Talk:R.A.B.

more ref sources, Mugglent's What will happen in Harry potter 7'

Ulysses press, published 2006, isbn10 1560755833, ISBN13 9781569755839, authors Ben Schoen and Emmerson Spatz. This has a whole chapter on RAB. Just about everything in our article is in there. A few quotes: taking into consideration the matching initials, the forshadowing in an earlier book, and the connection with Voldemort, who is the likeliest candidate? Regulus Black.

So whom did Regulus take {to help steal the locket]? Who better than a creature who was magically bound to obey his every command? Kreacher, the Black family house elf.

If Regulus, with the help of Kreacher, took the locket Horcrux, where is it now? It is almost certain that the locket was taken to Grimmauld Place.

Incidentally, I just discovered that Mugglenet's book [1] [2] about DH has printed 300,000 copies and is currently the number two best selling childrens paperback, after Eldest. Are you really claiming that no one is interested in what will happen in the next book? Even books discussing it are now becoming best sellers. This is highly noteable. Sandpiper 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never ever said "no one is interested in what will happen in the next book". I have said "no one is interested in what some people think will happen, they are interested in what will happen, and what will happen can only be found in book 7". This is not notable.Folken de Fanel 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So how come a current bestseller is a book which simply contains theories about what is actually in Rowlings book? It simply refutes your claim. Sandpiper 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Again, "bestseller" doesn't mean much and only concerns a minority of people, from those communities I talked about. Anyway, you certainly know notability isn't defined by "a high number of people"...Folken de Fanel 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is one criteria. Anything becomes noteable if it is held by a significant number of people or has a significant influence. That is just common sense. Sandpiper 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY#Notability_is_not_popularity.Folken de Fanel 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do hate it when the rules defy common sense. Rather suggests they need amending, doesn't it? Still, at least it says it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I see it also says Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles,... . So in fact this guideline might arguably say we should not have an article titled 'The Horcrux locket at Grimmauld place', but is completely irrelevant to what we mention in this article. Though given the widespread nature of that theory and the fact that the noteability criteria says A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then perhaps we should start an independant article for this noteable theory. I see the section on popularity does however suggest that Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability, so on all counts it is noteable. Sandpiper 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is completely relevant, in the sense hat you try to argue your content would be "notable" while it isn't.

"Widespread", that's your word, not the truth. "Widespread" is not notable. There is no "multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent on the subject". Not a single one. Theory = non-notable. An article about the theory = complete violation of all the rules of WP.

On all counts it is not noteable because there is no secondary source and no in depth coverage.Folken de Fanel 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I know this is all a game, you're just writin the most ridiculous claims just out of frustration, you know there's nothing you can do anymore so you just do stupid things, like vandalizing the french HP articles...Folken de Fanel 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the one where you deleted my comments against deletion of the article in the Afd you started for the french version of this article? Or where I restored content to the french RAB which had been deleted by an anon, which essentially corresponds to the content in this version of RAB which you accept? The vandalised version which you put forward to AfD didn't even make sense if you read it. Or my edit to the french HBP restoring a comment about RAB? Or restoring an explanation in their horcrux article, again created and supported by others re harry's scar? Must be one of those, because I havn't edited anything else there. My edit history there shows that you placed a tag on my user page after I had done precisely two edits on the french wiki, one on each of two separate articles reverting content deletion. Sandpiper 07:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your usual vandalism.Folken de Fanel 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop lying, as admin on fr:wp I can pinpoint than Folken behavior on fr:wp is highly disruptive while Sandpiper got only minor trouble mostly due to his lack of french speaking ability. Folken behavior on fr: is roughly the same conducting him to be blocked four time on en:wp: - phe 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the lier. It's your behavior which is highly disruptive, you're insulting me everywhere just because I didn't follow your opinion.

It is not disruptive to follow the rules of WP and to prevent the inclusion of unencyclopedical content. It is however disruptive to use one's status of admin to impose unencyclopedical content in article, to reproach people to follow the guidelines, and to insult people and harass them when they don't have the same opinion. Folken de Fanel 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is already at least three admin on fr: which found your behavior disruptive, one mediator and a few user, I guess there are all liar right ? And please, can you pinpoint where I used my admin status on fr: to impose "unencyclopedical content in article" ? - phe 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Folken, the difficulty is your persistent claim that material is unsourced, and that this justifies your behaviour. Whatever view you have does not allow you to edit disruptively, to ignore rules, or claim others are editing badly just because they do not agree with you. Above you posted 'theory=non noteable'. I can see how you hold the position you do if you believe what you wrote. However, it simply isn't true. Virtually everything written by an external reviewer about a work of fiction is 'opinion'. Get ten literature professors together, all having spent 20 years analysiing the same book and all agreeing with each other, and still all they can do is explain their theory of what the author intended. it is perfectly possible for wiki to report and explain theories about things. Whether something is considered a theory, i.e. possibly wrong, or a fact, ie probably right, is just a slightly different interpretation. Either way all we do is report what others are saying. The tone of the mugglenet book is something of a middle path between Langford, who mostly and clearly reports others views, and Granger's book, which while it clearly states what is widely held also goes into wilder speculations of the authors. The mugglenet book gives a wider exposition of the mainly mainstream theories. No doubt becaue the authors have spent a lot of time reading posts going over the mainstream theories on mugglent, but that's just my opinion.

Sandpiper, the difficulty with you is that you claim it's sourced.

I have never edited "disruptively", you have (adding unencyclopedical content is disruptive), I have never ignored rules, you have (adding unencyclopedical content is not accepted on WP), and yes, editors like you act badly because you don't agree with me and you just want to show it. But you don't care with rules or anything like that.

"Theory=non-notable", that is true.

There is no external review or literary analyses with theories.

No it's not possible for wiki to report and explain theories, because it's non-notable, unreliably sourced, and a violation of NPOV.

We don't report unreliable and non-notable things.

Langford offers no credibility, no source for himself, no notability.

"What is widely held" is subjective and not sourced.Folken de Fanel 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please stop, I guess it's some sort of conspiracy than you've have have blocked four time and Sand zero. I dunno the exact policy of en: but I'm sure than saying to someone "you're a vandal with a disruptive behavior" whilst it's false is a sufficent reason for another block - phe 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop what ? Why stop ? Now I've not the right to answer and discuss any longer ? You so dislike contradiction ?

The number of block has nothing to do here: you're just frustrated and you're trying to avenge yourself and to track me down just because I "dared" to contradict you on the french wiki.

You and I both know you don't give a damn about all this talk about articles: you're just here to bully me.

See ? No reasoning, no argument, just personal attacks.

"is a sufficent reason for another block" : oh, you're threatening me, now ? It only makes your motives more obvious. Sorry but, what you so desperatly hope, what haunts you in your dreams, will never happen. On the contrary, using WP as a personal battleground is not the smartest idea you've had. Nor is threatening me, and falsely accusing me of things I have never done. Remember all this, and stop using this talk page for unintended purposes. Folken de Fanel 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Other

{{editprotected}}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)

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)

Are you saying that real encyclopedias contain certain things missing on wiki? Sandpiper 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Only notable opinion, not mere theories from forums, and not opinion from contributors themselves.Folken de Fanel 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think perhaps this is a matter of perception. The issue is really that some wiki editors are hyper sensitive about anything which is not sourced. In real life, or in real encyclopedias, this is not the case. Encyclopedias generally rely upon their reputation rather than sourcing every single sentence. This is an obsession upon wiki, which is in danger of becoming harmfull, and comes from sourcing being the main weapon in edit warring. Thus the case in point we have here, a nonsense argument about whether people believe the locket in question is the one previously seen at Grimmauld place. Yes, of course they do, or at least believe it is a significant possibility. Style of presentation depends upon personal preferencees, as well as the nature of the argument. if you are presenting an argument, then it makes sense to present it in the way it is derived, step by step. The issue is not whether an argument is being presented to readers, but whether this is an argument from somewhere else. There is nothing wrong in presenting an argument in a clear way. Sandpiper 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Unprotection

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)

"The Dark Lord"

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)

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.<ref name={{HP5}}ch26/>Barraki 15:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Foreign Translations (again)

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)

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)

Folken and Sandpiper

since you both keep edit warring over this paragraph here it is, and sandpiper, i will explain what is wrong with it.

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.

This is all valid info, taken straight from the books, BUT, it has no place in the RAB article, since it in no way addresses who he may possibly be, instead it is relevant to the Horcrux article, where i imagine it is already included.

J. K. Rowling confirmed the barman is Dumbledore's brother Aberforth.

Has she? where, this needs a source.

Aberforth was seen drawing his cloak about his throat, as if concealing something, as he walked away from the scene.

So what, how is that relevant to RAB

It is possible that he now has the locket.

This is nothing but speculation.

Mundungus was later arrested and taken to Azkaban prison.

I can't see how that is relevant to anything at all.

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.

This is garbage, pure speculation. Wikipedia does not allow fansites to be used as sources, so the same could be said of fanwritten books, i mean the title of one you give as a ref is "Mugglenet.com's what will happen in Harry Potter 7". how do they know? they will be speculating just as much as anyone else. Finally, "many fnas have speculated". what, have you gone round spoken to them all. This is completely POV. --Jac16888 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but being a fan does not prevent you being an expert as well. Nowhere do any rules say that being a fan invalidates a source. 'Fan' is frequently used as a term of abuse, but it has little to do with whether a source is good or bad. The issue is simply that if you want to know about wiring you ask an electrician, and about plumbing you ask a plumber, not the other way round. If you want to know about literature, you ask people who work on it a lot. Why is this a problem? Rowling herself commends the fansites to anyone wanting to know more about her books, as I seem to have pointed out rather a lot. However, this is being sourced by a best selling book, and another from an expert on this kind of literary analysis, who has indeed contributed to paper encyclopedias.

As to your argument that the information is irrelevant (rather than OR), how so? The description is about what RAB is assumed to have done. This is just as relevant as what he is known to have done. the 'speculation' is as described in the sources. Sandpiper 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Why is it irrelevant??

perhaps because it has absolutely nothing to do with RAB, it is info for the Horcrux article, it is all about where the horcrux may be, the section doesn't even mention RAB. --Jac16888 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The only definitely known fact about RAB is that he took a locket and replaced it with a fake. The issue of where lockets appear in the book is inextricably connected with the identity of RAB. People discuss lockets because, surprise surprise, one was found in the home of....Regulus Black. I think it was the only other mention of a locket in the series? The fact that there was a locket mentioned in his home is further evidence of the identity of RAB. I don't understand why it is not clear to you that the reasoning why people believe RAB is Regulus is relevant to the article. Sandpiper 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

we do not know that regulus ever touched the locket in the black house, but it is relevant to the article. so why not say that e.g. "In OOtp, a locket was found in the study, and thrown away by sirius. Its current whereabouts are unknown"

Thats the only bit in the text that is necessary for inclusion, and definite. we don't know that mundungus took it and sold it, neither do we know that kreacher took it. even if "most fans" believe that one of them has it, doesn't mean they're right,as none of them have ever read the book.--Jac16888 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But we do know that Langford and others have written that it is widely believed Mundungus may have taken it. So we are entitled to say so. The present whereabouts of the locket is relevant to the question of RAB and how the puzzle is likely to be resolved. Sandpiper 01:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But we do now that Langford and others are not reliable. We do now that non-notable fan speculation cannot be included in Wikipedia. The present whereabouts of the locket has not been revealed yet, talking about it is crystal-balling, and you can't say how the puzzle is likely to be solved, until you've seen the solution in book 7. Folken de Fanel 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think someone who writes articles for paper encyclopedias is unsuitable to provide content for wiki?Sandpiper 18:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think that the fact someone has written for unrelated to the present subject "encyclopedias", has some kind of special powers allowing him to see the future and to read book 7 before it's actual release ? Folken de Fanel 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be member of the editorial team for 'The encyclopedia of fantasy' and 'The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy'. The relevant word here seems to be 'fantasy' more than 'science fiction', but I fail to see how this is not his subject. Book jacket also says he is currently working on 'The encyclopedia of science fiction'. Sandpiper 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

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)

Uninvolved Comment...

I havn't read the article, but the above paragraph is full of seemingly unsourced speculation. If you want that in this article, fine. However, it does seems to go against general wikipedia policy of trying to be an encyclopedia. Rocksanddirt 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the description so you can now see the sources referred to in the paragraph. Sandpiper 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment discussion, regulus black and the horcrux

I don't see why you have posted that again. The paragraph basically paraphrases what Langford has said about the issue in his book. What he actually said is posted at the top of this page, together with the relevant sections from Spartz and hart. Otherwise, your comments have been answered above also. Sandpiper 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

i posted it again because i have requested comments on the RFC page, and you're supposed to make a seperate section. and you have not answered my comments, not with any real convincing arguments, you just keep going on about the paper source being relevant, even though thats not the issue. the issue is that it is far too extensive, nowhere near relevant enough, and because sentences such as "most fans feel" should not be relevant anywhere on wikipedia, even if they are "sourced"--Jac16888 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

right, I got you. ok, I see what your doing and have shifted my comment down here, and listed the relevant refs included in the paragraph in question. However, your latest edit to the article claims again that the paragraph is non noteable, unencyclopedic and irrelevant. An anon had already started to reinclude this missing information from scratch, so he presumably thought it was relevant to the article. why do you think it is irrelevant? Indeed, how is it non-noteable, the locket is one thing which just about everyone agrees will feature significantly in the final book. Sandpiper 08:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

how about the fact that it has got nothing to do with RAB's identity at all. it is entirely about the horcrux, which yes, was replaced by RAB, but that doesn't mean RABs article needs such a long section about where the locket is. THAT is why it is non-notable--Jac16888 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

btw folken, does you edit mean you are willing to compromise with the reduced section?--Jac16888 13:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have modified a bit Jac16888's last version because there's no undisputable canonical element allowing us to link the locket Horcrux with the unidentified locket at Grimmault Place (and we want to avoid OR by synthesis). We'll have to wait book 7 for this one, sorry. Folken de Fanel 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

i reverted that back because, if you read it, it doesn't actually link the two together, it just points out the existence of another locket where regulus lived. without it, the sentence is just saying the horcrux may be a locket, which is kinda irrelevant--Jac16888 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and this is OR by synthesis. That's why I removed it. There's no canonical element allowing us to link the 2 locket. If you point out to an element that you think might be relevant in this matter, then it is original research. If Rowling had said in book 6 something like "and Harry suddenly remembered the mysterious locket at Grimmault Place", yes, it would be relevant, but that's not the case. Your using A (one horcruxe is a locket), with C (Rowling almost confirmed RAB was Regulus) to deduce B (there's an interesting locket at Grimmault Place). Folken de Fanel 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

strictly speaking, folken you are incorrect. You are ignoring the by new totally clear fact that this is a detective novel, and that Rowling almost always introduces something before it becomes important. So if there is only one locket mentioned in the entire series, when a rather important one is missing, this is is a very heavy hint that they are one and the same. This is indeed canon. You are deliberately unreasonably narrowing your view of what rowling has written so far. 'Fans' are not pot-crazed dreamers. Well, some might be, but the point is that what I have just explained to you is taken from the existing books by people simply making sense of the words they have read. We are entirely entitled to explain how people have interpreted what has already been written.

Jac, the fact that a description of something may exist elsewhere does not in any sense make something non-noteable. Either it is noteable, or it is not. As mentioned in at least one of the references above, the existence of a locket at Grimmauld place is one piece of evidence which has been used to support the view that Regulus is RAB, since it was found in his home. It is hardly irrelevant that an anonymous chap steals a locket, then that locket is found in the home of someone with the same initials? No detective would ever believe that was irrelevant. Sandpiper 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

detectives?? what the hell are you talking about? all you keep doing is coming with ridiculous, insane justifications for the paragraph, that make no sense at all, and completely ignoring the reasons we give for removing it. i am not saying that rab is not regulus, nor am i saying that the locket is not evidence about it. but this article is NOT ABOUT THE LOCKET. therefore we DO NOT need a long explanation for where the locket may be. it belongs in the HORCRUX ARTICLE, so i am removing it AGAIN.--Jac16888 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No I dont understand, you will have to try again. As I see it the first point is to explain RAB and the circumstances of the note's discovery. The next is to explain what people think about RAB...and why. RAB stole the locket: if the aforesaid locket is now at Grimmauld place, home of Regulus Black, then this is a further piece of the evidence for the identity of RAB. This article is about the actions and identity of RAB. How is his hiding the locket somewhere not relevant? The article is also about the significance of RAB in the plot, as a cliffhanger ending. Again, how is it not relevant where a significant object now is, on this ground also. Rowling invited people to debate this and work it out, now we report their results. What is wrong with having a longer explanation of the locket issue, rather than a shorter one? wiki is not paper... Perhaps we should re-title the article 'RAB and the missing locket' to make it clear we are discussing the whole event, not simply the man who did it? Sandpiper 10:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is not an article about where the locket may be. the wherabouts of the locket know have nothing to do with RAB, even if he did put it in the house of black, it wasn't him who threw it away, stole it, or bought it. The missing locket has its own article HORCRUX, like i have told you several times and yet you refuse to even listen. i would prefer not to have it mentioned at all, yet in the spirit of compromise i have simply shortened it, and yet you still refuse to have anything except the former paragraph, despite the fact that it is not particularly well-written. now are you willing to compromise, or will it be necessary to request admin intervention.--Jac16888 11:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we are arguing about editors interpretation of what is relevant to an article. It is my view that anyone interested in looking up RAB would want to know where the locket he stole now is, and i really see no reason why we should not tell them in this article. Why should this information be secret, people studying the book carefully have worked it out and Rowling basically said she expected them to? Folken seems determined to deny that anyone has made the connection between the missing horcrux locket, and the only other locket mentioned in the series. Not mentioning this merely reduces our reputation as a good source of information. Sandpiper 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because book 7 has not yet been published, and no one has read it, not even you. Please also provide link to where Rowling would have clearly and explicitely confirmed the locket is at Grimmault Place.

I am determined to keep WP as it is intended to be, as an encyclopedical website with rules that have to be respected, not as Sandpiper's blog.Folken de Fanel 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't get my head around that folken. Why do you insist that the only view you are willing to include about an authors work is from that same author? It completely flies in the face of all the principles of wiki editing. We report what other people think about this. It will remain valid to comment that fans disagreed about how the final book should go, if it turns out that rowling does something different. We can't report what rowling's view on book 7 is yet, because it has not been released yet, but we can and should report other peoples view of how the story so far works. Sandpiper 02:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not "willing" anything. I'm merely following the established WP principles that say that WP is not a fan site/forum, and that only reliable sources are to be included, and that WP isn't a crystal ball. Folken de Fanel 12:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

you just don't seem to get it sandpiper. the whereabouts are unknown, and yes, most people ASSUME, that it was seen in house of black. but that is all it is ASSUMPTIONS. this is an encylopedia, not a forum for expounding theories on it. but even more, we do not KNOW that the lcoket we saw was the horcrux, and we do not KNOW where it is now. further more, it does not give any bearing to the theory that rab is regulus having a long paragraph about where the locket, which we don't KNOW is the horcux is. also this is all quite pointless anyway, because as soon as the book comes out this whole article will no doubt be redirected to Regulus if it is him, and sources from other writers will be unneccessary--Jac16888 15:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I do get it. wiki reports the views of other people. It does not report the theories of wikipedians, but it does report the theories of outsiders. What is that old joke, 'nothing is certain except death and taxes'. Remember that when editing. Absolutely nothing on any page is certain. Several million people out there thing the lockets are one and the same. This is a noteable fact and should be reported. Sandpiper 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No you don't get it. Wiki only reports what is reliable and non-notable. Attempts at crystal-balling by fans on forums is all but reliable and notable. As Jac16888 said, WP is not a forum to discuss theories. These fans know nothing about book 7, so they're not reliable when trying to guess the content of book 7 (because not based on proofs and comments from Rowling, but merely on their own imagination. Fans imagination is not reliable) and as they're only a minority of die-hard fans gathered around one forum, they're not notable.

As for your allegations about "several million people", they are ridiculous and groundless. You're again and again missing the point. What matters on WP is not what you think is right, but merely what is reliable and notable, and you can't do anything about it, fan theories are unreliable and notable, a consensus is now forming to support this, and the fact that you're constantly ignoring it is only weakening your position. Folken de Fanel 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not argueing its not right, i 'm argueing that A, only a few people in the world can confirm it's right, and they won't, and B, it's inclusion lends no weight whatsoever to the argument that regulus is RAB--Jac16888 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true. A locket is missing, taken by RAB. A locket is discovered in the home of probably deceased Regulus Black. In the absence of any other evidence at all, what would you conclude from this? it is just one piece of the argument, but each piece adds to the credibility of the whole. What you are saying is that you wish to pick and choose which pieces of the argument to explain. people have been convinced by the number of arguments, none of which is conclusive by itself. The identification is considered essentially certain because of the information from foreign editions, which makes it virtually impossible for it to be anyone else, but this was part of the initial reasoning which was put forward immediately after publication, based solely on the info in the english editions. Sandpiper 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we are not supposed to "conclude" anything, wikipedia is for facts. secondly, you are still refusing to address the fact that the section lends no support to the view that regulus is rab. i'm not saying that the discovery of a locket in the house of black shouldn't be included, i'm saying that we don't need a full anaylsis of where it is now.--Jac16888 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

are you saying you seriously do not believe that if a missing object is found in someone's house, it suggests a link between that person and the object? A good number of burglars are going to be let out of jail if possessing stolen goods is not evidence that they may have nicked them. How can you seriously make such an argument? Sandpiper

True, WP isn't here to analyse or to conclude anything. That's good for you if you think you've solved the great mystery of Harry Potter, but WP just isn't a blog where you can post your discoveries, Sandpiper.Folken de Fanel 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making the argument, I am reporting it. Jac is claiming that Regulus having the locket in his house does not suggest that he is RAB. I'm saying it quite obviously does and is therefore relevant. He is merely claiming it is irrelevant. He seems happy enough to accept that it is a widely held and well sourced view. Sandpiper 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not reporting the argument, you're making it. "Regulus having the locket" ? Regulus is dead, and we haven't heard about him since book 5. Sirius never said he had "the" locket (or any locket). What are you talking about ? If you think you've read book 7 before anyone else, please show it.

Sandpiper, what you think doesn't make things relevant. That's your business if you believe certain theories, but you cannot argue that these theories are includable because you belive in them (this proves you're making the argument and not reporting it, you're personally involved in it).

Widely-held = unproved, well-sourced= false.Folken de Fanel 14:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you're not listening sandpiper, i'm not saying that the locket in the house of black isn't evidence that rab is regulus, i'm saying that the explanation of where the locket is NOW, isn't evidence. --Jac16888 13:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On a side-note, I'm sorry but I don't find your offer of compromise very constructive, as the sentence itself is original research. I have explained my reasons earlier, and anyway, it didn't seem to work...Folken de Fanel 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

reading back, i understand what you mean about it being OR, except that it is a very obscure form of OR, and is not possible that, in the interest of compromise, this might be a case for WP:IAR, simply because i very much doubt we are going to get a clear cut outright decision on this, and it will just keep on going untill the book comes out.--Jac16888 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't say as i do. Anyway, jac, i take it then that you are happy to mention that the locket was found at grimmauld place? Moving on to its current whereabouts, RAB as an article is not simply about 'who is RAB'. It is about the whole RAB puzzle, which starts when Dumbledore and harry go searching for a locket. It is relevant what finally happened to that locket. I don't see how anyone reading this article would not want that information included. Sandpiper 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

no, this article is about who is RAB. the current whereabouts of the locket from the black house having nothing to do with rab, we don't even know there is a connection between the two. i am sick of saying this now, it has no bearing on who rab is, which is what this article is about. this article is NOT a transcript of the book, and it is NOT an article called the "the locket found in the house of black". it is an article about Rab, and all he has done is take the horcrux. even IF he is regulus and IF the locket is the horcrux, RAB did not throw it away, neither did he steal it and hoard it away, or steal it and sell it. the only thing we know rab did is take the real horcrux, therefore that is all that is necessary of inclusion. you talk about this article as though its some kind of big detective, theorising place, where you can tell people where the locket MIGHT be. but it isn't. wikipedia is for facts.--Jac16888 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so, but the kind of facts it reports are those facts published by other people. Anything someone else has published is a fact, because it exists. Wiki reports what others have said. No difference here than anywhere else. If you want to argue we should not report on the theory of gravity, well that is what you are doing, because it is exactly the same argument. It is your view that this article is narrowly about the person RAB. It has been the view of editors over the years that it has a wider purpose, to explain the whole puzzle set by Rowling at the end of the last book. Sandpiper 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that your edit deleted proper explanation of why the locket is relevant, and the sources where this is all explained. why? I'm not sure the article explains the relevance of the black family servant, kreacher, either. The article is not a transcript of the book, but surely that is exactly the point. The article should describe accurately how outsiders have interpreted the book. That's what we do here on wiki. Sandpiper 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ok then, since you didn't even answer the question, here it is again. beyond stealing it, what has rab got to do with the current whereabouts of the locket? none, thats what.--Jac16888 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason RAB is of interest is because he took the locket which D&H are after. The locket is more significant than RAB, strictly speaking. the article entitled RAB is not simply about the character identified as RAB, but about the whole RAB incident. Now, my unanswered questions? if you accept at least that the article is concerned with the identity of RAB as Regulus, why do you delete explanation of the relevance of the locket's location to identifying regulus, and the references for this? Sandpiper 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no reliable source for this.Folken de Fanel 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

no, there are many folken, but the question was addressed to jac Sandpiper 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

this article IS just about who RAB is, that is the whole purpose of the article, the locket has its own article i believe, horcrux. whether this info is already there i don't know/care. as i have said before the only bit of the section which links regulus and rab is the bit that says the horcrux is a locket and that a locket was found in house of black. i'm quite happy to leave that bit, but the bit that says where the locket is NOW, gives no clues as to rab identity, and the reference is really a bit pointless, its just someone opinion--Jac16888 12:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This information has been consistently included in the article for two years. Dozens if not hundreds of editors have altered the page and obviously felt it deserved to be here. It was removed by Folken here [3], and we have been arguing about putting it back where it belongs ever since. Sandpiper 09:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter how long it has been here, the fact remains that, not only do you refuse to conmpromise(i would rather have no section at all, but am willing to have the reduced version), you refuse to answer the main concern, that is that most of it lends nothing to the argument that rab is regulus, it is a section for the horcrux, not here.--Jac16888 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I do not agree the information is not relevant to this page. Your opinion is that it is irrelevant, mine is that it is directly relevant, and that you misconceive the purpose of this page. The history of the page shows that many editors over the years have agreed with its retention on the page. This has only been an issue since Folken has been persistently deleting it. Sandpiper 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

that is the past. where are those editors now? consensus changes, and right now, there is more consensus for removing it than there is for keeping it. so answer me this. if regulus is rab, and the locket is the horcrux, then how has he affected it since leaving it in the house? has he touched it AT ALL. the answer is, we don't know, nobody does. so therefore, the current whereabouts of a lockets which may or may not be relevant have no bearing whatsoever on who rab's real identity is. --Jac16888 15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you are saying that 1000 editors create a brilliant article about a topical event. A year later when interest has died down and people are not visiting the page, one person comes along and decides the article is rubbish and deletes most of it. And that's fine? wiki is not run by majority voting, especially by a majority of one. Opinions expressed in the past do not suddenly become invalid by the passage of time. If you feel the editors concerned have changed their minds, you could try contacting them and see? As you know, the difficulty is that many HP fans have gone to ground. Try asking again in a month, when I inagine there will be a lot more editors visiting this page. Sandpiper 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

i very much doubt that a THOUSAND editors created it, or that it was a BRILLIANT article. but you are exactly right, wikipedia is especially not run by a majority of one. so how come you think that makes you more write than the "more than one" members who are against your edits. finally, you are completely wrong. a month from now, all your "valuable edits" will be removed, you see, i very much doubt that anybody is going to care that some langford person said "see, rab is regulus, locket is horcux, i was right", when there will be a much better source. THE BOOK ITSELF. which means that all your additions will have been a complete waste of time, as there will be none left at all. why, i imagine that, with all the millions of people reading the book and wanting to edit articles about it, there will be very little for you to do. --Jac16888 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

looking back at the article it would appear that, suprise suprise, you're the one who wrote this section, and that a number of editors protested against it. shocking.you sure did write ridiculously long and pointless arguments for it back then. none of which had any real meaning. --Jac16888 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Very kind of you to describe them as valuable. I just think they report the status quo as it is today, which is what the article ought to do. There may be a new book in a months time, and the article is very likely to be changed when it is published. However, changing it now because of a 'guess' as to what will be in that book is exactly the sort of thing forbidden by the policy on 'crystal ball' writing. We report the facts as they are now, not as they will be in a month, because we don't know what the facts will be in a month. The facts right now are as described in the article (from time to time) and as explained in the best available references. Why is there a difficulty including references from writers about fantasy, from people who have clearly become experts in this field, for an article describing peoples views on the series so far? What kind of source do you think is appropriate in such circumstances, we are writing about fiction. It seems to me that some people take this rather too seriously. I really don't see why simply pointing people in the direction of a couple of websites recommended by Rowling shouldn't be sufficient referencing for a topical debate most noteably happening on the internet. Sandpiper 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? this is not a dicussion about links to fansites, this is about the relevance of the section in question. it seems to me you are just trying to change the argument to something else because you can't think of any other reasons to keep most of the section. the only reference i disagree with is the langford one, not because of the source itself, but because of what you are reporting the source as saying "many fans believe". if you want to keep the source that badly, why not include it in the bibliography section, since you clearly so desperately want to keep it in. but thank you for bringing up the crystal ball policy because you are absolutely right, you not supposed to write about what may come up in the future. and you're the one doing that.--Jac16888 09:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

oh and by the way, i was being sarcastic.

The passage from Langford is quoted in full above. If you are arguing that Langford is distancing himself from it, claiming that in his professional opinion it is doubtfull, I can't agree. Simply by including it in his book he is supporting it. I would humbly suggest that his purpose in mentioning that the conclusions are widespread is to point out that he is not alone in believing this, but that most people do. I mention websites, because quite frankly thay are good references, and just mentioning one or two should be entirely adequate to reference the entire section without having to argue about books. I don't care which refs are included, so long as the content is. As to 'balls, you still miss the point that book 7 is unpublished so we cannot report its content, but Langfords book (or anyone else's) is already published, so we can. Furthermore, the material in all such books is based squarely on the information in the series so far. Sandpiper 22:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

is it necessary to write so much and yet have no meaning whatsoever?

i never said 'balls, you still miss the point that book 7 is unpublished so we cannot report its content', but its true. yes we can report what langford said. but we can only report langfords opinion on an unreleased book, not just using info from previous books.

and, it is not the ref i care about so much as it is the fact that the section still doesn't give evidence as to who rab actually is?--Jac16888 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

but it doesn't need to. It is still relevant to the RAB incident as a whole Sandpiper 23:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

no its not, you're not even listening. IF, regulus is rab, and IF he left the horcrux in the house of black, that is as far as his interaction with it has gone, as far as we can assume, he was presumably killed shortly after taking it. this article is not about the rab "incident", it is about rab him/herself, not what one of their actions MAY have resulted in. the problem here is that you're trying to misinterpret the purpose of this article. i know you're having similar arguments on the various other articles where you are trying to push this exact same passage across, and no doubt that is why you're trying to keep it here, so it doesn't just get consigned to oblivion, but you have to deal with the fact that it is not relevant to this article. if it has to be deleted, then so be it, just get over it and do something constructive instead. if you make such a big deal out of people removing your additions to articles, then can't be a very good editor, i suggest you find somewhere else to push your views forward. you could write a book, or start a harry potter wiki, if there isn't one already.--Jac16888 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:R.A.B./Archive 3

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)

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)

Christian name/ first name

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)

I agree. I think it should be "first and middle" or "given and middle." Jrgilmore 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Locations for the Locket

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)

I correctly identified the location of the locket of Salazar Slytherin before reading the book, hows that for a guess and imagine my surprise when i just read that part in the Deathly Hallows. T saston 15:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

True Identity

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 [4]

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)

This article

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

Other Identities

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)

Merge

Should be be merged to Regulus Black now? --Ayleuss 13:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

?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)

New lead

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

i think it should just be the article about regulus, with the mystery about rab beneath it--Jac16888 12:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)