Talk:Sirius Black/Archive 1

message: At no point in the books, to my knowledge, is Sirius confirmed to be a member of Gryffindor.
:New comments should go at the bottom. No, it is not confirmed in the books, but Rowling stated in the World Book Day chat that all the Marauders were in Gryffindor. Hermione1980 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some bullshit

message: I think the death date for Sirius should not be before the spoiler warning, just in case someone hasn't read "Order of the Phoenix" yet. Anyone agree?
Blast it!  Would it have killed the creator of this entry to format in a spoiler warning?!
What is the motivation for ruining so many readers' experience? A spoiler warning is really not so helpful anyway. This sort of entry serves no purpose.
:I could not possibly disagree more.  Wikipedia is not an arbiter of thought; we do not leave out details because they are uncomfortable, whether they be in serious articles such as those about the Holocaust, or "fluff" like an entry for Sirius Black.  If a reader does not want to know all about Sirius, they should not read the entry; it is not up to us to be the world's guardians. Phil Bordelon
I wholehartedly agree with Phil Bordelon, there is too much emphisis on spoilers, after all for someone who has yet to read the books all the info on the pages are spoilers not just selected sections. If someone does not want to know details about the character or his role in the books because it may spoil thier reading experience ..... then dont go to a bloody encyclopedia web site and read pages and pages of book related facts. An encyclopedia is a reference body of facts and should not suffer because of the possibility of someone at some stage becoming a wee bit upset because he hadn't got to that bit in the book yet!
A simple spoiler notice at the top of the page would suffice, not get into debates on at what point the article becomes a spoiler. That should cover it. --Dan 02:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Date

message: I am puzzled by the end of this article's penultimate paragraph. It seems to me quite certain that Black is deceased: the description of Bellatrix's spell seems unlikely to indicate a stunning spell (Sirius does not fall unconscious; indeed, his eyes widen in shock) but presumably some form of killing (or wounding, in this instance fatally) and there is nothing in the narrative to suggest that his falling through the veil (or falling backwards, which at the time happened to be through the veil) is the cause rather than the consequence of his death. If no one gives me cause to doubt this over the next few days I shall edit accordingly.
:I made some changes to this article, and decided to remove speculation that he may have survived after reading the above discussion. I agree, Sirius may or may not come back, but for now, he is well and truly dead. --Deathphoenix 18:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lest someone wonder why I removed the question mark from his year of death, it is for the same reason I removed speculation that he may have survived: regardless of whether he may be resurrected or not, Sirius is 100% dead as a doornob as of HP6. Placing a question mark after the year of death is about as speculative as you can get. --Deathphoenix 05:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: He's Not Dead!!  (So sayeth the fans) 216.43.124.150 21:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well JKR was asked, and said she did not believe in resurrection (not of characters, anyway). Mind you, there seems to be some question mark over the death (or not) of his brother regulus, too. Must be all that pure blood keeping them going. Sandpiper 00:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ahem. Discuss the article, not the books or the characters in them. Thank you. Hermione1980 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is he dead or not?

message: Perhaps, if someone could find several screenshots of Sirius's wanted posters, they could be put together as a .gif and used as the headshot picture? it would be, after all, a literal headshot as well as an interesting addition to this page. glerf 23:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested picture

message: I've restored the Gary Oldman picture, and moved the illustration down (diff). I understand peoples' concerns about fair use (if that's the reason it was removed), but so far, it seems that many Harry Potter biographies feature the film-depicted character above the profile, and these images are all fair use. Please discuss if you disagree. --Deathphoenix 05:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the Gary Oldman picture 

message: Some of this article is in past tense and some present when describing events in the book. I was just editing one section, which had both mixed up and placed it all in present. This is somewhere suggeted as recommended wiki style for such descriptions. However the remainder of the article is still a bit mixed. Sandpiper 14:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  past or present tense 

message: Does he have one?  I could have sworn he did, but now I can't find it.  216.43.124.150 21:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Name 

message: There was a line I deleted, saying Bellatrix as eldest cousin would inherit Sirius' money. Under English law, it would be divided amongst his cousins equally, not going to the eldest. The matter might also depend on whether there are any other relatives we would not necessarily have heard of? It is not clear who rich uncle alphard was, or where he fits into the family tree. Sandpiper 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the deletion of that line wouldn't be a problem if we were talking about real people, but it specifically states in HBP that Bellatrix as the next oldest Black would have inherited all of Sirius' possessions if he hadn't left a will. I don't know how the line was worded, but something needs to be put back in (I'd do it myself but I'm fixing to go to bed). Hermione1980 00:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i'm not sure without researching it again, but my recollection is that Dumbledore was uncertain whether there were enchantments which would cause Bellatrix to inherit. Or does he definitely say she would have inherited in the absence of a will? Sandpiper 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked it. (HBP ch. will and won't, P52 UK) Dumbledore said that traditionally the house went to the next eldest male in line. He was unsure whether there was an enchantment enforcing this, or perhaps whether such an enchantment would still apply in the absence of a male heir, but also thought it might simply limit ownership to a pure-blood. But the long and the short of it, is that Dumbledore does not actually say who would have inherited if there was no will and also no enchantment. As I started to say, this might be cousins sharing the inheritence, under english law. But in this case, we do not exactly know. Unless the matter is mentioned anywhere else in the book? Sandpiper 20:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cousins inheriting 

message: We say:
:That Sirius survived twelve years in Azkaban at all is remarkable. That he was, even in part, salvageable after them is awe-inspiring.
Is this true, though?  The Lestranges, Dolohov, Rookwood, and so forth, also seem to have survived at least 12 years in Azkaban, and to have been largely salvageable (well, more or less). john k 01:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but that sentence strikes to me as commentary (not to mention being extremely POV). I'd be in full favour of its removal. --Deathphoenix 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really true? 

message: In the first book, there is a reference to "young Sirius Black."  Anyone think maybe this might mean that Sirius has a son?
:Nope, it's referring to Sirius Black himself. The person uttering his name is older that Sirius. I'm quite familiar with older people saying "young John Doe", no matter how old John Doe is. --Deathphoenix 13:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: look at the family tree. there was a sirius black who died as a child many years ago
In the third book, Hagrid recounts his experiences bringing Harry to Privet Drive, and once again mentions borrowing the flying motorcycle from Sirius Black, establishing that it is the same character. Kenobifan 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirius Black, Jr.? 

message: I haven't read the TPOA book but on film Sirius has some very weird tats on his chest. Also, close to the ending where he talks with Harry he's also seen having tats on his hand and fingers. Does anyone know anything about them? I suppose they represent a great deal of what Sirius is, or how he managed to evade the Dementors. If so, shouldn't they be mentioned in the article? Phoebus Panagopoulos 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tattoos seen on film 

message: Someone has edited all references of 'sirius' to read 'Black'. This is an interesting approach, but surely just makes the article more difficult to read. In the books the chracter is almost always referred to as Sirius, or occasionally Sirius Black. Referring to a character as 'Black' is ambiguous as there is more than one 'Black' in the books, in fact several. What did Black say to black about Black, or what did sirius say to regulus about nigellus?Sandpiper 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of there being many people mentioned in the article with the same last name, then you would of course use the first names. But usually, in an encyclopedia, you refer to people by their last names. For an example germane to the topic, consider the following (nice Bill Nye the Science Guy reference): the books always refer to Draco as "Malfoy", yet in Chamber of Secrets when Harry is in Borgin and Burkes and there are two Malfoys in the shop, they refer to each one by their first name, then revert back to "Malfoy" to refer to Draco. That was a long-winded way of saying it, but I think referring to them by last names is better. Hermione1980 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a sort of way to distance and place a character on the outside of an accepted circle. In tPoA, Sirius was on the periphery; he was an assumed killer, and everyone thought he was going to kill Harry. But in the books after that, he is more commonly referred to as Sirius, since he is now 'in the circle'. Just a thought. Disinclination 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black, or Sirius? 

message: This subject has been mentioned on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter#Black_Family_Tree. However the issue is still unresolved. This is one of the articles suffering from the size of the family tree, I think it has become damn near unreadable with all the horizontal scrolling you have to do to read every single line of text. Has anyone got any other suggestions, also unless someone posts an objection on here I think the tree should be removed untill a better alternative can be found.  Death Eater Dan    10:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black family tree

message: It appears that the most recent editor of the Escape and Redemption paragraph has ommited some text at the end of it: "...of the living. It seems that those... [missing text]". If the editor sees this, please complete the sentence. Otherwise, we should remove this fragment under agreement.
dead3y3 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing text in Escape and Redemption

message: It's all speculation. Should it really be here?Throw 07:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that we were allowed to reference speculation (but not print it as fact) if it had been printed elsewhere online, received interest, and was not patent rubbish.Michaelsanders 15:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an ecyclopedia only the facts should be presented. Speculating violated NPOV since JK Rowling hasn't specified it and it wasn't directly addressed in the Potter seires i.e "Hey Sirius, are you a drunk?"Throw 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Stating that "some fans believe" or "one fan theory states" is weasel wording and is to be avoided (see WP:AWW), except perhaps in a separate "fandom" section where fan reactions and theories might be allowable.  As it stands posted here, the "Alcoholism?" section is presented as if factual and encyclopedic, although improperly tempered by weasel words to escape immediate rejection as "original research" WP:NOR.  The theory is pure speculation, with "circumstantial evidence" (smells, bottles) used to prove the point.  For all we know, Kreacher may have been consuming the butterbeer and leaving the empty bottles around, and perhaps Sirius had to intervene and the house elf either puked on his master's clothes, or broke a bottle over his head.  Unless Rowling states that yes, Sirius fell into alcoholic depression or something, then it cannot stand as posted.  Move it to a fandom reaction section, or delete it as pure speculation.  Also the web sites used to bolster the argument are not reliable sources WP:RS - they are speculative themselves.  Reliable sources include the books, perhaps the movies (perhaps with a canonical asterisk), Rowling's web site, and any documented interviews with her words quoted exactly.  Anything else is not to be considered reliable.  --T-dot 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat behind the times, I think. Michaelsanders 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any merit to keeping the alcoholism claims?

message: I have been reading the interview with J.K.R:
JP: What, killed this person?
JKR: Yeah. Well I had re-written the death, re-written it and that was it. It was definitive. And the person was definitely dead. And I walked into the kitchen crying and Neil said to me, "What on earth is wrong?" and I said, "Well, I've just killed the person". Neil doesn't know who the person is. But I said, "I've just killed the person. And he said, "Well, don't do it then." I thought, a doctor you know... and I said "Well it just doesn't work like that. You are writing children's books, you need to be a ruthless killer." 
She never said that Sirius is dead, another deaths are in the fifth book(Sirius' brother, some gigants, Hagrid's mother, etc). Maybe JKR wish make discussion about the possibility that Sirius is alive, or she is thinking in made Sirius reappear.
Luis
:Rowling did not mention Sirius by name in that interview conversation, specifically because it was a spoiler.  She was describing the pain in killing off an (unidentified) important main character in the new book (OOtP) which was certainly new at the time, and possibly even unreleased at the time of the interview.  Sirius was the only main character killed off in OOtP.  We do not know specifically when Hagrid's mother was killed - it is only mentioned in passing as a past event; and she was never really discussed at length previously and was not a major character - so it could not have been traumatic for JKR to kill her off.  Rowling has said innumerable times that Sirius is dead, Regulus is dead, Dumbledore is dead, Harry's parents are dead, and they are not coming back to life.  She has said that many people die in Harry's world, due to evil deeds, and thats the way his life goes.  She is not going to make all things new and bring back the dead loved ones, save perhaps in the moving pictures of them.  In any case, thanks for your contributions, just please do not post speculation that you read about at a fan web site, or that you invented yourself, in the main article.  Thanks for discussing it here first. --T-dot 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sirius Alive?

message: *Sirius Black and Regulus Black are currently the only characters whose four grandparents' names are all known: Arcturus Black, Melania Macmillan, Pollux Black, and Irma Crabbe. Coming in next is Draco Malfoy, of whom three grandparents' names are known: Abraxas Malfoy, Cygnus Black, and Druella Rosier.
*Like all Animagi, Sirius' dog form made him immune to the effects of werewolf inflicted injuries.
I've moved this here to retain a record of it.  Please try to incorporate this information into the article. John Reaves 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia