User talk:T-dot/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ford airstream concept.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ford airstream concept.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ford Airstream Hatch.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ford Airstream Hatch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

This is some issues with the Dorea Black section of the Black family tree (Harry Potter) article. Back on March 5, 2007, I left this message on Michaelsanders talk page. I waited for a response and did not get one. So on March 9, 2007 I removed it. As with always it has become an issue. Since it is Michael some personal attacks could happen if some editors that he respects don't get involved. My opinion is that the section is mostly theory, which is against the WP:NOR policy itself. However the theory based of of the dates that may be inaccurate (see the archive discussion ) (Duane543 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Just Posted on the Black Family Tree talk page. Hope it helps:

I think we can legitimately make a short statement reflecting exactly what we "know" for a fact - and that is this: according to the "canonical" version of the family tree, that one Dorea Black, daughter of Cygnus Black and Violetta Bulstrode, married one Charlus Potter, and they had an unnamed son together, who was apparently in the same generation (or perhaps once removed) as the generation of Harry's father James and his classmates. Yet the relationship between Charlus Potter and James Potter remains uncertain. The HP Lexicon (a fairly reliable source that Rowling has acknowledged), states:

"Charlus Potter: Rowling's Black Family Tree mentions a Charlus Potter who was married to Dorea Black (1920-1977), a grandchild of Phineas Nigellus Black (BFT). They had one son (unnamed) (BFT). It is doubtful that Charlus is Harry's grandfather because Jo has told us that "James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died." (TLC) Dorea was only 57 when she died." [1] --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Later added: I think the Lexicon is implying that Dorea Black and Charlus Potter are far too young to be the parents of James Potter, but are perhaps instead essentially his cousins, since the parents of James were "elderly ... old in wizarding terms" when they had James; perhaps otherwise in the age generation of typical grandparents. While that also constitutes original research, at least it strongly refutes the "other" proposed original research scenario that Charlus is James' father and Harry's grandfather. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia entries

Discussion with Michael Sanders

"Michael - just a gentle reminder: stating in the Horcrux article wording like "It has been suggested that Voldemort only discovered that it had been destroyed..." appears to constitute Weasel Wording. As a rule of thumb, if the statement cannot stand alone as factual without opening it with a conditional preamble like Some fans believe... or Critics argue that... or It has been said that..., then it is probably not encyclopedic in terms of the topic under discussion itself. Please review the Avoid Weasel Wording article for some good guidelines." Point taken. I'll give that another look over, and take more care next time.

"If you are going to add fan and critical opinions to an article, then it probably belongs in a separate "Fan reaction" or "Critical views" section, and not in the main descriptive part of the text, which is supposed to be purely factual and verifiable, defining the topic encyclopedically with a neutral tone." That was entirely my intention - when I started out. If you look in the edit history of Horcrux, you can see how it turned out. "I do not personally have a problem with "us" documenting what a significant portion of the HP fan base might believe, or non-canonical statements that critics might publish, but I believe such matters should be segregated from the definitive description part, which ought to remain purely canonical (from Rowling), and not be infected with outside views without a wall of separation (that is a separate section)." Again, I am entirely in agreement with you there. However, I have come to the conclusion that such views should shown in the article, provided that they are properly sourced (and I'm thinking in particular of the blasted 'Scarcrux' theory, which is in such common circulation that we are being seriously dishonest in not properly referencing it). Hence, today's problems.

"I understand you have found a new "reliable source" containing all sorts of original research that we have taken to posting as now "encyclopedic", due to arguments back on the Hallows page." - wrong way round. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." If it is a published book, and thus the information is provably 'in common circulation', it is not Original Research (or rather, not the Original Research of the wikipedia editors - i.e. it cannot principally be found here - which is all the OR rules care about). What you could arguably say - and with a certain amount of justification - is that it is not a Reliable Source (I'd dispute that, but the key there would be to discuss the book, or books, on the talk pages. As opposed to, say, simply removing it. One of the first things you learn as a history editor is that if information is sourced - regardless of what you think of the source - you don't remove the sourced information - since it is a gross breach of accepted behaviour. Take for example, Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (my exemplar as 'lousy history which you read at your own risk'). I couldn't use it to claim on the Merovingian article that 'the descendants of Merovee survive to this day, led by Pierre Plantard'. Not because it was OR (I've got it out of a published book, you can go to any library or shop and read it, it is attributable, thus not OR), but because it is not considered a reliable source (i.e. critical and historical opinion weighed it in the balance and found it wanting. Plus, the little matter of Pierre Plantard having turned out to be crazier than a dish of scrambled eggs). What I could do (in theory - I've never tried it, and I suspect the editors there would spit acid before you could say 'Clovis' if I did) is say (the whole phenomenon having been notable), "In the book Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Henry Lincoln argued that the descent of the Merovingians survived to this day...however, this was largely disproved, when historians cast doubt on Lincoln's findings, and when Plantard turned out to have made the whole thing up on his kitchen table."

As for my posting of the information: as I said, we have become far too insular. Too focused on the text of the novels and an in-universe "we take what Rowling says, and ignore the rest" (in which I am as guilty as the rest). It needs to be fixed. "We will, however, know about what "deathly hallows" are. What they do mean is already known by JKR and her publishers. To try and guess what they are would, in the clearest sense of the word, be speculation." Such attitudes from editors are thoroughly damaging - we are not writing the Encyclopaedia Magicka, we are writing wikipedia - the self-praising encyclopaedia of everything. Where, supposedly, a reader can find out anything about any notable subject. Anything and everything - provided it is sourced. We should not be aiming to 'guess what Hallows means', and we should not be sitting off, saying 'we wait til Rowling tells us, anything else shouldn't be here'. Neither attitude is appropriate. We are not meant to do anything except write up what is already out there, and we are meant write everything that is out there - provided it is sourced. To restrict information in the Harry Potter articles to information from JK Rowling only is to exercise one's opinion that any other sources - critical opinion, analysis of text, hypotheses regarding forthcoming events and after - are not relevant. And Opinion, Points of View, are not tolerated here (again, I am as guilty as the rest of us of favouring Rowling text over everything else. I intend to change that). All that is required is a source. Nothing more, nothing less.

"These recent edits are so unlike you that I am a bit startled and confused - I thought someone had hijacked your screen name. Anyway I hope and trust this is not about making a point with other editors who have engaged you in battle over OR and such, which is a practice frowned upon." - Unlike me? Hardly. My practice is - and always has been - to write up what I read. I don't stick my own thoughts into articles, I write the information and thoughts of the writers - be they as high as Bradley or Gibbon, or as low as Lincoln or Redhen - into the articles. What this marks is 1) a decision that this project needs to come more into line with the rest of wikipedia (otherwise, everyone will simply not bother after DH-day has been and gone, and the stream of canon-info has run dry) and 2) determining that if one piece of relevant critical opinion is being excluded from an article for fraudulent reasons, I'll ensure that there is unimpeachable critical opinion in the rest and 3) me demonstrating that - as I warn on my userpage (does anyone read that?) - if I'm poked I poke back. And if other editors wish to play merry hell with how this encyclopaedia works, and demonstrate their general contempt for the rules and the workings of wikipedia (and I'm talking principally about that écorcheur), I will play the same game.

In closing, I'll bear your pointers in mind. I'll make sure that any information I add will be properly separated out, as I was initially doing. But this project needs to recognise the rules, and stop being so in-universe. One way of doing that is getting the articles properly rewritten, as happened to Ron Weasley and Lord Voldemort (which, surprise surprise, recognise that information not derived from Rowling is nonetheless suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia). Another is by including (clearly labelled and sourced) fan/critic opinion. If you want to discuss the validity of the text (Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?, editor John Granger), I would of course do so happily. Michael Sanders 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the cited text to horcrux now. Could you please check it over, and correct any weaseling/inter-sectional bleeding? Michael Sanders 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the (undeserved) welcome. At the moment, I'm just trying to get up to speed again - someone's been rearranging pictures, Hogwarts Layout needed sorting out, and someone'd introduced some suspicious drivel into Mary Queen of Scots. Michael Sanders 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It has. However, I intend to follow your suggestions, and ensure that the Rowling fact and the non-Rowling speculation don't get mixed up (on the other hand, I see no need to separate Rowling fact from sourced fact that there was speculation - hence Regulus Black. Michael Sanders 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel and Sandpiper and Michael Sanders and Original Research

I really can't see what the use of fan theories in article, even if seperated from the main content. I mean, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a crystall ball, right ? Original research cannot be accepted unless it comes from a reliable source, and a reliable source is still self-published material with no fact-checking, right ?

So, does this mean Wikipedia has become a new kind of message board dedicated to unsubstanciated theories ? I mean, now it's obvious articles exist only for speculation...Folken de Fanel 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken - What I told Michael, and what I believe is properly Wiki-encyclopedic and thus allowable, is this...

1 - Michael - just a gentle reminder: stating in the Horcrux article wording like "It has been suggested that Voldemort only discovered that it had been destroyed..." appears to constitute Weasel Wording. As a rule of thumb, if the statement cannot stand alone as factual without opening it with a conditional preamble like Some fans believe... or Critics argue that... or It has been said that..., then it is probably not encyclopedic in terms of the topic under discussion itself. Please review the Avoid Weasel Wording article for some good guidelines. If you are going to add fan and critical opinions to an article, then it probably belongs in a separate "Fan reaction" or "Critical views" section, and not in the main descriptive part of the text, which is supposed to be purely factual and verifiable, defining the topic encyclopedically with a neutral tone. I do not personally have a problem with "us" documenting what a significant portion of the HP fan base might believe, or non-canonical statements that critics might publish, but I believe such matters should be segregated from the definitive description part, which ought to remain purely canonical (from Rowling), and not be infected with outside views without a wall of separation (that is a separate section). I understand you have found a new "reliable source" containing all sorts of original research that we have taken to posting as now "encyclopedic", due to arguments back on the Hallows page. These recent edits are so unlike you that I am a bit startled and confused - I thought someone had hijacked your screen name. Anyway I hope and trust this is not about making a point with other editors who have engaged you in battle over OR and such, which is a practice frowned upon. Thanks for your attention, have a great weekend. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2 - Follow Up: I think perhaps the proper way of presenting John Granger's published analyses within the Harry Potter articles would be to present clearly, in-situ, that they are his views, and not necessarily canonical, Rowling-based material. For example, as a parallel, if we were discussing English naturalist Charles Darwin's various theories on evolution, and especially those published in his book On The Origin of Species, and then presented additional different-view material that was not from Darwin but from someone else, but still on the general theory of evolution, then we would write that in a separate contrasting section. Something like this: "Dr. Stephen Jay Gould reworked and extended Darwin's evolutionary principles by revising a key pillar in the central logic of Darwinian evolution, by presenting Punctuated equilibrium in his book The Panda's Thumb... " (and then elucidating on about Gould's variations on Darwin's theories). So for Horcruxes, we could legitimately state something like, (again in a separate section) "Esteemed University Professor John Granger of the Muggle Institute for Advanced Potter Studies suggests in his book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? that ..." (and then presenting his original theories and analyses). This approach is clearer and more encyclopedic (and probably less antagonizing) than just blurting out his controversial theories mixed right in with the non-controversial canonical Rowling-stated material, and finishing it off with a tiny footnote stating the page number of his new book, which hardly anyone else has a copy of anyway. I'm simply trying to find a way where we can include your thoughts, and how they should be presented for consideration, and yet cut back on the edit reversion / original-research wars, which would seem to be intractable at this point. Thanks again for your attention. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding original research as described generally at Attribution. I believe "Self Published" in the Reliable Source section refers to, for example, if Michael published something that was not peer reviewed, and then also posted it on the Wikipedia - as a conflict of interest and perhaps pushing an agenda. It does NOT apply, in my view, to material posted by Michael but openly published by Granger, and thus open to external criticism. We can also perhaps discuss published critical reaction to Granger's work, if there is any. In any case, it should be clearly stated that any Granger-published material is his own, and not canonical and Rowling-approved, and it would be good to segregate it into special sections within the main articles, as I recommended above. The Granger material is clearly original research on the part of Granger (unless he plagiarized from some other source like Dumbledoreisnotdead.com or the MuggleNet), but not on the part of Michael or anyone else who chooses to refer to it. We allow many other articles that contain "original research", like the Darwin-related articles. The Granger material is (apparently) verifiable (although I do not have a copy of the book to check, and currently have no plans to get one), so it presumably meets the verifiability requirement. Neutral point of view is required of Michael the Wiki-editor (and you), not Granger's work, which can certainly be opinionated. It might be good to find some reaction to the Granger material on the various HP web sites that Rowling has acknowledged, to determine Granger's personal reliability as a source, and the plausibility of his conclusions. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting issue, isn't it. An arbitrary distinction has been made made between information published in book form by Granger, and information posted on a web site by Granger. Both are open to external criticism. I understood the distinction to be that some other person has agreed to make the financial investment in marketing and publishing the book, thus judging that it will have public acceptance or at least notoriety. The test is the judgement by another party to publish. But in reality, exactly how different is this to simply hosting the text on a website, which will inevitably happen more and more in the future. Do we then judge a sites quotability by the number of hits? So how do we stand on the red hen website? I think I just read that Granger was the editor of the book, and if it is the book I am thinking of, red hen wrote some of the content. However, I think a lot more of red hen's stuff is directly available on her website. (Or maybe I just hav'nt found Grangers). Incidentally, I first noticed Red hen because it was referenced by others writing on mugglenet. What will happen in n years when printed books are essentially dead? This is a classic example where the internet has given rise to an entirely new kind of information source and collective expertise. Sandpiper 23:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I must have missed something about Granger's material in the fury of the edit reversion wars. I thought we were discussing posting material from a published book. The Self Published Source section from the Attribution policy states...

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources (see Exceptions below).

Exceptions - As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include...

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

If Granger's material is on an essentially personal web site run by Granger, and there is no peer review or other fact-checking (difficult for speculative original research about a fictional Potter universe), then I can see the cause for a strong difference of opinion. I still think we can consider posting Granger's theories in relevant, but they must be demoted to the status of regular (if well organized and sometimes well defended) fan speculation, not expert opinion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? is a published book. As in, a book that I have bought, can carry around with me, etc. I am not quoting directly from an online resource - since the upshot of the spats at Talk:Deathly Hallows seems to have been that we apparently don't use these in Harry Potter articles, regardless of workings elsewhere in Wikipedia - but from a published book. So just getting that clear from the outset - "I thought we were discussing posting material from a published book." - we are. Or I am, anyway. See the article on John Granger.

The book is a collection of essays, which were all (I believe) originally published online - thus there is an essay by Granger himself ("an interpretive effort that explains the key concept of 'narrative misdirection' with a few speculative ideas as illustrations (which later articles expose as half-baked theories)", adapted from posts made by him at his Barnes and Noble university.com classes), and five essays selected by him, and which he has apparently checked over to make sure they don't make any factual mistakes. The essays are from Wendy B. Harte, who apparently writes about Harry Potter on livejournal under the name 'Professor Mum', and whose essay ('The Curse of the Black Family Tree') looks at the evidence regarding Regulus Black and the horcruxes and comes up with a few hypotheses; Sally M. Gallo, from Scribbulus, whose essay ('How Dumbledore and Slughorn used Magic - and Stage Magic - and fooled us all') is demonstrably wrong in its main hypothesis (i.e. that Dumbledore wasn't dead) but which picks out suspicious points in the text, (as well as a rather lovely (and sourced) point that there were in the 19th century a pair of magicians named Horace Goldin and the Great Albini); Daniela Teo, from Mugglenet, whose essay ('The Locket, the Cup, Nagini, Harry, and the Mirror of Erised') looks at the issue of the horcruxes, and looks at potential candidates in the text, and the evidence that could support them (in a lot more detail than I have written it up in the Horcrux article - obviously, there's no need to include more than the most salient points); 'Swythyv', from livejournal, whose essay ('Mourning for Her Own True Love') was obtained by Harte, and which promulgates the hypothesis that the 'love-story' of Lupin and Tonks was suspicious, but that it suggests that 'Lupin' was not in fact such, but an imposter (can't say I'm convinced, but it's interesting to read), and makes several interesting observations (e.g. it is implied in the hospital wing scene near the end that Lupin and Tonks had been engaged); and, yes, Joyce Odell ('Red-hen'), who looks at the death of Albus Dumbledore and the issues surrounding it.

Does it fit wikipedia criteria. Yes. It is a published resource, and the facts have been checked over by all the writers. Granger, I would argue, stands as an officially recognised expert, or the closest thing to by wiki criteria, in that he is a "well-known, professional researcher [In Harry Potter] writing within his or her field of expertise"; and his work has "previously published by credible, third-party publications." (according to his bio on Zossima, "His books have been praised in journals as diverse as 'The Chesterton Review' (UK), The Wall Street Journal, Orthodox Tradition, CSL: The Journal of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2003/06/18/, and The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel062003.asp)."; he also claims to have appeared on CNN, and been the recipient of requests for interviews by media. Of course, since he wrote those bios, I'd look on them with suspicion, and advise searching the internet for him).

Sandpiper, I agree with you entirely. It is foolish to make an arbitrary distinction between book and online. However, if editors will attempt to exploit a misunderstanding of the rules in order to keep these articles closed, then unquestionable sources must be used to open them up. And, we can hope, that when there is no new canon and thus those editors who insist on including only information directly from Rowling - as opposed to information about the books - will have either got bored and wandered off, or will have cooled down once their confusion over an impending publication has been removed. Who knows? In the mean time, what is necessary is for editors who care about making these articles as thorough as possible to use the resources which cannot be questioned, and actually improve the quality of these articles, instead of allowing them to atrophy.

Hope that cleared that up. Any more questions or comments, just tell me. Michael Sanders 15:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this. I had the impression, in looking over the extended arguments, that Granger's Deathly Hallows-related work was basically posted on his blog page, where he published his theories on (ergo self-published speculation, and possibly disallowed as a reliable source); and then he also published a book on similar HP-related topics. If he indeed published a book with relevant material suitable for posting in the HP articles, and it has been (or can be) critically reviewed, and it contains high quality deductions based on the canonical Rowling materials, then I believe this is the sort of material that we can report on in the articles. I still insist that it should be segregated into in separate sections within the article - perhaps with titles like "Fan-based theories and critical reaction". We can expand the articles (and improve the overall relevance and quality) to include Granger's therories, not as canonical in the HP universe, but as verifiable logical deductions quoted from a published source (reliable or otherwise), keeping a neutral tone and POV, by stating again that this is Granger's work, and not Rowling's. It is original research on the part of Granger, but not us, so we can post it, just as we would report on any other new research efforts regarding, for example, particle physics or curing cancer. We need to take care not to sound like we are promoting Granger's work - thus pushing a POV agenda, but we also do not want to sound as if we are "in opposition" to Granger's views. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad you agree. What I'd suggest is that you make any changes you think appropriate on the Horcrux article. And then, when that is in an acceptable form according to your recommendations, the same is applied to other relevant articles. Thanks for your input. Michael Sanders 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say, the rules still exist.

1) No one can know anything about book 7 so no one is in his "revelant field" if we're talking about still unpublished material.

2) In the same way, who can say the theories of this book are plausible (or not) ? That's the perfect example of unreliability.

3) "Who killed Dumbledore" is a self-published book. John Granger is behind Zossima Press.

4) To be clear, John Granger is in his relevant field when speaking about literary devices and parallelism with christian religion, but neither him nor the fans who wrote the other theories in this book are "experts on Book 7", or "well-known journalist blablabla" ( and the fans published by Gragner aren't professionals).

5) Again, who can say anyone has fact-checked anything in this book ? Have you fact-checked that Regulus will indeed be alive in book 7, for example ?

The problem here is that no one seems to bother with the rules..I think if they exist, it's not for nothing, isn't it ? Folken de Fanel 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken, you still miss the point about book 7. It completely doesn't matter that it has not been published yet. It is almost irrelevant to the article as it now stands. The article is about what is thought and believed about the book now, not what is really in it. There is absolutely no difficulty writing about something which does not exist, so long as people generally are debating it, which in this case they certainly are. Again, plausibility about arguments is not really an issue, in an article we simply report them, and report whether others have used similar arguments. For the purposes of balancing an article (NPOV) it is necessary for an editor to consider whether the article properly represents all views on a subject. Now, if there is really no disagreemement about some theory, then it is proper to say that. You need to consider where an article appears to be advancing just one argument, whether in fact the article is actually properly representing the NPOV that there are no significant disagreements with it. A case in point is the hallows article, where I have not seen any serious alternative suggestion to what the title means apart from founder/horcruxes. This is not advancing a theory. It is reporting the real situation. As to experts, experts are people acknowledged to be good at a subject. That criterion is satisfied here. Sandpiper 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael and Folken and Sandpiper (etc).: The rules for writing articles about fiction are discussed at WP:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and at related articles linked there. Please step back, and take some time to study those policies and guidelines at your earliest convenience. The policy on writing about fiction states: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". Mr. Granger's work would qualify as sourced analysis, I believe. I agree that Granger's work is speculative and original research, but it is NOT original research or speculative for us to discuss his analyses in the articles, with proper sourcing for verifiability. He is not just any fan, so this does NOT open the door to just anyone posting their original research. The Wikipedia policy not only ALLOWS us to present critical analyses of works of fiction, it essentially REQUIRES us to do so, to make good articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let us quote his previous books then, because they are analysis books (and "analysis" with its correct meaning: Granger takes the published material and comments on it, and on it only, he doesn't speculate about what will happen after).

WKD, on the other hand, is speculations from fans...Folken de Fanel 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WKAD is several essays, chosen by Granger (who as already said qualifies to a certain extent as an accepted 'expert') - he approved them to go into the book, which means that they rest on his reputation rather than those of the writers - and his reputation is good enough for wikipedia to approve inclusion as his ideas (which these are in effect - since he has approved them to go into his book, meaning that he considers them worthwhile). And much of it is not even speculation of the 'I think such and such will happen in Book 7' (that's mainly at the end. I'm not using that section, since it's based more on gut "I just have a feeling that all the Weasley's will get it"). A lot of it is analysis of the text - either arguments that "The Mirror of Erised would make sense as a Horcrux because the Rowling make uses of mirrors or reflections in every book & examples", or simple analyses of the text - e.g. Granger argues that Snape's treatment of Harry is an example of "the play of contraries" : "A force without resistance dissipates while a force meeting resistance concentrates and grows stronger" - 'Dudley has met no resistance in his life, James met no resistance at school, and so they did little or no good and were unlikeable (or James was until he met DE resistance); Harry we know was given to the Dursleys so that he would receive the necessary restraint and punishment to counteract his fame, so it would make sense that he set Snape the same task to ensure that Harry receives some reproof and criticism, etc'. Such text-based assertions, provided they are not from the wiki-editor, are allowed and to a certain extent encouraged, being an acceptable form of literary criticism (consider Bradley, who argued that Lear expected to live with Cordelia in her home when he still planned to divide his realm in three, and that his foolish idea to travel from one home to the next only arose when Cordelia refused to indulge in exaggerated affection). That is how we write. Michael Sanders 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and T-dot? Thankyou for stepping into the debate, against your personal inclinations. I admit that it was a pretty bad thing to have to step into; on the other hand, it seems to have got less bitter now that we're all calmly discussing a relevant issue instead of screaming the same old lines over and over again. And I think - I hope - is that we can come to a sensible agreement. What I propose with regards to Harry Potter is "no to websites, yes to books, sensible discussions on grey areas" (which would seem to be the most pragmatic and acceptable at the moment, if not the most ideologically sound). If, Folken, you agree, then we maintain this agreement at least until the publication of Deathly Hallows (and not treat the publication as an "all bets are off" - no removal of text without agreement from either side, no adulation of "such and such said this and was right" without agreement from either side). Neither of us treats the breaking of this status quo by third party editors as an excuse to push our own agendas - we either support the status quo or keep out of it (i.e. if the talk over Hallows and the Lexicon flares up again I stay out of it, if assertions based on the Lexicon only are added I revert; if talk over WKAD or any other published analysis, assertions or fact-based speculations pertaining to Harry Potter is questioned, you stay out of it, if any such information based and sourced on published work is removed, you revert). I won't question you if you remove information from 'Deathly Hallows' or any other article based only on questionable online resources (to clarify - interviews with Rowling, Lexicon data which simply says what has already happened in canon or in the real world is not questionable and cannot be removed; a dodgy copy of Deathly Hallows online, a Lexicon speculation, information from someones Livejournal, or, alas, the Redhen site, is questionable, and it can be removed without complaint); you won't question me if I add information to Deathly Hallows or any other article based on a published text. If either of us wants to do something controversial (if you want to make a big change to an article; if I want to start using another text which you or someone else may disagree with), or if either of us wants to complain, or if we just want a third opinion, we go to another editor: T-dot if he is willing, someone else if T-dot doesn't want to be dragged in (if we need a new 3rd party editor, we mutually decide on an uncontroversial choice, based not on any 3rd party editor bias but on reputation and behaviour). If you agree to this, Folken, then we will do it. All it requires is the agreement of both of us to abide by our promises - when we agree to this, we agree not to break it. Neither one of us goes back on his word, neither takes any opportunity to break it. We abide by it at the very least until 21 July; we agree when that day comes, or as soon after as possible, on what we remove and add. And, above all, both of us must be careful to be civil to each other, and to cool our attitudes - I won't shout at you, you won't shout at me, and we won't barge into situations with all guns blazing. All we need to do is abide by this arrangement. User:Folken de Fanel, do you agree to this?

Also, T-dot, could you look over the proposal above, and give your opinion? And if you agree, would you help put it into effect, and agree to act as 3rd party editor? Michael Sanders 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The whole point of any policy on sources is to ensure that the best sources are used. I don't have a great deal of experience with websites concerning other fictional subjects, but I have researched those on HP. They are an exceptionally good source of all kinds of information about the books, including book 7. There can be no question that they are the best source available about the books. I havn't read Granger's book, though I have read some parts of it which are the original version published online. It is far more limited in scope than the online sources. Naturally, because it is only one book, and there is vastly more information on the internet. Further, there are multiple sources saying the same thing. This is not unimportant, because 1000 people all saying the same thing is a noteable source.

In other subjects, frankly just one self-posted website might be considered a useful source to back an article. The situation here is pretty extraordinary. The sites have been recommended by the author, cribbed by Warner bros while making their films (specifically on the issue of the original content devised and posted by Lexicon re the timeline of events in the HP world). The information on the sites has been fact checked and verified by thousands of people reading them and arguing about them. This amounts to greatly more debate by informed individuals than exists in standard scientific publications, where I think they just ask three others? Possibly because they are in a world where others will not volunteer their opinions for free, possibly because there are only three others who understand the subject. This topic is nowhere near such a closed world. There are a huge number of experts on this subject, and they are published online. Yet people here refuse to acknowledge them as sources, making long arguments why they should be disallowes according to 'rules'. In fact, the more people have contributed online, the more others seem to wish to deny their ability.

Lexicon is essentially no different to wikipedia. It is more professional, in the sense that anything posted there in an article will have been vetted by the staff. They have a reputation which they are proud of. This is also true of those responsible for mugglenet, etc. Why exactly are some people so dismissive of these sites? Do you dispute their accuracy? Their reputation?Sandpiper 08:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallow

Dear editor, I just removed the vote-like structure you introduced into the AfD discussion above. Although your intention was good, generally a structure like that is not encouraged for AfD discussions, as it tends to polarize the debate, rather than promote discussion. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

GoldenIrish has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

T-dot i am sorry and i never realized all the bad i have been doing please forgive and i never once thought that it would lead to court cases and everything. I am truly sorry for uploading all the images and i will not in future. There is one article i a interested in: Molly Weasley had been tagged with the this article may need to be completley rewriitn. . I would like to help rewrite it and make Wiki truly brilliant!! Please give your advice and once again thanks for your help with me. Robert.newham--Robert.newham 10:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry once again.

Years

User:Michaelsanders/Dates in Harry Potter Michael Sanders 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd appreciate any help in sorting out the citations - is there a way to cut down the representation? Michael Sanders 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)