Talk:Horcrux/Archive 1

message: How's this: The fake locket is the real horcrux and Voldemort concieved the "decoy" and note as a final protection to the horcrux. Why? R.A.B was alone when he wrote the note, he knew about Voldemort, he somehow got around the potion, he detected the trace of Tom Riddle's magic, yet he was in Riddle's and Dumbledore's time. Would not the wizarding world have heard of this man who was more powerful than Dumbledore? JKR said there won't be any new major characters in HP7, so R.A.B has few potential matches. Those who do match the name are certainly inferior to Dumbledore in power, yet whoever R.A.B was, he was composed enough to write a note after taking the potion (or used stronger spells than Dumbledore had to banish it). These seem implausible. More likely is that Voldemort kept the real Locket for himself and tricked Harry into thinking that the real one had already been destroyed (so said the note); thus, if and when Harry destroys the rest, he has one left in his possession. 
Is Sirius' brother R.A.B?
:In this case, yes. Regulus Black. see the article about minor harry potter characters. --fpo 05:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
::Is that canon?  Because knowing JKR, until we are told that it is Regulus Black, then it could be someone, (or something,) else! Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Regulus seems the most likely character at the moment, but seeing as we're all saying that she may throw a curveball when writing it...I read somewhere else that one of the owners of Borgin and Burke (we don't know their first names) could be responsible, which is pretty plausible too considering Voldemort basically stole from them. E03bf085 13:20, July 20 2005 (BST)
:::She has stated that the whole plot for all 7 books was written before the first was publshed, so I would be pretty sure she already knows who it is and is unlikely to change it.81.139.132.104 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: R.A.B.?

message: I deleted this final paragraph 
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS PURLY FICTION. IT IS ON NO ACCOUNT REAL...
But wait just one second. If a horcrux is a soul, It's living. If it's living, by destroying it you kill a part of Voldemort, which would make YOU a murderer. So Harry Potter has a horcrux from killing Tom Riddle's Diary, and Dumbledore killed on too. Would that mean that, for instance, TOM RIDDLE'S DIARY IS HARRY'S HORCRUX?????''
As it is unencylclopaedic and makes little sense. Any objections?
--Cruci 13:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph 

message: CC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter
I'm glad that I wasn't the only person to think that the Horcrux is like a lich's phylactery. What do you think about possibly expanding this mention to other articles? I find it interesting that what Voldemort does to himself (and its subsequent results on the soul and the wizard's physical body) seems very similar to what a wizard does to attain lichhood in the D&D universe. --Deathphoenix 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other diffrences as well.  As I understand it a lich cannot stay very far from her Phylactery for an extended period of time as it contains the entire soul.  Additionally a lich can regenerate a body automatically after some period of time.  Dalf | Talk 00:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay. No-one said a horcrux = phylactery. Only ~ (approximately equal). :-) --Deathphoenix 02:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree.  I just think the diffrences and similarties are intresting.  Though I think if we look we will find lots of other similar examples in other legends, fantasy universes, etc. Dalf | Talk 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcrux ~ Phylactery 

message: As you have to perform a spell to produce a horcrux, there are no "accidental horcruxes". That makes it also very unlikely that Harry is one.
:What if it was intetional? The Potters lived at a place called Godric's Hollow. Harry's wand shot Gryffindor's colors when he found it. Voldemort could not secure anything of Gryffindor's to make a horcrux. Harry could be Gryffindor's heir, with James being killed to make Harry the horcrux.
But part of Voldemort did transfer into Harry, and some kind of linkage did established between Harry's Soul and voldemort's soul. So we do not know how much of Voldemort's soul is placed in him, and if we do, is that sufficicent to make Harry into an accidental Horcrux.
I agree - I think it is unlikely that Harry is Voldemort's Horcrux.  In HBP Dumbledore makes a point of saying that it is impossible for Voldemort to possess Harry because Harry has a pure soul.  If Harry was his horcrux this would probably not be the case...
"Accidental" here means that Voldemort meant to create the sixth and final horcrux (an unknown object) with the murder of Harry, but thanks to Lily's protection, he failed to kill him and the soul fragment entered Harry instead, who should have been dead. Hence the "accidental": Voldemort meant for something else, and not Harry, to become a Horcrux. Also, maybe Voldemort's soul had already been divided by the murder of James or Lily, so failing to kill Harry would be irrelevant in that respect. Sinistro 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Accorfing to the recent TLC/Mugglenet interview with J.K.Rowling, Harry is not Gryffindor's heir. Sinistro 13:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  accidental horcruxes.. 

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

message: Perhaps the building itself is a Horcrux: it was the only place that Tom Riddle felt safe/happy/whatever.
Did the Sorting Hat know of the prophecy - which is why it offered Harry Potter the choice of house? (Anyone wish to create a list of objects that are sentient/capable of initiating action in others - the Sorting Hat, Michael Moorcock's Runestone and Stormbringer, the Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey etc?)
It's been a while since i've read the first book, but if I remember correctly, the sorting hat really didn't give Harry a choice, but rather put him in Gryffindor because Harry specifically asked not to be put in Slytherin. If anything the sorting hat places the student into the house they consciously chose to be in, as Hermione proved when she reveald that she asked the hat to put her in Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw. As for the Hat knowing the prophecy, Dumbledore was the only person to know the full contents of the prophecy until he told Harry, because he didn't discuss it with anyone it's doubtful that the Hat overheard anything about the prophecy until book 5.
:althought the hat is stored in dumbledores office, where we have seen him talk to all manner of people.Sandpiper 20:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hogwarts and Horcrux

message: I don't know how much relevance this has, but think about this: Each time he makes a horcrux, Voldemort's soul is divided in half.  That would mean the horcrux gets half and he keeps the other half.  The second horcrux would get half of the half that remained within him, thus making two 1/4 portions of his soul.  If he made 6 horcruxes (the final and 7th portion remaining in his body) the final one would contain 1/64 of his soul and the peice that was left within him would be the same.  This means that both Voldemort himself (at least before his body was destroyed due to his botched killing curse) and the final horcrux contain a pretty small fraction of his soul.  Being that it is such a tiny portion, is it unreasonable to think that it somehow became a part of Harry?  Harry could be the final horcrux, but also he could have somehow absorbed the small part of the soul that would have come from Voldemort's body upon his destruction, meaning that the now resurrected Voldemort would have no part of his own soul within him.
: Each time he makes a horcrux, Voldemort's soul is divided in half Where did you get this notion? All that was said about the creation of horcruxes was 'spliting the soul'. Voldemort knew that he was going to make 6 horcruxes in total, so he would be prudent to only split 1/7th of it the first time, 1/7th the second and so on. 
 Here's a formula you can use regarding horcruxes:  S = 1 /(2^(D-1)) when D>=2.
 D = the desired number of soul peices.
 S = the portion of the soul that is left within the body and subsequently the portion that is held within the final horcrux.
::Or it is euqally likley that the dark wizard in question has no controle over how large a piece of his soul gets ripped away.  It could be that all the pieces that are in horcruxes are the same size, and what is left is in his body.  It could be that the pieces all remain connected in some way (which would explain how it keeps him from dying, and can therefore somehow equalize.  It is more likley that the size of the soul parts are inconsequental or that the concept does not even apply to such metaphysical thigns.  Either way I do not think that sizes and % are going to play a part in the plot of the final book.  Dalf | Talk 00:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After further thought I suspect (as in total speculation) that the significants of 7 being the most powerful magical number and so on actually applies here in the mecahnics of the thing.  The reason that splitting the Soul 7 times is best or for insuring the wizard in question does not die (as opposed to say 1,000 horcruxes) is that the soul in these cases breaks off a 7th.  & being some how a magically significant number.  Therefore it is possible that the wizard either cannot makre more than 7 (as he would not have enough of a soul left) or doing so would not result in a horcrux capable of sustainning him, or would in some other way push him so far fomr him humanity as to be a sort of extream case of diminishing returns.  It is of course totally possible that this will not even be discussed in the last book.  Dalf | Talk 11:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voldemort's Soul Divided into Seven Unequal Parts 

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

message: Seems to me it would fit better there, if it should be anywhere, though it probably is worth mentioning since it's such a prevalent fan theory. Seems rather superfluous here when there's a separate R.A.B. article, and in any case the huge paragraph on the locket is unwieldy and spoils the flow of the article. Thoughts? -- Guybrush 17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about restoring an edit into R.A.B. because it's a cited piece of speculation. I'd appreciate any feedback you guys can provide on Talk:R.A.B.#Regulus Black theory Thanks, --Deathphoenix 17:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Regulus speculation to [[R.A.B.]]? 

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

message: I ask this because there seems to be a double standard- the theory that Harry is a Horcrux is usually deleted from the article, while the theory that R.A.B. is Regulus Black has been there for a long time and is apparently allowed. Each is speculation, however. I sense that people's own personal prejudices are getting in the way- the "Harry is a Horcrux" theory is perhaps the most prevalent on the internet, and there should probably be a reference to it, at least as an idea that has gathered popular support.
:R.A.B. is a reference in the books to a person this invites a list of people who meet the critera, further I am nto sure anyone in the fandom or out does not think R.A.B. is Regulus Black.  The Horcruxes are given with less information and no evidence that a human coudl serve as one.  I think looking over the no original research page there is a distinction.  Plus citing a source or more for exactly who thinks (someone or some reputable site) is more easially achieved in a credable manner for the R.A.B stuff.  Also the books invite speculation on the R.A.B. issue, where as they purport to tell us what the Horcruxes are (for the most part).  To put it another way, the articles that cover R.A.B. are not speculating that he is Regulus they are reporting about the universal (and apparently unopposed) speculation in the fandom. Dalf | Talk 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Wikipedia mention the R.A.B. theories and not Harry/Horcrux? 

message: I've removed some speculation and what I see as original research from the Possible Horcruxes section.
I cut out a sentence stating that Marvolo Gaunt's ring was made into a horcrux with the murder of Voldemort's  father and grandparents. This can't be true because Tom was wearing the ring before he even asked Slughorn about the horcruxes. He killed them before he even knew how to make a horcrux. 
I've also removed a sentence stating that Riddle's diary was made into a horcrux with Moaning Myrtle's death. This is just an assumption; there is no canon proof. Also, Tom didn't kill her, the basilisk did. I removed speculation that Tom made his Hogwarts Award for Special Services to the school into a horcrux, and that he used the murder of Bertha Jorkins to make Nagini a horcrux. The Award horcrux idea seems like original research, and Dumbledore said that the murder of Frank Bryce was probably used to make Nagini a horcrux.
--WhyBeNormal 03:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed on all fronts, though who says that the murder and the capturing of the torn piece of soul have to happen at the same time?  :P  But, as you say its all original research (infact its less than that its speculation). Dalf | Talk 06:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you're clear on the meaning of WP:NOR.  This is still original research (in Wikipedia's meaning of the term.)  The rest of the horcruxes are discussed in the book as possibilities.  Your possible horcrux would be most interesting on a HP forum, or maybe on Harry Potter wikicities, but fan speculation (even with justification from the book) is not a solid enough source for an encylopedia.  Friday (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I have added an "Other theories include:" to the List of possible Horcruxes for those with there own theories (I did this at school, hence the different IP). Obviously, stick to the personal opinion rule when you add to it, it's there to mention that other people have those opinions, not saying that the opinions are correct.
:Wikipedia is not a place for your own theories and speculations.  I'm removing this bit.  Friday (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  This will all be explained in roughly 2 years, so be patient.  Until then, relay the facts we do know as published by J.K. Rowling. 216.251.149.130 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room for Speculations 

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

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

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

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

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

message: I'm not sure how to handle some of the points in this section. 12 Grimmauld Place & Godric's Hollow are fine there, and "Death Eaters" might be acceptable. I'm not sure about the other points because they don't really rely on possible items that are mentioned in the books and aren't put forward by anyone in the books. Therefore, these rely on analysis and/or some speculation. OTOH, these other points are fairly well written, don't really detract from the quality of this article, and aren't as wildly speculative as other locations. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 18:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually aren't the other items belonging to the four founders specifically mentioned in the books - by Dumbledore? That whole pensive scene about him lusting after the artifacts - and Dumbledore speculating that he thinks it would suit Voldemort's ego to want an item from one of each of the founders? I don't know - I didn't write the points, I just tidied what was there. - Beowulf314159 18:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The items themselves are fine: I'm concerned about the "possible locations" section, or rather, some of the points in this section. 12 Grimmauld Place, Godric's Hollow, and maybe "Death Eaters" are okay, but I don't see any of the other locations mentioned as possibilities by anyone in the book. --Deathphoenix 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - the other section. My bad. Hmm - yes, if they're not mentioned in the books anywhere, maybe they should be taken out. - Beowulf314159 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible locations 

message: You can get the word "horcrux" by taking 3 letters of each word from "crumple horned snorcacks".
crumple horned snorcacks
-> cru, hor, cks -> horcrucks -> horcrux
--Muhaha 19:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crumple-horned snorcacks