Talk:R.A.B./Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Portugese Translator "leak"

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Before we can post any "allegations" that some supposed portugese translator (illegally) leaked the identity of R.A.B., we MUST have a Reliable Source that is fully Verifiable. We cannot use second and third hand rumours and speculation, even if it is sourced externally. There are a few relatively reliable sources in the Harry Potter realm - either J. K. Rowling as quoted in an interview or on her web site in FAQ or whatever, or from one of the relatively firm fan web sites that she has given the nod to publicly - like the HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, Mugglenet, etc. Just because someone makes a website called "harrypotterwizardnews.com" or something does NOT make it a reliable source for spectacular news and rumours. We cannot support claims to the identity of RAB without a reliable source. The Wikipedia policy is to favor verifiable information from reliable sources, over the "truth" - every time. The Wiki is not the place for spreading the latest theories and gossip. If anyone can come up with an acknowledged reliable source for the "Translator Leak", then please post it here for audit examination and traceability checks by the HP project team. Thanks! --T-dot 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, she has revealed information about the books before. And also, the news has now reached the Harry Potter Fan Zone website, and is beginning to spread [1]. I think that the HPFZ is a reliable enough source, although it does stress that it is still a rumour. I think that it should be re-added, as when I sourced that information, it was emphasized that it was a rumour. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:23 8/11/2006 (UTC)

OK there's a very good start. What can be posted in our R.A.B. article then is to state exactly that: There are rumours that the Portugese Translator of the books either inadvertently or deliberately leaked the identity of R.A.B. as Regulus Black, and then provide a verifiable link directly to that information on the Fan Zone site (or other reliable source). That moves the "pure speculation" of the leak, into a reasonably reliable source that can be verified as existing by anyone. We cannot however make the claim that this Portugese Translator leak actually happened - unless the reliable source makes such a definitive claim. I hope this is starting to make sense to you. We can only state the facts here. The fact that the rumor exists is a fact, and we can say that, but the information within the rumour itself is not factual until proven, so we cannot suggest that it is factual by posting it as such. All the links I have seen refer to gossip and rumours that the Portugese Translator leaked the info, but nothing at all that is traceable from and to a Reliable and Verifiable Source. The sources that claimed to "know for a fact" that the Portugese translator leaked it, are unreliable blog pages and fan-created web sites and such. We would need to verify that the person claiming to be the official translator was in fact the official translator, and that the person in fact made the claims, in order to make the statement here that it happened. Otherwise we are dead in the water. --T-dot 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is the translator only had the published americian copy. They assumed RAB was Regulus Black. The publisher didn't pick it up or assumed it was RAB. Either way they didn't 'leak' it because they really don't know.

Foreign Translations

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am a little confused by the discussion above. It was my impression that the proof of the identity of RAB depended upon cross referencing different foreign editions. As explained in the article, different editions translate names differently. Thus we start in English and have maybe 5 people with possible names. Then in language two one of these is eliminated. In language three a different one is eliminated, and so on. In no single language are all possible alternate candidates eliminated. It is a while since I saw this presented, but it was my recollection that the matter hinged on Scandinavian translations, not portugese ones. It is my further recollection that this process was completed perhaps 6 months after publication of the english editions. As such, Rowling knew that the puzzle would be conclusively solved relatively quickly after publication. Sandpiper 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Portugese Leak" issue is regarding the alleged "leak" by the Portugese translator who supposedly told the Portugese Press and others that Rowling told her that Regulus is RAB, when she asked her about the RAB's sex (m/f); presumably to make sure she used the correct sex in verb forms or something in sentences where RAB appeared. The problem is that there are no current reliable sources available regarding this unprecedentedly phenomenal bit of information. The only source link provided goes back to a fan site that makes the claim and cites another fan forum web site, which is in Portugese, and says nothing at this time about Regulus or RAB. So we are stuck in an unverifiable speculation loop. I have a mind to delete it as unverifiable and in violation of wiki-policy, unless somebody is able to come up with a truly reliable source. The only reason I have not done so is I think it would spark another revert war, as it did before. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It comes from a Reliable Source, as far as I know. The PDF file provided above - http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt/edicion_impresa/imagenes/2005/PDF/do2511.pdf - comes from diarioeconomico.sapo.pt. Well, that is a well known information site on the portal of a Portuguese ISP. Translation of "diario economico" -> "economic diary". If that isn't a reliable source, then I definetely don't know what a reliable source is. Anyway, I don't know how reliable is a magazine dedicated to economy in this case. It is known and popular for its reputation, I can assure you that. That is NOT a fan site/forum/whatever, nor is it even an individual-made site. It is an information site. * About the topic itself, well the translation says it all. The translator wanted to know the sex of RAB to know whether to refer as "him" or "her", and the answer she got was the full name. Even though that might NOT be the true name, well, that information - Isabel Nunes has asked Rowling for the sex of RAB and the answer was his full name - is true, and can be confirmed in that PDF file. So, why not maintain the section about the "Portuguese Leak"? It is not stating that "the real name is...". It is stating that Rowling has provided A real name, not necessarily THE real name.Angel Of Wisdom 14:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

multiple candidates

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Oh, and how did the original statement that hermione found only two wizards with the initials RAb turn into one that she found many wizards with these initials? Sandpiper 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it was one of those 4am drive-by rapid-deployment multiple-edits, done by an HP troll who made his last edit look benignly innocent, making it difficult to spot by the Recent Changes Patrol and CVU squad. Please feel free to change it so it matches exactly the information provided in HBP. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Latest comment: 17 years ago39 comments5 people in discussion

Please be warned that, as per WP:OR, editors who would like to add their own speculations about where they think is the famous locket horcrux will be reverted.Folken de Fanel 12:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if there's a source. Michael Sanders 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if there is a reliable source. Otherwise it's still OR - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is no source, Michael. The article states that the locket is at Grimmault Place, as if book 7 was already published.

The (bad) source doesn't change anything to this blatant OR. If a small number of die-hard fans agree with this OK, but we don't care and the fan reaction is not the subject of this paragraph. This paragraph is here to say where is the horcrux.

Where's the source for this ?

The article, as it is, presents the supposed location of the horcrux as fact extracted from the published book 7, while the "source" only backs up the fact that some fans believe this. To present the supposed location of the horcrux as fact, you need a (reliable) source.

And there is no source whatsoever.

We don't know where these allegations come from, we don't know who formulated them, what their reliability is...In short, we know nothing. And this paragraph is blatant OR, and that you add a ridiculous "source" saying "many" fans believe it doesn't change the fact that the formulation is utter OR. Folken de Fanel 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that facts must be attributable to reliable sources. Citation is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. There is no place for even second hand speculation. - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a reliable source, which apparently Folken de Fanel is failing to see every time he reverts. Michael Sanders 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the source concerns only the reactions of the fans (but any way, this books hardly qualifies as a reliable source, as far as its own sources, the notability -was it reused in its turn by a sufficient number of other external sources ? I don't think so-, the author -is he any kind of authority on Harry Potter ? I don't think so, this book is his only one on the subject-, etc are concerned).

There is no source for the statements that the locket is in Grimmault Place (which is OR). I have already explained this, but apparently you fail to see it every time (and I'll make to you the same reproach many editors made to you previously: do not ignore discussions and consensuses). The complete description of the locket and its supposed location has no source whatsoever. It's merely the speculations of a contributor, and that the langford "source" is added changes nothing to the matter.

Anyway, the locket isn't even the subject of this article. The presence of such speculations concerning the locket are only more OR (synthesis) trying to force the POV that RAB is Regulus, while until book 7 is published, remains unconfirmed. Folken de Fanel 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont really unserstand folken. The article does not state that the locket is at Grimmauld place. The article states that it is widely believed the locket was at Grimmauld place, but where it is now is entirely a different matter.

I agree, you don't understand anything. Read again.Folken de Fanel 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand your comment on sources. You appear to he saying that a source is no good unless he has been referenced as a source by further works. Now you are saying that published reputable info is not enough, we must find sources which have been used themselves as sources? Did I not remind you the author is a professional SF writer, who also writes encyclopedias about this sort of material? He is an exceptionally good source for this sort of thing, and you must know that. Sandpiper 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying anything, the rules aree saying all that.

No, a SF author is not a good source, by WP standards. Folken de Fanel 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wanted us to use experts on a subject as sources, what do you suggest instead? I'm afraid I don't see any rules which make this a bad source, in fact entirely the opposite. Sandpiper 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything, the rules are all saying it. And the rules want you, not only to use expert sources (which is not the case here), but to use sources. A whole block of blatant OR is not sourced. Folken de Fanel 09:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not understand the rules which you are (not) quoting. Langford is exactly the sort of expert described in the 'rules'. he is an expert on the subject of analysing fantasy books. I understand that you wish he did not exist, but he does. Sandpiper 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He's not an expert and he's not analysing anything. Besides, there is no source. Folken de Fanel 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Langford_locket>Langford, David. The End of Harry Potter?, p.126. Golancz. ISBN 057507875. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)" - apparently, you are incapable of seeing sources you disagree with. Nonetheless, that is in the text you dislike (and break the rules over). Still claiming there is no source? Michael Sanders 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No this doesn't appear anywhere in the text, besides it would not be a reliable enough source. Read the previous discussion. Folken de Fanel 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable enough source. And, quite frankly, I suggest you visit Mythomania. Michael Sanders 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. And I suggest you stop personal attacks.Folken de Fanel 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please specify how it is not a reliable source. Michael Sanders 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"but any way, this books hardly qualifies as a reliable source, as far as its own sources, the notability -was it reused in its turn by a sufficient number of other external sources ? I don't think so-, the author -is he any kind of authority on Harry Potter ? I don't think so, this book is his only one on the subject-, etc are concerned)."

But anyway, langford isn't used as a source for the OR.Folken de Fanel 22:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I don't take you quoting yourself as evidence of notability or no notability. On the other hand, the man has written about such things and been published before. That makes him qualified by wikipedia rules on sources.

It's his 1st book about HP and he has not written about such things before.

Besides, the problem remains that he's not the source for the block of OR.Folken de Fanel 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say. He's written about fantasy and sf before, he's been published, which makes him acceptable, never mind whether he's written about HP before. As for the text, it clearly references him. All I can think of is that you are having trouble reading the English, because otherwise, I fail to see how you could miss it (all you need to do is look at the previous revision in the history and look at the reference section. Not hard). If you have language issues, you should say so, to avoid creating problems. If not, then I can only conclude that you are deliberately causing trouble. Which is it? Michael Sanders 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He has not been published concerning HP before, and that's what important. "Relevant field", you remember ?

As for the text, it clearly doesn't reference him anywhere. There is no source whatsoever to all these speculations, suppositions, "maybes", "perhaps", etc. Langford is merely used to say that some people think this, but the statements, the syntheses that the horcrux was indeed at Grimmault Place is not sourced anywhere.

It is you' that are deliberately causing trouble (and stop personally attacking me). Folken de Fanel 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the source is entirely reliable - it has been published by a respectable publisher (Victor Gollancz Ltd), and is written by an author who has written work on fantasy and sci-fi before, and who is thus in his relevant field. It is thus a reliable published source (and would be even if he'd never written anything about HP in his life, since it is published by 3-rd party publishers). WP:RS says:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

You're only proving you are wrong. Because that's Langford first book on HP, thus he's not reliable "in the subject at hand". "A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.": that's exactly what we have here, a certainly renowned author on other subjects than HP, which thus can't be reliable when specifically talking about HP. Folken de Fanel 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If he has been published by an independent publisher, then wikipedia considers his work reliable enough to be used in articles. The issue of expertise only comes into play when comparing the efforts of a notable researcher working out of his own field with those of a less notable researcher in his own field, or when using self-published sources. Michael Sanders 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you have yourself quoted rules saying "in the subject at hand", which is not the case here. Langford is no renowned authority in HP.

WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or [my Italics] are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." So whether he is authoritative in the subject (which only you question anyway) is irrelevant - the rules clearly allow without question material published by third parties if the author is regarded as trustworthy - which he is, because he has written similar work before. Michael Sanders 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He has not worked on HP before, so no similar work, so not trustworthy. Folken de Fanel 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, especially as I seem to be a couple weeks late, but in what universe is the difference between Harry Potter and other fantasy literature the same as the difference between mathematics and biology? If a man is a known and respected literary analyst, surely his opinions about a specific literary work are not to be ignored simply because he's never written about that specific work before. You put special emphasis on "the subject at hand," but HP is not its own subject; it is part of the subject of fantasy literature. The reason an expert mathematician is not an expert biologist is that he doesn't know the terminology, formulae, et cet, involved. But an expert literary analyst does know how to analyze literature. What's more, an expert fantasy lit analyst would most certainly know how to analyze fantasy literature. Folken, you seem to be trying to split a hair with a butter knife. It just doesn't work. CaptHayfever 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR says "Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of [the no Original Research] policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you." This has a reliable published source. It is thus not Original Research, and allowed in the article. So sorry, but stop your ridiculous vandalism. Michael Sanders 12:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No there is no source presented for the original work of the wikipedia contributor who wrote his own thoughts and speculations and suppositions about where the horcrux was and where it is now.

You're the vandal, not me. You're adding unsourced material and spam external links, not me. Folken de Fanel 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the paragraph you dislike is clearly sourced to Langford. WP:AGF. Michael Sanders 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the paragraph is clearly not sourced. It's only the original thoughts of the contributor and they are not attributed to anyone else, and Langford isn't reliable anyway.Folken de Fanel 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the paragraph was clearly sourced to Langford, who is trustworthy and thus entirely within the rules, and all the text in the paragraph was naturally sourced to Langford. Michael Sanders 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No the paragraph was clerarly not sourced to langford but was the exclusive result of the speculations of a contributor who published his own thoughts and speculations on the subject. Langford is not trustworthy, not within the rules, and the paragraph is nowhere sourced to langford. Folken de Fanel 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I could swear it says according to Langford et al. Aside from that, Folken if you really believe that the information in this paragraph was invented by a wikipedia editor, then I can only suggest that you go and read some websites abot HP. Anyone who can seriously claim that any of us here invented that theory, really does not know enough about the books to be arguing about content here. Sandpiper 11:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Langford is here to account for the fact there are people adhering to the theory, however not for the theory itself, as it is abruptly developed and asserted as fact in the article.

Yes the theory is invented by a wikipedia editor, in fact it was you, sandpiper [3], and I see no source attached to it saying you were not the one inventing this.

Fan forums and websites are not reliable source. Either it comes from a reliable source, it is not on Wikipedia.

If you want to claim you're the best fan of HP on earth and that I don't know anything about HP, fair enough, but do it on your own blog, not on Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 08:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, it is sourced, and it comes from a reliable source - a book published by a reputable printing house, written by a man who I don't believe has ever been particularly criticised when writing similar work. Michael Sanders 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, it is not sourced and Sandpiper isn't a reliable source.

1) Langford only account for the the fact there are people adhering to the theory, the theory itself is not sourced 2) Langford isn't reputable since he's never written before on HP. Folken de Fanel 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand that criticism. It doesn't matter where the theory came from. You are agreeing that there are people who support the theory and Langford is a source for this. Thus it is entitled to be mentioned in the article. QED. Sandpiper 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific published references sourcing this material

Latest comment: 17 years ago30 comments2 people in discussion

(section re-formatted to place reference material together. I understand from a Telegraph article that there are now some 190 books published about HP. If anyone has any others, perhaps they might add the relevant refs? Sandpiper)

Spartz and Schoen

The book Mugglenet.com's what will happen in Harry Potter 7 by Ben Schoen and Emmerson Spartz (yes, the Spartz who was personally invited to interview Rowling and asked her about this, US publisher = Ulysses press isbn 1-56975-583-3. (hit #2 in the New York Times best seller list).

This book has a whole chapter on RAB, his being Regulus and why, and the likely location of the locket now at Grimmauld place. some quotes.

Conclusion after two pages of explanation: Taking into account the matching initials, the foreshadowing in an earlier book, and the connection with Voldemort, who is the likeliest candidate: Regulus Black

Foreign editions: Further evidence can be gleaned from foreign language editions of the book in which the Black family name has been translated. In the Norwegian edition, for instance, the Black family name is 'Svaart', and the initials on the note have changed to RAS: in the Dutch version, the name is 'Zwarts', and the initials are RAZ. The foreign-language editions the english surname of Black, however, retained the locket initials RAB. (p.99)

Discussion of how the locket was stolen:So whom did Regulus take: Who better than a creature who was magically bound to obey his every command? Kreacher, the Black family's house elf, accompanied Regulus to the island in the cave and helped him to steal Voldemort's Horcrux.

Whereabouts of the locket:It is almost certain the locket was taken to Grimmauld place...where is it now?...Kreacher..stealing small objects...Mundungus...stealing from Grimmauld Place...

Hart Ref

For convenience, I have inserted this here so it is alongside the Langford ref, According to Wendy Harte, writing in 'who killed Albus dumbledore edited by john Granger: The most compelling clue that a switch might have taken place at Grimmauld place is the existence there of a heavy locket that no one can open - a locket that careful readers with good memories assumed was the horcrux locket as soon as they learned the one from the cave was a fake. In half-Blood Prince chapter 10, Marvolo gaunt grabs his poor daughter by the necklace chain she is wearing to show bob Ogden that they are indeed Slytherin's heirs. Jo describes it as a gold chain and a heavy gold locket.

Comment on Hart ref

Once again, note that Hart is not advancing the theory that the Grimmauld place locket is the horcrux, rather stating that this is a widespread theory held by many. The theory she is advancing is that Regulus switched the locket at home, before it ever got to the sea cave, while it was entrusted to his cousin Bella. Note that I am not minded to insert the suggestion that regulus could have switched it in this way. It is a perfectly fine theory, but it is just one possible explanation which is not necessarily widely held. Whereas, the identification of the locket certainly is. However, perhaps we should do this properly in a NPOV way, and discuss the theory that Regulus switched the locket at home, as well as the theory that he mounted a raid on the sea cave with Kreacher. Sandpiper 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss, as WP isn't a crystal ball and isn't a blog or a forum. The current article is perfectly NPOV and it doesn't discuss theories and doesn't even mention any of them, it's just what Rowling had to say about it (and it's what makes the content notable).Folken de Fanel 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All articles about fiction are expected to report what people other than the author have to say about the work. Not reporting what others have to say is rather ridiculous, as is the suggestion that wiki can not report events which have already happened, arguing that they are 'crystal ball' gazing. It is not NPOV to deliberately leave out elements of a debate and thereby mislead readers.Sandpiper 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
The supposed diegetic content in theories has not happened yet.
It is NPOV to deliberately avoid ultra-speculative content, with no reliability and notability whatsoever, that was added just for the sake of speculating, or in order to favor a certain opinion.Folken de Fanel 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources, most noteably mugglenet et al., as recommended by Rowling, but also quite a few books. I'm not french, so have no idea what diegetic means, it is not in my 170,000 word dictionary: however, the debate is about how the existing stories will continue. This article, and all HP articles are about THE EXISTING BOOKS. No one has debated the final book yet, all the debate concerns the existing ones, and their content. (In this case, we are talking about RAB from book 6, and a locket from book 5). As I just pointed out above, this is not ultra-speculative. Rather, it is mainstream, and essentially assumed by people debating the books. The book reference both point out that everyone believes the locket from Grimmauld place is the horcrux. You might find it helpfull to research the debate more. Sandpiper

There is no reliable source whatsoever. Fansites are automatically excluded (WP:V#SELF, and Rowling has not recommended anything, and is not a member of WP's notability comitee anyway), WKAD is a self-published book from an author who has no notability whatsoever concerning prediction of future HP plot and it is merely written by fans from forums developing their own theories, and finally EoHP is from a SF author who has never written anything on HP before and it is merely a collection of theories extracted from forums and the author himself assert things without backing them up with sources.

2 highly controversial sources, including a self-published book from internet message-board users, and an unknown author vaguely talking about these message boards without citing his own sources, is that what you call "several reliable sources" ?

Diegetic means "pertaining to the (in-universe) story".

Unless I'm mistaken, no existing HP book has ever revealed or mentioned who was RAB or where he hid the locket. Speculating about this pertains to future books discussion. Unless you concider that book 7 is already published (in that case, could you please tell me where you got it ?).

This is ultra-speculative. It is not mainstream (restricted online comminties are not mainstream).

It is your personal POV that "everyone believes it". Folken de Fanel 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Langford Ref

Since you ask so nicely, I shall type out what Langford actually says.

Book title The End of Harry Potter?, David Langford, uk hardback isbn=057507875, uk publisher Golancz, p.126. Author has won 27 hugo awards and as well as being an author himself, has written for many years about other peoples fantasy. Also contributed to The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which seems to have the startling price tag of £200, so I'm not going to get one).

Lost Locket

The item of unfinished business which is most obviously vital to the storyline of book seven is the lost Horcrux which Dumbledore and Harry go looking for in that unpleasamt cave in Half-Blood Prince. What they find and bring back to Hogwarts is not the original talisman but a different locket which has been substituted by someone called RAB. Most readers who have been following the saga closely have convinced themselves that the truth of the matter is roughly as follows:

RAB was most probably Regulus Black, Sirius' younger brother, who was one of Voldemort's death eaters for only a short time and is thought to have been killed for changing his mind and trying to escape the dark lords service. Could his middle name possibly be Arcturus, which was revealed in 2006 as another Black family name - that of Regulus' grandfather? Or perhaps he was given the name Alphard after his uncle, or some other star name such as Algol...
While he was still a death eater and had some access to (or was entrusted with) Voldemort's secrets, Regulus learned where this Horcrux was hidden. He stole the locket to ensure the dark lord wouldn't be able to make use of this particular spare life, and replaced it with a harmless, unmagical look alike- plus a note saying what he'd done.
The real horcrux was then 'hidden' in plain view among the Black family assorted oddments and bric-a-brac diplayed in glass fronted cabinets in the drawing room of 12 Grimmauld place. (Here Rowling may have been thinking of Edgar Allen Poe's famous 1845 detective story 'The purloined letter', where repeated in-depth searches-including probing of the furniture-fail to find the vital doucumnet, which all the time has been sitting openly on a letter rack)
It's barely possible that this locket was one of the Black family 'treasures' set aside and hidden by Kreacher the demented house-elf, while Sirius Black and his companions are clearing Dark-tainted junk out of the house.
Whether or not Kreacher was involved, it seems highly probable that the locket was eventually pinched from 12 Grimmauld place by light fingered Mundungus Fletcher. This si strongly hinted when, in HBP, Harry catches Mundungus trying to flog crested goblets from the Black family silver in the hogs head pub. There seems no reason for this scene to have been written, except to slip in the suggestion that the shadiest member of the Order of the Phoenix has also stolen something nmore important than silverware.

Conclusion:Harry definitely needs to have a serious little talk with Mundungus. [end of quotation]

discussion

Folken, I also tell you that you will find no better source for information about the final book than reading mugglenet, HPL, TLc, et al. That is where my education on the subject came from. I hope you noticed from you search of article back history that these theories were already current in Aug 2005. As I said somewhere else, it is only recently that sourcing this has become an issue: you are the one making an issue out of what most people would not consider an issue. This 'theory' is simply widely held. I don't doubt that very many people came to the conclusion independantly. Sandpiper 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I asked you for reliable sources. A unknown author in the HP world who only wrote one single book on it, and several self-published fan websites, aren't reliable sources. I suggest you read again WP:RS.

Only wrote one book, eh, so how many would you consider are needed to make a source respectable? Sandpiper 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Widely held" by one single editor is no criterium for notabiliy, at least on Wikipedia.

makes no difference how many editors find a source, it makes it no less valid Sandpiper 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the subject of the article is "R.A.B.B" and what official sources, and people claiming to have official sources, said about the identity of this character. Uninteresting, non-notable fancruft really isn't the focus of the article, and would only serve to advance the position that RAB would indeed be Regulus, which is still unproved. Folken de Fanel 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, were not back to that old chestnut, that the only valid source on what the nazis did in WW2 to those in concentration camps is information 'officially' released by the Nazis themselves? Wiki has a policy of reporting the views of secondary sources. You must have quoted that one somewhere? Sandpiper 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Godwin Point !!!

That's funny, it always ends up the same way. With you it's always something with the Nazis (maybe R.A.B. is Hitler !), and with Michael it's "I'm sure you can't understand english, you french bastard"...Folken de Fanel 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, rats, I was gonna bring the Godwin reference. Argument over?

Had to put that in to keep Folken happy, but it is nonetheless true. We seem to be in agreement that this theory exists and we have a reference to say so. Thus it goes into the article. The question of whether a theory originates from an unofficial source is totally irrelevant. It simply has to exist to be included. Sandpiper 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Sandpiper 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This theory only exists on forums and in your mind, Sandpiper. There's nothing notable in it. Besides, I still see no ref at all.

It will never ever appear in the article: it is utterly irrelevant to the subject, and it goes against the aim of Wikipedia, WP is not a crystal ball and is not a place to publish theories. Fan speculations are utterly unencyclopedical, such fancruft has only its place on fan websites.

No, it doesn't have simply to exist to be included. It must be encyclopedical content, rule-compliant and reliably sourced: this paragraph fails in these 3 categories.Folken de Fanel 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which theory? But I think we have quite clearly established that the theories exist in printed stacked and bound leaf form which people go out and exchange for money. Which established experts on writing fantasy fiction consider are well established amongst fans.I have no idea what that has to do with crystal balls, since it is a fact about the real world as it is now. It is hardly irrelevant, more exactly to the point of the article. wiki aims to write thorough, informative articles about topics, so it certainly falls within the aims of the project. wikipedia often publishes theories, Newton's laws of motion, anyone? It is certainly noteable, both as an aspect of the topic which should be covered, and as specifically concerning an important plot point in the books. Whether people who create theories are fans is utterly irrelevant. Sandpiper 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory originates from fan sites and forum, thus is not notable, Langford is not an established expert on theory about HP, nor in HP itself (1 book = non-notable and certainly not "expert"), the source itself is not verifiable and have no solid ground (gratuitous and unproved assertions: "well-established" etc).

This has everything to do with crystal balls because we're not here to try to guess who is RAB or where he kept the locket Horcrux. None of this is notable, it's just uninteresting and groundless fan theories which have no place on Wikipedia. We're not on the lexicon forums, here.

It is completely irrelevant, the subject of the article is RAB and what official sources have to say about his/her identity. That's all.

But since Wikipedia's aim is not to speculate, then these theories don't have their place anywhere.

Again, don't compare fans trying to guess the end of their favorite child novel, and Newton's very serious scientific theories.

It's not notable, it is not an aspect of the topic but mere fancruft, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, future plot points about which no one has any mean to know anything, are not its aims. Folken de Fanel 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing wrong with including fancruft, either, whatever that means. There is no difference in priciple between Newtons theories about Gravity and Langfords theories about Potter. Absolutely none. This is an important point which anyone editing on wikipedia needs to understand. I think perhaps you ought to go and have a good read of some of these forums and get a better grounding in what is out there. Wiki is not in the business of denying the existence of things which patently do exist. Similarly with the general refs suggesting people might like to look directly at those websites to find out more about the books. Denying that these websites are a good source of information is just daft. Do you not recall that Rowling sepcifically invited the founders of mugglenet and TLC to visit her and ask her questions on the day of publication of HBP? doesn't that suggest she takes them seriously, and we should to? Sandpiper 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to include fancruft. Wikipedia remains an encyclopedic website, it's not a fansite. That's why this template, for example, exists: Template:Fansite.

There is of course a huge difference in principle and in everything else, between Newton's theories about Gravity and Langfords theories about Potter.

If that's the way you see yourself, as a "scientist" of HP, as a genious, uncovering the great mysteries of Life, that is to say the end of HP, if you think so highly of yourself and fans in general, fair enough. However you're mistaken on one thing: Wikipedia was not created to be a tool to promote yourself, it's not a mean to show how great you think you are, it is not a way to flatter your own ego.

Your problem is that, all alone, you're trying to reinvent Wikipedia. But you're no one. You're just a user, among 4 millions of other users. You will not change the way Wikipedia works, just by snapping your fingers and doing only what pleases you. You fail to realize you're not in command here: you're in a community (and there are millions of people besides you), which has it's own rules, which were established by the founders of Wikipedia 6 years ago, rules which have been followed since by millions of users: these rules are a way of thinking, of concidering the information, under which millions of users have gathered since 2001. Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without these rules.

And you think that a single self-righteous, self-centered, self-conceited user like you, could, just by snapping his fingers, shatter the very fondations of Wikipedia ? You think you can enter this community of 4 million users, and just like that, decide to change the very spirit of Wikipedia, just because it doesn't correspond to your own, personal opinion on self-glorification ? No, you're just a grain of salt on the beach, and whatever you do, you'll never change what Wikipedia is, and what ideas it has adopted.

The problem with you is not even a question of "this corresponds to policies, this doesn't". No, it's just that you refuse absolutely every single rule there has existed here since the beginning. You're simply not concidering all this is Wikipedia (something which doesn't belong to you), but "Sandpiperpedia", an imaginary world where you rule everything and where everything corresponds to your opinion. You're acting as if it was your Wiki where you'd be allowed to define your own policies, but it is not the case. When you're here, you have to follow the established order. That's the way it is. You're not at home, here, you're a guest of the founders of Wikipedia, and, as when you are invited to your friends' homes, you cannot do everything that pleases you. There are things you have to respect.

You have your own opinion about fans and self-glorification, you think fan theories about HP are as important as Newton's discoveries, fair enough, that's your opinions, but Wikipedia is not a place where you can enforce them. If you're interested in the Wiki system and want to use it to spread your own ideas, I suggest you to visit the Harry Potter Wiki: it has everything you want, you'll really feel at home. They even have a policy of "in-universe everywhere" and apparently do accept fan theories. That's really what you're looking for.

But please, stop confusing Wikipedia with other sites like the HP Wiki or even Lexicon and other fansites.

What you're doing here, is merely disrupting the system. We cannot allow theories and original research, and your posts explaining at great length your personal opinions will not change this. That's why, whatever you do, whatever you say, you'll never succed in making this kind of edits on WP.

Now, to be clear, in moments of blind frustration and hatred, you start to claim that I would "disagree with these theories" or something along the lines, involving a supposed subjectivity. But I'm merely following the guidelines, and were I to contribute on the HP Wiki, I would never bother people with "no OR" etc because it doesn't exists there, that' all. It's absolutely not a matter of personal liking of these theories, it's not a matter whether I agree with them or not, because, honestly, have you seen me adding my own theories to HP articles ? No. Never. So how can you seriously tell me to "read these forums" etc, I don't give a damn about it, I'm a Wikipedia contributor and thus I follow Wikipedia guidelines, I don't act as if I were on my personal blog or a generic fansite. It's not a matter of being convinced or not by these theories, or thinking they are "likely to happen" or not. You're completely off the mark when you start saying such things. It's a matter of following Wikipedia guidelines and criteria, which do not include the user's personal opinion about theories and sources.

Now, to go back to what you said, what I do is not "the business of denying the existence of things which patently do exist". As I have said, I do not deny anything and I have never denied anything. Honestly, have you ever read me saying, in debates, things like "No I don't agree R.A.B. is Regulus Black, I think it's Croockshanks, so I'm going to suppress the Regulus theory and put the Crookshanks theory in its place" ?? No, never. I have always said that what I removed was not rule-compliant, and my edits have never been used to spread my own views on the matter. Again, have you ever read a message from me saying "I don't agree with this theory, so I'm going to say in the article that it's false, and put my theory in its place". No, never. It has always been a matter of what is includable on Wiki, never my personal views on the plot.

So, really, stop being a drama queen. There is no "denying" the existence of anything, it's not The X-Files, here. There's no government conspiracy to hide fan theories about HP. Again, have you ever read messages from me saying "no I don't believe this so I'm going to deny it by removing it". No. There is no "denying" anything, only it doesn't concern Wikipedia, it doesn't fit Wikipedia, it doesn't respect the principles of Wikipedia, so it's merely not included. But where have you seen it "denied" ? It simply that it has not its place on Wikipedia.

In the same way, the WP policies specifically prevent forums to be included in external links, always in order to avoid gratuitious advertisement, and because WP has certain quality standards, which mere forums obviously don't meet.

Again, it's not about "deny the quality" of the websites. It's about respecting the guidelines. And obviously, Lexicon and various fansites have already been referenced in the external links of every single HP articles, there's no point in so blatantly violating WP policies to promote these sites even more than they are now, as Causesobad already told you.Folken de Fanel 00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A long response, which still misses the point. You agree that these theories about HP exist. If something exists, contributors agree it exists, that implies it is implicitly referenceable, then provided it is also noteable, then it should be included. These particular theories concern noteable elements of a noteable series, so are also noteable. Thus I continue to fail to see why you vehemently try to exclude them. we are not concerned with whether something is right or wrong, only with whether it really exists in the external world. These do. They are eligible for inclusion. As to your template, it says that the page concerned looks like a fansite. All that means is the information on the page in question is expressed poorly. Just needs a bit of re-phrasing. You also continue to confuse the role of an editor in seeking out information from the real world, and an editor inventing information. I know quite a lot about HP. Again, I suggest that if you wish to edit HP pages, then you should endeavour to learn as much about the subject as possible. This is absolutely not different to any other subject: type some keywords into Google and just read from a selection of websites until you get a feel for the subject. After a bit you will come to see what theories are widely held, and which are not, and be able to express a NPOV spread in articles. The whole point about all the guidance on sources is to ensure that the sources used are reliable. Yet you refuse to accept that in this particular case, the best sources are in fact websites. Rowling has even been good enough to point out which ones she recommends to readers. Sandpiper 22:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't miss any point. What I wrote was only the truth.

Theories are not included. Fans are not reliable sources. The theories aren't notable because OR is not permitted in articles. Your fallacies can't change the established policies.

Again, you miss the point. It's not a question of believing the theories or not, it's a question that such content is not suitable for Wikipedia. There's no notability, no verifiability, no reliability. It's just not worth including, because Wikipedia is not the HP Wiki. That's all.

The template says : "This article or section resembles a fan site.

Please help improve this article by removing excessive trivia, irrelevant praise and criticism, lists and collections of links that are of little or no interest to a general audience."

That's good for you if you think you "know a lot about HP", but "excessive praise" isn't a criterion for inclusion on WP. What you fail to realize is that WP has rules, and that certain contents have simply nothing to do on WP, that's all. Things that are suitable on fansites or on the HP Wiki, are not suitable on WP.

I repeat, because you seem obstinate not to understand this: it doesn't matter if you think something is "likely to be true", if something cannot be included, it won't be included.

If you can't find sources that meet the quality criteria for Wikipedia, then it means the content is not includable. And since the content itself violates the principles of Wikipedia, it won't be included, whatever you might say. Folken de Fanel 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about the locket stolen by RAB (whether real or theorised) is central to the article. Hardly trivia. Hardly irrelevant. Absolutely central, really, and of intense interest because it concerns the cliff-hanger at the very end of the last book. The theory is not OR (we did not invent it), verifiable (by website or published book), certainly noteable because it concerns a topic which every reader of the book has to be wondering about. You still seem to be missing the point that information coming from sources outside wiki is by definition not OR. It does not make any difference that the information does not come from Rowling. If anything, it is better that it comes from other sources as it makes the article less dependant on the original books for their sourcing. The article is harmed by excluding information like this. Sandpiper 07:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no information about the locket stolen by R.A.B., unless you already have book 7.

It's absolutely no "info", it's a fan theory, thus, excessive trivia.

It's irrelevant because we're not here to try to guess who is RAB or where he kept the locket Horcrux. None of this is notable, it's just uninteresting and groundless fan theories which have no place on Wikipedia. We're not on the lexicon forums, here.

It is completely irrelevant, the subject of the article is RAB and what official sources have to say about his/her identity. That's all.

But since Wikipedia's aim is not to speculate, then these theories don't have their place anywhere.

The "intense cliff-hanger" will end with the release of book 7. There is nothing worth reporting on WP, in 3 months, there'll be no mystery any more. The aim of WP is not to solve the mystery. This is something which belongs to the readers and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. There is bsolutely nothing of interest for WP, because it's not a crystall ball.

The theory is OR, not verifiable, non-notable fan-trivia.

You still seem to miss the point that it's not enough no say "not me". Sources are submitted to quality criteria. None of your "sources" are good. They are self-published, they are unreliable, they are mere fans on forums, etc. Nothing notable according to the criteria of WP.

Again, you're proving what I said: your problem is that you're talking about notability according to what you think, not according to how it is defined on WP.

And OR without valid source is OR.

It doesn't matter if the source comes from Rowling or not. There are rules, if you don't respect them the content is removed. Other sources must be reliable, verifiable, etc, everything that your sources aren't.

No the article is better without fancruft like this (please do not call "information" what isn't information"). Folken de Fanel 08:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

official sources? Oh dear.... Only Mr Bush's view on the war in Iraq, then.... Personally I don't speculate. I report that there is a widespread theory that the horcrux locket will turn out to be the one seen at Grimmauld place. The existence of this theory is a widespread fact. Denying this is denying the truth of the world as it is. Wiki reports facts as they are, it does not censor them according to the views of particular editors. Sandpiper 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where would I have written "official sources" concerning the locket ?

You're merely speculating by reporting the speculations you believe.

Widespread ? That's your own word, but not the truth.

Now, to be clear, in moments of blind frustration and hatred, you start to claim that I would "disagree with these theories" or something along the lines, involving a supposed subjectivity. But I'm merely following the guidelines, and were I to contribute on the HP Wiki, I would never bother people with "no OR" etc because it doesn't exists there, that' all. It's absolutely not a matter of personal liking of these theories, it's not a matter whether I agree with them or not, because, honestly, have you seen me adding my own theories to HP articles ? No. Never. So how can you seriously tell me to "read these forums" etc, I don't give a damn about it, I'm a Wikipedia contributor and thus I follow Wikipedia guidelines, I don't act as if I were on my personal blog or a generic fansite. It's not a matter of being convinced or not by these theories, or thinking they are "likely to happen" or not. You're completely off the mark when you start saying such things. It's a matter of following Wikipedia guidelines and criteria, which do not include the user's personal opinion about theories and sources.

Now, to go back to what you said, what I do is not "the business of denying the existence of things which patently do exist". As I have said, I do not deny anything and I have never denied anything. Honestly, have you ever read me saying, in debates, things like "No I don't agree R.A.B. is Regulus Black, I think it's Croockshanks, so I'm going to suppress the Regulus theory and put the Crookshanks theory in its place" ?? No, never. I have always said that what I removed was not rule-compliant, and my edits have never been used to spread my own views on the matter. Again, have you ever read a message from me saying "I don't agree with this theory, so I'm going to say in the article that it's false, and put my theory in its place". No, never. It has always been a matter of what is includable on Wiki, never my personal views on the plot.

So, really, stop being a drama queen. There is no "denying" the existence of anything, it's not The X-Files, here. There's no government conspiracy to hide fan theories about HP. Again, have you ever read messages from me saying "no I don't believe this so I'm going to deny it by removing it". No. There is no "denying" anything, only it doesn't concern Wikipedia, it doesn't fit Wikipedia, it doesn't respect the principles of Wikipedia, so it's merely not included. But where have you seen it "denied" ? It simply that it has not its place on Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 09:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather think it was Langford's report that the theory about the locket is widespread. The same info is available on several websites recommended by the author. What you are seeking to impose is your own very subjective view that no theory about plot development of the HP series is sufficiently noteable to be included. Most editors seem to disagree with this. The theory in question has been here for 2 years without people arguing. How many editors ok'd it in that time? I think you may be the only one who feels it should not have been included, and more precisely seems to feel that under no circumstances should such a theory be included. This is plainly incorrect..under the rules. I have now suggested repeatedly, that if you feel the section violates NPOV in that it is not a balanced account of prevailing beliefs on this subject, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate how it is biased. Otherwise, please stop claiming the paragraph unfairly represents available information, or is just someone's favourite theory. Sandpiper 21:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the truth, no theory about plot development of the HP series is sufficiently noteable to be included, and I'm not saying this, the rules are saying this. You are seeking to impose your POV because you believe these theories (you even said it in your edit summaries: "widely accepted facts". Sorry but unless you've read book 7, there's no fact).

Most editors agree with the rules, thus they disagree with the inclusion of theories. Look at the DH talk, the majority was against it, and the vote merely confirmed it.

As I've said, it's not because you live in your subjective world that you can impose your ideas everywhere.

So stop saying complete LIES, I'm certainly NOT the only one, you only say that because you know you're completely wrong.

The rules says, no OR, no unreliable sources, no POV in articles, no crystal ball. Whatever you say, theories are in total contradiction with each one of these principles.

It is biased, I have proved it earlier, and you've said it yourself, "prevailing beliefs", "widely accepted facts". Biased. You only impose these theories because you believe it and you want everyoe to believe it, that's all. But theories aren't permitted on WP. NPOV violations are not permitted on WP.

The onus is yours to demonstrate it would not be biased. Folken de Fanel 20:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the rules say that original research is strongly encouraged. You are persisting in mixing up the ordinary meaning or 'original research' and the special meaning which it has on wikipedia. The only thing which is not allowed is contributors inserting their own original ideas. Everything else is permitted: the rules are only there to help sort out what is invented by contributors, and what is being reported by contributors. Similarly, you mix up the 'fact' that theories exist, with whether or not they are accurate content of book 7. Everyone knows they are ideas about what book 7 may contain, and not actual excerpts from it. The whole point is that a huge amount of research has been done attempting to work out how the final book will go. Rowling has encouraged this, has even said that she can not change the plot of her last book, because it all follows from the clues she has already published in the earlier books. The fact that several million people are now hanging on the last book, want to know what is being thought about it, is extraordinarily noteable, and just exactly what wiki should be reporting. I'm not sure what you think this article is for. Just re-telling the strict plot from HBP would not be either very interesting, very usefull, or (arguably) very legal. The whole point of the existence of this article is to explain the controversy which has arisen because Rowling has left an open-ended yet guessable riddle at the end of the book. This certainly includes explaining the solutions people have come up with. Sandpiper 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're playing on words, but it won't save you. Original research is not permitted, in any form.

Contributors aren't permitted to report just anything (more particularly when they report only what they agree to, in order to insidiously impose their POV in articles, and when they deny everything that could contradict they views), there are rules of notability, verifiability, reliability. Theories about the end of HP cannot be included as they are the very incarnations of non-notability, unverifiability, unreliablility, and crystal balling.

you mix up the 'fact' that theories exist, with whether or not they are accurate content of book 7.

Theories are, by definition, not includable on Wikipedia, and that they are "likely to be true" or the "only ones that exist" don't make them includable.

The whole point of WP is not to be blatantly involved in working out the end of the book (remember, no crystal ball).

If millions of people want to know the end of the book, just find interviews of fans saying they are "eager to read book 7". Personal theories from a very small minority of fans, restricted to small ~1000-people communities centered around 2 forums is not notable, period.

Turning WP into a personal blog dedicated to the working out of the end of book 7 is a vioplation of every possible policy on WP.

The whole point of this article is to explain the controversy in which JKR herself, and various sources which claim to be official, were involved. The whole point of the article is to recap what has been officially (or allegedly officially) said on the matter, you'll notice there's absolutely nothing concerning fans opinion, because it's absolutely uninteresting. And it certainly doesn't involve original research and other non-notable theories from a minority of fans.

People don't give a damn about what other people think will happen at the end of the book, because these persons aren't writing book 7. They want to know what will happen at the end of the book. Folken de Fanel 13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I already said, that wiki is not a crystal ball is talking about things which have not yet happened. The debate about the books is a past event:it has already happened and we are entitled to talk about it. As to reporting 'just anything', if you are suggesting that the section unfairly represents the subject, then please explain what is missing. So far I have not heard anything from you which you suggest adding to balance out the section and make it NPOV. NPOV does not mean leaving everything out: on the contrary it means putting everything in, so that all sides are fairly represented. And again again, wiki does not confine itself to reporting 'official' announcements. I'm afraid my experience is that most people interested in the books are also interested in the views of other fans about them. That is why the websites exist. Their success is in itself evidence that you are incorrect. I find it something of a self contradiction to argue that people reading this article will not be interested in what others have thought. If they weren't, then I'm not sure why they would read it at all. Sandpiper 14:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then talk about the debate, not about the theories (they are 2 different things). You can report the debates (as was done in the DH article by mentioning "considerable speculations" and sourcing it with a Washington Post article (NPOV source) mentioning that many people don't know what the title means and try to speculate), but not involve WP in the debate. WP is not here to develop theories, or to assert which theory is the "most likely" to happen, or to influence the readers. If the debate has happened, the theories have not. The theories are about future events. We don't talk about future events.

I have suggested the only thing that can make the article NPOV: remove every single bit of POV theory.

Adding theories is already NPOV and violations of policies. WP isn't meant to be a collection of theories, as it's not a crystal ball and not a blog. These matters are only for forums. WP isn't concerned by such fancruft.

Again and again, where have I said WP confines itself to reporting 'official' announcements ? I have said WP confines itself only to notable, verifiable, reliable questions.

I'm absolutely correct. All this only concerns a very restricted core of fans gathered around online communities, that's all, and it certainly doesn't reflect the millions of fans worldwide. Folken de Fanel 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear, the next person who'll add speculations and bad sources, without discussing it first and reaching a consensus with the other contributors, will be concidered a vandal and receive proper warnings. That's enough. Folken de Fanel 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)