Talk:Horcrux/Archive 4

message: on which page is the locket in grimmauld place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.15.116 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the HP Lexicon it's first mentioned in chapter 6 of Order of the Phoenix. John Reaves (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  locket 

message: This is from the description section. "It is unknown what happens if a person with Horcruxes is kissed by a dementor."
It's also unknown what happens if you a person with Horcruxes gets slapped with a trout, but that's entirely irrelevant, as is the reference to dementors, as of right now.  Why is it even slightly important what happens if a person with Horcruxes is kissed by a dementor?
:Because the Dementor's kiss takes the soul. Does this have an effect on the other parts of the soul? Are they all taken? Is the person invulnerable to a Dementor's kiss because of their horcruxes? Michaelsanders 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The refrence shoudl be removed unless we can find some sort of worth while source discussing it. Dalf | Talk 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that the dementor's kiss would suck out the soul IN a person. Thus, the remaining soul of the person(with a horcrux) would be sucked out, but the soul of the other horcruxes would still exist, and the person could be revived using those horcruxes as well. GavinTing 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly irrelevant reference 

message: to make a horcrux you must tear your soul, when this happens you remove a bit, but does that mean you now only have half a soul? If voldemort has done this 6 times, is the soul he now is using only 1/64 (2^-6) of a full soul? Does this mean right now harry is fighting a very weak version compared to that he will be fighting at the end? Wolfmankurd 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he gets the soul fragments back - isn't the damage supposed to be irreparable? As for the division sizes, we simply don't know enough. Michaelsanders 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of soul

message: Although not expressly stated as a "Horcrux" there are other forms of entertainment or literature that mention the concept, such as Lord of the Rings. The One Ring is a horcrux of sorts that keeps the Dark Lord from dying until the ring is destroyed. I bet that this isn't the place to talk about the concept from other literature and such, but I thought I would mention it, just in case anyone was interested.   rlee1185 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcrux in other literature 

message: Another intractable reversion war is underway, regarding the works of John Granger, in his published book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?.  Granger published some critical analysis with theories based on his studies of the Potter series.  Editors such as MichaelSanders et al wish to include Granger's material, as a reliable source providing sourced analyses.  Other editors feel this material constitutes forbidden speculation and original research.  The Wikipedia's Manual of Style of documenting works of fiction and Notability guideline for Fiction defines parameters such as:
*Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.
*Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
* Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
*Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
*Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.
The question put to a Consensus Discussion (please see Wikipedia:Consensus) is:  Should Granger's work be permitted as a sourced analysis of Rowling's work in discussing her books and concepts taken from them?  This is not a vote, per se, but an attempt to come to reasonable consensus, so concise but reasoned comments are more valuable than just a yea or nay.  Please place your thoughts as Allow or Disallow or other appropriate header, example:
*Allow (example) - Granger's work constitutes a properly sourced analysis on the topic of Horcruxes... (explain why)
*Disallow (example) - Granger's work constitutes pure groundless speculation which is to be avoided ... (explain why)
*Other / Comment (example) - This should be taken to Mediation or the the Arbitration Comittee because the argument is intractable and consensus would be inappropriate ... (explain)
--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial proposal

message: ::::For the record - I am attempting to remain as a neutral moderator or facilitator in this discussion.  I laid out on my talk page discussions and elsewhere what I think would be the requirements for declaring Granger's work as either a valid reliably sourced analysis, with the justification for providing such analyses based on the Manual of Style and Wiki Guidelines on articles about fictional literature (see links above); or as disallowed speculation and original research that has not been critically evaluated for accuracy or reliability by 3rd party "experts" in the field.  I have not read Granger's works or evaluated it in any way.  What I told Michael is that IF we can count Granger as a reliable source, then "this" is how we should present his work within Rowling-subject articles, such as Deathly Hallows or Horcrux: as a separate "sourced analysis" section, and fully attributed to Granger.  This differs greatly from allowing anonymous editors to post personal pet theories - Granger's work is in the public domain, and is verifiable to the extent of it is what he says.  That said, I agree that if Granger's work CANNOT be declared a suitable reliable-sourced analysis, then it should not be included.  The Wiki is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive - especially in the matter of works of fiction.  I am inclined to believe that Granger's work may be suitable for analysis of materials in the first 6 books, but projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice.  I think the Wiki policy allows us to document the knowledge base, and I am not convinced that Granger's work is disallowable only because of the nature of the publisher.  It seems that this is the only hang-up for allowing Granger's work - the publisher.  If a different publisher, say Scholastic Books, published it, would that suddenly make Granger's material a reliable source?  What would be the requirements for an independant published analysis of Rowling's books to allow for inclusion as sourced analyses?  What is the threshhold for inclusion that would satisfy Folken et al?  This is what I am trying to capture.  One thing we need to think about, in addition to the Wiki guidelines for articles on works of fiction, is that some of us may be engaging in a little WikiLawyering - such as: 
::::*Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; 
::::*Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and 
::::*Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
::::I think we may be to the point where we need to call for Mediation or Arbitration, since neither side of the issue seems to be interested in reaching a sensible compromise or consensus.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moderator interruption

message: If I may interject into the discussion with a question: There is some similarly speculative but sourced material posted and discussed at the Albus Dumbledore article in an External Reactions section - referring to the old DumbledoreisnotDead.com web site (now restructured as BeyondHogwarts.com).  This provided I think a permitted precedent for Michael's efforts to post "External Reactions" on other topics, such as Horcruxes.  That DumbledoreisnotDead.com material was permitted, right or wrong, after a lengthy debate.  It seems to me that it is not much different from Granger's work.  Thus if discussion of sourced information from DumbledoreisnotDead.com is allowed as a permitted "sourced analysis", should we not also allow Granger's analysis?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moderator Question - Dumbledoreisnotdead.com web site vs Granger?

message: :That's a totally different thing. The "Dumbledore is not dead" thing is not a mere theory among others as this WKD book is. It was (is ?) a major popular reaction to an event in book 7. In that case we can say without doubt that this opinion spread through most of the HP fanbase. 
:But read carefully, I'm not saying it is a plausible theory and that's why it should be in the article because, we never know, it might prove right in book 7. Not at all. 
:It went really far, at the Radio City Music Hall in 2006, when, in front of 6000 people and JKR herself the "dumbledore is not dead" issue was debated. Each time it was mentionned the crowd applauded. JKR was even forced to reveal something she wanted to remain secret until book 7 is published, she even mentioned the website.
:If that's not a major fan reaction...
:You see, that's why it's notable. But not because Wikipedia has become an annex to Lexicon, publishing every possible theory on book 7, because "we never know"....
:So really I find your example really off topic. By the way, while the mention of dumbledoreisnotdead.com is acceptable in the article, I think all these mentions of precise theories (not the fact of believing D is not dead, but the development of theories as if we were on HPLexicon-pedia) would not be necessary.
:But as far as WKD is concerned, that's really not the same thing. It's not notable in any way. It's obvious certain people want to use it as a source just for the sake of speculating and turning WP into an annex to the HP Lexicon, not to report a major popular reaction which forced JKR to reveal a bit of her plot in front of 6000 people. Folken de Fanel 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: OK I hear you - but please remember Folken, I am acting as a neutral mediator, facilitator, and moderator here - stepping out of the opinion-giving, and asking the "team" here the appropriate and important questions to determine what is (and is not) acceptable for posting in the HP Project articles, and in particular, WHY.  You are welcome to decide a question is "really off topic" if you wish, but that is not particularly appropriate in this "brainstorming" environment.  The example brought up, in the moderator's view, is totally appropriate as a discussion point, whether you personally agree, or approve, or like it, or not.  Our purpose here is to come to a compromise or consensus, and we do that by looking for common ground and reaching agreements, not just throwing up walls by claiming someone or something is somehow "really off topic".  Now - I think I hear you saying that the difference between the unacceptable Granger's "WKD?" book (and his website) and the acceptable Dumbledoreisnotdead.com web site is that DDIND is a reflection of the views of thousands or HP fans, but that WKD? represents the views of one person - Granger.  OK well let's run that viewpoint up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.  If I did not phrase your statement correctly, then please clarify below.  Let's try to keep it simple and straightforward, so we know exactly what we are trying to discuss, and avoid going off on tangents.  Remember our guidance should be the Wiki Policies and Guidelines, not our personal beliefs and biases.  Discussion anyone?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moderator Comments

message: In part I agree with you. My difficulty with quoting Granger is with the issue of balance, not noteability. I find this refusal to sanction quotations from the acknowledged experts in this field, Lexicon, Mugglenet, TLC, Hpana, etc, as completely absurd. Absurd because it contradicts the evidence that these sites have been acknowledged as useful and informative on all aspects of Hp, and also absurd because they are not preculuded by any of the rules of wiki. Wiki does not ban fan sites. It merely says they should be used with caution, and I entirely agree. I have had some discussions with people over the issue of to what extent wikipedia, a well known fan site, should be considered a reliable source. My analogy and debate rather suggests that eg Lexicon should be given more weight than wikipedia. Not, perhaps, if someone understands wikipedia and is able to go through the history of a page and make an assessment of how good the editors there are, but in general: if one should rely on a page from wiki, or a page from lexicon, then Lexicon whould be preferred. The reason is that lexicon is prepared by informed professional editors who have a vested personal interest in maintaining the accuracy of their site. Articles are fact checked, peer reviewed and only presented in a finished condition. Wiki pages may be sheer rubbish. Who knows whether they have been fact checked by anyone? who knows if anyone has gone over them and reviewed the content. Wiki has lots of rules, but many fewer contirbutors on a given page, each writing and publishing their own articles.
Relatedly, but slightly at a tangent, my librarian and I were discussing medicine. Should the doctor cutting someone open rely on wiki, or on surgery weeekly? The answer is, surgery weekly, I think. Wiki is not 'safe'. It is probably pretty accurate, but not written to err on the side of safety. It may include an exciting new trick for grafting someone's kidney onto their liver, but is this tried and tested? Do I want my surgeon checking wiki to see what is new in his subject? No, I don't think so. Why not? because wiki is a fan website, and not reliable enough.  Now, HP. Do I rely upon a fan website in this case? The answer is yes, I do. Why? because the nature of the subject is different. Some people seem to be taking a very blinkered approach to this argument. This is FICTION! No one dies if the reader follows our suggestions. Readers KNOW this is fiction. Just like the crazy argument that all article should be written out-universe in case people are misled. Do people here seriously believe other people think HP is real? What constitutes a good source in one field may be a bad source in another. We are currently writing articles which are mainly interesting to readers because they help people to understand the story better. WE ARE NOT HERE TO SIMPLY RE-TELL THE PLOT. Remember that rule? Yet crazily (again) the rules are also interpreted by some to prevent us doing anything else. 
There are two interesting aspects to a book outside of the plot itself, which anyone can get by reading it. One is historical background, trivia such as the title being released using a hangman game. The other is explanation of the plot, which goes beyond the simple story. This involves reorganising the events to explain what happened, speculating on why characters do what they do, why the author did something a particular way, what works may have influenced her.
This second category is not black and white. It is speculation all the way. This is a recognised field of research which has existed for a very long time. At school there was a whole exam on 'English lit', which used two or three books as examples, but was really about learning to analyse literature in general. The proper standard for a source for this kind of information is not 'surgery weekly'. Not that I would refuse to quote a recognised journal in this field, but that I do not require the same level of precision and certainty as, I hope, that journal must provide. What I seek to use here to make the articles useful to the audience is the kind of source which is expert at providing the information needed. That means, here, fan sites. Not bad fan sites, but good fan sites. Choosing them is not difficult: we have even been recomended some by the author. Then, there are also a small number of publications. Granger, for example. These DO have a higher level of respectability. The fact of being published on paper implies that there is a financial stake in their printing. It implies people are willing to pay for the information. It implies noteability for doing something which most fans do not do. 
The proper criteria which editors should be using in including this stuff is balance, not accuracy. The question should be, 'what are the major circulating theories about horcruxes', and 'are they each given proper weight in the article'. Then they should be included with mention of where they came from. Reliability is absolutely not required. It is, frankly, impossible (as Folken says, the last book is not published yet). What we are expected to provide is a balanced explanation of the possibilities. That is what accuracy means in an article like this. Sandpiper 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to 129 and another take on this (necessary break for ease of editing)

message: ::Folken, you have an odd take on life. There are two old established rules on wiki. One is 'Be bold'. This is frequently the first thing told to new editors. Another is 'Ignore all rules'. It is a firmly established principle that there are no no absolute rules, except possibly that the website's founder reserves the right to do anything he deems necessary.
::1) you still miss the point, which is precisely that no one knows for certain what is in book 7. Everyone is speculating like mad and this is what we should be reporting. 
::2) If wiki is worse than Lexicon, then obviously it needs more help. Lexicon is well established and well run. This is literally true, Folken. wiki is a high maintenance work, because it is a fan site where the fans literally post absolutely anything they like.
::3) which indeed is related to (2). What else would you call it, other than a fan site? Do you write about subjects that interest you, or ones that don't? It is written by fans. And what makes you think it is not written by 14 year olds? Or that Lexicon is not written by literature professors in their lunchbreaks? One of the nicer things about the internet is that it allows people to edit anonymously and just be judged by their ability, not their age. 
::4) I don't invent stories or theories. I report ones I have seen elsewhere, and I believe this is what others do too.  This is precisely what people are supposed to do on wiki. People want to know this sort of information. You greatly underestimate Rowling if you believe her last book will not be based firmly on the events of the preceding ones in a way which is at least predictable in retrospect. Looking ahead it is not possible to select the one possible path the story will take, but it is definitely possible to predict the general course, or select more likely ones.
::5) information is many things. Telling people about existing speculations is indeed informing them about the world as it is.
::6) See introduction re the rules of wiki. But I do follow no OR, and I report reliable sources. The theories reported her are not OR, and are from sources reliable in this context. At least as much to the point, they are also the best sources available.
::7) Again wrong. Funnily enough I agree with some of those who have devised 'rules' about this. We  do need to explain the plot as it is relevant to a topic, but there is no real point to extended encyclopedia articles like these if they do not leave the reader understanding the plot, not just knowing it. Sandpiper 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mistake me. I am not rubbishing wiki. I am pointing out that in many ways Lexicon is significantly better. It is you who is seeking to argue that internet fan sites are worthless. Sandpiper 07:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: :::"Ignore all rules" doesn't exist. You've just invented it. If you, personally, don't want to respect the rules, that's your problem, and you'll get what you deserve for it. But don't try to act as if you were right because it's not the case.
:::1) Well, since WK is not a crystal ball and is not a publisher of original thoughts and since those speculations concern a minority of the whole fandom (and for that, see the very well written message here , and given that such theories can be see as fancruft, I really can't see why any of this would be admitted here. And since you seem yourslef to agree there's no reputability among fan theories...  
:::2) Then Wiki needs to develop by itself and for itself. It was not created to be the perfect mirror of HP fansites. Again, you seem to really miss detachment here: Wikipedia certainly not limits itself to HP article and other fictional things. But anyway, go and tag Wikipedia itself for deletion, then, if you find it so bad.
:::3) We're not talking about fans. We're talking about competent people who know what they're talking about, AND also people who don't necessarily know it. But in any way, it's not a fan website. You give to the word "fan" a meaning that is too pejorative in the Wikipedia context : because for you, "fan" means fan theories and fanfictions, and other fancruft and egotistic stuff...
:::4) No. On Wikipedia you are supposed to write what is factual and relevant and notable. You are not supposed to write your own stories, and I again remind you of the notability criteria guideline for articles of fiction which states that "Fiction not yet written may be considered speculation (again, not by default, but often so) which is grounds for deletion because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games, etc."
:::No people do not want these kind of non-informations. They go to Lexicon if they want to find theories, but here the aim is absolutely not theories. 
:::You greatly ovberestimate yourself if you think you or any fan can guess the plot of HP7. Anyway, with you we're back right to what someone said earlier: " From what I have seen of "real" fan sites, some people will argue for just about anything. They spend ages reading these editorials, doing in-depth studies, building Rorshack ink-blot tests for themselves, and never stepping back and saying "Wait! That makes no sense." They sometimes spiral down into a series of assumptions compounded on assumptions, with the eager support of other fans also falling down the same well (and there are always scores of idiots to support *any* half-brained theory as long as it doesn't directly violate canon), until they think that their view of the world is actually more popular, more accepted and more consistent than it actually is."
:::You're talking about "predicting the general course" ? But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ! You're talking about "selecting the more likely ones" ? But who are you to do that ? Have you read book 7 ? Are you able to see the future ? No. So drop this. 
 
:::5) This is not information. This is POV pushing.
:::6) OR is what doesn't come from reliable source, so any theory is OR by definition, because there are absolutely no reliable source as far as unpublished books are concerned. No one is able to see the future or to read the mind of JKR, so no theory can be reliable.
:::7) Again you're wrong. Fan fiction doesn't correspond to the plots of book 6 and 7, so no, people won't understand the actual books by JKR, with other external plots written by other authors. Again, you lack detachment. Folken de Fanel 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Lexicon is better, go there and don't try to make WP a mirror of it, because that's not why it was created. Folken de Fanel 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Replies