomorrow's recycled plastic drainpipes? How long before the fascinating state of the art recording medium becomes a footnote at the bottom of the real article on the current new recording gizmo? wikipedia does not even pretend to present truth. All it attempts to do is report what others have said, and a representative sampling. Sitting on the fence is just about a guarantee of never being right. Sandpiper 00:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

omigod...you really don't get it. Literary criticism is valid. Analysis of events, however flawed the analysis might be, due to skewed information or whatever, is valid. MAKING CRAP UP about something that HASN'T happened yet is invalid. Predictions are invalid....except those based on scientific principle. This is FICTION...there can be no empirical evidence supporting ANY prediction. There have been clues, there have been passages that might point a reader in a certain direction, but none of these are valid because they could all be red herrings. The speculation is just that...speculation. It has no place in an encyclopedia. If you want to write this crap, might I suggest joining Mugglenet or whatever other fan site is out there. But it should not be in an article here on Wiki. However, I will let your edits stand, since I can't be bothered explaining this anymore. Like I said, when July 21st comes, I will, even before I read the book, delete every piece of speculation from every article involving Harry Potter, including this one. Once the book is out, you can mention all you want that people wrote speculation...but to list and discuss them in detail is improper. If you post content that discusses theories of literary elements in the books she has written, then fine.

And I must say, you are a confusing writer...I have no clue as to the point you are trying to make relating speculative crap and how much money she has made off these books. The two are mutually exclusive. Ccrashh 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

something about these particular books has marked them out as extraordinary, and has earned the author all that cash. The sum involved is an indication of something significant. The received view is that the extraordinary element is the plot, not the words used to tell the story (though as I said, if you get any two critics topgether they won't agree). This is a classic detective novel, where there is a buildup to the final discovery in a logical predictable manner with real genuine clues along the way. Rowling has said this, readers have agreed it is true. Nothing I have included is 'made up crap', by me or anyone else. It is analysis of the story as it has been presented so far. Rowling could have written the last book anyway she wanted, Harry leaves school, buys an icecream factory and spends the rest of his life there trying to get as fat as Dudley. But she wont. She will write the book everyone expects her to write, and it will be her best attempt to tie together all the loose ends and clues (again, she said it is). The last volume is not a completely new story, just happening to be about the same characters. It is the conclusion of an already written and published story.

All the analysis is based squarely and factually on the information presented so far. It may prove to not match the final book, but it is carefully reasoned analysis. If it proves to be wrong, at least beyond a certain point, then Rowling will be judged to have failed as an author because she did not carry through her plot to its logical conclusion. If the book matches the predictions, then much of the current debate becomes a non issue, exactly because Rowling will have done exactly what she said she would do. If the predictions don't match, then they will remain important to mention in articles, because of Rowling's failure to carry through. This is not a simple fairy story, it is a logic puzzle. Every week I used to sit in lectures and work on the logic puzzle in the college magazine: this one is just a bit longer. Sandpiper 08:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There cannot be any analysis on a book that doesn't exist yet. What Sandpiper calls "analysis" is no more than unreliable and non-notable crystal-balling.

All these talk about Rowling failing as an author is purely ridiculous, and proves how wrong Sandpiper is.Folken de Fanel 11:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ccrashh left me a msg about this on my talk page. My understanding of the policies WP:CBALL and WP:NOR is that it is permissible to include speculation about future works of fiction if that speculation is published in a reliable source and is therefore verifiable. Another element is that the speculation must be widely documented. Sandpiper's claim above to 190 books about the series would fulfill that requirement (assuming that many of those 190 are speculation and not analysis after publication). The only concern I do have with this edit that you all seem to be arguing about is that it relies almost entirely on two of those 190 sources, mostly on one of them, thereby giving undue weight to Granger's theory. I don't endorse much of what Sandpiper is saying above, but I do agree that documented speculation about future fiction is permitted by policy.

That said, there seems to be a consensus (albeit 2 against 1) in this section that the material simply shouldn't be included, for reasons specific to this case. I think there's more discussion to be had here to establish a firmer consensus. I, for one, would support inclusion of such speculation if the documentation can be considerably expanded (though I don't think any of us will be reading 190 books about HP in the next four weeks).--Chaser - T 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that is precisely the point. The number 190 comes from an article by the Telegraph, simply commenting on the popularity of the series and remarking how many books have been written about it. Presumably none of them is analysis of the content of book 7, but of earlier books. I have no intention of reading the others. I don't mind simply stating that this is widely held, without mentioning a specific reference book in the text. That is how I would have done it, by choice, with a reference to a website where this can be seen, However, specifically Folken has insisted on a printed ref. As far as I can see one is enough. Langford is an award winning author who writes for encyclopedias about fantasy. He claims the information about the locket is widely held. Rowling has recommended a number of websites where information about her books can be found, and all this stuff has been repeatedly published there. I find these websites an excellent source in themselves, and again it is only Folken's objection which led first michaelsanders and then myself to find a book saying exactly the same thing. Suggesting that just one more ref would do it, and then we can include the stuff and all be happy, does not seem to have worked so far.

This section was originally largely written by Michaelsanders. Folken objected to it. I revised it, michael and I were happy with it and T-Dot professed he had no objections.(see above) Folken has since struck it out every time it has been reinserted. Latterly ccrash has joined the fray. It was initiall inserted by consensus.

As to future events, I dont find the crystal ball advice entirely helpfull. The most relevant section I can see is: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. , where i would take 'credible research that embody predictions' to be what we are dealing with here. On the whole, I don't think the rule anticipated quite this situation. However, this is not an issue of whether an article on the topic of horcruxes is 'crystal ball'. Plainly it is not, they are widely referred to in the existing books. I'm afraid I do not regard the possible horcruxes not specifically mentioned as 'crystal ball', either. It is analysis based upon the information published in books 1-6. These have been analysed to death and conclusions have been reached about plot issues which are not exlicitly stated, but only implictly. These conclusions will not change whatever is contained in the final book. Either it will be in accord with the consensus view of what must come next, or it will not. The view now will automatically become commentary on how well the final book was consistent with the existing ones. If every copy of the final book disappears tomorrow and it is never published, the commentary on which objects really were horcruxes would become the de-facto conclusion of the story.

There is nothing new about either Harry's scar or the Grimmauld place locket being horcruxes, these have been debated to death on the internet, and I would consider that debate (and a suitable chosen page summarising it)as entirely sufficient to reference and include the material. Other possible horcruxes have been suggested, and Granger has suggested his own list. I dont have particular feelings about his suggestions, but I do feel it should be included for completeness and to make a more neutral presentation, to indicate that other objects have been considered. Sandpiper 21:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The "190" books are all the books that were ever written about HP, they're not 190 books about HP 7 theories. The source in which Sandpiper found this number ([5]) mentions these 190 books include works like "If Harry Potter Ran General Electric" or "Harry Potter and the Torah"...Thus this number cannot be used as a justification for inclusion.

What you say about reliable and valid source is right, Chaser, and you can read just above why I think the "Granger" source is largely unreliable.

I also follow you about Sandpiper's revisions giving undue weight to certain sources, when they precisely talk about the theories to which Sandpiper agrees.

As for consensus against theories, there are also other articles (like R.A.B or Regulus Black), in which Sandpiper is adding this king of speculations, where other users are opposed to the inclusion of Sandpiper's version.

Finally, not talking about whether reported speculations are includable or not, there is the problem of Sandpiper's uncivility. Indeed, he's always refused to take external opinion into account, he's never respecting consensuses (in numerous articles) or requests to stop revert warring, he went as far as to say that those who oppose to him are a "bunch of newbies", when he's asked justification for pushing his POV into articles by constantly reverting to his version and ignoring established consensuses, he provides dubious explanations about Rowling having "failed as an author" if she doesn't "carry through her plot to its logical conclusion", thus claiming that he adds these theories because they are the actual book 7 plot. Sandpiper never argues whether his edits are acceptable or not, he merly claims what he adds is "likely to be true" (or "logical") and thinks it's enough to end all discussion, and impose his POV despite different users not agreeing with him. Statements like "If every copy of the final book disappears tomorrow and it is never published, the commentary on which objects really were horcruxes would become the de-facto conclusion of the story" tend to prove that Sandpiper is not "reporting speculations" but indeed crystal-balling and doing original research by claiming these theories are the actual ending of book 7. All his posts revolve around these claims of truth, thus making his edits largely unacceptable as Sandpiper admits himself he's here to advance a position and prove a point.Folken de Fanel 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward in anticipation that the final book will be published, and that this is essentially unstopable. However, what I said is correct. The existing books include references from which firm conclusions can be made. This is a pretty obvious thing to say, the process is called reading. Some information is more explicitly stated than other pieces. Where there is doubt about a primary source, the normal procedure is to quote a secondary one which has examined the point. I suggest hp lexicon, mugglenet, TLC, hpana,... all recommended by Rowling.

I have always invited Folken to suggest where any of my edits give undue weight to a particular 'theory'. Thus far he has never responded except to say that all references to any theory should be deleted. I don't see this in any way helpfull in choosing what to report or whether an inclusion fails NPOV.

Ah 190. Lucky tht total wasn't 189, or there wouldn't be any chance of including anything. Just how many forthcoming books have even one written about them? It really makes no difference that they may all be about different aspects of the subject. in fact that makes the whole thing more noteable, not less. 190 Books each about different aspects of the series?

Do you mean sandpipers inclusion, or michaelsanders inclusions, or T-dots amendments?

I would remind you folken, that a consensus is not, by definition, the side you are on. I think in most cases the consensus is to ignore the issue, and hope it will go away. However, if you take into account passing editors who reinsert snippets of material which you have deleted, or delete material I have added, there are rather more adding than deleting. It is not, as you and others have claimed, 'vandalism' to insert this information into an article where the person doing so believes that information ought to be in the article. Following your recent ban for plastering vandalism tags all over my page on the french wiki for making edits, I would hope you now appreciate this and would advise anyone making such a claim in an edit history of their mistake. If this debate was happening 6 months after publication of the last book, then there would be a number of editors around who would include this information, such as [6], as a matter of course. It is widespread and noteable. All this stuff is a done deal, frankly it is historical by now, never mind claiming it is OR.

reverting? now, I never used to do that much, but I have had a good teacher lately.

what else? must be some other crime I have comitted today? Sandpiper 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should remind you of the NOR policy research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. Perhaps you would care to go out, research something about this, and add some? Sandpiper

Ok...How's this? If you can come up with more than ONE source, ones that are reliable, and not self-published, that promote the same theories as you keep adding, I will remove my objections. Chaser even pointed out that one book, one reference, does not make for "reliable sources". Website references, fansites, etc., are NOT reliable, so don't use those. And please, don't go off on one of your obtuse tangents about this being a detective novel and that Rowling will have failed as an author, yada, yada, yada... Ccrashh 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will need to explain that a bit better. Exactly why are websites not good sources? I imagine most of the references on wikipedia are to websites, for the very good reason that they are easy to access and check. Sandpiper 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Folken, just leave it. Sandpiper is from that odious strain of humanity that is "never wrong" about anything. He refuses to understand the concepts we are trying to push...that is one source is self-published (Granger) thus leaving only one other wiki-reliable source Langford...and one source does not a valid theory make. He also believes the ramblings of fans to be legitimate encyclopedia references. Whatever. As I told him before, when July 21st comes, we can rip the theories out (though he has already stated that he thinks they should stay...why, I have no idea...you've seen the ramblings he uses in an attempt to make some sort of point). Chaser even pointed out that the references are not enough, and he refused to answer that...well..he answered, but without specifically referencing Chaser's point...I'm seeing a pattern here. Ccrashh 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)