Talk:Hogwarts founders

message: It seems to contain a lot of theory not established in the books about Slytherin not being like the death-eaters or being necessarliy evil.  The lack of information on Gryffindor means he may not have been good either, but most people think he was.
:The Slytherin section is longer because more information has been given about him in the text: for example, the all too short explanation by Professor Binns in the second book. As yet, Gryffindor info is limited to a few references to him being brave. Michaelsanders 11:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the Slytherin part be edited?

message: It needs to be long, because there is more to be said on the matter. If the other sections could be as long, that would be great - unfortunately, nothing much has been said about them. Quite a bit has been said about Slytherin, some of it contradictory. It therefore needs to be properly featured. Features such as the Sorting Hat not following Slytherin's possible beliefs in Sorting Students into his house need to be pointed out (which isn't OR: it would be OR to guess as to why). A mention of the sources of the various views of Slytherin - i.e. the Hat, Binns, and Ron - need to be properly mentioned. Ron himself has claimed that 'Slytherin started all this pure-blood stuff', or words to that effect, so this canonically suggested, but not at all proved, view that Slytherin's views and the DE views are the same needs to be pointed out and cautioned. I won't revert that yet - however, I fully intend to keep that text, or at least its effects. Michaelsanders 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the Sorting Hat not following Slytherin's views have to do with anything?  The Hat clearly can sort wherever it wants regardless of character traits.  Individual views of a historical figure are hardly notable sources or facts.  This section read like an essay over Slytherin, analyizing him and bringing up irrelevant facts to compare to him.  It was riddled with OR.  John Reaves 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'll have to leave this a while: I'm on my holidays now, so I can't depend on having much time, let alone predictable periods of computer use. In the case of anything really pressing, I might find the time, but it's likely that I won't return to full involvement until around 10th January. Until then, we'll leave the page in its current state, and I hope you'll be willing to pick this discussion up again when I get the time. Thanks. Michaelsanders 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I'm siding with John Reaves here. I think we could make this a poll to see if Michaelsanders interpretation should be kept. Serendipodous 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been through the archives, and I saw that this same thing has happened before with someone else.  You're the only one defending the information you want kept - i.e. your interpretation.  There's no reason to have the argument again or repeat anything I've already said.  John Reaves 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember all that stuff I deleted out of the section that you argued to keep?  That's what I'm talking about. Everything I'm refering to has already been deleted (just to clear up any confusion).  John Reaves 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, I don't have time (or inclination) to properly look over it at the moment. I also said that we'd leave it out until January, when we are both on normal schedules. And then we can consider the various pieces properly. Until then, can we just leave this? Michaelsanders 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As for the Slytherin sections

message: Should fan art that someone dreamed up be used on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.54.225 (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that pictures are considered original research, though I'm not 100 percent positive. However, since pictures by definition include personal opinions on the characters (I would never see Helga Hufflepuff looking like a character from The Mists of Avalon, for instnace; I've always seen her looking like Professor Sprout), I think they probably should be removed. Serendipodous 10:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they should be removed. Some more opinions would be nice though.  John Reaves 22:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found a site with that have the pictures that were released through the chocolate frog products. The quality isn't the greatest, and they are nowhere near as lovely as the pictures already posted. I believe that Wizards of the Coast also released a set of cards with the characters' pictures on them, so those may pass muster as well. The site for those is [www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/founders.html here]. I'm going to try to upload those in their place. Tokyogirl79 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've seen another screencaps of the founders in other games.. Only Helga is slightly the same. The others are much different —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rynoa (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I recently removed the OR and have now seen numerous dicussions going on about it. Please note that since this info is being contested it is onus of the authors to show that the information is from canon and make verifiable (as per WP:V). The canon needs to verify that JKR had the intended meanings for the names, otherwise it is original research (as per WP:OR).--Dacium 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have removed accurate historical information, and accurate canon information. I believe that a brief mention of the historical situation at that time was agreed to; and names mean what they mean. The only possibly worthless bit is the HoGwaRtS. Michaelsanders 11:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has never been agreed to. You have just reverted everyone who has removed it. It is not cannon, it is your opinion that these match up-to real historical events and times and this is a POV of yours from reading the canon. Real history has nothing to do with these characters. The descriptions of names also has nothing to do with this article, again this is POV as you are assuming the people are specifically named after certain history meanings. If you are going to claim these assertions you need verifiable sources which explicitly state this. While the info is interesting it is not verifiable and is original research as you are not citing or quoting anyone. Please see WP:OR and WP:V.--Dacium 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If a historical context is to be kept within this article, it should be worded as to be very pertinent to the Hogwarts founders (as opposed to being more pertinent to general Wizarding world history). All unverified detail would also have to be removed. Thus shortened, I don't think it would be longer than a couple of sentences, and would not deserve a section heading. It should just be included among the introductory paragraphs (before "Godric Gryffindor"). " The historical note at the beginning, a note of historical events at that time. Name meanings are hardly POV - over-in depth, perhaps, but not POV. I have restored some of the relevant details. Michaelsanders 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some of what you put back. "Historically, the closing centuries of the first millennium, and the beginning of the second millennium, saw an increasingly intolerant attitude towards witchcraft and sorcery. In the fantasy world of the Harry Potter stories, this is partially reflected" This is COMPLETELY your opionion about a 'reflection' of history. I don't know why this isn't clear to you. Where rowlings grew up has absoltely nothing to do with Godric Gryffindor. Moors are found all over the world based on definition. Again Saint Grodic correlations are original research and your opionion about matching up and are no verifiable.--Dacium 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to real history / OR 

message: It seems Michaelsanders is back. It can no longer be argued that Slytherin may not have been a pureblood supremacist. Rowling has said so on her site, and Rowling is the ultimate authority on the history of her own world. Unless you're going to claim that Rowling is wrong, (which would in turn imply that her world is real) then there is no more need for weasel wording about the uncertainty of ancient history. He was a pureblood supremacist. Get over it. Serendipodous 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slytherin apologetics

message: the sword to aid Harry as he destroyed the Horcruxes. The sword, due to the basilisk's venom, was able to destroy the horcruxes inside Marvolo's ring, Slytherin's locket, and Nagini.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.13.187 (talk • contribs) 
* I don't think so, the sword is goblin-made and I think that is what helps destroy the horcruxes permenantly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachoolao (talk • contribs) 
** I added that clarification, using Horcruxes#Destruction as my source. It is my understanding that, while Goblin craftsmanship is exceptional, that more specific and powerful magic would be needed to eliminate a horcrux. A more specific and verifiable citation would be great. --Dystopos 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this Right?

message: :Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif