![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Does anyone else think it would be appropiate to include a picture of the head statue of Slytherin as was used in the film Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Secrets?
It seems to contain a lot of theory not established in the books about Slytherin not being like the death-eaters or being necessarliy evil. The lack of information on Gryffindor means he may not have been good either, but most people think he was.
First of all, I think it is important that a piece of real-world history should be included, especially when it seems to agree with what Rowling said. Those events were going on at the time, so it is important to include them; it is especially so when the canonical text seems to base itself on such history. As for source, it comes from Witches: A History of Persecution by Nigel Cawthorne (it's a big illustrated book, but very interesting). I am going to revert the arrticle to put that text back.
Hi. My reasons for removing the section (as it was written):
1. Original research - The issue here is not whether the real-world historical details presented are true (because I accept that they are). It's whether they are specifically true in the fictional HP-world that Rowling created. As the section was phrased, it placed Pope Zachary, the Canon Episcopi, specific pronouncements by actual British kings, etc. side-by-side with (the fictional characters of) the founders and Professor Binns. What is the source for this juxtaposition? Contrast these with historical personages like Paracelsus and Cornelius Agrippa, who are actually mentioned in Rowling's canon. Without a source, this just seems a personal essay in search of a venue.
2. The article is supposed to be about the Hogwarts founders, whereas The "historical context" presented is about "real-world attitudes towards magic/witchcraft in the Middle Ages". The extensive level that the latter was expounded on belongs in either its own article, or as a portion of an article on HP-world history/Wizarding history. The "historical context" bore no particular relation to the 4 founders, and since it went on at length, it became a digression that is inconsistent with the point of the article.
My suggestions: Limit any real-world historical background to a sentence or two in this article. A longer discussion belongs in another Wiki article (e.g., on a history of the HP-world, that could appropriately include an analysis of parallels to the real-world) or off-Wiki. The Hogwarts founders article could then just link to these. -- Mercurio 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a weak support for keeping the section with a major rewrite and shortening. Then it might appear/be semi-encyclopedic. To Michael Sanders, I fear your love for history and politics is reflected far too often in HP article and on HP talk pages. A lot of this history is OR and should not be included. Remember that you're writing an encyclopedia article, not a term paper. John Reaves 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It needs to be long, because there is more to be said on the matter. If the other sections could be as long, that would be great - unfortunately, nothing much has been said about them. Quite a bit has been said about Slytherin, some of it contradictory. It therefore needs to be properly featured. Features such as the Sorting Hat not following Slytherin's possible beliefs in Sorting Students into his house need to be pointed out (which isn't OR: it would be OR to guess as to why). A mention of the sources of the various views of Slytherin - i.e. the Hat, Binns, and Ron - need to be properly mentioned. Ron himself has claimed that 'Slytherin started all this pure-blood stuff', or words to that effect, so this canonically suggested, but not at all proved, view that Slytherin's views and the DE views are the same needs to be pointed out and cautioned. I won't revert that yet - however, I fully intend to keep that text, or at least its effects. Michaelsanders 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't Keep per my debates, edit summaries and talk page comments John Reaves 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Right then, we're going to have this argument again, are we? John Reaves, please look in the archives to familiarise yourself with what happened last time.
To put it bluntly: THERE IS NO 'INTERPRETATION'. Rather, there is the reporting of what we are told by Professor Binns and the Sorting Hat, and a pointing out of various contradictory points. If you want to remove OR, fine: we'll just scrub out everything we were told following Professor Binn's talk (since it contradicts what he said, to raise it is - by your standards - original research). Please explain clearly what you don't like about the section. Michaelsanders 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What interpretation is that? What are you even saying Don't Keep to?
Michaelsanders
19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Should fan art that someone dreamed up be used on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.54.225 ( talk) 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
Perhaps we should use the picture on JK Rowling's website she has been using for the 'Wizard of the Month"? Already there is Hufflepuff and Slytherin's depiction, and in the next few months I'm sure that Gryffindor and Ravenclaw will also appear. That seems to be our most reliable resource, infinitely better than some fan art rubbish.
I recently removed the OR and have now seen numerous dicussions going on about it. Please note that since this info is being contested it is onus of the authors to show that the information is from canon and make verifiable (as per WP:V). The canon needs to verify that JKR had the intended meanings for the names, otherwise it is original research (as per WP:OR).-- Dacium 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the assertion that the name comes from the Portugese dictator. Neither of the sources cited (two fan websites) looked reliable, and neither gave any citation of a source themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victim Of Fate ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 July 2007
It seems Michaelsanders is back. It can no longer be argued that Slytherin may not have been a pureblood supremacist. Rowling has said so on her site, and Rowling is the ultimate authority on the history of her own world. Unless you're going to claim that Rowling is wrong, (which would in turn imply that her world is real) then there is no more need for weasel wording about the uncertainty of ancient history. He was a pureblood supremacist. Get over it. Serendipodous 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
the sword to aid Harry as he destroyed the Horcruxes. The sword, due to the basilisk's venom, was able to destroy the horcruxes inside Marvolo's ring, Slytherin's locket, and Nagini.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.13.187 ( talk • contribs)
Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Does anyone else think it would be appropiate to include a picture of the head statue of Slytherin as was used in the film Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Secrets?
It seems to contain a lot of theory not established in the books about Slytherin not being like the death-eaters or being necessarliy evil. The lack of information on Gryffindor means he may not have been good either, but most people think he was.
First of all, I think it is important that a piece of real-world history should be included, especially when it seems to agree with what Rowling said. Those events were going on at the time, so it is important to include them; it is especially so when the canonical text seems to base itself on such history. As for source, it comes from Witches: A History of Persecution by Nigel Cawthorne (it's a big illustrated book, but very interesting). I am going to revert the arrticle to put that text back.
Hi. My reasons for removing the section (as it was written):
1. Original research - The issue here is not whether the real-world historical details presented are true (because I accept that they are). It's whether they are specifically true in the fictional HP-world that Rowling created. As the section was phrased, it placed Pope Zachary, the Canon Episcopi, specific pronouncements by actual British kings, etc. side-by-side with (the fictional characters of) the founders and Professor Binns. What is the source for this juxtaposition? Contrast these with historical personages like Paracelsus and Cornelius Agrippa, who are actually mentioned in Rowling's canon. Without a source, this just seems a personal essay in search of a venue.
2. The article is supposed to be about the Hogwarts founders, whereas The "historical context" presented is about "real-world attitudes towards magic/witchcraft in the Middle Ages". The extensive level that the latter was expounded on belongs in either its own article, or as a portion of an article on HP-world history/Wizarding history. The "historical context" bore no particular relation to the 4 founders, and since it went on at length, it became a digression that is inconsistent with the point of the article.
My suggestions: Limit any real-world historical background to a sentence or two in this article. A longer discussion belongs in another Wiki article (e.g., on a history of the HP-world, that could appropriately include an analysis of parallels to the real-world) or off-Wiki. The Hogwarts founders article could then just link to these. -- Mercurio 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a weak support for keeping the section with a major rewrite and shortening. Then it might appear/be semi-encyclopedic. To Michael Sanders, I fear your love for history and politics is reflected far too often in HP article and on HP talk pages. A lot of this history is OR and should not be included. Remember that you're writing an encyclopedia article, not a term paper. John Reaves 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It needs to be long, because there is more to be said on the matter. If the other sections could be as long, that would be great - unfortunately, nothing much has been said about them. Quite a bit has been said about Slytherin, some of it contradictory. It therefore needs to be properly featured. Features such as the Sorting Hat not following Slytherin's possible beliefs in Sorting Students into his house need to be pointed out (which isn't OR: it would be OR to guess as to why). A mention of the sources of the various views of Slytherin - i.e. the Hat, Binns, and Ron - need to be properly mentioned. Ron himself has claimed that 'Slytherin started all this pure-blood stuff', or words to that effect, so this canonically suggested, but not at all proved, view that Slytherin's views and the DE views are the same needs to be pointed out and cautioned. I won't revert that yet - however, I fully intend to keep that text, or at least its effects. Michaelsanders 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't Keep per my debates, edit summaries and talk page comments John Reaves 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Right then, we're going to have this argument again, are we? John Reaves, please look in the archives to familiarise yourself with what happened last time.
To put it bluntly: THERE IS NO 'INTERPRETATION'. Rather, there is the reporting of what we are told by Professor Binns and the Sorting Hat, and a pointing out of various contradictory points. If you want to remove OR, fine: we'll just scrub out everything we were told following Professor Binn's talk (since it contradicts what he said, to raise it is - by your standards - original research). Please explain clearly what you don't like about the section. Michaelsanders 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What interpretation is that? What are you even saying Don't Keep to?
Michaelsanders
19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Should fan art that someone dreamed up be used on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.54.225 ( talk) 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
Perhaps we should use the picture on JK Rowling's website she has been using for the 'Wizard of the Month"? Already there is Hufflepuff and Slytherin's depiction, and in the next few months I'm sure that Gryffindor and Ravenclaw will also appear. That seems to be our most reliable resource, infinitely better than some fan art rubbish.
I recently removed the OR and have now seen numerous dicussions going on about it. Please note that since this info is being contested it is onus of the authors to show that the information is from canon and make verifiable (as per WP:V). The canon needs to verify that JKR had the intended meanings for the names, otherwise it is original research (as per WP:OR).-- Dacium 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the assertion that the name comes from the Portugese dictator. Neither of the sources cited (two fan websites) looked reliable, and neither gave any citation of a source themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victim Of Fate ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 July 2007
It seems Michaelsanders is back. It can no longer be argued that Slytherin may not have been a pureblood supremacist. Rowling has said so on her site, and Rowling is the ultimate authority on the history of her own world. Unless you're going to claim that Rowling is wrong, (which would in turn imply that her world is real) then there is no more need for weasel wording about the uncertainty of ancient history. He was a pureblood supremacist. Get over it. Serendipodous 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
the sword to aid Harry as he destroyed the Horcruxes. The sword, due to the basilisk's venom, was able to destroy the horcruxes inside Marvolo's ring, Slytherin's locket, and Nagini.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.13.187 ( talk • contribs)
Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.