Talk:R.A.B.

message: I believe that after this portion:
"It should also be noted that Voldemort would have wished for Regulus to come across as insignificant to him, so no one would quesion as to why Voldemort had ordered Regulus to die. Therefore, by Sirius saying that Regulus was rather unimportant to Voldemort only increases the suspicion that Regulus was indeed a major concern for Voldemort."
there should be another thing saying: "furthermore, if Regulus was as insignificant as Sirius has claimed, then Regulus would have been killed much later(as Karkaroff was killed more than a month later from his diserting).
:In fact, this should completely disappear from the article as it is blatant Original research.Folken de Fanel 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Any sentence in an encyclopedia that starts with "It should (also) be noted..." means someone is about to try to prove something, which is clearly Original Research.  This one is also synthesis, clearly attempting to prove a point.  The proper way would be to find a source: "Dr. Bill Snodgrass of the Potter Research Center for Inter-universal Magical Studies showed in the independant British publication Journal of Modern English Literature that Regulus must have ..." and so forth, with links.  That would be a fine (if absurd) example of how to properly document an analysis of a fictional subject, in accordance with the Wiki-rules on notability of fictional works and the Manual of Style on writing about fiction.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that real encyclopedias contain certain things missing on wiki? Sandpiper 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean or what your point is.  Was that tongue-in-cheek?  I am certain there is material that is present in a paper encyclopedia, or even some "real" online encyclopedia such as brittanica.com, that does not appear in our Wikipedia.  There are also all sorts of things appearing in the Wikipedia that do not appear in the the other encyclopedia formats.  This can be for a variety of reasons, such as these articles are built by a consensus of "amateurs" rather than a team of professionals and experts in their respective fields.  The point I was attempting to make is that was that we should be able to collect and post information from published literary analyses and theories from those professionals and experts as part of a good article on fictional works (or characters such as RAB or concepts such as Horcruxes), if and only if we can find and attribute them to suitable sources, and provided we maintain a neutral tone and do not engage in original research and synthesis ourselves, or attempt to make a point in doing so.  I know the arguments over reliability, notability, and suitability of, for example, John Granger's publications are unresolved, and will not be resolved without arbitration from the Arbitration Committee, unless one side gives in.  I simply continue to attempt to lay the foundation for how we could proceed if we can find and agree-to (if forcibly through arbitration) an "expert" as a source for the theories and analyses related to HP articles.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. I think i tagged it  'minor' for that reason. You implied that 'encyclopedias' might be expected to contain sections starting it should also be noted. Wiki has been publically criticised for not carrying enough opinion. Particularly, on topics where a 'real' encyclopedia might be expected to voice an opinion. Sandpiper 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only notable opinion, not mere theories from forums, and not opinion from contributors themselves.Folken de Fanel 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a national newspaper got some experts in various fields to look at wiki articles. One of the comments, from more than one of the 'experts', was that the wiki articles did not express an opinion over what was right or wrong. I read it in a wiki debate somewhere. A real encyclopedia does carry 'authoritative' articles which simply state the views of the editors. Sandpiper 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh.  Well.  Did not mean to imply that at all, although you and others apparently inferred it as such.  Meant to imply that if a supposed-encyclopedia, like the Wikipedia, says something like It should be noted... in an article, then something is wrong, because such an opening is usually used in the context of a pursuasive argument among politicians and commentators when debating or discussing an issue; something which an encyclopedia should avoid.  Encyclopedias are meant to document facts and controversies, not make arguments for them.  I would be amazed if a "real" encyclopedia frequently made use of phrases like "It should be noted...".  Sorry for the confusion.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Opinion: I tend to agree that we should probably be able to post, encyclopedically, a very limited number of very carefully selected samples of reasonably well-established and externally-publicized and widely-discussed (if not thoroughly peer-reviewed or critiqued per se, or independantly-published and therefore somehow more authoritative) "theories", if only to document the phenomena, as a sort of "alternate knowlege base", on a few of the major themes as presented in Books One through Six, and which are expected to be addressed in Book Seven.  In fact, I think it is our duty to do so: to present to the public, which may not be very firmly established in the HP Universe and the Pottermania phenomenon in general, the material as an educational tool, with links to the proper and reasonably-reliable sources of the theories.  To not do so strikes me as approaching a cover up - essentially hiding the facts - that is, the fact that the theories exist, regardless of whether the theories themselves are "factual", or if they will prove to be so or not.  It starts to cross the line of pushing a point of view to insist that no such theories should be even mentioned as existing.  This in no way implies that we would be somehow compelled to post every little fan theory that has serious problems (eg: the Scarcrux).  I also think Jimbo Wales, per the principles posted on His User Page, would tend to agree that presenting some reasonably established, credible, and externally-published theories on such a major phenomenon would be allowable under ignore all rules in order to improve the  Wikipedia, in spite of the many editors who might firmly regard it as disallowed as original research from self published sources.  Some of our editors seem particularly fixated on totally forbidding this, nearly to the extent of Wiki-Lawyering, disrupting the articles to illustrate a point and just being difficult.  But I believe we are going to need a higher authority to assist with binding arbitration to sort out what should be allowed, and to satisfy the edit warriors on both sides of this issue.  We must avoid engaging in original research ourselves, as well as pushing a pet point of view or synthesizing published material, in order to advance a particular position ourselves; but mentioning that folks like John Granger and Mugglenet (et al) have already done so, and providing some reasonably acceptable examples, does not seem to me to harm the reputation and quality of the Wikipedia; and may in fact improve it substantially.  Just my view, but as always, I have absolutely no interest in joining and engaging in the unending edit and reversion war  with certain editors over it.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  which does illustrate another of wiki's difficulties, that the most determined and belligerent editors often tend to win, simply because those not immediately concerned in the issue cant be bothered (with some justification) to get seriously involved. Sandpiper 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, until now, my experience has been that the determined and belligerent young (or old) editors (note:  not the WP:BOLD but the WP:UNCIVIL) eventually tire out and give up their childlike obsessions, in the face of strong administrative discipline and after a few WP:RFC's and block bans.  Time was when an editor called another experienced editor's good faith work at improving the Wikipedia as "vandalism", and especially "obvious vandalism", "POV pushing", (etc) and always assuming bad faith, and constantly engaging in WP:3RR edit wars and just barely dancing around the 24-hour rule on 3RR, in a content dispute over sourced and relevant material which is "probably (or at least possibly) allowable" under WP:IAR, and doing this across two language editions of the Wiki, well those editors would get blocked with progressively longer sentences on both sides of the Channel (6 hours, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months,  6 months, 1 year, and then banned for life), while being on probation (eg: no reverts, or just one revert of actual vandalism under WP:1RR, etc) when allowed to edit, until the improper behavior is eliminated for good.  What we do not seem to have is enough administrators with the time or energy who are willing to hang around and take up this rather tedious disciplining task around this hairy "Harry" project.  The proper approach to dealing with "the most determined and belligerent editors" is to work the processes according to the rules - with WP:RFC, WP:DR, WP:RFM, WP:RFAR, etc., and let nature take its course.  Reverting and re-adding disputed material and ranting and raving at each other on the Talk pages really does not help.  If the dispute cannot be resolved in the first two or three rounds "at the ground level", then it needs to go up the ladder to a higher authority, not continue to fight it out and try to draw in more soldiers and swords in the battle on the ground, making the whole meadow a bloodbath of incivility, which is bound to frighten away the newcomers and visitors to our project.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: I'm going to unprotect the page, as it has been protected for two weeks.  Please take care to avoid edit wars. CMummert · talk 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: In dispute:  The note left by R.A.B. addresses Voldemort as the Dark Lord, and Death Eaters are about the only group that customarily refers to him thus.
One of the "pieces of evidence" that has been kicked around for the last 2 years suggests R.A.B. was Regulus Black (or perhaps some other rebellious Death Eater) because the Note is addressed to "The Dark Lord", and that the only people to refer to him as such are Death Eaters.  This is a false bit of original research, which cannot be sourced because it is untrue.  It originated on speculative fan theory blog pages and became part of the legend-myth landscape not long after H-BP was published.  The fact is, Dumbledore repeatedly refers to Voldemort as "the Dark Lord" in various conversations with Harry, as an example, so I do not believe we can continue to try to use this weak and tired bit of "proof".  Now if we are able locate a reliable quote from Rowling where she states that only Death Eaters refer to Voldemort as the Dark Lord (and she may well have said so), then we can quote that as a matter of fact, but we would still need to point out the inconsistency that at the very least, Dumbledore does too.  I struck the phrase - please discuss before re-adding it back in.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not stricly unused by non-Death Eaters, but only on seldom occasions. So rare, in fact, that Harry himself makes the mistake and claim it to be used only by Death Eaters.Barraki 15:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - then I suppose we could be allowed to quote that line from the book, if it is considered sufficiently notable.  On further study, we have Dumbledore almost continually referring to Voldemort in discussions with Harry as Lord Voldemort or just Voldemort (see HPB - ch. 3, ch. 4., ch. 10, ch. 13, ch. 17, ch. 20, ch. 23, ch. 26, ch. 27); and not so much as the Dark Lord per se.  When addressing Voldemort in conversation, however, Dumbledore calls him "Tom", or indirectly as "Tom Riddle", even after Voldemort protests "They do not call me 'Tom' anymore...".  Anyway certainly Snape uses the expression the Dark Lord in the chat at Spinner's End (HBP ch. 2), and his "true loyalty" or whatever is still up for grabs.  Trelawney's Prophesy refers to the Dark Lord four times.  In any case, I don't think we can attempt to use the point that allegedly "only Death Eaters" refer to Voldemort or address him as the Dark Lord, in order to try to prove or imply something about R.A.B. from the note in the locket.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, Snape's example shows that former Death Eaters use it. I noticed that the former director from Slyzerin and Cruch Sr use it, but Harry didn't. Barraki 10:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it. But actually I wonder… Harry claims it to hurt Snape, maybe he remembered other use it. Anyway, Harry knew Snape was a former Death Eater. Barraki 16:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Dark Lord" 

message: The section regarding the Foreign Translations of R.A.B. and the respective translations Regulus Black / Black Family name has been riddled with "citation needed" tags for several weeks now.  Rather than allow the entire section to be deleted, according to the rules on uncited materials, I've added links to the respective foreign wiki-articles (Dutch, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish), which can be "worked through" with a little patience.  Some of the other-languages mentioned (Greek, Turkish) were simply too difficult to "read" for average english-only readers, due to major diferences in alphabetic structures, so I deleted them.  Anyway obviously these wiki-references are not ideal as reference sources, but I think they are better than nothing at all, and it is better that the translations material stays rather than eventually getting deleted by the cleanup crew.  If anyone is able to find better references, please provide them.  Thanks.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give you the book Muggllenet.com what will happen in  Harry Potter 7, which says,Further evidence can be gleaned from foreign language editions of the book in which the Black family name has been translated. In the Norwegian edition, for instance, the Black family name is 'Svaart', and the initials on the note have changed to RAS: in the Dutch version, the name is 'Zwarts', and the initials are RAZ. The foreign-language editions the english surname of Black, however, retained the locket initials RAB. (p.99)Sandpiper 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Translations (again) 

message: Regarding the following paragraph in this article, which appears to be both OR and irrelevant to the subject, and which is discussed between the involved users above:
The object that replaced the real Horcrux was a locket. Dumbledore believed the real Horcrux to also be a heavy gold locket, once the property of Salazar Slytherin. Chapter Six of The Order of the Phoenix mentions a heavy, unopenable locket in a glass case at number 12 Grimmauld Place. The locket was amongst property discarded by Sirius Black as he undertook a total cleaning of the house. There was no mention of it having a Slytherin seal, which the real Slytherin locket is known to have. The locket may have been taken either by the house elf Kreacher, who was trying to save Black family artifacts from the house cleaning, or stolen by Mundungus Fletcher, who was keen to exploit the financial potential of any neglected goods. Mundungus is later spotted with a suitcase full of possessions taken from the house, and in the company of the barman from the Hog's Head. J. K. Rowling confirmed the barman is Dumbledore's brother Aberforth. Aberforth was seen drawing his cloak about his throat, as if concealing something, as he walked away from the scene. It is possible that he now has the locket. Mundungus was later arrested and taken to Azkaban prison. According to Langford et al  , many readers who have followed the series have concluded that this locket is the real horcrux, and that it is now in the possession of either Kreacher or Mundungus. 
====References included:====
=====1) Langford Ref:=====
Book title The End of Harry Potter?, David Langford, uk hardback isbn=057507875, uk publisher Golancz, p.126. Author has won 27 hugo awards and as well as being an author himself, has written for many years about other peoples fantasy. Also contributed to The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction  (which seems to have the startling price tag of £200, so I'm not going to get one).
::::Lost Locket
The item of unfinished business which is most obviously vital to the storyline of book seven is the lost Horcrux which Dumbledore and Harry go looking for in that unpleasamt cave in Half-Blood Prince. What they find and bring back to Hogwarts is not the original talisman but a different locket which has been substituted by someone called RAB.
Most readers who have been following the saga closely have convinced themselves that the truth of the matter is roughly as follows:
*RAB was most probably Regulus Black, Sirius' younger brother, who was one of Voldemort's death eaters for only a short time and is thought to have been killed for changing his mind and trying to escape the dark lords service. Could his middle name possibly be Arcturus, which was revealed in 2006 as another Black family name - that of Regulus' grandfather? Or perhaps he was given the name Alphard after his uncle, or some other star name such as Algol...
*While he was still a death eater and had some access to (or was entrusted with) Voldemort's secrets, Regulus learned where this Horcrux was hidden. He stole the locket to ensure the dark lord wouldn't be able to make use of this particular spare life, and replaced it with a harmless, unmagical look alike- plus a note saying what he'd done.
* The real horcrux was then 'hidden' in plain view among the Black family assorted oddments and bric-a-brac diplayed in glass fronted cabinets in the drawing room of 12 Grimmauld place. (Here Rowling may have been thinking of Edgar Allen Poe's famous 1845 detective story 'The purloined letter', where repeated in-depth searches-including probing of the furniture-fail to find the vital doucumnet, which all the time has been sitting openly on a letter rack)
*It's barely possible that this locket was one of the Black family 'treasures' set aside and hidden by Kreacher the demented house-elf, while Sirius Black and his companions are clearing Dark-tainted junk out of the house.
*Whether or not Kreacher was involved, it seems highly probable that the locket was eventually pinched from 12 Grimmauld place by light fingered Mundungus Fletcher. This si strongly hinted when, in HBP, Harry catches Mundungus trying to flog crested goblets from the Black family silver in the hogs head pub. There seems no reason for this scene to have been written, except to slip in the suggestion that the shadiest member of the Order of the Phoenix has also stolen something nmore important than silverware.
Conclusion:Harry definitely needs to have a serious little talk with Mundungus. [end of quotation]
=====2) Spartz and Schoen:=====
The book Mugglenet.com's what will happen in Harry Potter 7 by Ben Schoen and Emmerson Spartz (yes, the Spartz who was personally invited to interview Rowling and asked her about this, US publisher = Ulysses press isbn 1-56975-583-3. (hit #2 in the New York Times best seller list).
This book has a whole chapter on RAB, his being Regulus and why, and the likely location of the locket now at Grimmauld place. some quotes.
Conclusion after two pages of explanation: Taking into account the matching initials, the foreshadowing in an earlier book, and the connection with Voldemort, who is the likeliest candidate: Regulus Black
Foreign editions: Further evidence can be gleaned from foreign language editions of the book in which the Black family name has been translated. In the Norwegian edition, for instance, the Black family name is 'Svaart', and the initials on the note have changed to RAS: in the Dutch version, the name is 'Zwarts', and the initials are RAZ. The foreign-language editions the english surname of Black, however, retained the locket initials RAB. (p.99)
Discussion of how the locket was stolen:So whom did Regulus take: Who better than a creature who was magically bound to obey his every command? Kreacher, the Black family's house elf, accompanied Regulus to the island in the cave and helped him to steal Voldemort's Horcrux.
Whereabouts of the locket:It is almost certain the locket was taken to Grimmauld place...where is it now?...Kreacher..stealing small objects...Mundungus...stealing from Grimmauld Place...
=====3) MTV article=====
One scene to look out for in the movie is whether or not Kreacher is seen taking a locket from Harry or Hermione while the pair clean Sirius' house. Since author J.K. Rowling has informed the screenwriters on what's important to include in the movie adaptations, a shot of Kreacher with the seemingly innocuous silver locket would go a long way towards proving once and for all that "R.A.B." is none other than Sirius' younger brother Regulus, a former Death Eater who was rumored to be hunted down and killed by the Dark Lord himself.
=====4) see also Hart Ref=====
Wendy Harte, writing in  'who killed Albus dumbledore' edited by john Granger:
The most compelling clue that a switch might have taken place at Grimmauld place  is the existence there of a heavy locket that no one can open - a locket that careful readers with good memories assumed was the horcrux locket as soon as they learned the one from the cave was a fake. In half-Blood Prince chapter 10, Marvolo gaunt grabs his poor daughter by the necklace chain she is wearing to show bob Ogden that they are indeed Slytherin's heirs. Jo describes it as a gold chain and a heavy gold locket.
===Comments===
: if you read the above section, you will see a breakdown of this paragraph, and why i feel it should be removed.--Jac16888 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the description so you can now see the sources referred to in the paragraph. Sandpiper 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: : if you read the above section, you will see a breakdown of this paragraph, and why i feel it should be removed.--Jac16888 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the description so you can now see the sources referred to in the paragraph. Sandpiper 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This archive has been nominated for deletion.  I haven't a clue as to why.  If someone would sort that out, I'd appreciate it.  Rklawton 05:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Where?  Got a link?  I do not see it listed in WP:AfD, and there is no AfD template banner on the archive page that I can see.  Thanks for the head's up, but I do not see it yet.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:R.A.B./Archive 3]]

message: In the first section of the article, it mentions people with "unknown christian or middle names". Should this say "unknown first or middle names", as the religions of the characters are not mentioned in the books? I don't see why it should be called a "Christian name". "First name" seems to be more appropriate.
Cdlw93 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian name/ first name 

message: Does anyone have any possible locations for the existing locket if it were destroyed and made safe, you may account for any persons that are possible RAB.
Any suggestions may be important to include on the page.
For instance if RAB were Regulus A Black  then examples could be as following:
*Thrown in the Great Lake.
*At the Noble and Most Ancient House of of Black, mentioned whilst they're cleaning the house: "a heavy locket that none of them could open" HP5, Chapter: The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black (UK p108).
The last could be important for the identity of RAB T saston 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Locations for the Locket 

message: The True Identidity of R.A.B. as known in the last installment on the book is that he is Sirus's Brother, I can post a image detailing this if needed. =)
 
:Show a link for confirmation,
Here's a link I found 
It's legit, I have a friend who had the file, and I've read the entire book.
Alexbrewer 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Identity 

message: What is to happen to this article after HP7 comes out? Simply south 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: Should we include other identities assumed to be RAB before Regulus, such as say Mr Borgin (What's his first name) and others Hermione mentioned? T saston 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Identities

message: Should be be merged to Regulus Black now? --Ayleuss 13:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, should be pretty easy, i reckon that it should just be this article with his role in the books and meaning of name added, although, obviously it should be title regulus blac, with rab redirecting to it--Jac16888 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. This was still a source of mystery, and I think that even with the revelation of Regulus as RAB it is still a noteable enough source of curiousity to have its own page. WookMuff 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: After reading over the article I see very little (or nothing) appropriate to move/merge.  This article covers the unknown R.A.B. that exists in the characters (and the readers) minds in the time period between the discovery of the fake locket (book 6) and the revelations at Grimmauld place (book 7).  This content does not belong in the article that covers Regulus himself. 74.136.213.96 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?if RAB is in fact Regulus, then anything concerning RAB concerns Regulus. That there was a lot of debate about the identity of RAB is just the sort of real-world information which ought to go into articles. Sandpiper 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I've rewritten the lead of the article to make this an article about the mystery of R.A.B., which is (potentially) a meaningfully different topic than Regulus Black. If the articles are to remain separate, which, apparently, right now they are, this is a sensible way to divide them - this one about the literary mystery/phenomenon, the other about the fictional character. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be better, considering the shortness of the regulus article, to instead move the relevant parts of this article to there and have this page redirect--Jac16888 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I did not feel like doing a page merge when I made that edit. Phil Sandifer 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the mystery of R.A.B. and the person Regulus are two different topics and it is not appropriate to merge them.  However, both articles are pretty short so if someone does so, I'd be fine with that also. Bryanc 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only reason to keep them separate is a spoiler issue, for people having read book 6 but not 7, but I'm not sure having two articles would even successfully do that. Two articlces were necessary before RAB was confirmed as regulus, just in case he wasn't. Sandpiper 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it should just be the article about regulus, with the mystery about rab beneath it--Jac16888 12:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead