Talk:R.A.B./Archive 2

Amy Benson & Amelia Bones speculation
I think the Amy Benson speculation is so non-notable that it shouldn't be included at all. This sounds like rampant fan-based speculation that has no cited sources from official sources. I'm not terribly happy with the Amelia Bones speculation either, but this one I've at least heard a little bit about. However, neither of the two have been reported in an official manner. I'm in definite favour of removing Amy Benson, and am in favour of removing Amelia Bones (though not as strongly as Amy Benson). It's sad that I spend my brief free time on Wikipedia discussing such matters, but what do y'all think? --Deathphoenix 03:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been removing ridiculous theories from the article periodically, but these two seem to at least have "some" logic behind them. Amy Benson is far-fetched, though. Have fun, if you must. --Sn0wflake 04:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I've been pretty strong about removing speculation, but I'll hold off on removing Amy Benson (and Amelia Bones, if it comes to that) pending further discussion. The other alternative is to make a list of every single person given even a brief mention who has the initials R.A., R.B., or A.B. And lest some fan comes along and does just that, I was just kidding. --Deathphoenix 04:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the original research and unproven claims. No discussion is necessary, because the content violated Wikipedia policies against original research and bias. Superm401 | Talk 04:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * That works for me too. :-) I've been a little cautious lately, but I don't know why. I'm a little surprised that you removed your original "That would be, um, a fine guess" quotation from Rowling, though. I restored it a little while back as a good way of mentioning the most popular theory, but I guess you thought it was hovering around original research? (I really must get my eyes checked) --Deathphoenix 05:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See above, this is not original research according to the wiki definition. I believe it is in a book somewhere that Amelia Bones other name was susan, but I do not know for sure where this is. Amy Benson gets hardly a mention in the book, but the known facts about her do not appear to rule her out (if only because there are few of them?). But as I try to make clear above, I do not regard this list as pet theories. My own theory, for the record, is that either it is regulus (because he has many more hints than anyone else), or it is a real outsider, just to surprise us. So I was impressed with Amy Benson (assuming the stated facts from the books are currently reported correctly).  Anyway, i do not regard the character entries as theories about each, rather as collections of facts about each character which have been selected because of their relevance to whether or not the character might be RAB. As such, the list would indeed logically include every known HP character, most sensibly in descending order of likelihood, though I would be more than happy for the list to be alphabetical. There are surprisingly few candidates if you follow the presumption from the book that we are looking for a RAB. It is imposible not to mention regulus, but it is rather misleading to suggest that he is the only possibility, by not mentioning anyone else.


 * This also seems to be missing another point, that the initial issue and speculation about who is RAB is only describing what happens in the last chapter, where hermione comes up with a couple of RABs herself, not even mentioned here. Sandpiper 15:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please all, try to reach consensus here before starting a revert war. If you don't, I'll be forced to protect the article on a very bare state until you forcibly reach a consensus. Please discuss before reverting. --Sn0wflake 23:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted once, but Sandpiper reverted me. I don't get involved in revert wars, so I won't revert again, don't you worry about that (I have no problems with you bringing this all the way down to a bare bones version and protecting that, though). First of all, there has been general consensus among Harry Potter editors to remove speculation. Second, original research is against the principles of Wikipedia itself, not just Harry Potter.


 * Sandpiper, I think you're trying to twist the definition of primary and secondary source. You seem to think that fans reading the books and coming up with theories based on what they read in the book is not original research, because their theories are based on reading the books. That is definitely original research. Examples of non-original-research would be if Regulus Black is brought up in an interview, and Rowling responds that it's a fine guess, reporting that Regulus Black is a popular theory that was brought up with Rowling herself is not original research. If Ron Weasley says that he thinks Dobby's full name is Rodrick A. Blackson, that is not original research. If you read the book and come to the conclusion that Amelia Bones is a possible candidate for R.A.B., that's original research because you came to your own conclusion. Reporting every single possible name which includes every permutation of R., A., B., R.A., R.B., and A.B., which I meant as a joke but was taken seriously, is speculation and involves needless triviality and details that editors have been removing from Harry Potter articles for being unencyclopedic. In addition, reporting every possible permutation might very well be an attempt to establish a primary source of information. If there is a notable web site which has these details on a web site, it may be appropriate for an external link, but I contend that these details are needlessly trivial and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. --Deathphoenix 03:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Where to start? This is a point of principle, not simply an argument about RAB, which is just one example of this kind of thing. I have read the wiki definitions and am reporting here what I understand from what is written on wiki as wiki policy. I think fiction has become a grey area in the definitions, because reporting fiction was not really envisaged when the guidlines were originally drawn up; they talk about physics or real history as examples. A primary source is what is says, the original information. A secondary source is something based upon a primary source. So the book is a primary source, an ongoing internet debate which is there for all to read is a secondary source. A secondary source might be promoted to a primary source if further studies are made, which use the original secondary source as their base material. That is my understanding of the wiki definitions of primary and secondary source.

Now above, I quote from the wiki definition of what constitutes original research. Original research is fundamentally what it says too. It is something you or I invent. The rules are intended to pin this very simple concept down so it is easier to apply, but some cases are a bit slippery.

Now, in this case there is nothing here which I have invented. I had my own views on RAB, but quite honestly I do not now remember exactly what they were. I have read very very many posts on this topic, partly at least because I wanted to see what people would come up with, but then to see whether very many people were saying the same thing. For myself, I fairly quickly gathered the main consensus view out there about what was going on in the book, but I kept reading to see if this might change. It has not. The internet debates continue with new people all going over the same ground and reaching the same conclusions. For my money, this constitutes a secondary source. It is research by lots of people based upon reading the primary source. I do not think that is contentious, if you do, please stick in a comment and we can have a discussion about it.

The wiki rules state that secondary source can be used as the basis of articles. There are conditions attached about whether the research has been peer reviewed and is of good quality. Here we might disagree. I am arguing that it has been very heavily reviewed by experts on this subject. The wiki guidlines talk about publication in notable journals. Well, that is what I meant about the guidlines being out of date. This kind of thing is notable enough that it probably is being discussed in literature reviews, whatever, but I do not seriously expect to find anything like that which might help us in this debate for some years. But this is an internet encyclopedia. It is supposed to be written by everyone. I do not see why in this particular field it should reject high quality research just because that research was done for free by thousands of independant individuals who are obsessed with the subject but not paid to do it. The whole point is that the best research in this field is being done in exactly this way. That is not normally true of other topics. Wiki needs to rcognise this, and accept that kind of research. It still follows the guidlines that what is happening here is reporting of primary and secondary sources. The research has been done elsewhere and is good.

'fans reading the books and coming up with theories based on what they read in the book' is exactly original research. I agree. The whole point is that it is fans doing the research, not wiki editors. That research exists, and editors are entitled to report it. None of this is my ideas. I, and others who have added pieces do all have our own views. Every editor always does. The point though is to give a fair representation of what the rest of the world thinks.

I quoted a piece from the wiki guidlines. This was about a separate issue. It makes it clear that writing a description of a primary source is also an accepted wiki practice. It is also acceptable to organize that information, so it makes sense to a reader, and (very importantly) demonstarates the reason for collecing it. Put simply, this is an article about RAB. it should contain a collection of all relevant information from the primary source. I content that as you jokingly remarked, that is everything about anyone who could possibly fit the category. Well, we agree that this process of information collection should stop somewhere. It is just that you think it should be very much more restricted, I think it should be wider. But it is still mentioned in the guidlines as acceptable, in fact necessary for an encyclopedia. 81.7.53.198 10:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (Sandpiper, appologies wrong computer and not logged in

Meaning of original Research
Wow, that's a long response. I'd better put a heading to seperate it. My response is that reporting on original research is still original research. Otherwise, we'd have tonnes of editors getting around WP:NOR simply by reporting on all this original research. Many editors of Harry Potter articles, for example, have spent a lot of time removing material beginning with "many fans speculate that..." That's speculation, which should not be allowed here. Wikipedia is about knowledge, but it should be about correct knowledge. People come here to read up on correct information. The problem is that Harry Potter is a work of fiction, and it is currently incomplete. Until it is complete, you should not be reporting on idle speculation or original research. It is quite clear that you are in full disagreement on this principle, so I don't see any other solution other than to hold a poll. It's quite simple. I believe that reporting on original research is still original research and should be removed. Speculation is a form of original research that occurs quite frequently in these Harry Potter articles, and many people have been trying to remove them. Examples of speculation: "Many fans speculate that...", "There is discussion among fans that...", "It is possible that...", "... is another possibility". Including all that information results in huge, bloated articles containing such detail-oriented information that only hardcore fans would want to read it. Such articles become fancruft, and are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Your points are very excellent for Harry Potter fan articles, such as the Harry Potter Lexicon, but I believe that they are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia.

My points on the poll are:


 * 1) "All speculation is original research, and must be removed, unless it has been mentioned or verified by J.K. Rowling herself, or on official sources and specified in Harry Potter, but not fan sites, such as those mentioned in Harry Potter fandom."
 * 2) "Reporting on speculation is still speculation, and therefore must be removed, unless it has been mentioned or verified by J.K. Rowling herself, or on official sources and specified in Harry Potter, but not fan sites, such as those mentioned in Harry Potter fandom."

Perhaps you should brings yours forward and we'll vote on it. I hope we don't get bogged down in polls for everything, but speculation (and reporting on speculation) has been a huge part of the edits to Harry Potter articles, and you and I clearly disagree on whether it should be included. --Deathphoenix 11:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I repeat the line I quoted directly from No original research
 * 'In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.'


 * Official policy at wikipedia states that all article should be made up of information gathered from primary or secondary sources. That is how the entire encyclopedia is put together, and is what I have been doing (and every other contributor to wiki who follows the guidelines). Wiki policy does not say that original research may not be reported, only that editors may not do original research themselves. wiki expressly exclude the act of constructing an article from in itself being original research, it is only an issue of whether the editor invented the content or is reporting it from somewhere else. If the latter, then it is not original research. If the editor fails to make an accurate summary then it is just bad editing, and deserves alteration for that reason, not because of what was reported.


 * 'many fans speculate that...' Is reporting external facts and is entirely in line with wiki policy. The issue is whether it is true that MANY fans speculate... If they do, then the statement is entirely accurate. If just one fan speculated, then it is not noteworth research and thus would not be eligible for inclusion. I do see what you are saying, that this is entirely SPECULATION, but the reality of that phrase is that it does not necessarily mean what it says. If they are guessing, then it is not good research and really is speculation. If they have read the books, thought about it, and then come to the same conclusion as most other people, then that is not guessing. It is research. The phrase might be used to get real speculation into the encyclopedia, but it is as likely used to deliberately cast doubt on what comes next, to show the nature of facts which are being reported. Which is entirely correct.


 * It is not impossible to report on 'incomplete' knowledge. If it was, then we might as well all go home. The entire encyclopedia is 'incomplete'. Human knowledge is incomplete. It is only necessary to report things as they now are. In this context, 'complete' means reporting all of what people currently know about RAB, and what is generally believed. The two cases should be distinguished clearly in the article, I agree. That is simply quoting (and explaining the nature of) sources.


 * re your points,


 * 1) By analogy, should any and all research about Shakespeare plays be inadmissable in wiki, simply because none of it was authorised by Shakespeare himself? This is directly comparable to the current case. Are you happy with 'many academics speculate that romeo represents....' If so, then it is really the credibility of the fans which is in doubt, not the process of reporting them.
 * 2) reporting speculation is reporting speculation. It is reporting. It is not speculating. Reporting is what encyclopedias do.


 * I understand the problem about speculation. Research carried out by fans is a tricky issue to report. But it is still a (growing) fact of life.


 * I am not advocating that articles should be allowed to become excessively large or bloated with information which has only secondary relevance. But that has nothing to do with original research. It is about selecting which information is important, and which not. It would be inappropriate to claim that something was original research instead of having a good editorial policy on how to select relevant information. It should be made clear that you are arguing against excessive size because it makes an article worse. But I do not think this article is excessively long. It is also quite well structured, immediate point..explanation of wider issue..more detail. A reader could stop reading after each section if their needs had been met by the information presented so far.


 * I am not quite sure we are arguing about the same things. I am arguing that what I am saying is in accord with official wiki policy. Are you saying that this is so, but it contradicts project policy? Sandpiper 23:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Many academics speculate that..." is still speculation, and should be removed unless the academics in question are notable enough. My argument is that in Wikipedia, people that are notable enough can have their analysis reported. Note that I didn't just say it had to come from the mouth (or pen) of J.K. Rowling, it can also come from the "official" sources. Hence, it doesn't have to come from Shakespeare himself, but from official channels (I would argue that this includes non-vanity-press-published works, because such works have been peer-reviewed before publication). Even so, much of this would be included as an external link, and people usually remove non-notable external links (spamlinks and such). Fans are certainly not notable enough to have their speculation included. You and I appear to be in complete disagreement over this. You seem to accept reporting fan speculation on the premise that the people typing "many fans speculate that..." is reporting on original research, as opposed to doing the original research themselves. I contend that unless the person doing the speculating is notable enough, it should not be reported. You're not going to convince me otherwise, and I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise either. That being the case, we are at an impasse, and as such, I think we need to make this poll to gauge consensus on whether we include speculation (and to what levels). Your thoughts on having a poll? --Deathphoenix 03:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we do agree on something. I simply stated 'academics' but meaning in general people professionally repected and working on the subject, not the guys in the physics department sitting round having coffee. And you have agreed I think, that it is the quality of the work which is the issue. So maybe we can agree that the disagreement is whether a discussion by fans is noteworthy enough to be included. I think you are saying that if this was an emergency meeting of respected oxford literature professors, specially convened to study the book as soon as it was published, and if they had just published their findings in whatever is the most notable journal, then it would be ok?


 * I have to totally disagree that only information from official channels may be quoted. In the Shakespeare analogy, by now I think there can be no official channels. Who would this be? His publisher? His wife? his literary heirs? Like I said, it would not be meaningful to say that anyone is an 'offical source'. So, anyones opinion is as good as anyone elses, if they demonstrate that they know their stuff and it is recognised by others as being worthy. I do not see that the fact in this case that there are 'official sources' makes any difference to the general issue of whether a person might become an expert on a subject and be worthy of reporting.


 * As a different analogy. Imagine an event happening in Russia (no offence to Russia). Official sources all say there was a gas explosion. The world press say it was local terrorists. What would wiki report? That it was gas, and ignore all the unofficial sources that claimed otherwise? Being official, or not, is not a wiki criteria for inclusion, and it is certainly no an academic one.


 * So I am saying that it is incorrect to claim 'no original research' may be included. Wiki expressly says that we should report original research. The distinction is whether it is demonstrably good research, which has gained acceptance. So I think you are arguing on the wrong ground, that your objection is to quality, not type. i think this is a very important distinction, worth half a page of discussion. ?


 * I am getting ahead of your answer on the first point, but assuming the issue is just whether websites reporting fan views should be considered respectable:
 * First, I do not consider that being a 'fan' disqualifies one from doing competent research. It might introduce a bias in favour of the author/books in general, but on a particular neutral issue within the books, I do not see why a fan would have cause to distort their findings. In this case we are not talking about one fan. We are talking about thousands. I have read postings from hundreds of different people, and there are lots more. So I would think that there are sufficient people contributing as to make a statistically valid sample of opinion. Typical newspaper opinion polls seem to have only a few hundreds to a thousand or so people actually asked to express an opinion.
 * Next, these are not random members of the public. Of their very nature they are amongst the most competent people in the country to comment on the stories. They have read the books, some of them many times. They have read others opinions. They have expressed their own. These are not guesses. It is not necessary to be a professional at anything to do good work. Unlike an opinion poll these are informed views.


 * Professional standing is normally credited to people who need it, because that is their livelihood. This is a horrible problem for academics and peer review. Because any academic who gives a bad review to a colleage knows that next week the same colleague may be reviewing his work. Being a successful academic these days has a lot to do with the sheer volume of articles you publish, and on being on good terms with others in the field. Some peer review has been heavily criticised, but I would have to say that in the main no one notices, because no outsider competent to judge is likely to see it. Whereas in this case, anything posted on the internet is immediately available for criticism anonymously by anyone who has a different point of view. Anyone saying something daft will be HAMMERED. Or, more politely, there suggestion will be segmented and any and all relevant facts from the books will be pointed out. So if someone makes an original and valid point, it gets incorporated into the general view. Anyone makins an unsupported point will find it quietly gets forgotten.


 * The main weakness of this process is that there is not really anyone whose job is to draw th consensus view from a debate. There are people here on wiki appointed to do that. Internet debates are open and endless untill people reach a conclusion.Then they just stop. So It may be our job to report their conclusions. Anyway, gotta go. Sandpiper 20:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Official channels, Notability and Vanity Press
I am really short on time, so I will only make a short response. Yes, on many points we agree. However, if you read a little more on what I wrote about "official channels" on Shakespeare, you will note that I also included published works (excluding vanity press, of course), and did not restrict these from being official sources. Published works have presumably gone through a peer review and are therefore reliable. A literary book on Shakespeare published by a non-vanity-press is sufficiently official. Being a fan does not preclude one from performing adequate research, but it has to be adequate research, one that is up to the level of a published work. Fan speculation on a Harry Potter fan forum is not adequate research. Official channels and perhaps theories of notable people are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.

What's notable? Basically, anyone who would be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, would presumably know enough about Potter, and not have their biographical article deleted for non-notability. Your average John Q. Potterfan's speculative theories are not notable enough to be included. Daniel Radcliffe, or Roger Ebert, or maybe even Drew Barrymore (who is a notable fan) may be notable enough to have their speculations and theories included. I am not notable enough to have my own speculations and theories included, even if someone else (such as you) were to report it, thus (in your opinion) circumventing original research. What I mean by this is that if I were to write my own speculation, that's original research. If you were to report on my own speculation, that is reporting a non-notable source. I'm not notable enough to have my speculation reported. I don't know why John Q. Potterfan's speculations should also be reported. I think that's the fundamental part of our disagreement. I don't think reporting on non-notable speculation should be included, but you do. --Deathphoenix 05:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was imagining you meant 'officially sanctioned by author' when you said official. If you mean, 'of suitable quality for inclusion in wiki', then i can agree with the caveat, but think it is a misleading word to use.


 * As I think I said above, internet discussion forums of this sort are heavily peer reviewed. I don't think you could disagree with this, though you may disagree that they are adequately reviewed. (Taking 'peer' to mean what it says, someone of equal standing).


 * There are many reasons why something will not make its way into print. The main one is that absolutely nothing gets into press unless someone is willing to pay for it to be printed. Physics review is paid for by libraries and physicists buying it to read what other physicists have done. It only exists because physicists want to see their own work (and colleagues) printed there. Now, what exactly is the definition of 'vanity printing'? It only gets printed because a relatively small community is willing to pay to have it printed for their own purposes. Very few people part with their own money to read physics review. The real test of non-vanity publishing is that enough people agree that what is published is worth parting with their own money to read. Very few people part with their own money to read physics review. Perhaps to buy reprints of their own articles?


 * The main priority of the publishers is not to refuse everything which is doubtful, but rather only to include the best. They must have something to publish, otherwise they are out of a job. So inclusion is not a guarantee of anything except that it was better than what was rejected. Being rejected may only mean that they had a lot of good articles for that edition. An internet forum is not hung up on the kudos of being printed, indeed would see it as absurd. It accepts whatever comes along, which is then criticised by others...pretty much the same as what happens here. Their conclusions are freely available to anyone on the internet. Where would the profit be in publishing them, which would pay for the process? Why is this debate still hung up on the importance of something being in print? This encyclopedia operates by internet peer review. Why is that not a good enough standard for inclusion within it.


 * If I follow you, I also agree that the personal views (even well researched) of John Q Potterfan are not sufficiently notable to be reported. However I disagree that the consensus view of 1000 (random) similar people is either unnotable, or inadequately reviewed research (two separate grounds for inclusion). The point is that the internet forum does serve to allow many people to express their views. There is no reason to think that the people there differ from the population as a whole, except that they are internet literate and highly motivated. Their views are representative. A particular discussion may be all over the place, demonstrating that there is no reportable consensus, or it may be person after person agreeing, but perhaps with a slightly different slant. In that case, there is something worth reporting.


 * So, why is fan research on the internet not adequate. Exactly what is wrong with it?Sandpiper 23:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Regulus Black : Octavius Pepper?
The name "Octavius Pepper" was mentioned once during the book (his "disappearance" warranted mention in the Daily Prophet), but we were never given any further details about said disappearance, or about Pepper himself. The name is simply tossed out there, and then ignored by all book characters.

We are also given very sketchy information about the time, manner, or any other such details about the manner of Regulus Black's death (presumably by Voldemort). To boot, his name was mentioned more than a few times during the course of HBP, perhaps indicating a significant role in Book 7?

Anyways, I contend that Regulus was not actually killed by Voldemort, and is instead in hiding, under the false persona "Octavius Pepper" (Think about it: Black........Pepper.......), and will be central to the plot of Book 7. --KoopaTroopa211 05:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * first time I heard that one. Now I can see how JKR might wish to surprise us by finding that Regulus is alive. I am not sure whether she has actually been asked this question, she might have. I also do not recall what the books actually say when referring to his death. However... I don't see that there is any real evidence to suggest that some character mentioned only for disappearing might turn out to be another character who has already disappeared. And for our purposes, i do not think anyone could say this is a widely held theory.Sandpiper 19:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The books all indicate that Regulus has died. Everyone speaks of him as though he was deceased, and the family tree at Grimmauld Place even lists the year of his death below his picture.  However, details about said death have been extremely nebulous, with the vague conclusion drawn that he panicked when he found out how deep he was being drawn in, and was reportedly killed by either Voldemort, or a high-ranking Death Eater.  Nobody witnessed this event, nobody has confessed or boasted about being his executioner, and we have yet to see or hear anything about a body or gravestone.


 * The casual manner in which Octavius' name is tossed out there leads me to believe that he will have some sort of role to play in Book 7, especially given Rowling's penchant for turning seemingly irrelevant details into something of great importance later in the book (instances of Crabbe and Goyle disguised as girls being lookouts for Malfoy) or in future books (the passing refernce made by Hagrid about Sirius' bike in the very first book).


 * Anyways, I know that this has no firm, concrete evidence, but I've sifted this around in my head for a few days, and it's the most interesting theory I could come up with. Mainly circumstantial, yet the pieces seem to fit well enough. --KoopaTroopa211 02:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Three Puzzles of Half Blood prince
As a slight tangent to the above debate which has become a little legalistic, i was thinking about the book, and speculation. I see three puzzles set by JKR.

The first is the normal sort of puzzle which any author sets, how the general story will continue in the next book. There are some very firm expectations of what will come next, harry fights Voldemort and must find the horcruxes to win. This is stated as harry's intent, so it is not speculation in any sense. What would be very speculative would be to try and plot how this will play out. This would be true guesswork as there is very little hard fact upon which to make any concluson. Thus people have firmly resisted including any of the published speculation in the article on book 7.

The second is Snape's loyalty. This will undoubtedly be revealed difinitively by JKR in the next book, but in this case we have much more information. All Snape's actions so far can be reported from the books. It is possible for someone to use this existing evidence and come to a conclusion about Snapes true motivation. Indeed, people have done this and there is already a consensus and body of collected important references. Nonetheless, the article on Snape stops short of reporting these conclusions. JKR has left the matter sufficiently open that she could just about write the next book either way. Although it would run against the body of evidence so far to make Snape a true villain, she could.

The third is the identity of RAB. This is a much more fact-based puzzle than either of the above. It is a detective story puzzle set by JKR to her readers. It only appears at the end of book 6, so our heroes have little time to investigate it themselves. In the interview with emmerson and melissa, after the direct question about who is RAB already quoted in the article, she is also asked:

ES: Whats one question you wished to be asked and what would be the answer to the question?

JKR: Um - (long pause) – such a good question. What do I wish I could be asked? [Pause] Today, just today, July the 16th, I was really hoping someone would ask me about RAB, and you did it. Just today, because I think that is-well, I hoped that people would.

MA: Is there more we should ask about him?

JKR: There are things you will deduce on further reading, I think- well you two definitely will, for sure- that, yeah, I was really hoping that R.A.B. would come out.

July 16th was the publication day, so (I speculate, or I paraphrase her) she was pleased that someone had asked this question within one day of publication. She states that she wants people to deduce things about RAB, that in fact there are specific (and presumably accurate) clues placed in the text which a suitably informed reader will work out. And specifically that the representatives of leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet will certainly be able to work this out. Does that make them official sources? But anyway, JKR has stated for the record that this is a detective puzzle which informed people contributing to internet forums can work out. A such, it is a factual exercise to report the puzzle and relevant points from the text (with spoiler warnings, of course.) Sandpiper


 * Question: Could July 16th also be a special date in the book which relates to R.A.B.? Like Regulus' Birthday or something? Darkstar

Foreign edition deadline
I was struck by the comment about initials and foreign translations. It seems pretty certain that the regulus black debate is going to be solved by comparing foreign translations where the characters have translated names. If this is so, then JKR must have known before the book was published that the RAB riddle would only have about 4 months life before it was solved conclusively. Hence her desire to see it discussed now, while there is doubt. Which would explain something else I read, that foreign translators were not allowed to see HBP and prepare translations before the english version was published. That struck me as a bit odd at the time, that they could not trust their staff enough to work on the book in secret. But if they had a pressing need to not publish in foreign languages for a while to preserve the riddle? Then they would need an excuse to delay foreign publication????? Sandpiper 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OR we are going to wait and see what happens instead of speculating, since we are working on an encyclopedia, not on a forum. --Sn0wflake 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * well, we might take the view that we will refuse to point out relevant facts from the texts in order not to spoil the puzzle, but that is not encyclopedic either. Wiki policy No original research says


 * 'research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged'. So I think we should.


 * But I think you will find that everyone here, including those who feel we should show restraint in reporting this stuff, are here because they personally are interested in all available information. Sandpiper 19:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Discussing "excuses to delay foreign publication" and what J. K. Rowling thinks or not is not encyclopedic. Adding a terse comment to the article on how the R.A.B. situation might be solved when the editions of HBP in certain languages are released is a different matter. I insist that it would be much more logical to wait for said books to be published instead of adding yet more speculation to the article, though. --Sn0wflake 20:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I wasn't planning to, and I do not think I said that I had any plan to. I don't think there is even a remote reference in the books to real world events, or anything which might support speculation on the publishers motives. I posted it here to see whether anyone had a view on it. I am not yet totally convinced, but I think it will be interesting to see how the editions differ. I thought it quite amusing. Also relevant to us in compiling the page in that the tussle over what else might justifiably be included could possibly be resolved much more quickly than having to wait for book seven. Sorry if I panicked you. Sandpiper 22:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Amy Benson, Burkes, and miscellaneous
Recently I made some changes to the article with a full edit summary, including removing candidates that were original research and did not even have initials of R.A.B, or even R.B. I also made other changes that were described. Sandpiper reverted many of my changes while only saying "What's wrong with Amy Benson." Therefore, I am restoring all other changes while keeping Amy Benson in the article temporarily. I am only allowing the Benson info to stay one week without a source. After that, I will assume it is original research and it will be removed. I ask all editors to please cooperate. This is Wikipedia policy. If anyone has any other issues with my edit beyond the Amy Benson protest in the Sandpiper revert, they should describe them here. Do not revert without explanation. Superm401 | Talk 00:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, Sandpiper added a discussion forum back in with a misleading edit summary stating only that J.K.R endorses mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron. He did not explain why the forum should be there, and I already explained that it should be removed because the participants are non-notable.  If you have a specific reason to add the forum link again, explain it here.  Otherwise, please do not. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Specifically, when I say I am restoring other changes, here is what I am doing in that edit.


 * 1) Remove link from horcrux, because otherwise "emphasis added" note needed.
 * 2) The trio do not investigate the R.A.B mystery, so remove note stating otherwise.
 * 3) Remove subjective OR about "no better fit" and lack of clues because searching for clues and determining what is best fit are OR
 * 4) Remove note about Kreacher's craziness, which is pure OR
 * 5) Remove Borgin, Burkes because there is no proof of R or A, making them blatant speculation and OR.
 * 6) Possibly very minor changes elsewhere.
 * --Superm401 | Talk 00:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't read all of the comments in the discussion links on the bottom of the article, and i can't blame you for that, but how can you remove stuff for being OR if you didn't even read the sources?
 * Besides, leaving Amy Benson in but not Borgin makes no sense whatsoever. Quit replacing other theories by your own, this is an encyclopedia not your own HP fan site. Removing a character solely based on the reason that his first name is not known yet is not a very good reason you know.
 * That you speak of removing Burke already shows that you do not know where you are talking about, for we already know Burkes first name, Caracactus, so we know he cannot be RAB, and was therefor not listed as a possibility in the piece you have removed. --62.251.90.73 10:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not keep Amy Benson in because I think she's RAB(IMHO, given her name (NO R) and the fact that she's a muggle, that's completely ridiculous speculation). I kept it in because she was the only character contested in the edit summary.  See my comments at bottom of the page. Superm401 | Talk 01:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The current revision appears to be reasonable. Would it be too much for both parties to live with it? --Sn0wflake 02:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi superman. Please read the rather long sections I wrote above in discussion with deathphoenix. The theories about who is RAB are not original research in the meaning ascribed by wiki. I am a lot more determined on this point than on the issue of whether they merit inclusion. I can see why people may argue they are not worthy of inclusion (though I do not agree) but they are certainly not 'original research'. They are widely held and discussed views. The links removed to 'mugglenet' and 'leaky cauldron' show hundreds, possibly thousands of people discussing and supporting them. So, running this argument slightly backwards, please do not delete references. By all means include better references instead, but otherwise leave them. You may feel that wiki is the only and best source of information on this subject on the internet, but others may not. Even if you do not feel they are directly relevant to a particular point they should be included as per wiki policy as sources of further general information.


 * 1) re horcrux, dont quite understand what you meant, but I am not arguing.
 * 2) re Investigation, read the book. Yes they do. Hermione in fact produces two candidates with the correct initials. I do not remember their names (they may be above somewhere, rufus axebanger something?). This is fact from book.
 * 3) I inserted no better fit etc from an internet discussion, so again it is not original research. The difficulty with this section is to try to balance it. The way you have left it is too definitive that Regulus is not R.A.B. In the interests of accuracy the article should certainly give the impression that he is widely believed to be RAB, and that there are frankly no other good candidates. This is what you yourself have said when arguing for deleting the rest of the names mentioned. So it seems your position is that the case for RAB being regulus has been largely proved, despite your wanting to write the article claiming it is very uncertain. This seems to be misleading the readers.
 * 4) Kreachers craziness is nothing to do with me, but again I have seen this suggested more than once so I myself did not strike it out.
 * 5) The issue of initials seem to be being overplayed. I think (to do some original research) that JKR has quite deliberately given us no RABs precisely. It would have taken about 2 paragraphs at the end of the book for harry to ask someone at the funeral what regulus' middle name was, but this did not happen. We are expected (to stop doing original research) to speculate about people who have nearly the correct initials,and this is all part of the puzzle which has been widely discussed, and we should be properly explaining  to readers. It is entirely appropriate and within wiki guidelines to say that a puzzle has been set to find characters within the book with certain initials, and then to list those who fit, or might allowing for the usual conventions of people using a second name or getting married. That is not original research, it is merely indexing references within the text. Thus I have yet to see anyone state a reference which says Amy benson can not fit. On the other hand, amelia bones other name was susan,so I would not regard her as a likely candidate, but still worthy of inclusion to bring together the separate facts that she is normally referred to as amelia, but there is a reference to her other name being susan. we aim to report relevant facts here.

But apologies if you felt I was a little high-handed in altering your changes. It is not possible to include all this in the edit summary. And frankly, i felt there was a lot which had been removed which should be restored.81.139.132.104 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)(User:Sandpiper, not logged in)

Madam Rosmerta Theory

We know little of the past of Madam Rosmerta, nor do we know her full name. She could be a current or former member any organization (The Order of the Phoenix, a Death Eater, etc.) or none, as all are secretive. Weakness to the imperius curse should not rule her out. It would also be in Rowling's style to pull an obscure, rather nonessential character into the main plot and unexpected powers, abilities or intelligence. It is also possible that Madam Rosmerta could have put together things she has heard in the Three Broomsticks, such as the depositing of hundreds of bodies in the cave by deatheaters, a Good task to be delegated by Voldemort.

Though why she did not pass the information on to Dumbledore would be a mystery, and Rowling would have a good explanation for it, maybe a basis of fear, mistrust, phsychological blocking of the horror, alterior motives, etc.