Talk:Horcrux/Archive 3

message: Archives
----
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4Archive 5
Created 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Hey ... In the book when voldermort created 1 of thoes horcrux he didn't want it around him anymore and he hid it (except with the snake (whome i dont belive is 1)) ... when harry is close to voldermort his scar starts to hurt is it possible that the reason that he dosn't want the horcrux's near him is because they dont want to be near him and therfore this MAY provide evidance for Harry being a horcrux ... hmmm
:Yes, very interesting. If you want more responses to your theory, you might want to try to post your theory in one of the fan forums. You'll get more responses there because Wikipedia is NOT a fan forum. --Deathphoenix 13:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said and:  Well gosh "hmmm" (is that your name?) - Voldemort sure got up close and personal with Harry in Goblet of Fire - touched him on the face even (after he had some of Harry's blood of the enemy, forcefully taken in him).  And then he tried to kill Harry.  Now please explain why Voldemort would want to A-K the life out of "Harry the Horcrux" - thus destroying his own soul fragment?  Preposterous.  The Harry / Scar is a Horcrux fan forum fanatics need to rethink their faulty theories, and for goodness sake keep them off of the Wikipedia.  --T-dot 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry is a horcrux theory

message: The article seems stable. There hasn't really been any meaningful major edits in a while. The facts seem all hammered out - at least until the next book. All that seems to happen is that the same old tired noise of "Harry is a Horcrux", and "The One Ring is kind of a Horcrux" keep getting added by anonymous contributors that think they're being original and helpfull.
So - is it worth locking the page for a bit? - Vedexent 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the persistence of these tired old edits, I don't think it's appropriate to lock the page. It clearly doesn't receive the edit warring or persistent vandalism (which these editsare clearly not) that other articles receive prior to being protected. Take a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy for more information on what types of articles are appropriate for protection. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the page? 

message: The image of Riddle diary is from what has been depicted in the CoS movie, and hence, I feel, is not suitable enough to illustrate the diary as is depicted in the novels. I feel it should be removed, or at least the mention that it is a movie screenshot be made. --Soumyasch 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly makes it "Unsuitable"? It is a picture of an open book that is mostly blank... which is what the diary was. It is also explictly stated on the image's page (click on the image) that it is a screenshot - read the copyright notice. Did you have a better candidate picture you wanted to replace it with? - Vedexent 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This screenshot demonstrates an example of the diary, which is the only horcrux that has been seen in a movie. I don't see how this is unsuitable at all. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riddle's diary image 

message: I'm not part of this thing, but i notice that the lich isn't mentioned here at all. while the horcrux being equivalant to the phylactery is unproven, it at least deserves mention
:No, it does doesn't (oops, my bad - V) really deserve mention. Neither does the "one ring" or a handful of other "borderline similarities with my favorite fictional universe". The article is written to make reference to Harry Potter material only, with the only external examples for clarification being to a serious, published, work on mythology which is available (and linked) in Wikisource. This is an Encyclopedia; you can't expect the average reader to be familar with "Dungeons and Dragons". - Vedexent 11:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lich? 

message: Okay, when I came to this article, I was very surprised to see that no mention was made of the possibility that Harry might be a horcrux, smply because it is one of the most popular fan theories in HP fandom. On viewing the archived talk page, I saw that there had been plenty of discussion over whether Harry might be a horcrux or not, with people on both sides spouting the same tired arguments. "He might be one because..." "He can't be one because..." etc. Now, last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a Harry Potter fan site, and even this talk page is not the place for an issue that is largely unresolvable until the release of the final book. Because it is unresolvable - there is no concrete proof either way. Can anyone, without resorting to discussion of the text (because that way lies assumption and subjective interpretation), tell me exactly why this hugely popular theory is inappropriate for inclusion on the page. I'm talking about a one-liner "There has been much speculation among fans that either Harry or his scar may be one of Voldemort's horcruxes.", with maybe a couple of points about where the theory arose, and what the arguments against it are.--Victim Of Fate 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such discussion would have to focus not on the theory but on the people who have the theory in order to meet Wikipedia policies about original research, verifiability, and references.  That would open a can of worms of including every variant of the theory and counter argument that is out there simply by linking to someplace in the fandom that supports the idea.  Don't think that simply mentioning it would not open such a can of worms because if we did some people would insist that the mention violated NPOV unless they could include their refuting the theory and then others would insist that to be NPOV they needed to have their say in the article too.  Look at the mess that is a in a lot of the HP articles where fans want to include every little conversation a character had that they think is significant to the characters personality.  It would get out of hand quickly, further I actually think it WOULD violate NPOV to include any speculation and not all speculation (no matter how well referenced) since including any implies that we have looked at the speculation and judged some theories reasonable enough for inclusion and others not.  As you stated this is not resolvable to everyones satisfaction until the next book comes out so not including any speculation, except a mention that speculating about the Horcruxes is common, leaves the reader aware of such speculation but prevents Wikipedia from being a source of it.  There are links to places in the fandom where they can go for that. Dalf | Talk 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point. However, this article and others on various aspects of the book do refer to popular theories, most notably the Regulus Black article. Is this not speculation?--Victim Of Fate 09:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, however, it was notable enough to be mentioned in an interview between Rowling, Emerson, and Spatz. We had a lot of problems with Regulus Black being mentioned as a "most fans believe" until someone (Superm401, I believe) had the brilliant idea of citing the interview in response to the theory. Until the "Harry is a Horcrux" (and the related "Harry's scar is a Horcrux") is notable enough to be mentioned by Rowling, there's no reason to be put in. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, additionally this is ment to be an encylopedia and most encyclopedias do not indulge in the sort of litrary analysis we are talking about here.  A lot of the edits in the HP space move in the gernal direction of making CliffsNotes. Dalf | Talk 03:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can easily make it NPOV. How about "Some fans also believe that Harry's scar is a Horcrux, while others disagree". This is surely NPOV. As for your other point, well surely Regulus Black being mentioned in the MN/TLC interview is just proof that Spartz and Anelli found it notable, not necessarily that Rowling did. After all, she is answering the questions, not asking them. Regardless of their position of influence in the Harry Potter fan community, Melissa and Emerson are just fans like the rest of us, and the fact that they think something is notable is only as important as hundreds if not thousands of fans debating the "Harry/Scar Horcrux" theory for hours and hours on fan forums. Furthermore, I'm sure if Melissa and Emerson had brought up the theory in the interview, Rowling wouldn't just have said "Sorry, that's not very interesting, lets talk about something else." Kidburla2002 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary and is original research. Until Rowling mentions it (likely to disprove it), it doesn't need to be mentioned here. we've been pretty strict in removing fan speculation. Right now, the only possibilities mentioned in here are those mentioned in the books (mostly by Dumbledore). Even if Rowling mentions it on her site, we still have to discuss its notability before mentioning it. Is it encyclopedic to mention a fan theory? Right now, definitely not. If it becomes notable enough to be explicitly disproved by Rowling, perhaps, but it still needs to be discussed if she does. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the Wikipedia is not obligated to host every little pet theory and hypothesis - even in the context of "some fans think this and some do not".  We already have an "authorized" and "canonical" list of all 6 Horcruxes (7 soul fragments) from Rowling, via the Dumbledore-Potter conversations and Pensieve memories.  Any other theories and fan speculations are not encyclopedic.  Otherwise: goodness - I have a reddish rock in my back yard - Evilphoenix and I believe it could be a Horcrux because it also has a sort of lightning bolt shaped crack on it (and sometimes seems to glow), while Deathphoenix and Serendipodous both think it is just a cracked rock with some shiny minerals, in a sunny spot.  By Kidburla2002 standards, we must post that on the page under "Possible Horcruxes", because some fans think it is and some don't?  Ahh - no.  When Rowling says "Yes - Harry's scar is another Horcrux" on her web site, or in an interview, or in Book 7, then we can post it.  What she HAS said is things like "The Sorting Hat is a Horcrux?  No, it isn't. Horcruxes do not draw attention to themselves by singing songs in front of large audiences."  While Harry himself has not yet stood up and actually sung or recited poetry in front of large audiences (that we know of), he has done almost everything else imaginable in front of large audiences (Quidditch, Tri-Wizard Tournament, etc...) --T-dot 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as a fan forum? Harry the Horcrux 

message: I feel a horcrux is easily identified. Reread Chamber Of Secrets.
A quote from Sorcerer's Stone
"Gringotts is the safest place in the world fer
anything yeh want ter keep safe -- 'cept maybe Hogwarts."
So the Horcrux is at Howarts itself something senemental to Voldemort
Ron Identifies it"I know that name .... T. M. Riddle got an award for special services to the school fifty years ago."
And after that they got to look and discover
"Riddle's burnished gold shield was tucked away in a corner cabinet."
"However, they did find Riddle's name on an old Medal for Magical Merit, and on a list of old Head Boys."
I definatley Feel that Either is a missing Horcrux.
It truley would make Voldemorts' day by hiding a Horcrux right under Dumbledores' nose. 
(the prev. posted on 20:02, 21 May 2006 by Tateer28 / contribs)
:Wonderful! A terrific example of speculative Original Research - which certainly belongs on all HP fan pages and personal blogs on the subject of Voldemort and his Horcruxes - but it is absolutely forbidden in the "just the facts please" Wiki encyclopedia.  Dumbledore provided us in Book 6 with all the authorized "canonical" possibilities for Horcruxes - and has told Harry what he needs to do about them.  JK Rowling has "backed" Dumbledore's "guesses" by saying he is "never very far wide of the mark".  Anything beyond Dumbledore's list is pure speculaton, at least until Book 7 is released, or until JK Rowling herself releases more information, inadvertently or otherwise, in a verifiable documented interview.  Thanks for your commendable original research efforts though!  --T-dot 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - and most speculators have interpreted that statement by Rowling to refer to the "unopenable locket" discovered at the Black mansion while Harry and the others were cleaning up the place.  Besides that presumed (but still speculative) Horcrux, which may have been Slytherin's, we have Hufflepuff's cup and Ravenclaw's necklace or something else once owned by the Hogwarts Founders, and then Nagini rounding out the top four "most probable" remaining Horcruxes, as suggested by Dumbledore.  It makes little sense that Rowling would have stated that Dumbledore is never far wide of the mark on the matter of Horcruxes, and then thrown in something as remotely far from Dumbledore's speculation as Riddle's old medals and other items left behind at Hogwarts, as you say "under Dumbledore's nose".  That is right up there in with the Harry's Scar, Harry himself, Ginny, and other frequently suggested but equally absurd Horcrux candidates.   You might as well speculate that your toothbrush is one of the Horcruxes.  --T-dot 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The known relics are a pentacle from Slytherin, a cup from Hufflepuff and a sword from Gryffindor. Given that these are three of the four suits of the minor arcana, I think it strongly suggests that Ravenclaw's relic is a staff or some sort of special wand. Just my two cents. grendel|khan 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well we are moving quite far and waide of the point of Wikipedia here into the land of fan speculation.  But, lets just say that given the most common idea for R.A.B. in fandom being Reglus Black, and given that #12 GP was his house it makes sense.  Your objection that essentially, "wizards would have noticed" does not adaquatly account for the fact that they were sorting thouth literally hundreds of hold musty, cursed, dark, decaying, or otherwise unplsant (and unintresting) items.  One of the aspects of JKRs univers that does not always make it into fanfiction is that decent wizard folk do not generally exprss that much intrest in dark objects and they were all pretty much assuming everything in the house was dark the only time anyone took much notice of any pspecific item was when Kretcher tried to save it (which is incidently probbly where the locket is). Dalf | Talk 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcrux Identified in rereading 

message: In the Order of the Pheonix when they are cleaning Number 12 Grimwald place they found “a heavy locket which no one could open.” (pg. 116) If R.A.B. is really Regulus, then this could very well be the Horcrux. Should this theory be listed or no? I wouldn't be the one to know.  (posted by anon. User:63.22.208.139 at  17:48, 15 June 2006)
:The locket and it's possible location has been discussed and debated all up and down this page and over on the R.A.B. article and discussion page and elsewhere.  There has been general agreement that the Slytherin Locket is (or was) probably a Horcrux, mainly because Dumbledore said so, and it was "seen" by Harry in the Pensieve and thoroughly discussed with Dumbledore.  Whether the unopenable locket at Number 12, Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin Locket is debatable.  There was no indication in the text of there being a Slytherin seal on it, or any sort of snake, or "S", or other symbol that would suggest it was Slytherin's.  Furthermore Dumbledore was present at 12 Grimmauld Place from time to time, and it seems he would have noticed the magical locket and detected that it was a Horcrux, and either taken care of it himself, or mentioned to Harry to check on it, rather than adventuring off to the Cave with Harry to get it.  On the other hand we have the locket sort-of perhaps re-appearing at the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade after being in the apparent possession of Mundungus Fletcher, who had some goods stolen from 12 Grimmauld Place, and the bar man who is evidently none other than Aberforth Dumbledore.  The point is - all of this is speculation and/or original research, and not undeniably confirmed or denied by J. K. Rowling, either in the canonical text or in any of her interviews.  Generally speculation and original research is strongly discouraged on the Wikipedia, although admittedly some is allowed in moderation, if there is a strong consensus among the "veteran editors". Thank you for asking! --T-dot 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.  see:  original research for further information. --T-dot 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locket Location 

message: I have removed the statment that JKR implied that destroying the soulfragment involved mroe than destroying the horcrux.  The basis of that being added was an unanswered FAQ poll on here site.  The question was: - Does the destruction of a Horcrux involve more than the destruction of the object?  First of all I don't think this question being on the list imlies anything as it ends in a questionmark and I understand msot of those questions are generated out of the fandom.  That is they are questions people want answered not clues.  Further even if they raised a legitimate question (which this one anyway does not) including an answer to the question in the article as if simply asking the question were enough to imply the answer is especially bad.  Look at the next runenr up question: - Why did Voldemort want the Philosopher's Stone if he already had his Horcruxes? are we to take this to mean that Voldemort did not want the Philosopher's Stone?  In her answer to one of the previous poll questions JKR even says that some of the poll questions do not have intresting answers. Dalf | Talk 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction of a horcrux 

message: I removed the parenthetical (while it is likely that Voldemort has killed more than six times, the resulting "soul fragments" were not extracted) from the article on the basis that the book never says that the act of murder itself creates a soul fragment only that that it "rips the soul apart" though it does refer to "encase[ing] the torn portion" (HBP p.498) it does not necessarily imply anything about what happens to the soul afterwards if it goes back together, or whatever.  As written it could be taken to mean that you could commit a murder and then use that murder to create a horcrux at a much later date.  Mostly I removed this because it felt unnecessary, another little detail to show how smart we are that really is just cluttering up the article.
That said if you replace it please change likely with known.  I think if you list the actual murders from the books you get a number bigger than 6. Frank Bryce (old muggle), his grandparents, father, Bertha Jorkins, James and Lilly potter, that makes seven. Dalf | Talk 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd point out that Slughorn said nothing about it being the spell that creates the fragment - but that the act is what "rips the soul apart". Now the implication is that the 'spell is what does that. We don't know that anymore than the first assertion. The previous version didn't assert that murderers are now a big bag of soul bits. Whether portions rejoin the collective soul is another issue entirely. In an effort to be "perfectly fair" the issue is getting way too complex. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I agree Slughorn does say that the act rips the soul but he does not say what happens if you don’t capture the part.  Does it go back?  Does it rip them into 1/7th parts automatically since 7 in a magical number and voldemort figured this out?  Etc.  I am not saying the removed sentence asked any of these questions but it was not necessary and it implied a degree of knowledge about the process that we don’t have and it included useless information, the total number of people killed by voldemort really does not matter to the article. Dalf | Talk 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All good questions all of which are impossible to know since it is a fictional universe and JKR has not given any clues to this, and all the more reason to stay away form speculating at all.  We do not from what iv given in the books know the mechanism or the mechanics of this process except for about 2-3 sentences of text in the books and as far as I know nothing from JKR herself.  I propose we find a way to work those two or three sentences into the article and totally scourgify all other sentences that have or depend on implications that are not clearly known. Dalf | Talk 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voldemorts murders and soul fragments 

message: Nagini may actually be an Animagus, disguising herself as Dolores Umbridge. Firstly, back in book 5, when Umbridge seizes Harry's arm, Harry feels a sharp twinge in his forehead. This may be because a portion of Voldemort is enclosed in Umbridge. We've also all known how villainous Umbridge is...so perhaps, Umbridge really is a villain and pretending to work for the Ministry of Magic? Since Umbridge came to Hogwarts, we have never seen Nagini in a snake form except for when Nagini attacked Arthur Weasley. Perhaps Umbridge had attacked Mr. Weasley while the others weren't looking? She also exhibits some characteristics of Voldemort (no fear to do villainous things such as set Dementors on Harry or express greed and eagerness to torture) and snakes (very sharp teeth)... from Anon.
:Actually I am Dolores Umbridge!  Well except for those times when I have to go visit my family then dobby fills in for me.  However I am not going to include the amazingly revealing information in the article because it woudl be original research. Dalf | Talk 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolores Umbridge?

message: I believe that the location of Hufflepuff's cup is located at the exact place where Horace Slughorn stayed when he was in hiding. Voldemort may have hidden the Horcrux at Hepzibah Smith's house, as he usually guards all Horcruxes that he creates in the places he retrieved them. Well, since Voldemort supposedly found the cup at Hepzibah's house, he may have hidden it there. In the beginning of the the sixth book, The Half-Blood Prince, J.K. Rowling tells us, "If Harry were to have guessed who lived here, he would have guessed a rich, fussy old lady.", making an implication to Hepzibah Smith, who indeed inhibits those qualities. Hepzibah Smith is also a wealthy, fancy house...well, didn't Harry visit a wealthy, fancy house to pick up Horace Slughorn? I'm even guessing that the goblet that Slughorn retrieved when he wanted a drink was the Horcrux itself...
:Slughorn was staying in a muggle residence which he explaines is easier than a wizarding one since you can simply use a freezing charm on the muggle security system (Though apparently bringging your larger furnature in such as a piano has to be done with care so the neibors don't see) Dalf | Talk 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but at this point, this would just be fan speculation (and therefore not appropriate for inclusion). It would be great if someone interviewing Joanne could actually ask her exactly how she came up with the name: we could then cite the interview when decribing the etymology of this word. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should post some links on this talk page to places where this sort of discussion is ongoing and approprate.  On a more important note, the archiving is probbly good but we might want to add back some stuff at the top regarding general advice for the article.  SPecifically warning agains the stuff that creeps in that does not belnog. Dalf | Talk 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hufflepuff's Cup

message: In Archive 1 there is some talk about the etymologie of the word Horcrux.  I think it is a combination of the latin crux (meaning) cross, and the Egyptian God of Horus, the Sun God.  The cross indicates to the conventional meaning of Jesus Christ dying on a Cross (compare with necessity of a violent death in the book) in order to accomplish the saving of the souls of mankingd.  Horus indicates the Deity in Egyptian mythologie (son of Iris -> Maria) who evolved in the Sun God, who had supreme powers (in the book Horcruces are very difficult and very advanced types of magic.  Combined together it is an analogy (parody) of God dying for the good of men, but in reverse, Evil (Voldemort) living eternally by killing life.  Seven indicates a perfect number, the Godly equilibrium.  See also Shamanism#Shamanism and New Age movement Stijn Calle 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but at this point, this would just be fan speculation (and therefore not appropriate for inclusion). It would be great if someone interviewing Joanne could actually ask her exactly how she came up with the name: we could then cite the interview when decribing the etymology of this word. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymologie (2)

message: Could Harry Potter himself be one of the last Horocruxes.  After the spell backfired, Voldemort could have used what little power he had, and the murder of Lily, to perform the spell.  Thus marking Harry and causing the connection between he and Voldemort.  
I have thought of this(i am not this person) and decided it couldnt be him, because he made the 7 before attacking harry
Jathurlow 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should post some links on this talk page to places where this sort of discussion is ongoing and approprate.  On a more important note, the archiving is probbly good but we might want to add back some stuff at the top regarding general advice for the article.  SPecifically warning agains the stuff that creeps in that does not belnog. Dalf | Talk 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horocrux Possibility)

message: I deleted and am putting here a line added to the article which is both unclear and dubious.  Can someone please find a refrence for this and possible explaine exactly what is being claimed in more detail:
 In Book 7, J.K. Rowling has stated that Harry has been to the locations of the remaining Horcruxes. 
Dalf | Talk 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious and unclear claim 

message: I just removed the D&D reference about phylactery/lich being related as D&D mythology. D&D doesn't have mythology about such things it is a given FACT in the fictional worlds of D&D that a lich can house his soul externally in any object suited. It doesn't have to be a phylactery/amulet. It could be a gem, or bottle, whatever depending on the person running the game. Innacurate connections to the game don't really help explain real-world mythology towards JKR's creation Horcruxes. shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Presenting such matters here, unless admitted to by Rowling, or expertly analyzed critically in some sort of Verifiable and published Reliable Source, amounts to Original Research, and should not be allowed in the Wiki.  --T-dot 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Long night, are you saying you would like a ref to the D&D aspect, or the D&D aspect doesn't belong unless JKR says she was inspired by D&D? shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am agreeing with your removal of any off-topic material about D&D or other analogues to a Horcrux.  The purpose of the Wikipedia article on the Horcrux is to reveal Rowling's conception of her fictional Horcrux, with verifiability references to her books, interviews, web site, etc.  Comparisons can be made to other items, but such comparisons cannot be original research.  If for example an expert in mythological soul-containers did an analysis comparing Rowling's Horcruxes to D&D liches or whatever, than a discussion of that would be allowed here.  Otherwise it is undocumented original research that is unverifiable.  The whole section that provides reference comparisons to D&D probably needs to go away - it has been removed by cleanup crews and restored by anonymous trolls many times already.  --T-dot 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OH ok. There was something I was unsure if wanted so didnt add here from he most recent site update http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ about a new word and she Googled for Horcrux and she for 401,000 entires on 28 Sept, 2006. Little bit of Horcrux trivia unless it is unrelated to the main concept of the artile. shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - Rowling's website point was that she literally made up the word Horcrux, and used Google or whatever to confirm the word didnt already exist out there somewhere before she used it.  There were no web references to the word Horcrux back then, and now there are "about 348,000" on Google, and "about 233,000" on Yahoo.  We can use this sort of information to "prove" that "Horcrux" is a word that Rowling totally made up out of thin air, and that it does NOT derive from some twist on Latin root meaning "scary cross" or something, or even worse - a Hungarian-Bulgarian word for "broken-soul box" or something, as some superfans may have tried to claim in the past.  --T-dot 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That post on her web-site did not say anythign about the process ny which she made it up.  She does use latin roots in some of her made up words and in most of her names.  We cannot put any specific roots in here since we don't know it to be true, but neither can we put that it is 'proven' that such a derivation is untrue.  We should not assert anythign about it.  We should not include it.  Dalf | Talk 00:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that related ideas in popular culture shoudl be removed wholsale.  Even if (as is the case here) they are unlikly to have inspiored her they are almost sure to have been inspired by the same myths and fairy tales.  It puts it in perspective to see other places that had the same idea.  Also I might add that my understanding of the D&D item is that a gem or other such object containing the soul of a litch is called a phylactery, sure it can be just about anythign but the fact that a litch uses it as such makes it a phylactery. Dalf | Talk 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology 

message: I've been told that there was an interview in which Rowling stated there has actually been one Horcrux revealed in each book. And also that the horcrux of book 1, held a much bigger part in the 1st movie by accident. I've heard this from a few people, but I never personallly saw this interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no there hasn't. She said in the interview shortly after HBP was released that a sharp reader might be able to spot a horcrux or two within the series, but not one in each book. Although that's what some people try and do! Jammi568 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview

message: I reverted an edit saying that it has been speculated that a Horcrux could be created by a potion, as this is speculation and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just wanted to give a reason as when I rolled it back, I wasn't offered to give an edit summary. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  It was also phrased with weasel wording: "it has been speculated" which is a disallowed way of sneaking in an unverifiable or controversial concept - hiding it as a "fact" by conditionalizing or "limiting the liability".  The rule of thumb is: if the statement cannot stand on its own without "some believe" ot "it is speculated" (etc.), then it is not encyclopedic and should not be presented as a fact.  Your support for this sort of reversion is Verifiability wih Reliable Sources and Avoid Weasel Wording and posting Original Research.  On the edit summary - if you open an edit window on a previous version of an article (reverting to a previous version) there is always an edit summary below the edit window which is near the bottom of the page - perhaps it was just below your scrolling pane range and not very obvious.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edit

message: Horcruxes are regular objects until activated to become magical. The only information we have about these objects is from book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rambos shadow (talk • contribs).
:To repeat the comment in my summary: a horcrux is a magical object - a horcrux has a piece of soul magically inserted, and becomes a magical repository of that fragment (and, if the ring and diary are any indication, are capable of magical actions). Yes, a horcrux is a normal object, not necessarily magical, before it gets the fragment - but before it gets the fragment, it is not a horcrux. Michaelsanders 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement on Horcruxes as magical items