Talk:Black family/Archive 1

J.K. Rowling mistake?

In the book "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", Sirius is looking at the Family tree tapestry he mentions his mother's cousin Aramina Melifua and his Aunt Elladora, but neither are on JK Rowling's family tree. Aramina Melifua could be explained as a cousin through his granmother Irma Crabbe (from the Family tree), but why mention it if she is not on the tapestry. Aunt Elladora is nowhere to be found and since both Sirius's parents are from the House of Black she should be in there. (Duane543 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Hi. I don't think it's a mistake. In Book 5, the tapestry is described as dating back to the Middle Ages and as having been in the family for seven centuries. (Sorry for not giving exact quotes, don't have the book on hand.) So the tapestry (and the family) goes as far back as the 1200s (at the least).

Jo Rowling's hand-drawn Black family tree, on the other hand, only goes back to the 1800s. Clearly, therefore, the hand-drawn tree is NOT an exact replica of the Black family tapestry described in the book. Rather, the hand-drawn tree likely represents only a small portion (wand burns and all) of the much more extensive tree depicted in the full tapestry. This explains why Araminta Meliflua isn't in Rowling's drawing. --Mercurio 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If their is no mistakes, where is Sirius' Aunt Elladora? (Duane543 23:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

It isn't a "mistake" if she left something off; the picture was just something she drew for charity, and isn't "canon" in the same sense that the books are. --Guermantes 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aunt Elladora is probably the sister of Phineas Nigellus and thereby the great-great-great-aunt of Sirius though to refer to her as "aunt" is shorter and quite understandable. --User:130.236.60.32 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that look back through Book 5, Sirius never said my aunt. So what User:130.236.60.32 stated is mostly likely the answer to my question. (Duane543 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

For Araminta Melifua, as his mother's cousin she isn't on the list because she doesn't carry the Black family name. If you look at the tree, whenever a Black girl marries out of the family, her line isn't shown, because it belongs to another family now. That's unless a Black marries a Black, as Orion and Walburga did. All the Black males and their progeny are shown (except for disowned people) as they carry the Black family name. Now we also don't know if Araminta Melifua is first, second or third cousin to Walburga Black. She could either be - from what we can see - Callidora Black's daughter or Charis Black's daughter, making her either a Longbottom or Crouch who married a Melifua. (Emma K, April 11 2006)

I agree it is possible that Araminta Melifua could have been a Longbottom or Crouch or even a Burke who married a Melifua since these branches are vague. I disagree with statement "whenever a Black girl marries out of the family, her line isn't shown." The Black family tree shows the female Blacks after they are married in to other families. Examples are: Belvina Burke, Callidora Lonbottom, Dorea Potter, Lucretia Prewit, Bellarix Lestrange, and Narcissa Malfoy. (Duane543 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

I think Meliflua is probably a middle name, like Nigellus.

Longbottom Error

Someone has turned "Male Longbottom" into "Male Longbottom (possibly Frank Longbottom)". This is not possible as we now know that the name of Frank's mother is Augusta, not Callidora. The only way Neville could be Callidora's grandson is if she is Alice's mother and both Neville's parents were Longbottoms by birth (which I wouldn't be suprised by). OR, Callidora could be Neville's great-grandmother, her children being his grandfather and his great-aunt Enid. However, I don't feel we should include speculation on the family tree, neither with the Longbottoms nor with the Potters or Crouches.

The only currently unlisted relation that we do know of for sure (and therefore should be included) is that Cedrella is Arthur Weasley's mother, as that makes him Sirius' second cousin once removed - exactly what Sirius said he was in OOTP. --User:128.205.142.69 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Cedrella was indeed Arthur's mother. (Emma K, April 11 2006)

I take it this is not a regularly checked Talk Page. --User:67.21.80.96 15:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Those changes were made on the Template:Blackfamilytree page. It seems the mistake was corrected. (Duane543 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Bellatrix's Dad was thirteen?

• The birth dates and death dates aren't given on this family tree, but they should be added. On the official family tree made by Rowling it shows that Cygnus Black, Bellatrix Lestrange's father, was thirteen when she was born! (Emma K, April 11 2006)

Well he started early and had his last child at 17. As for adding this dates, you should go the talk page at Template:Blackfamilytree because this is were the changes are made. (Duane543 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

It's possible that this is inaccurate, as J.K. Rowling is notoriously bad with math (as she herself has said on several occasions). The tree as it is also makes it unlikely that Bellatrix and Snape could have attended Hogwarts at the same time, which Sirius said they did, and makes Dorea too young at the time her death to be James' mother (whom we know to have been elderly even for a witch), if that is who she is meant to be. I wouldn't take the birth and death dates too seriously.--User:67.21.80.96 April 13 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Druella Rosier was the Mary Kay Letourneau of the wizarding world. All jokes aside, where in the books does Sirius state that "Bellatrix and Snape attended Hogwarts at the same time"? Also, it is pure speculation that Charlus and Dorea Potter are James poster's parents. (Duane543 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

And so was Irma Crabbe, hmmm? Sirius stated in book four that Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins that also included the Lestranges, a married couple imprisoned in Azkaban. --User:67.21.80.96 13:35, 24 April 2006 (EST)

That is some family tradition!! In book 4 page 531, Sirius states Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters, which included Lestranges. This does not mean they were all in Hogwarts together. From what we know or assume from Slughorn's memory, Avery and Lestranges (not Bellatrix) were at Hogwarts at the same time as Tom M. Riddle which was before Sirius's time. So another words "Slytherin" is used as a defining characteristic. What I wonder is Sirius's proper name "Sirius Black III" since his great great great uncle and great grandfather are also named Sirius. (Duane543 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

But, given that we know that the children of Death Eaters are often enlisted, surely the Lestrange and Avery of Riddle's day could be the fathers of those we have met (and surely there would have been some snide comment from Sirius about his cousin marrying an old man? Or Harry would have commented when seeing the Penseive Trial that there were two men in their fifties and a much younger man and woman (Crouch and Bellatrix)?) Surely the reference in Slughorn's memory to those two was, like the inclusion of the Crabbes, Rosiers, Burkes, et al in the Black Family tree, a reminder of just how few families there are in the wizarding world? Michaelsanders 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In my mind it does mean they were at Hogwarts together. He also specifically said "the Lestranges - they're a married couple", so he was referring to Bellatrix and Rodolphus. The Lestrange in Slughorn's memory is most likely Mr. Lestrange or Rabastan. 11:33, 30 April 2006 (EST)

The Black Family Crest

Can't somebody get a picture of the Black Family Crest? (Emma K, April 11 2006)

What about the Weasleys

In the book it said 'The pure-blood families are all interrelated,' said Sirius. 'If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry pure-bloods your choice is very limited; there are hardly any of us left. Molly and I are cousins by marriage and Arthur's something like my second cousin once removed. But there's no point looking for them on here - if ever a family was a bunch of blood traitors it's the Weasleys.' --User: 69.170.194.182 April 23 2006 (UTC)

Name Etymology

I think that we should do a section on the name etymologies of the people on the tree. Noneofyourbusiness 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone agree? Noneofyourbusiness 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Andromeda be a constellation as well as the nebula or galaxy included in the middle of it... (like e.g. the "orion nebula" also is just a very distinctive astronomical detail in the middle of the constellation of the great hunter)--87.193.49.232 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion Black. Petros471 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Potter

Isn't the male Potter on the Tree James?, he's in the right generation. And Molly, Gideon, and Fabion are in the right generation for the Prewett part, and Bartimeus Sr. & Jr. are not only possible, but probably part of the Tree as well. I attempted to add them, but i have no idea how to do it.71.99.110.7 05:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all I do not believe the male Potter is James because all of his peers; such as Sirius Black and Lucius Malfoy which are known to be in Hogwarts at the same time are in a younger generation. Since you have no evidence to support your theory, please do not change article(s) without being able to prove it.(Duane543 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Er...What? James Potter is supposed to have been born when his parents were 'getting on in years'. Quite what Rowling meant by that is the subject of fierce discussion, but EVERYONE seems to agree that one consequence of James being born late is that he probably would be a generation above Sirius and co: because their grandparents bred their parents, and then they were bred, before James' parents managed to produce their son. Michaelsanders 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it you may be right, but the tree still should not be change because their isn’t evidence that states that the male Potter is James. (Duane543 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Fine , just as long as we've clarified that point. Michaelsanders 19:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If the male Potter is James, how come he is not burned off the tapestry. Wouldn't the Black family disown him for marrying Lily who was a muggle-born witch. The fictional family has a have a history of doing it. For proof see Andromeda Black.

True. But if the bottom part of the tapestry 'really' appeared in Grimmauld Place as Rowling depicted it, then the Potter boy is referred to only by a 1s notation (Araminta Melifua, perhaps, was a 1d notation that Sirius noticed and knew to be her: she may have been a Burke, perhaps, or a Crouch). In which case, Mrs Black might not have taken much notice of it. It is, after all, the Black Family Tree, not the Potter Family Tree. He couldn't be disowned by the Blacks, because they never owned him, regardless of their relationship: whilst the Blacks would have refused to associate with him, we have no particular reason to think that they would have exerted themselves to blast him from the Tree, when he wasn't theirs to blast.

Alternatively, Dorea Black may have been something like her niece in nature. Walburga was only five or so years younger than her, but if Dorea was a more forceful figure than Walburga, the latter might simply have never dared blast her, or her son, off the Tree. She only blasted off her own brother after he died and left his money to Sirius. Maybe Dorea was so forceful as to terrify Walburga even after death (in which case Sirius probably wouldn't want to mention her to Harry. "What was she like?" "Well, you've seen my mother...").

These, I admit, is a rather feeble explanations. So consider this. Regulus Black and his father both died in 1979. Sirius gives us the impression that at that time, and certainly afterwards, what was left of the family (Walburga, and we have to assume Arcturus) effectively shut themselves up inside the House.

James Potter married Lily Evans in approximately 1979. How do we know that Walburga even heard of it? She might have heard of them being in a relationship (which would probably have been considered 'wild-oat sowing'. But if Lily and James married at the end of October 1979, Walburga might simply have never heard about it. For that matter, if her favourite son, and hope of the Black family, was dead at the hand of a maniac, whom Walburga's two 'virtuous' nieces were either loyal to or fanatically devoted to, she might simply have thrown up her hands in disgust, and said, 'stuff the lot of them.' She might have stopped caring about the family in any broad sense, and limited herself to the immediate house, determined that it should be her last stronghold against everyone.

In popular mythology, when an elderly person has an inflexible mind, and strongly held beliefs, to be proved definitively wrong can lead to the mind snapping. This may well have been the case with Mrs Black. In which case, she may not have been in any fit state to interfere with the Tapestry. Michaelsanders 19:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the family tapestry is handed down to the eldest son of the Black family. From this point[,] we can presume that they or their wives remove disowned family members form [read: from] the tapestry. What characteristic that I can read in the books is that Walburga was very proud of the Black name and considered it to be an important wizarding family. Because of this, I think of her as a strong willed socialite. The very reasons why family members are taken off the tapestry are because they are believed to disgrace the proud family name. If Dorea is Harry’s grandmother. I believe that Walbur[g]a would have not [have] reprehension of [read: about] taking her aunt off the tapestry[,] like her brother for helping her son. Walbur[g]a must have not seen Harry’s Grandparent as upstanding wizard family, because why would she blow off her own son if he ran off to a family she respected. To say that she did not [k]now w[h]ere he went a little far fetched for me because it seem that wizarding world is well informed of social happenings especially when this event occurred while Sirius was still at Hogwarts, where gossip was sure to spread like wildfire. Also, most likely the Potter’s wedding and a birth announcement would be in the newspapers much like Snape's parents. Thus this information would be public knowledge. This brings to your point of saying that Walbur[g]a may have been reclusive or even crazy during this time because of her husband or favo[u]rite son’s death. So far I can not find evidence that supports this theory. First off we don’t know the time of her husband and son’s death or when the Potter wedding occurred. Secondly, there is little evidence that supports that she acted in such a matter after the deaths. It’s true that her portrait would have the same personality as her, but I don’t see it a crazy, it’s just infuriated that her disowned son is allowing dreadful people in her eyes to live in the noble house of the Blacks, which goes against everything she believed in when she was alive. (Duane543 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Fear and respect are not the same thing, whatever past teachers (or present politicians) may think. We don't know what she thought of the Potter family (if they were as unpleasantly intolerant of the Dark Arts as James, probably not a lot); but if she was actually afraid of Dorea (and the Blacks do seem to be a pretty fearsome lot), then I'd say it was debateable as to whether Walburga would dare blast her off (and by the time Dorea died, Sirius had been out of the Potter house for around two years, so we don't know if Walburga would have bothered). She was obviously proud of the Black Family Name; but that doesn't mean one should read her as extremely principled in her views - if she were afraid or intimidated by Dorea, she might have simply shut her eyes to the issue. After all, Alphard was her younger brother, and even then she only blasted his name after he died (meaning that either she was fearful of blasting even him, or he was never particularly rebellious prior to his death). We also have to remember that the Tree goes with the family home, where the head of the family lives. What did Arcturus think of Sirius' rebellion? The child hadn't done anything irrevocable, such as marry a muggle or muggle-born; he was the heir to the family; it would be much simpler to try to bring him back into the fold rather than to blast him off it. And if Dorea was like Walburga, they might have expected her to reform Sirius - she might even have tried to do so (even if she wasn't James mother). You'll notice that Sirius isn't exactly effusive in his praise of Mrs Potter. You'll also note that he cannot actually know (have known) for sure when he was struck from the Tree, unless it happened in front of him, because he wasn't there (Regulus might have told him, but - if the two didn't like each other, and we have no pressing reason to believe that the two were particularly fond of each other - he could easily have been lying to make Sirius feel annoyed or to show off that Sirius had been disowned). And consider his situation after leaving home. He would have had little to no money. He had to spend his holidays at his friend's home. He was dependant upon charity, and poorer than Lupin, even. Furthermore, if the Potters or James did offer him any money, he would feel supremely awkward about taking it. And we don't know what the atmosphere at the Potter house was like (but how would your parents react if you announced that your friend was effectively living there from now on?). It's likely that all adults close to Sirius and James would have embarked on a campaign of 'Send Sirius Home for His Own Good'. Regardless of whether Dorea Potter was the mother of James Potter. And it probably would have worked. Sirius would NOT have been able to remain independent of his family for long, or would not have been able to bear the consequences of being independent. He probably felt rather ashamed of himself during his holidays, imposing upon the Potters, and probably would, eventually, have either gone back begging to his family, or have left Hogwarts and gone running off somewhere.

And then Alphard left him all his money.

Hardly surprising, then, that *he* got blasted off (and if that were the case, Sirius would have been blasted off either after the inheritance, or after he monumentally stuffed everything up - as they thought - with the defeat of Voldemort and his own capture). Whereas Mrs Potter, who had at least tried to keep Sirius respectable, was not particularly censured by the Blacks. And, again, we get no impression that Sirius and the Potters were particularly close ('come round for Sunday lunch anytime' is a pretty standard polite formula). As for the marriage: we don't know when James married Lily, it is certainly possible that it happened around the time of the two deaths, or one of the two. And the way the Tree is set out leaves issues with it. More to the point, I would disagree with your view that Walburga was not mad. She is not merely annoyed, she is not arguing in a cogent and coherent manner; she shrieks the same phrases over and over again (not to mention the "'*you!!!*', her eyes popping'). Madness, or at least instability and hysteria, runs in the family (Sirius, Bellatrix, Narcissa - and Harry was hardly well-rounded in Book 5). And if she had been left profoundly disillusioned by the murder of her son, she is likely to have thought, "What's the point?". Michaelsanders 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the rather poor compromise suggestion (that Charlus Potter was an uncle or cousin of James Potter, making Dorea an aunt or cousin by marriage) is if anything worse than the other two ideas. Is it really very likely that the Potters would have risked tearing *themselves* apart (if Dorea were an aunt, she would either demand that she, as his blood relative, care for him, or demand that they not harbour him) over something that was none of their concern? Whereas, if Dorea is James' mother, one can easily read her as either concerned relative trying to set him straight, or spiteful member of the Black family insuting a more junior member. Therefore, the compromise idea is absurd; and if you then refuse to accept Dorea and Charlus as the parents of James, all you can do is assume that Charlus Potter was of absolutely no connection at all to James Potter and is family. Raising the question of, "What's the point in Charlus?" Michaelsanders 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Black and Potter

If Dorea Black was Harry's grandmother, this would mean that Sirius was Harry's cousin, and not uncle, as noted in the article. Check in which level would Harry be in the tree. Wanna Know My Name? Later 14:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasley - Potters section is original research

I am removing the Weaslet-Potters section as original research (not to mention an opinion-expressing commentary). Please do not revert, because original research has no place in Wikipedia (see No original research for more details). If there is some notable evidence (either from J.K. Rowling herself or from one of the official sites) that Dorea Black is Harry's grandmother, then a brief mention of how Harry is related to the Weasley family might be appropriate, but certainly not one as long as this section. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that the issue of inbreeding is relevant to the novels, I think a brief mention that there may be an attitude of ambiguity on the part of the author is worth mentioning - especially since there is specifically a Potter boy who is, or was, a second cousin of Arthur Weasley.Michaelsanders 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add something like this (and the notability of this is so minimal that the most it would warrant is a sentence or two), you will need a proper citation of this information. Without properly citing sources (and general consensus for Harry Potter articles is that it needs to be from either J.K. Rowling herself or one of the official sites), this section can and will be removed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. While Rowling often leaves nothing to chance, and therefore Charlus Potter is likely related to Harry, she still has not officially confirmed that this is true. Also, to highlight the original research aspect of this, even being related to the Weasley line does not necessarily mean that inbreeding actually occurs. Charlus Potter might not have directly contributed to Harry's genetic pool. He might be an uncle. Therefore, it is just as likely that Harry is an "in-law" relation to the Weasleys, and therefore there would not be any genetic inbreeding if he and Ginny were to have children. Because of these possibilities, expanding the entire thing into a short paragraph on inbreeding is certainly original research, and that's even assuming we know for sure that Charlus Potter is related to Harry Potter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that, rather surprisingly, there do not seem to be any other Potters in the Wizarding World, I would say it was highly unlikely (to the point of impossible) that Charlus Potter was not related to Harry. As for whether he is Harry's grandfather or not, one does have to consider the purpose of the Tree. It is not the books, where Rowling delights in misdirection. It is, effectively, a piece of humour - an illustration of how the most unlikely people are related to each other (with slightly darker undertones, in that it shows the Longbottoms being related to the Crouches). Indeed, what would be the point of making it so large if it wasn't for that? Sirius' immediate ancestors are interesting, but would anyone really care about Callidora Black, for example, if she simply married a non-entity? I really do feel that if Rowling were to announce that, actually, none of the Black Women were ancestresses of any of Harry's contemporaries (or Harry himself), a lot of the interest in the Tree would be lost. Indeed, it would be hard to see why she auctioned it, and didn't simply donate the money it received.

I am not arguing that we immediately state that Charlus Potter is Harry's grandfather, and Dorea his grandmother, compelling though that case is. But when there is good reason to believe it is the case, and when a great many people believe it is so, it should be referred to, and the effects resulting from such discussed. To simply ignore the issue, or a facet of the issue, is disingenuous. Indeed, to not present what is relevant information (it may not be established fact that Charlus and Dorea are Harry's grandparents, but it is established fact that they could be, and that Rowling has deliberately created the question) strikes me as rather contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

As for the Original Research complaint: I would point out that OR is a very slippery fish. One can argue that anything is original research. Take Neville Longbottom's birthdate: is it actually stated anywhere, "You see, Harry, Neville was born on the 30th of July 1980, which was coincidentally the day before your birthday, the 31st of July 1980"? Has it specifically been said that Snape is known to be a triple agent by both sides, but that each side believes that the other side thinks him only a double agent, and that each side thinks he has Snape's true loyalties, etc? Not to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong). Surely, then, these can be categorised as OR. But if that were the case, if Editors deleted anything that had not been outright stated (and even then, some zealots choose to label it OR), Wikipedia would simply collapse. It is an accepted fact that OR is a necessary function for an encyclopedia - how else can it develop into the full compendium of facts it seeks to be? Moreover, there are different forms of OR, as I am sure you are aware. This view of Harry being a distaff Black descendant has clear and obvious support, even if not confirmation, and has clearly been set in motion by the author. It is not in the same league as many other 'theories', such as the theory that Hermione is Harry's secret sister, which are based solely on INTERPRETATIONS of the text, and the will to believe. This is not an interpretation (though an explanation of why Sirius made no mention of it, why James was or wasn't blasted, etc, would be). I would argue that in this case, what is actually needed is the reference to 'what if Harry and Ginny were related, etc', with an added disclaimer that 'this is of course not confirmed by the author as yet, etc.' And it can be added to or edited as seems appropriate, but that the presence of the relevant fact - or possibility, or fact of the possibility - remain. I intend to make that so. I hope that you will respect the right of this view to remain on the page. I repeat, it was, after all, set in motion by Rowling herself. She clearly wants us to consider it. And those considerations, and possible ramifications, should be made clear and obvious to all. Michaelsanders 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the birthdates, take a look at Dates in Harry Potter. These have been firmly established as fact. Until you can provide a proper citation, "this is of course not confirmed by the author as yet" falls into the realm of speculation, and we have been working to remove as much speculation as possible from these Harry Potter articles. When discussiong, do NOT keep reverting, especially when you are going against Wikipedia policy. Do not insert speculation, we have been trying hard enough to remove these things without more speculation coming in. However, the fan forums and the Harry Potter forums welcome this speculation. Wikipedia does not. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that you are continuing your behaviour of reverting without further discussion. Be careful, Michael, repeatedly breaking Wikipedia policies will get you blocked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this was dispute was a matter of crossed wires. I was using 'inbred' as a cultural term - it transpires that in fact, it can only acceptably be used as a genetic term. Thus, I thought, incorrectly, that one could definitively describe the children of two third cousins as 'mildly inbred' (i.e. related by blood-ties other than sibling/filial-parental to their siblings or parents/children); genetic inbreeding (i.e. health or genetic problems or mutations stemming from a small gene pool), on the other hand, being rare enough in the children of two first cousins, is apparently extremely rare in the children of third cousins, and so would not be a credible issue. Since what I thought was 'cultural inbreeding' does not seem to acceptable, I accept that in this issue I was wrong. I also suggest that had deathphoenix and T-dot actually made their explanations to me, rather than talked about it behind my back, *this* dispute could have ended a lot sooner. Michaelsanders 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Names

Quick question: how do you define Original Research? Because by your definition, most of the name section seems to be classified as OR. After all, surely it is OR to discuss bacteria similar to a certain name, or to research the meaning of Belvina. Elladora was explained in exactly the same way. Michaelsanders 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy that disallows Original Research, and it is discussed at Wikipedia:No original research or at the shortcut WP:NOR. The bottom line is - in articles regarding Rowling's fictional Harry Potter universe, we must resist the urge to go beyond what Rowling has clearly stated in her books, or in the movies (with differences between the books and movies described when applicable), or in documented interviews (with reference links), or on her web site. Information from fan sites, blog pages, logical extensions, or even from common sense is frowned upon. Wikipedia's policy always favors "Verifiability" over "truth", and from established Reliable Sources. This is because "truth" is sometimes a matter of perspective, and can vary with the Point of View (see also WP:NPOV. Basically - if the matter under discussion cannot be easily verified - traced back to the authoritative original source (Rowling in this case), then it is not canonical and does not belong in an encyclopedia like this one. Also if the matter must be prefaced with weasel words to be "true", example: "Some fans believe that Harry and Ginny (blah blah blah) ...", then that is also disallowed since the Wikipedia is to Avoid Weasel Words. If the statement cannot stand on its own without conditionals like "some think", "apparently", "obviously", or "it may be the case that"; then it is disallowed. There are plenty of other weasel word examples at WP:AWW. Thanks for asking! --T-dot 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - and by the way - I totally agree with you that these "Names Origins" of characters in the HP Universe are way out of control. What we can legitimately say is that, for example, many characters in the Black family have names corresponding to astronomical objects like stars and constellations and galaxies and such, and that Andromeda Black's first name corresponds to the Andromeda galaxy. But to come up with lists of name "similarities" to other historical persons, or to animals (eg: the Weasley surname comes from the weasel), or to concepts (eg: the Malfoy surname comes from the French, meaning "bad faith"), is dipping deeply into the well of Original Research, and should be avoided as unverifiable - unless of course Rowling states clearly that this is where she got the name. --T-dot 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research

As you can see, I have removed all the Original Research from the article, in line with the views of Deathphoenix and T-dot. Personally I find it rather dull, but this is a majority rule encyclopedia, after all. As for why the ever-vigilant deathphoenix did not see fit to remove it before, I can only speculate that s/he is either nowhere near as scrupulous as s/he would like to think, or that s/he is mired in hypocrisy, or that s/he is simply too high-handed to notice anything beyond his or her immediate bug-bears. Hope the page is up to your standards. Michaelsanders 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK wait - now we are blanking out entire sections? Instead of weeding out the weeds, we plowed the garden under? This is not what what was discussed. In fact, the entire section describing that the Black Family members often have names associated with astronomical objects, as described as "authorized" above, was (vindictively?) blown away. It is troubling that there is a substantial lack of discernment demonstrated here - an inability to tell the good from the bad, so the baby is thrown out with the dirty diapers. While we appreciate your passion, Mr. Sanders, your methods as demonstrated here tend to show considerable recklessness, and a serious lack of maturity. I understand you are a "sixth form college" student, according to your profile, suggesting you are perhaps 16-18 years old, so occasional lack of good judgement and rashness can be expected and even tolerated with gentle corrections; but we still have to maintain the Wikipedia as a quality resource. Continued behaviour of this sort will almost certainly get you put up for a review, and possibly even banned from the Wikipedia for a time, in spite of your status as a young veteran. Again, we appreciate your efforts, but please please try to show a little restraint, and just remove the obvious weeds in the articles, and leave the flowers, herbs, and vegetables alone. I am going to recommend that we revert the main article on the Black Family Tree, back a day or two, to before this disagreement happened, and then remove by consensus just the obvious weeds. In addition Mr. Sanders, please consider restoring all the other articles that were disrupted during this little "temper tantrum". We all have a bad day from time to time, I certainly do, but fortunately the Wikipedia is easy to revert and repair. Thanks man. --T-dot 09:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: has J.K. Rowling actually come out and stated that the Black family names have astronomical associations? Because if not, then it really doesn't seem acceptable according to strict OR rules. Unless Rowling has said so, then you or others have technically researched celestial names, and come to the conclusion that they are the same. Is this confirmed?

As for what you call a temper tantrum: I could certainly argue that it is entirely in line with the demands of yourself and deathphoenix to remove Original Research from these pages. And any temper I am displaying is based upon the degree of hypocrisy displayed to a certain degree by yourself, and more especially by the so-called 'deathphoenix'. I quote: "I totally agree with you that these "Names Origins" of characters in the HP Universe are way out of control. What we can legitimately say is that, for example, many characters in the Black family have names corresponding to astronomical objects like stars and constellations and galaxies and such, and that Andromeda Black's first name corresponds to the Andromeda galaxy. But to come up with lists of name "similarities" to other historical persons, or to animals (eg: the Weasley surname comes from the weasel), or to concepts (eg: the Malfoy surname comes from the French, meaning "bad faith"), is dipping deeply into the well of Original Research, and should be avoided as unverifiable - unless of course Rowling states clearly that this is where she got the name."

At what point did you even attempt to remove what you perceived as irrelevant, or unnecessary? Because, despite your voiced objections, there does not appear to have been much in the way of accompanying action. That hardly speaks well of your behaviour, though it is hardly culpable either. It merely suggests that either you are not particularly pro-active, or you recognise that in such a resource as wikipedia, there will be features which one does not approve of, but which must nonetheless must be accepted. It was, however, 'deathphoenix' who enirely put my back up. I had already given up the fairly pointless campaign of the mention of inbreeding: I felt it vaguely relevant (you can read why above), but hardly worth a big war; in particular, I still respected yourself as a sober and intelligent editor, and therefore left the issue off when you asked me to on the 'relatives' page. However, a translation of the name 'Elladora' which I had added to this article, perfectly in line with the rest of the name translations and compromised only by lack of confirmation and the fact that 'Ella' comes from German rather than Greek, was then removed by deathphoenix, on the grounds that it was OR. Not a single other piece of information was altered at all, only that which I had added. You will understand that I felt this to be not only a stunning piece of hypocrisy, but effecively an attack on my work. Which was borne out when you came up with your jaw-dropping statement, and by deathphoenix not even deigning to reply. Since then, Deathphoenix has exhibited as much disrespect for wikipedia as I have, without nearly as much justification: if you look in the edit history of this article and the relatives article, you will see that the editor removed practically all references to the Potter-Black controversy, and practically nothing else. You will understand, I hope, that such an attempt to pretend such a major issue does not exist is profoundly against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to present to the reader as much information as possible in a coherent, understandable and concise manner, allowing them to gain a greater knowledge and understanding of the relevant issue. To pretend that the family tree issue does not exist (despite the fact that the very mention of a Potter on the Tree demands some sort of mention and consideration) is disingenuous. To not even have the decency to pretend that one is following what one advocates is still worse. It is 'deathphoenix', as much as me, who requires examination. His motives of editing are suspect in the extreme, and I would advocate that both of us are made to agree to some long lasting solution. If we merely return to the state of the two articles before the arguing began, he will attempt to follow his selective agenda again. In which case, I will feel no choice but to challenge it again. I suggest to deathphoenix that we both make some sort of lasting settlement regarding this. If we don't, we will tear each other's efforts for this encyclopedia apart. Michaelsanders 12:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Methinks we all need to have a Nice Cup of Tea and a Sit Down in traditional kimonos, or better yet, churchill-size cigars and cognac in Smoking jackets. I certainly do not want a war. We are all on the same team here, against the vandals and fanatics who want to post their neverending love for Draco Malfoy, or that the seventh book is called "Harry Potter and the Golden Fleece". As I said, I think we can include easily verifiable statements like the Black Family names correspond to astronomical objects (and give ample examples: Andromeda Black-Tonks <-> Andromeda Galaxy. We do not need Rowling to tell us obvious things like that - and it is not Original research if we mention it in passing and provide links to both articles. We start to stretch the bounds if we were to say that Rowling had an agenda for naming the Blacks after celestial objects, and then really crossing over to speculate what Rowling's agenda was, unless she states her reasons on her web site or in an interview - which she may have done. But it is not much of a stretch to state that Rowling named several characters after celestial things - it would be stretching beyond credibility to assume she randomly applied names to all her characters, and that all the Blacks happened to purely coincidently and accidently receive names after stars and galaxies and constellations and such.

I guess there are subtle shades of gray in the Original Research principals - it is not just pure black vs pure white, or white versus all other colors and we should delete all the non-white material. We need to moderate a little here, and come up with good articles by reasoned consensus - not from "mob rule" nor "dictatorships". What I tried to emphasize was that the non-obvious correlations between various character names and other unrelated persons, places, things, or concepts, that Rowling also did not acknowlege, is stretching the limits into original research. For example - if someone posted that Harry Potter's surname comes from clay workers who make clay pots and jars, and this provides "more proof" that Harry is a Horcrux, well that is clearly over the line, down the street, and heading for the next town, if not outer space. Such things should be avoided. But to mention that many (not all) Black Family members, like Sirius, Andromeda, Orion, Regulus, Cygnus, Arcturus, Cassiopeia, etc., have names corresponding to astronomical objects, should be allowed, even if we do not know for sure why. By the way - a barnstar to anyone who can locate a Rowling quote on why she did this. Thanks! --T-dot 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong. As an inclusionist, I feel that anything which is of interest to a number of readers should be included - in particular the names, where the number of people who have contributed to their etymologies suggests that it is certainly of interest to enough to make it publishable, and which should be written in there - all the information can be found elsewhere, such as dictionaries or textbooks or websites, but the point of an encyclopedia is to make the information easily accessible to the average reader. The same goes for the Black-Potter connection (?), which has stirred up so much fan interest that to gloss over it and ignore it is highly dishonest. My reason for deleting the name etymologies entirely was that, strictly (I think: correct me if Rowling has actually stated that the relevant characters are named after celestial objects), unless stated, it is OR to draw the conclusion that because their names happen to coincide with celestial objects, they are actually named after those objects. That is, of course, patent rubbish. But then, much of the OR policy, and its practice by certain editors, is likewise patent rubbish (incidentally, I thought that Rowling had somewhere stated that Sirius was named after the Dog Star - for obvious reasons - and I would guess that she merely decided to explain how such an uncommon name came to be given, by making such names a general family policy. But I cannot find any reference to her making the Dog Star statement). I sincerely hope that deathphoenix will be willing to cease his campaign of hypocrisy, since at present I doubt this article or the relatives article satifies anyone - it certainly doesn't satisfy me (nor, according to his chats with duane543, deathphoenix - though he has not as yet stirred himself to make any settlement, or even make an alternative edit to the articles - despite his much vaunted desires for removing OR). As yet, however, the editor has, unlike yourself, t-dot, failed to respond. I hope he intends to do so. Michaelsanders 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[Regarding the Tea Link] - I did wonder about that. In line with the 'say nice things about the other editors' policy there: T-dot is being genuinely helpful and constructive (what I originally thought of him or her); it was very nice of Duane543 to remove his vaguely offensive comments about me from deathphoenixes talkpage; and deathphoenix - well, that's a very clever name for a twenty-nine year old to use. I'm very impressed with the care you take to make the average editor believe that you are mature. I note that as yet you are still not lowering yourself to joining in this discussion. Have you any intention of doing so? Michaelsanders 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. I believe that the WP:OR is a guide line to follow, but is not absolute. I believe when an editor is bending the WP:OR policy that it should be done with caution and respect. The editor should take care to make his or her point as clear, decisive, and small as possible so that it does not overshadow the rest of the article, unless the page was designed for theories (example Kennedy assassination theories). The personal attacks need to stop, especially in the article’s talk pages. Let’s solve our differences in opinions in a professional manner. (Duane543 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

"Wow, our friend is sure active lately. If he is not breaking the WP:DISRUPT policy by over correcting the Relatives of Harry Potter & Black family tree (Harry Potter) pages, he is breaking the WP:ATTACK policy with his latest comments in Talk:Relatives of Harry Potter & Talk:Black family tree (Harry Potter). It screams, "What the heck do I have to do to get blocked around here?". Lucky, I don't think User:Michaelsanders checks your talk page, because if he did, I'm positive that some sarcasm would be coming my way. (Duane543 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC))" [From a previous version of deathphoenix's talkpage; Duane543 removed this comment several hours later, summarising it as 'improper'.] Am I to assume that you do not feel the same compunctions about personal attacks when you think the person in question can't hear/read what you are saying? [You were right to be positive about the sarcasm.] And given how much of the article was technically OR, I think trying to make OR references 'small' is rather like trying to stop the tide coming in. As for 'solving our differences in a professional manner' - well, you may be making some small attempts to be professional, but as yet deathphoenix - whose input is essential to this matter - has not done anything to sort this out. I appreciate that I, as a student, have more time on my hands than a professional and parent, but when the editor in question would rather make remarks about how clever he was fifteen years ago than make any serious attempt to address this issue, it hardly speaks well for him... Michaelsanders 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote on deathphoenix's talk page was wrong and I apologize. I corrected my mistake and tried to mend fences. Can you do the same? If you still have problems try the proper channels. (Duane543 20:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Until deathphoenix takes the trouble to respond, there really doesn't seem to be much point in this discussion. I have posted a message on his talk page asking him to take part in this. I suggest that we wait for around 24 hours, and if by that time deathphoenix has failed to respond, or be constructive, we all come to a mutual decision here without him. Please comment with agreements/disagreements/alternative suggestions here. Especially deathphoenix, who I would baldly state has a large portion of his reputation riding on this issue. Michaelsanders 21:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix has failed to respond. Should we give him more time, or move to sort this business out without his involvement? Michaelsanders 11:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I myself am often busy on weekends (one of the wonders of having kids). Yeah, I apologise for my remarks, but you have to admit that your biting sarcasm isn't exactly conducive to mutual respect either. I don't see how my "reputation" is riding on this issue. I've always consistently insisted on the removal of original research and speculation on Harry Potter articles, and in response to your question about why I haven't done this myself, the answer is simple: I don't spend as much time on Harry Potter articles as I used to. Months and months of trying to enforce policy on these Harry Potter articles have made me simply fed up with trying to fight the fight, so I spend almost no time looking at the Harry Potter articles any more. If you want to chop down on original research, go right ahead with my full blessings, but don't chop down everything that you think might look like speculation if you squint, and certainly don't go around making clever remarks about other people. Your remarks combined with those edits make it look like you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Should I have cut my own clever remarks? Certainly, and I apologise for that. I certainly shouldn't have responded to biting sarcasm in that way, but I don't appreciate the tone of voice you put on either.

As for original research from this article, I've stated my opinion and I've tried to wade in. I'd like to help, but when I tried to remove some clear original research while leaving some "maybes" in to appease some of the more rabid Harry Potter fans, I get biting sarcasm and possible WP:POINT edits in response. I think the best way for me to contribute is to ask you guys how you want me to contribute to this article. I don't have the time or the focus to be able to devote much of my time on editing Harry Potter articles to any large degree anymore, and I certainly don't want to revisit the tired old original research and speculation arguments that always seem to creep up on Harry Potter articles. Michaelsanders, if you want to cut down original research and speculation, even if you're doing it sarcastically, be my guest. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that helping to create a dispute, and then refusing to take part in its solution (or appearing to) is not calculated to make people think well of you, especially when one has previously prided oneself on being a reputable editor. As for your schedule, it does seem distinctly suspicious that you apparently have more free time during the week than at the weekend. As for OR, if you have read anything of what I said whilstt you were taking your sabbatical, I think you would have picked up on what I was trying to say. Now that you are here, however, are you actually willing to do anything to sort this business out? Or can we simply rule out any cooperation/interference from you, and leave it to myself and anyone who wants to join in?

I don't really pride myself on anything, except for having coined the term "!vote". There's very little of my activities on Wikipedia that's noteworthy, so therefore, there's little to take pride in. To be honest, I really don't care what my not checking and editing Wikipedia everyday looks like to anyone else, because there are other things going on with me than Wikipedia. There were times when I would edit Wikipedia every day for fun, but I think those days are gone. Take what you will from my schedule, I really couldn't care less, but I don't usually edit on weekends anymore, as my weekends have become very busy these past few months. In fact, I don't usually edit anything as much as I used to, apart from occasional forays into closing contentious AfDs. As for the OR issue, I'd be willing to help out, but these days I'm a lot less likely to read long passages of text. Treat me as the simple person that I am: ask me a simple question and I'll try to give a simple answer. If I turn more attention to a particular Harry Potter article (such as to this one at this moment), I'll try and remove original research or speculation from it, but as I said before, I don't devote as much time on these articles as I used to. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Replacement Text

[(Again, apologies for manner of setting out). Please comment or make appropriate changes. It will, barring problems or lack of agreement, be posted in the main article in approximately 24 hours.

Done Michaelsanders 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on suggested replacement text

I haven't picked over the suggested text with a fine-toothed comb, but here's a few comments.

I'd edit the "Violetta" comment, maybe to this:

• 'Violetta' may come from "violet" or "violent".

As for the entire Dorea Black section, there are a couple of changes I'd make. The first two sentences contains a bit of fan speculation that could probably be fixed:

"Dorea Black has proved to be of particular interest to many observers. Dorea (1920-1977) married Charlus Potter and bore one son, who many have speculated to have been James Potter, husband of Lily Evans and father of Harry Potter (though his connection to Lily would have meant he would not have been acknowledged by the Blacks)."

I'd change this to something like the following (I'm not too happy with the last sentence, though):

"Dorea Black (1920-1977) married Charlus Potter and bore one son. Her age indicates a possibility that this son is James Potter, husband of Lily Evans and father of Harry Potter. James's marriage to Muggle-born Lily would have meant that he would not be acknowledged by the Blacks and thus remain unnamed in the family tree."

I would also remove the entire second paragraph: this is getting a little too speculative, as indicated by "One would imagine that" and "one would hardly expect".

--Deathphoenix ʕ 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• That far down the page, I don't think you need the italicized part of "Orion Black is a fictional character in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. His name has not appeared..." The whole Black family is fictional etcetera.

• "the constellation Ursula Minor/Major" should be 'the constellations Ursa Minor and Major'.

• 'Hesper' perhaps comes from the Hesperides or Hesperus (The Evening Star)

—wwoods 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes integrated as per suggestions from Deathphoenix and wwoods. Thank-you. Michaelsanders 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"...while Andromeda is a galaxy,..."

It might be better to say that Andromeda is (another) constellation, since the galaxy takes its name from the constellation in which it is found.

—wwoods 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)