Talk:Regulus Black

Note: This article has been redirected to Talk:Dark wizards in Harry Potter

Spouse: James Potter (deceased)

Making improvements
Hello guys, thanks for responding. Sandpiper, I will reply to your comments above within your response. I think that there are a number of issues that we need to separate, in order to make progress.


 * The first is whether my edit of the article presented an improvement over the presentation, and a good basis on which to make further improvements. Needless to say, I feel that it did present all the necessary information in a concise way, and that is the important basis for an encyclopedia article. As I said, I came to the article not intending to contribute anything, but rather to find the relevant information, which I felt was not really presented here. That is why I tried to make an improvement. I am wondering whether we can possibly agree to go back to that edit, and then think about what we *can* and *should* add to it. In my opinion, for a good encyclopedia article, there is an onus on really making a case why anything other than the basic information is relevant enough to be *included*, rather than why it should be left out. So starting with a well-organized slim article and discussing what to add to it seems to me to be the most reasonable way to go.


 * The second issue is actually unrelated to my edit, and this is whether or not a theory that Regulus is not really dead should be included in this article. I can see that this has been hotly debated between the two of you, and I hope that I might be able to mediate a little bit here, provided that both of you are willing to tone down your opinion a little bit. My personal feeling at the moment is that a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for including some version of this theory in the article would be to obtain some form of concensus on the matter. (I will explain this a bit more some other time.) On the other hand, I do not think that we can preclude the possibility of the theory a priori, either. The most important thing is to stop bickering and get on with improving the article in an acceptable way. I will note that this theory was not included in the article which I originally edited.


 * Another question is how much of the actual developments in the RAB=Regulus theory should be included here. My main points here are that we should not repeat everything stated in the main R.A.B. article, as that would be unencyclopedic; that whatever we write needs to be complete at the level of detail we choose (e.g. in the article I edited, there was no mention of the foreign translations); that there is a clear indication that "R.A.B." is the actual main article; that the text is understandable to someone who knows none of the rumours.


 * Finally, there are some other details which you may want to discuss the inclusion of. As mentioned above, I think we should start the article without them, and then argue for and against each of them before we decide.

Does this seem like a reasonable way forward? LR 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no-one seems to have had any major objections, I think I will at least clean up the beginning and first section of the article, using my previous edit as a basis. If there is any information you feel is missing, let's try and discuss it on here first. LR 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done it, and spent quite a bit of time trying to make sure information isn't missed, and adding references which were missing previously. Please do not revert this edit again without giving adequate justification, and time for discussion. Also, if you feel that any information is missing, let's discuss this here beforehand.


 * I'll say straightaway that I did not include the information on Regulus's father and uncle, since we haven't established its relevance. Also, I did not include the statement about Sirius not having any contact with his family shortly before or after his brother's death, since I couldn't find a reference for it easily. If there is a definite reference, then we can include it, but I do not think it is vital. Improvements in style etc. are very welcome. LR 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'meaning of the name' section has now also been fixed. As mentioned, I have removed the information on the 'diamond of spring', which not only seems questionable to me, but whose relevance is also not established in the article. I have slightly shortened the information on the star Regulus, as again the appropriateness of the detailed description to the article didn't seem clearly established. I have also removed the mention of "Demon Regulus"; this seems to be a rather minor meaning of the name, it is covered by the reference to the disambiguation page. It is not clear why this should have been listed on the page, but not some of the other meanings, so I think it's an instance of NPOV. Comments welcome, but please don't add information to this section unless its relevance (and NPOV) is clearly established. Best to discuss here first. LR 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "R.A.B." section has now also been treated. Since there were concerns that my previous edit contained too little information, I have tried to give an expanded, though still succinct, account of the developments here. However, as a result I feel that this section could still use some improvements. The prose can probably be fine-tuned. But most importantly, it could do with some more "mainstream" references to avoid the appearance of OR. It seems as though it should be possible to find a mainstream newspaper account of Isabel Nunes's revelation (perhaps in a Portuguese newspaper?).


 * I am very happy with how the other sections look now (what do you think?); with this one, I am somehow not completely happy, but I cannot completely pinpoint why. I do feel, however, that the amount of detail provided is appropriate, and the section (or other parts of the article) should not be significantly expanded at this point in time. Again, any input is appreciated. LR 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Folken, I saw your edit. I was a little bit unhappy with my formulation there myself, but I'm not sure that I feel not making a connection with the previous section is good style either. Apart from not being good prose, we are *implying* a connection to the previous theory, but leaving the reader to make it, which is not a good thing to do. I have made another attempt; how about this:"In connection with this theory, it has been observed that foreign editions consistently translate the final initial of 'R.A.B.' to agree with the first letter of the Black surname." This is supported by the reference to the Guardian article, and seems worded in a more neutral way than before.


 * I'm not sure I am yet 100 per cent happy with the section as it is, but I do feel that this has been an improvement. What do you think? The filmfodder link that you referred to seems to work fine for me. What is the problem you get with it? LR 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Regulus is alive" theory
Alright, let's get right into it. I imagine this discussion will take a while to settle, and in the meantime we can improve the rest of the article. Here is how I see this.


 * As far as I understand, there is a theory that Regulus is not really dead, and the discussion is whether the theory is noteworthy enough to be included on this page.


 * *If* this theory was to be included on Wikipedia, this would be the article for it.

So it needs to be decided whether this theory is relevant enough to be included on Wikipedia. Since the article can stand quite easily by itself, it needs to be *verifiably* established that the existence of this theory is important enough to be reported in an encyclopedia. As mentioned above, one question we can ask ourselves is whether we would still would want to include mention of it in a few months' time, if the theory has turned out to be false? If not, that would be a strong argument against inclusion. We need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Here is another issue, which is related to NPOV. I am sure we agree that we cannot and should not include all existing Harry Potter rumors on Wikipedia. It needs to be argued very carefully that this is one of *the* main theories generating discussion about the final Harry Potter installment, in which case *all* theories of the same stature should be included on Wikipedia.

I will give an example. I am not a big Harry Potter fanatic, but I did a few searches online recently, having idly come up with some ideas myself about the final book. On my browsing of some of the fan's websites, I *didn't* actually come across the 'Regulus is alive' theory. On the other hand, I did come across a theory, which I did not find particularly convincing, about Madam Pince being Snape's mother, and a number of similarly far-fetched ideas. If you want to include the Regulus theory, you would need to argue convincingly, and back this up in a verifiable manner, that either the existence of the Regulus rumor is more significance than that of the Pince = Prince rumor (contrary to my first impression), or that the Pince rumor should also be on Wikipedia (which I am, to say the least, very dubious about). LR 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If RAB=Regulus is developed in some sort, it's precisely because someone asked JKR about it (so it appeared in an "official" interview with the author of the books, the existence of this theory has been acknowledged in front of the author, she even talked about it and said "fine guess"). So you see, it's not because of the number of followers of the theory, but because the theory managed to gain importance outside the restricted circle of the HP fandom, because it was acknowledged by the author herself.
 * That other theories are discussed on forums and in obscure self-published books in which fans from forums are directly involved, is not enough to deserve mention on WP. WP is a general encyclopedia, and its articles shouldn't adress exclusively to these little, restricted fan circles. What exists only among underground circles of fans and underground self-published books definitely shouldn't be included on WP. These theories have not become notable because their existence is still restricted to fansites underground books. Interviews from Rowling are notable (because she is the author), however.


 * So it's all about notability, and mentioning every fan theory, or only the theories that we like/that we judge popular is simply not notable enough for WP, because WP isn't a part of these underground fan circles, but a general encyclopedia, and it's not because we're dealing with HP that WP should become a part of these underground circles: HP notability on WP is defined by its status as an internationally-published and internationally-successful series of books, not because of the work of some fans. What never went beyond these circles of die-hard fans obviously doesn't have its place on a general encyclopedia. We don't have to, and in fact we can't, report "discussions and debates" which concern only these restricted fan circles. What's on WP must have a global relevance, and reporting every single debate theese fan circles have had on every single HP theory that has appeared on the web, is obviously of no interest for Wikipedia.


 * There is also another problem with theories, also linked to notability in a way: WP has very clear rules about the sources that can be used, we cannot include self-published sources or dubious sources, and the source that was used to report the "Regulus is not dead" theory was a self-published book in which those fan circles were heavily involved. Was Rowling ever asked about it in an interview ? Has she ever qualified it a "fine guess" ? Has a translator ever reported that Rowling told her that Regulus was not dead ? Given that this theory couldn't go beyond the restricted circles of die-hard fans and obscure publications related to the fans themselves, I really can't see how it could deserve inclusion here.


 * Sandpiper is a little bit too much enthusiast about these fan circles, and it's sad that he is mistaken when he goes on WP to include content that really doesn't have its place. However, if Sandpiper absolutely wants to praise fan theories or build his own theories using the Wiki system, he can go to the HP Wiki, where everything will be accepted.


 * But now and here, there is not much possibilities, theories really can't stay on WP.Folken de Fanel 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are being a little bit too dogmatic here, which I don't think is going to help finding a concensus. As I said, if someone wants a theory to be included, they need to show verifiably that this theory has "global relevance", as you call it. However, in principle it is something that might be possible. I don't think that Sandpiper has made a very good case for this particular theory so far. However, that doesn't mean that there *couldn't* be circumstances under which a 'fan theory' can be significant enough to be included on Wikipedia. Let Sandpiper make his case, and we will try to reach a concensus. LR 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that a debate about madame pince is really helpfull. what is her relevance to Regulus Black? The Regulus page would discuss those things which have arisen regarding Regulus, not the school librarian, however popular she may be. What other theories did you come up with which might be considered for mention or not on this page? My point is that the whole lot of mainstream debate about the character is not going to amount to very much length in words, so there is really no point in not mentioning it in a comprehensive article. As to whether or not it will be mentioned in two months time, I don't know. I rather think that it should, but you also need to consider that what is being reported now as existing current theories about the books will no longer be true in two months, for obvious reasons. The article now should suit the situation now. Sandpiper 01:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. The question is not whether the theory is relevant *to Regulus Black*; the question is whether it is relevant enough *to be included on Wikipedia at all*. Of course no-one would include the 'Madam Pince' rumor here; but it's not included elsewhere (and, I think, probably rightly so), and *that*'s my point. If we report on a theory, we do so because we believe that *the existence of the theory* is a noteworthy fact. There is probably a better rule for this, but consider WWIN:News Reports: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events ... The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography."


 * This was stated with a somewhat different subject in mind, but I think it is still relevant here. The existence of the Regulus=RAB theory, for example, is an event which I would probably advertise keeping even after Deathly Hallows is out.


 * I will also point out that one of your previous comments, a quote from the MuggleNet publication, suggests that the theory is not widely accepted: "Unfortunately for Harry, Regulus Black is almost certainly dead. ... On the off chance that Regulus has been faking his death all these years ..." LR 09:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which shows that the issue has been thought about, which is the point. An absence of debate does not simply indicate that a point is not worth debating, but also that it is settled and there is a conclusion to report. While the issue of what to include will definitely change in a couple of months, I would point out the clock started ticking two years ago. Are you suggesting we should blank all the HP articles because they will all be changed in two months? Say in an article on law, should we delete the article about existing legislation because a new act will be passed in two months? I think we would just explain that things are about to change. My own point was that what constitutes sufficient noteability to include depends upon the context. regulus Black has been widely discussed, as witness the fact that the mugglenet book has a whole chapter on him. The issue of whether he is dead or not will influence what happenes in the next book, specifically whether he will be alive to answer questions. Which I think was basically the point being quoted. Aside from that the book referenced is basically making a comment on the series, that fake death has appeared before, and this might be a situation where it could apply. I'm not sure why that is an issue. Sandpiper 13:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have read my points carefully, because you seem to be misreading or avoiding them. I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone that a theory which is not considered convincing, or at least plausible, by a majority of the Harry Potter community, and which hasn't been reported on in the mainstream media, should be included in Wikipedia. (That doesn't mean that these criteria are by themselves sufficient.) What evidence is there that this is one of the most notable theories regarding Harry Potter, so notable that it should be included in a Wikipedia article? To address this point, you also haven't answered whether you think that the Madam Pince theory is less substantial than this one or not.


 * Whether a question is relevant to the last book or not is not really relevant to its inclusion on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a crystal ball. What we can report on is the existence of the theory, but it should have a lasting interest. What people *believe* to be relevant, however, *can* be worth reporting. I made this point above before. The question is whether this is *notable* enough, or not. At the moment, it seems your argument could be used to include a whole lot of theories which I feel are *not* relevant enough - I don't think we can justify documenting every theory appearing in Granger or the mugglenet book etc. What you need to do here is convince me that this theory is *more* notable. As far as I can tell, you haven't yet tried to make an argument for this.


 * Speculation that faked death has appeared before in the series and therefore should happen again would, in my eyes, count as original research. Of course, if there are secondary sources (i.e., something written and published by an expert on children's novels, etc.) which give this theory credence, then it could be included. Similarly, if it is one of the central beliefs held in the Harry Potter community prior to the publication of the book (so much so that it will remain notable if the belief is not fulfilled), then it could be concluded. Again, you need to argue for this.


 * To try and make the point succinctly: you need to argue why this theory is demonstrably more notable than many others which may seem of similar importance to the non-"expert". If you can demonstrate that it belongs e.g. in the ten most widely discussed theories prior to the release of book 7, perhaps we can make a case for its inclusion. If not, I'm not sure you have a case. LR 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories?
I think Fringe theories is a relevant guideline here. I know it is not necessarily written with fan theories on works of popular culture in mind, but many of the remarks are still relevant. LR 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That guideline seems to be discussing whether a particular theory deserves its own article. Which theory are we suggesting deserves its own article? I would also ask what you consider to be 'mainstream' journals, when it comes to debating the subject of HP. It is pointless looking to any source which does not customarily cover debate about contemporary fiction for a quote. The place to look is where this subject is debated...which is online. Sandpiper 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And "online" isn't reliable and notable.Folken de Fanel 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, but you see, that is imposing your own view, not that of wikipedia. Online just means something is on the internet and immediately available to anyone with an internet connection. That ought to make anything a very good source indeed. The issue is about content, not the medium whereby something is published. How can anyone writing an online encyclopedia claim that nothing on the internet can ever be considered reputable or reliable?Sandpiper 13:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah but you see, I'm not imposing anything, only what the rules of Wikipedia state. Online means also unreliable, because "anyone can create a website", post comments on forums, etc. Wikipedia works with reliablility and notability, and isolated comments on forums from isolated members of a restricted circle of die-hard fans is not notable enough for WP, which is a general encyclopedia, not the extension of online fan circles.
 * The issue is about content and the medium. As in your case, both elements don't respect the principles of WP.
 * It's not because this is an online encyclopedia that we can include just any fan theory there is on forums, Wikipedia works on notability and reliability, and there things on the web that are not reliable, because anyone can write anything on the web.
 * As for your recent edits, you still haven't proved the validity of them in this talk page, and you still haven't reached consensus with others, so you're not including them by force.Folken de Fanel 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 'general encyclopedia' means it gives information about everything. Just so. Anyone can write any kind of rubbish on a web page. So very true. Just as they can on a printed page. That is why editors make choices about which sources are reputable and reliable, and which are not. It is this last bit which you are failing to apply. Frankly, the websites being quoted are much better edited than is this encyclopedia, so it is hard to see why anyone here can complain about quoting them. Sandpiper 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It means it is directed to a general audience, not dedicated only to restricted people like fan clans, etc.
 * And so, we have policies and which sources are acceptable, and which aren't. And online forums just aren't acceptable because they are neither reliable nor notable.
 * On a side note, I'm glad you finally agree to discuss instead of disrupt. I hope you will keep it like that long enough to show how good faithed and experienced you are.~Next step is to stop vandalizing the french Wiki, and disrupting it just for the sake of opposing me and reverting each of my edits just for your personal pleasure of provoking and insulting me. Folken de Fanel 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah the french wiki. You mean where you nominated the RAB article for deletion after it had been chopped to pieces by anonymous editors, deleted the comments I made in the AfD there that the article being considered was totally different to the one which had been there previously, closed the deletion debate yourself which you yourself had started, argued that people wanted a rewrite which you interpreted as deleting most of the article despite their actually asking for it to have added references, and indeed be expanded as per the english one? Or do you mean that consensus there came down on including the content and references which I have been supporting here?
 * Now, who exactly do you imagine reads articles about Hp on wiki if not fans? Why do you argue that we should not include content which would be of interest to fans? That's how many million copies of the new book have already been paid for? This issue has already been clearly decided. Please stop your guerilla action to remove all mention of your pet hates from any article. Sandpiper 21:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sad you're not willing to do anything to make the situation better for everyone, including the readers. It's sad, really. But it shows that you're merely a disrupter, and you merely prove my point.
 * Yes the french Wiki, were you insulted me in afd comments (were, obviously, personal comments and attacks have nothing to do), yes I closed the talk and I'm proud of it, yes peole officially said they wanted a clean of the original research (and, anyway, there is no need for a clean up request, when it is written in the rules that original research cannot stay in articles). People have asked for references, yes, for one part (and I don't remember you adding any reference, merely reverting back unsourced original research), and delete anything that cannot be reliably sourced, for a second part, which is merely what I've done. Anyway, what's the problem if I remove something strictly forbidden on Wikipedia ? You still fail to answer to any of this, hiding being ludicrous excuses of afd debates, which you don't even respect yourself (and don't start to invent imaginary worlds, no one supported the inclusion of your bad sources, either here or there) ...You even bring silly excuses of article length, but you see, length is nothing if you article a huge pile of nonesense, are you going to add insults to articles just to make them seem longer ?
 * Die-hard fans can have their own wikis, forums and websites, Wikipedia just can't be turned into a mirror of a fansite, that's all. It's a general encyclopedia for everyone, irrelevant and badly sourced (when it is sourced) trivia only for restricted fan circles doesn't interest anyone.
 * "The issue has already been clearly decided" ? Yes, each time you create a new incident, every one points out your bad behavior and warns you to calm down (to "stop trying the patience of other editors), and admits your edits harm WP. I remind you also that you can "decid" everything you want alone in your corner, it doesn't have any importance at all. You don't have decisional power, and you cannot oppose to general consensus. Ignoring it only makes things worse for you.
 * Please stop your guerilla action to add mention of your pet likes from any article.
 * Ironically, I notice that you're no more discussing your contribs to this article (you've jumped on an occasion to conveniently change the subject), further proving that you can't even justify them, and that they don't deserve to be included. Folken de Fanel 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The full french RAB article only contained just the same stuff as was and still is contained in the article here, which as yet you have not suggested here ought to be deleted and nor has anyone else. The specific argument revolved around whether David Langford was a good source for the contention that the RAB was Regulus, and that the horcrux locket was the same one at Grimmaud place. It was held that Langford was indeed a good source and the material should remain in the article. This specifically is the content which you and I are debating now. I did not insult you, and it was held that I did not. I inserted information about your past editing history, which was held to be fair comment and relevant to the debate, as it clearly showed your own point of view and indeed rather different approach to editing the same article on two different wikis. As to re-stating the clear arguments I have already made about this content, it seems to me that the only result of this ongoing conversation is that these have disappeared somewhere into the ever lengthening nonsense debate. However, since you insist, I will again point out that the 190 books written about HP by third parties have already sold more copies than many original novels, that a vast number of people are interested in this debate, that specific websites have been acknowledged by fans, Rowling and even Warner bros as experts in this field, that people like Langford are respect commentators on works such as Rowling's in their own right. I'm sure he's not the only one, but I'm damned if i'm going to buy the other 187 books just to satisfy your disbelief, particularly since I do not believe any number of authors saying the same thing would convince you. One example is entirely enough to make the case for inclusion, especially when you can not demonstrate any counter evidence. Sandpiper 07:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad you can't read french, because the french article didn't contain anything like that. It was merely original research from one editor proposing his own speculations and theories, but I see now you're shutting yourself into a room of lies and fabrication. The specific argument never revolved around Langford, as it was already established that fan theories were not acceptable and thoroughly and undisputably proved that langford was unreliable and not acceptable on Wikipedia. By the way, you still haven't reached consensus with Lasserempe about theories here, which completely proves my point.
 * The locket horcruxe location is your own opinion, and whether you concider it true has nothing to do with Wikipedia and cannot (and will not) influence any decision here (except your block for NPOV violation).
 * You did insult me and you still are, and it was held that you did. You inserted only personal attacks which were recognised as such. This was irrelevant in the debate as we were discussing original research in articles, not your own frustrations in life.
 * Have you read these 190 books ? Do you know what they are about ? Do you remember the rule about self-published and unreliable sources ? This sums up the "debate" about you, your sources are just bad, and however hard you try to insult me, and to impose your content in articles, you'll never succeed, because you're just wrong.
 * I have also already said that these theories concern only die-hard fan forums which do not interest the majority of the readers, and anyway we follow Wikipedia's guidelines, not yours, it's too easy to rewrite the rules each time...
 * The specific websites your talking have never been recognized as "experts" (you're again manipulating words), some people acknowledged their qualities as compilers of facts from the existing books, however no one has ever said anything about theory expertise, and here you're just manipulating comments, giving them a meaning that they never have. So of course we're not accepting this kind of arguments. If you're obliged to invent imaginary comments to back up your views, then it means you're completely wrong. So really, stop talking about fansites being "recognized", you were already told by others that it wasn't valid.
 * As for Langford, he's no one, as I've said he's no authority on the subject since he has no special knowledge on book 7 plot and has no special powers of divination. He's reliable, he's never written on HP before, so that's it.
 * I have demonstraed many counter evidence, that you simply refuse to answer them because you know they're right, and because you just fear them. As I've said, you've got no decisionary power whatsoever, and you cannot "decide" what to include or not, when every other users involved in these debates have proved you wrong and have been opposed to your actions.
 * Even here, in this very talk page, you've failed to convince Lasserempe, and now you've given up trying...You've lost, and you know it, and you're beginning to fall into a false word, you're losing contact with reality, you invent alternative worlds, you're using self-deception, but all this isn't going to make you win. It only makes you weak. You mind is weak and is losing ground, lies and deceptions are devoring it, and and you need to be helped because otherwise, you'll face serious mental illness. Really, stop fighting and let people help you, we're only here to help you, but if you continue to go into imaginary worlds, you'll never come back to reality. You'll be trapped in the worlds you have created. Folken de Fanel 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to see the the view of the french pompier (arbitrator) on whether langford is a good source (and can make out French) see here, and anyone wanting to read the deletion debate for the french RAB page, see here The deletion  debate history makes interesting reading. I particularly like the bit where Folken argues that Langford (who is accepted as a source on the french wiki) is not even mentioned as a source in the articles, when it is Folken on both wikis who keeps deleting him as a ref. I quote from the deletion debate in response to a comment by Folken:
 * Ce qui m'ennuie chez toi ce sont tes mensonges constants, tes aggressions verbales constantes, ta croyance que tu détiens la vérité et le magnifique WP:POINT que tu es en train de faire. n'ayant pas réussi à obtenir ce que tu voulais sur en: tu essaies de le faire sur fr:, tu ment, tentes de dicréditer les gens en désaccord avec toi, t'autoproclame meilleur spécialiste de Fantasy qu'un professionnel du domaine, déforme les propos de tes contradicteurs etc. Ton comportement est très problèmatique, tu as déjà été prévenu, par Bourbarki, par Bapti, plusieurs autres admins ont déclaré que ceci était du vandalisme. Tout ce qu'on a obtenu de toi c'est une tentative d'embrouiller la situation tout en continuant tes mensonges. Si l'accusation d'être un menteur te gène, vas-y WP:CAR te tends les bras. - phe 13 mai 2007 à 02:11 (CEST)

Sandpiper 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Ongoing debate
I've been trying to make heads or tails where the debate stands now and I can't seem to figure out where we're at on it. I'm of the opinion that there should be a brief mention of RAB and them direct them to the RAB article. It is redundant to post the same information in 5 different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angielaj (talk • contribs)
 * That is all we have at present. I must admit I havn't had time to go through the old version of the article to see if anything else was deleted which I feel ought to be here. Sandpiper 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The section above started as a discussion about whether the suggestion that Regulus might still be alive ought to be mentioned. I have to say I think it should, because 1) the article is rather short and needs all the content it can get, and 2) it is an interesting point about the use of faked deaths in the series, and a possible further example. I don't really see why it should be objectionable. Sandpiper 01:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Information should only be in the article unless it's needed. Fluff does not make an article any strong. As well keeping the same infomation in more then one location make maintance of all the articles harder, and less stronger. Further this isn't a forum for speculation. Fake deaths as interesting as they are hardly encyclopedic.


 * One last thing. I think it's highly inaapropiate to put information in an article is THERE IS NOT A CONSENSUS. You should leave the article in the state it was BEFORE you edited it. PLEASE be curtious to the other editors and not impose your will on everyone. This is GROUP effort.(sorry about spelling) Angielaj 01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All the information, and more, was already in the article before I edited it. Read further back in the history?
 * wiki is not paper. The only reason we need to limit information about a subject on one page is because it is getting too long for comfortable reading, and we are nowhere near that here. If you care to go and research Regulus on the internet, then you will find that one of debates about him is whether he may still be alive. This is obviously a side issue to whether he is RAB (which is essentially accepted by everyone) but hardly an irrelevant one. Obviously if he is alive then an appearance in the final book is more likely. Similarly, what he did with the locket is of great interest.
 * I disagree that trivia makes a page worse. Humour is always, always a good thing in getting across information, wiki articles should not be boring. In this case, the issue does not seem to be that the information is trivial, irrelevant or the like, but in fact that some people consider it so important that they demand its removal. Odd, really.
 * placement of information is always difficult. There are two conflicting requirements. Placing information together as much as possible, and placing it where it is relevant. I am not a believer in requiring readers to make multiple page switches to find something unless there is no alternative. In this case the page currently contains a very short summary of the RAB issue, and if anything I would have thought expanding it a bit would be sensible. It is not sensible to just have a link on a page referring people elsewhere without a summary version of that information essentially explaining why they might be interested in reading more. In a case such as this, such a summary would likely immediately be subject to challenge unless it goes some way towards demonstrating exactly why people believe RAB is Regulus, whereas a conventional encyclopedia would be able to simply get away with a line like 'Regulus is widely believed to be RAB, and to have hidden the locket at Grimmauld place'. Sandpiper 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Humor as nice as it is doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. no one will take it seriouslyAngielaj 12:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * plus there is stuff in here that it about who RAB might be that has nothing to do with regulas. The only thing that needs to be here is hard evidence of why RAB might be Regulas. The rest is speculation.Angielaj 12:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep looking at that section and it bothers me. It's all over the place. It needs reorganized.Angielaj 12:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a very odd thing to say about humour. If people are enjoying themselves they learn better. But in this case its not a question of including jokes, but rather 'entertaining' information. Why will no one take an encyclopedia seiously if it is fun to read? Isn't that the worst kind of stereotyping, equating knowledge with non-fun things to do? Or simply equating knowledge with bad writing?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'all that stuff about who RAB might be'. Regulus is a character who has been mentioned from time to time so that we get snippets of information about him, but who has never appeared. Except... that if he is RAB then he has appeared, and done something rather important. You can't write an article explaining Regulus' role without explaining why he might be RAB, including at least the bare explanation of the events in the book and the consideration of other candidates basically showing that there aren't any.

Now, the difference between folken and i which we are warring at the moment seems to be that he is repeatedly deleting the lines: ''It has been suggested that this must be the same locket. ''

Which is a pretty odd thing for him to delete, i would say. Stating that this specific locket is the horcrux locket is the whole point of making any mention of it at all; it is at the heart of Regulus' importance and basically why he merits an article. The existence of this article logically presupposes that there is a real likelihood that RAB=regulus, and that people are interested in what he did with the locket. Mostly what Folken seems to be seking to do is remove all mentions of sources which confirm that this debate is widespread. Very peculiar editing. Sandpiper 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want a real theory to include, I would suggest adding: 'Regulus discovered that Voldemort was a half-blood, and in his fury at being duped, resolved to steal the horcrux.' This theory is also nicely supported by snippets here and there, such as bella's fury when Harry tells her Voldemort is a half blood (which also tells us the information had been secret). talking about rewriting articles, we have still not settled the consequences of the last person who did this, which gave rise to the unresolved deletion of: ''It is unclear how Sirius received his information on his brother's death, and what agenda his informants may have had. Although J.K. Rowling has stated Regulus is actually dead, she has not indicated that the allegations of Regulus's death via the Death Eaters nor Voldemort are accurate.''

The series has been noted as following certain patterns: Philosopher's Stone shares features with Order of the Phoenix, and Chamber of Secrets shares features with Half-Blood Prince''. According to this pattern, Prisoner of Azkaban would correspond to Deathly Hallows, and it has been suggested that the plot device of a faked death (Peter Pettigrewin PoA) may be repeated. Regulus was one of two characters - along with Dumbledore - who many readers have considered might still be alive. Some argued that Regulus needed to survive if the facts surrounding his mysterious life and death, and around the horcruxes, were to be told, whereas there were plenty of means of discovering any of Dumbledore's remaining secrets. "if Reggie's true tale is to be told, he will probably have to tell it himself. Because there doesn't seem to be anyone else around to do it for him." Rowling made a statement specifically that Dumbledore was definitely dead, but has made no such comment about Regulus.

According to the Black family tree, Regulus Black's father Orion and his uncle Cygnus Black both died in the same year as Regulus.

which was being debated above, which i have politely not been reinserting into the article. Sandpiper 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First the humor thing. This isn't about entertainment. You don't see britanica doing humor.It's a source for information should not try to entertain you by telling you a knock knock joke. It's not about stereo typing knowlage as not fun, it's about being a reliable repiable source for knowledge.


 * Second what I meant about "All the people RAB could be" Specifically I mean the line where Hermione finds other people with the intials RAB. This isn't an article about RAB it's about regulas. That line should be taken out. Further more I have doubts if the bit about how the locket was found by Dumbledore and harry should be in this article as it nothing to do with Regulas as RAB.


 * What I think needs to happen is to simply list out the citable facts from REPITABLE sources on why Regulas could be RAB and then point to the RAB article.


 * The Repitable part is why the locket bit keeps getting deleted because Mugglenet as nice of a fan site is as it is, isn't repitable enough to cite as fact. The book was not edited by an impartial editor, but self published. It's FAN SPECULATION.
 * AngielaJ 01:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some editing to show what I mean by organization because it's easier to show then to explain in prose. AngielaJ 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So...
No debate now? WookMuff 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should all of the speculation of R.A.B. be saved somewhere? --michael180 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B. merged here
I have merged R.A.B. into Regulus Black. That page's talk page can still be accessed at Talk:R.A.B.. GarrettTalk 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the pre-release leaks and educated guesses (foreign translations et al) be summarized into a single section (rather than the three as now). Coz that info is no more relevant to the series, it only exists for historical interest. --Ayleuss 07:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is important that the debat needs to be retained in the article. The reason for the existence of the HP articles at all is the enormous interest they created, and the the historical trail of clues is part of that. 88.108.117.107 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it needs to be preserved, we just do not need details. Like the exact wordings of the conversation and such stuff. --Ayleuss 12:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * why not? it is a description of the events which took place. Sandpiper 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What "description" does quoting an interview verbatim provide that a summarization cannot? --Ayleuss 08:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But what is wrong with using a quotation when one is available? Sandpiper 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This section (three sections) is way over the top. The debate should be mentioned, but a full analysis is inappropriate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion board.Snuffulufagus 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that an encyclopedia reports (and explains) the discussion, rather than originating it. Are you saying that a point which literally held the attention of millions of people isn't worth the space explaining it? Sandpiper 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My Article
You worthless Muggles did a horrible job writing my article. — R.A.B. 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)