Talk:Horcrux/Archive 2

message: I dunno if im going to sound stupid here, and thousands of people are gpoing to go "no way!" but is it possible that Dumbledore made a horcrux out of Fawkes? 
Reasons-
* Dumbledore said that he will only be forgotten when there is no-one left at Hogwarts that remains loyal, well what if he needs someone loyal to do the ceremony to bring him back, like Voldemort in Goblet of Fire.
* Without proof that it could be done, Dumbledore said that one of Voldemort´s horcruxes could be an animal, why wouldnt he know if he had one?
* To destroy a horcrux the object must be destroyed presumably, but as Fawkes just is reborn, wouldnt a phoenex be a perfect horcrux?
* Fawkes leaves at the end of HBP, leaving so can be uswed to bring back Dumbledore?
* Dumbledore may not be as good as he appears, the gleam of triumph in his eyes after Voldemort´s return.
Tell me what you think! Ian42 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting indeed Ian!  And who do you suppose Dumbledore deliberately murdered, in cold blood, in order to tear his soul apart, enabling him to create a Horcrux for storing in Fawkes the phoenix?  I for one think this is an excellent example of pure speculation and original research, which is banned in "just the facts" encyclopedias like the Wikipedia - see WP:NOR.  We can only post "the facts" as presented by Rowling in her books, in documented interviews, or on her web site, and to an extent in the movies (which are considered less canonical). Anything else, including personal or even widely held speculations and fan theories, is disallowed.  With all your strength and ability, please resist the urge to go posting this new Dumbledore-Horcrux theory into articles, such as Dumbledore's, or this Horcrux article, or anywhere else.  However, please feel free to air and discuss your views on one or more of the many fan sites - some are mentioned in the Harry Potter fandom article.  Most of all, Thanks for not posting the theory in the articles - where it would have to be deleted - before discussing it here.  Again - this particular "Dumbledore is still alive because" theory with a Horcrux twist may get raving praise from the fanatics in the fan forums - have fun with that Ian! --T-dot 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fawkes the Horcrux?

message: I don't remember - and I don't have time to look it up (have to catch a flight! :) ) - but in HPB doesn't Slughorn mention a spell specifically as a means of creation - even though he claims no to know it himself? - Beowulf314159 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently moved and I expect my copy of HBP is hidden under a pile of crap. However, what you say seems plausible. I'll remove "ritual" and leave it explicitly as a spell (as yet unnamed). --Deathphoenix 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd say that "to stopper death" could mean many things. It may even be as simple as curing the imbiber of any diseases. Your other arguments are about semantics, so if you wish to tweak the text to your satisfaction, go right ahead. I would argue that while your tweaks would make the article more accurate technically, they make the text harder to read. Of course, that's your perogative. --Deathphoenix 12:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Snape is Potions Master at the time, I'd read it as mean he could teach you to make potions that kill people.  These are then put in a bottle which has a stopper (i.e. cork or whatever) placed in it. David Underdown 11:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating Horcuxes 

message: I've put the fact that no one really knows what happens to the fragment of the soul in a Horcrux if it is destroyed.
It keeps getting removed, on the grounds that if something is unknown, why mention it?
I think it's important to a) mentions such things and b) explicitly state that they are not known. This is so that someone does not come along, decided to "correct" an oversight, and put in their particular "pet theory" as "the truth".
It's perhaps a bit odd because the structure of the article is somewhat dictated by the collaberative nature of Wikipedia - but it's also the reality of such projects. - 69.19.14.20 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, somehow I "lost" this question in the shuffle. To answer your question, I removed it because it's not necessary. There are a few "unknown" things that are notable enough (or questioned enough in the novels) to be mentioned in these articles, such as the identity of R.A.B. and whether Severus Snape is good or evil. However, what happens to the fragment of the soul in a Horcrux isn't questioned enough in the novels, nor is it a great mystery. To a degree, I actually agree with you: when I was performing my "major edits" in cleaning up this article, I actually put in (or left in, I forget which) the fact that this was unknown and said that it was likely that the soul is either released into the afterlife or returned to the Horcrux creator. However, someone else made an excellent point that these unknown things aren't necessary, and this seems to be the consensus. --Deathphoenix 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JKR has stated in interviews (I can hunt up a link its online if you like) that when the Diary was destory so was the fragment of soul.  I think the exact quote was somthing to the effect (and I am pharphrasing here), that piece of his soul is gone we saw it take shape and we saw it destroyed. Dalf | Talk 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: On "making Horcruxes transforming you to being less and less human", a significant point is Hagrid's theory/guess for for why Voldemort didn't die, from "Keeper of the Keys", early HB1: "there's not enough human left in him to die".  Hagrid here is laying down introductory background material. Hagrid at this point is already depicted as a flawed character, so what he says cannot be taken as fact, but it was a hint, and sure enough in HB6, Hagrid is shown to be right, possibly more right than he could have known.  Hagrid's statements are particularly significant because (to the best of my memory), they are the only hint of a theory given in all of the first five books for why Voldemort didn't die.  I am undecided as to whether this stuff belongs here (Horcrux) or on the Voldemort page, or elsewhere?--Anthony Duff 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of other clues, the less and less human and the dark transformations type comments are made by DD a few times as well.  Dalf | Talk 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagrid prepared us for Horcuxes early in HB1 

message: 1. I think the opal necklace that almost killed Katie Bell in HBP could be Ravenclaw's necklace, and a possible Horcrux, considering the effects it has (it has also killed 19 other people). We also know that Dumbledore was almost killed by another Horcrux, so it seems quite possible to me that the opal necklace is also a Horcrux. Anyone agree it should be mentioned in the Possible Horcruxes section? Also, how is Slytherin's locket a Known Horcrux? --Bluerain 09:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice - but don't you think if the cursed opal necklace was a Horcrux, that Dumbledore would have immediately recognized it as such, as soon as it arrived, and sought to destroy it, rather than going off on a dangerous journey with Harry to seek one elsewhere?  The list of "Possible Horcruxes" as posted in the main article is not just an arbitrary list of items that various fans thought up and posted because they thought they could conceivably be a Horcrux; or things that they saw posted on some fan site or somebody's blog page (like Harry, the Sorting Hat, the Sword, the Scar, the Mirror, ad nauseum ad infinitum).  These extraneous items are invariably removed whenever they appear, as purely speculative.  The "approved" list are those items specifically mentioned by Dumbledore in the Horcrux discussions with Harry.  Nothing else should be "allowed" on Dumbledore's list, until Book 7 is released and the truth of the matter is established - unless JKR herself reveals more information on the subject in a documented and confirmed interview. (Contd...) --T-dot 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was sure that argument would come up, so here are a few doubts I have. I know Wikipedia has a policy against original research, but I believe it means mentioning unverifiable points or specualtion as a concrete fact. Is it also against policy to mention 'fan speculation' as 'fan speculation'? Because if it so, then there are many inconsistencies in the use of it. For instance, the Grimmauld Place article has the line --> "Current fan speculation is that an unopenable locket, found during the cleanup of the house in book 5, once belonged to Salazar Slytherin, and may be one of Voldemort's Horcruxes." <-- Also, if you go over to the R.A.B. article, the list of possibilites of R.A.B. are almost entirely speculative. I don't think I've come across JK Rowling having discussed all those names in her interviews (if she has, then there aren't any links or references to them on that page), and General Discussion Forums have been provided as External Links. So can someone please clarify how the rule is to be applied? Thanx. --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate the speculation R.A.B. article for everything but Regulus Black because everything else in there is idle fan speculation that isn't cited anywhere. But just because something is in another article, doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in here. Personally, I'd like to get rid of those things, but I promised not to unilaterally act against consensus, and at that time, I was one of few voices arguing for its removal. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the R.A.B. article - while that page itself certainly is full of idle speculation, there is at least some support for "it" being Regulus Black - in the documented interview with JKR.  The other names are frankly a huge annoyance and are excellent candidates for being rounded up into a cage of "Other RAB Names Frequently Mentioned in HP fandom" ... and then dismissed and drowned in the lake as speculative. Having such annoyances on other wiki-pages never justifies spreading such vermin and disease elsewhere. --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, but R.A.B. does not specifically mention that the stolen Horcrux was indeed a locket. I'm not really denying the locket was indeed a Horcrux, but since the list of 'Possible Horcruxes' is based on all that Dumbledore theorises, then the locket belongs there. After all, even if it may seem painfully obvious, we don't have concrete proof about the locket being a Horcrux, just Dumbledore's assumptions on the matter. --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Dumbledore's assumptions and speculations are canonical - unlike the fan speculation.  See the difference? --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. And Dumbledore's assumptions and speculations fall under the list of 'Possible Horcruxes', which is the right place for Slytherin's locket. --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanx, but where do I get to see the Gold star? --Bluerain 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might have to bust you down from a gold star to a bronze - for starting an argument on purpose and with an agenda - and admitting you did it:  I was sure that argument would come up, so here are a few doubts I have... Perhaps Deathphoenix will consent to give you one of his Good Humor ones ... :)  --T-dot 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't really start the argument with an agenda or purpose, nor did I intend any humour, but if you say so, I wouldn't really mind the Good Humor barnstar. --Bluerain 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ravenclaw's necklace

message: Strictly speaking, the "etymology" of the word "horcrux" is completely specified by the following phrase: "a word invented by Joanne K. Rowling and first published in July 2005 in her children's novel Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince".  Beyond that, invented words have sources (words and syllables that influenced the author's invention) and suggestions (words and syllables that they suggest to the reader).
There is no excuse for including untrue linguistic information in an encyclopedia article.  You cannot pass the buck by quoting an outside source that is itself complete nonsense.  Here is the full entry from the Mugglenet page 
    Horcrux - In Latin, "crux" comes from the noun "crux." "Crucis" means 
    "pain or torture," and "hor" is a shortened form of the noun "horreum," 
    which means "storehouse." Thus, "tormenting storehouse." The English 
    meaning for "crux" is "the critical feature or essence," like the crux 
    of an argument. Similar to the Latin translation, it then becomes 
    understood as "essence storehouse." Many consider the soul to be the 
    essence of an individual.
All wrong.
  
- "crux" does not come from "crux".  It is the noun "crux", which means "cross".  - "crucis" is the genitive singular of "crux", not a separate word.  It means "of a cross".  It does not mean pain and torture.  A cross can connote pain, or a puzzle, or a signpost at a crossroads.
- the English meaning for crux comes from the medieval phrase "crux interpretum", cross or torment of interpreters, which refers to a difficult point in a text.
- there is no Latin word "hor", and Latin words are not shortened forms of other Latin words.  The shortest Latin word that begins with "hor-" is "hora", an interval of time, or an hour.
- there are lots of Latin words that begin with "hor-", including "horia" a fishing boat, "horrendus" horrid, "horrere" to bristle or be prickly, "horribilis" horrible, "horridus" bristly, "horror" shivering or terror, "hortamen" encouragement, "hortus" garden.
- that Rowling had in mind the word "horreum", a barn or granary, is almost certainly as incorrect as anything can be.
--216.113.219.11 08:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some great feedback there. I don't remember why we left it in, perhaps it was because it was cited (even though it was speculation). Could you remove the offending sections yourself, since you seem to have extensive knowledge of the subject matter? --Deathphoenix 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Yank it.  I don't think we need fan speculation at all, personally.  Friday (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a convincing argument that the section is bogus.  Someone should doulbe check eventually but at the moment it should be yanked. I am opposed, it shoudl be cleaned up (and according to DIctionary.com again English crux has as one of its definitions exactly the phrase used in the article, that is I like the current shortened section. Dalf | Talk 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter whether the etymology is accurate.  That's why we have the NPOV.  The Lexicon is a notable fan site; thus, it's valid to report their opinion on the etymology.  It would also be valid to report contrasting opinions from notable sources.  Unfortunately, the "convincing argument" is original research, and irrelevant. Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise that mugglenet is the largest HP fansite?  Larger than the lexicon. More to the point mugglenet is one of two fansites that JKR has had direct dealings with, and one of the few that have been featured on her own website.  The refrence in the article is attributed and described in conditional terms may etc.  Further it is an answer to a legamate question that many readers will have, How do people think she derived it I do not see how NPOV comes into this though I take your point about NOR (though I disagree on its application in this case). Dalf | Talk 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant mugglenet is a notable fan site (though the lexicon is also, and is honored on JKR's site).  I agree that the mugglenet's claim should be reported in the article. I was saying "All wrong. [...] 'crux' does not come from 'crux' [...] " was original research. Sorry for the confusion.  Superm401 - Talk 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I'm afraid I have to concur. In its current state, it looks to be speculation. It shouldn't have stuff like "many readers believe", or stuff like that. --Deathphoenix 17:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since the paired down section just before it was deleted and merged was perfectly fine. Dalf | Talk 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the "Etymology" 

message: :3. Rowling has said that Book Seven will include information about Lily Potter. Harry visiting Godric's Hollow would be an opportunity for this information to be revealed.
Why is this supporting evidence for there being a Horcrux in Godric's Hollow? If it's because Voldemort might have created one from her death (which does not really seem likely. I don't think he had time. He kills Lilly, he moves in to kill Harry, and bam, his curse backfires. No time to stop, make a magic object, and then get back to killing your mystical/prophecized enemy), this is covered in point #2.
It's not wrong. I just don't see what it has to do with the possibility of there being a Horcrux in Godric's hollow. - Vedexent 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's some good feedback. I'm not sure why I left it in before, but Godric's Hollow seems like speculation to me. How about you guys? --Deathphoenix 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A link between Godric's Hollow and horcruxes does indeed sound like weak speculation, and as such, doesn't belong.  It's just one of many possibilities.  --Anthony Duff 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yank it! There is no indication in the books to make this a more likley location than any other - it's pure speculation.  Death Eater Dan    18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You know what? I actually have no objections to the removal of this entire section. I'm not sure how other people feel, but I agree with you in that this section could be yanked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section for now. Anyone wishing to put it back please discuss it here first. --Bluerain 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Godric's Hollow is a likely place for a Horcrux because Godric could be Godric Gryffindor, meaning that the Horcrux could have been one of Godric's possessions (or the house itself). I think that it could go in the possible locations section. Oli 10:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, once again, an excellent example of Original Research and Speculation.  It may well prove to be true - but the fact is, it is still only pure speculation, and does not belong in the article as if it were encyclopedic and canonical.  Now IF Dumbledore had told Harry in one of the Books something like: "Harry my boy, it is possible that Voldemort created a Horcrux back at your house in Godric's Hollow when he killed your parents, and it might still be around there somewhere, perhaps in the form of the Godric Gryffindor Estate dinner plate that your mother won when she earned 500 points for Gryffindor for rescuing Severus Snape and the rest of the Hogwarts Students from further attacks by Fenrir Greyback ..." - THEN we might have something to go on.  Speculation documented in the Books by a Character is fine for inclusion in the encyclopedia, as are hints and tips revealed in interviews of the author.  Random speculation by fans and researchers is not, and neither is weasel wording it by saying things like "many fans believe that there might be a Horcrux at ...". --T-dot 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Oli 10:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible locations - Godric's Hollow  - 3 reasons?