Talk:Hogwarts founders

Picture of Slytherin

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?

Should the Slytherin part be edited?

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.

The Slytherin section is longer because more information has been given about him in the text: for example, the all too short explanation by Professor Binns in the second book. As yet, Gryffindor info is limited to a few references to him being brave. Michaelsanders 11:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical context

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.

I like this section as it is what most HP articles are missing, a mention real world. Though it does need to be cleaned up a bit and cited. It should also be mentioned, or made clear, a bit more that magic isn't real. John Reaves 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The historical background is important - it tells readers what was actually going on in that period, and allows them to come to their own conclusions regarding how accurately Rowling has shown it. I don't see how McKinnon can think it OR. I hope it wouldn't be too impertinent of me to suggest that if it appears to back up what Rowling has said, perhaps the reason is authorial rather than editorial? Michaelsanders 14:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Other articles reference or discuss what was happening in the real world vis a vis Rowling's world. The section you object to discusses what was going on in the real world vis a vis Rowling's world a thousand years ago. Where is the problem? I find your suggestion that I include the data in some trashy fansite offensive - I am not a fan-writer or a theorist. I am a wikipedian, dedicated, as are we all, to ensuring the best quality information and the best range of information to readers here, where we can ensure it is of the best quality. Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are selectively reading my comments, and are determined to mis-read them in a colored light. I clearly said that the detailed information belongs either in another Wiki article or on an off-Wiki site (such as the HP Lexicon, in my mind). Where did I say or imply "trashy fansite" or that the information did not belong somewhere in Wikipedia? You are seeing offense where none should be taken.

One of my points is whether the detailed information on real-world attitudes to magic best belongs in the Hogwarts founders article. My other contention is the details have not been verified to be particularly true for HP (unless I'm mistaken, if you can supply a source). --Mercurio 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lexicon is one part useful information (most of which we reproduce to a higher standard here) to two parts garbage. I consider that an effective qualification for being a 'trashy fansite'. Michaelsanders 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Michaelsanders. I've been critical of the HP Lexicon's flaws myself, but still recognize it as the preeminent encyclopedia on Potter (with JKR's stamp of approval). And you must realize that it's the quality of individual contributions (and not the site per se) that shapes an encyclopedic site's worth. Certainly on Wikipedia as well, the quality of contributions runs the gamut from Troll to Outstanding. We do have stricter guidelines for acceptance here (not to mention more editors), and conversely other sites grant more license in the way information and analysis (and editorial) are put across. Worthwhile articles/essays can be found in either venue. --Mercurio 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the problem in having mention of Canon Episcopi, King Aethelraed, et al in the article? Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies (as with anything in Wikipedia) in the way it is presented, that is its wording and placement. If you didn't notice, I kept saying "the way it was phrased", "the section as written".... --Mercurio 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rowling imagines the Founders to have flourished when these people lived, and texts were important: Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There. How do you know that these specific details (Canon Episcopi, etc.) are what Rowling imagined to be true in the HP timeline? I can accept that Rowling imagined some parallelism between real-world history and HP history but only generally. (After all, she has mentioned the real-world personage Cornelius Agrippa and appropriated him as a Famous Wizard who was persecuted by Muggles.) But we don't know how close or how far the parallels are. Hence, the need to source if you are to give extensive details. --Mercurio 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornelius Agrippa lived in the fifteenth/sixteenth century. That is not, from the vantage point of 1992, 'a thousand years ago'. Michaelsanders 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point is that as Wikipedians we should stick only to the verifiable and source-able, of which Agrippa is an example -- in this case -- of a real-world personage identified in canon. --Mercurio 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

unless Rowling says, "In the Potterverse, the Popes all died of dragon-pox and King Alfred burnt to death in the great cake-fire of 807" then these people/texts were active at the time, and need to be mentioned. If you think Rowling had no idea of these events, etc., that's fine, but without authorial confirmation, that is Original Research. (Also, I have to confess that it would not hurt a few readers to become aware of what was going on in reality at that time. Lord Reith is hardly a terrible role-model). Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. It is original research to put forward that these specific people and events did exist in the fictional Potter-world without citing a source. To be silent on the matter -- which is what I'm advocating -- is NOT original research. You, on the other hand, are assuming (1) that specific people such as Alfred the Great and Pope Zachary must have also existed in the HP-world, and (2) that they made these selfsame acts and pronouncements in the HP-world. Please address how you can venture these as fact. --Mercurio 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zachary and Aethelraed were important members of the 'muggle' world at that time. The fictional Founders, in Rowling's conception, were important members of the wizarding world at that time. How can you avoid juxtaposing them? Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, how do you know Pope Zachary, et al. did in fact exist in Rowling's Muggle world? You are assuming he did, and I challenge the text's implication that they are in fact specifically part of the HP-verse. --Mercurio 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The section is not about attitudes to magic per se. It is a brief documentation of how those believed to be practitioners of magic were treated at that time in the real world. Since that is relevant to the Founders, a troup of 'real' wizards. It is not a suggestion that any of that might have affected the Founders or been relevant; it is intended to fit with the rest of the article, by telling readers what was going on in reality, what was going on in Rowling's work, and leaving them to decide, "Okay, what do I think about this?" An encyclopedia is meant to give as much relevant information as possible, after all. Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, again, let's be clear. Yes, I agree an encyclopedia can present this information. But the question is should this information be presented within the Hogwarts founders article. I argue that the section (I repeat, to the particular extent it was presented) is not especially related to the founders, as more to a history of the Wizarding world. --Mercurio 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to write a history of the HP universe, etc, and include this information there. If I felt that the new article was suitable for this information, I would remove the section from here. But until then, it stays. As for your suggestion that I stick it into its own little wikipedia article: I would suggest, in the politest possible terms, that you lack a grasp of what goes on in wikipedia. I have recently seen the deletionist gang come down hard on two articles, demanding that the information therein be merged into other articles. If this information were cut loose, they would demand that it be deleted or merged. In which case, guess where it would be merged to. Go on, have a guess. Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have been unclear in my trying to make my comments concise. You misunderstood me: when I said to put the info in its own article (and I never said "little article") I meant a general article discussing historical attitudes to sorcery and magic that is not restricted to HP. I think such an article on real-world history certainly belongs in Wikipedia, and (because I expect the Magic (paranormal) article is long enough) it could merit a separate entry.

The alternative I gave was to relocate the information as a portion of a HP-specific Wiki article. FYI, there is already an article on the Wizarding world including a History section. So my "guess" is to merge it to that article.

I believe I do have a good sense of what is acceptable in Wikipedia (and, yes, I think it's better than yours). You seem to have forgotten that an articles here can easily link to one another; hence, there is no need to make each article stand-alone. You need to ask "Is this the best place to locate this particular discussion, or can I just wiki-link to it?". In this case, the "real-world historical context" as you've so far presented it is tangential to a discussion of the Hogwarts founders and (I contend) best belongs in another article. --Mercurio 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In closing: please leave the section alone. It contributes meaningful information, and gives a better context wherein Rowling sets the lives of the Founders. What's to object to? Michaelsanders 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In closing, please re-read my comments and clarifications with a clearer head, and do re-examine your own assumptions to see whether they are in fact in accordance with Wiki guidelines. --Mercurio 03:57, 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)

If a historical context is to be kept within this article, it should be worded as to be very pertinent to the Hogwarts founders (as opposed to being more pertinent to general Wizarding world history). All unverified detail would also have to be removed. Thus shortened, I don't think it would be longer than a couple of sentences, and would not deserve a section heading. It should just be included among the introductory paragraphs (before "Godric Gryffindor").

An elaboration can easily be linked to via an inline wiki-link, or through a "See also"- or "Further reading"-type link. --Mercurio 08:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The section gives a brief description of what was going on in the real world at that time, the era in which these people are supposed to have lived. That is entirely appropriate. Many real biographies have such sections. Since you have referenced my love for history and politics' (along with accusing me of letting it interfere with my work here, which is another decidely offensive charge), I would direct you to figures such as Eleanor of Aquitaine. To article any historical figure, you generally have to reference what was going on at that time - otherwise the reader can't understand certain issues. Obviously, that is not the case here, where the story is understandable and simple enough - in this part, at least - to be understood without having to be told what was going on. But it is nonetheless helpful and beneficial to know what was going on, to let the reader know what - in the real world, at least - was happening, and leave them better informed.

As for your suggestion that we don't know these things were happening, it is foolish. By that logic, we don't know anything. You can claim any sort of circumstances in HP history. It doesn't, however, fit Rowling's various claims of linkage between our history and wizarding history (e.g. 'Grindelwald and WWII were linked). Nor does it take into account the general wikipedia policy here, which appears to be to take real-world history as identical to muggle history when not told otherwise. That's why the Muggle Prime Minister is designated as John Major (strikingly inappropriate as that may be). That's why Frank Bryce got shot in WWII (how do you know it wasn't the Boer War?). That's why, unless told otherwise, Alfraed and Aethelraed and Zachary and Canon Episcopi were knocking around in the lead up to 1000. The information is as relevant, if not more, to the Founders, who lived in this time, than to a general wizarding world situation which cannot otherwise be described except with reference to the founders. Michaelsanders 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop repeating what the section is, we get it already. And no, it's not an offensive charge, but it is true. You are stretching the history section too far-pulling hardly notable historical facts and people just to get some history in an article. And as far as what was happening in the "muggle world", we don't know if this was happening. We do know that other stuff, but Rowling has never stated any historical reference to the eleventh century, other than what she has made up. John Reaves 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To Michaelsanders, please don't use the obviously faulty reasoning that something should be allowed because such is currently the case in another Wiki article. The other article could be just as wrong, and perhaps no one who understands the content guidlines has noticed (or has had the time to take action) yet. (To respond to your example about a statement that the Muggle Prime Minister of Book 6, Chapter 1 is definitely John Major -- I would say that it would be inappropriate and should be removed/revised.) Stick to the Wikipedia content guidelines -- including No Original Research, Verifiability, Cite Sources -- which I have been repeatedly telling you (since April it seems). If you are as good a Wikipedian as you tout yourself to be, you would know and understand that these guidelines underpin Wikipedia and are unassailable; they are the fundamental standards your contributions need to satisfy.

And what the heck is foolish about saying that we actually know little of the history of the Wizarding world? Why on earth would you not accept that that may be (and is) the case? The only objective measures for content on Wikipedia are the content guidelines -- verifiability and the rest -- these must be ensured, and only statements that qualify may be included. (And, again, you make a flawed generalization that "we don't know anything" even after it has been pointed out that there are specific real-world parallels verified by HP canon -- e.g., Cornelius Agrippa. Hence, there is no need to assume: Rowling's writings and her published statements will divide fact from speculation.)

About Frank Bryce and World War II -- this is a different case. JKR has said in an interview that World War II did also happen in the HP-world, thus it is acceptable. Again, if your claims (that Pope Zachary and the rest existed in HP) are verifiable fact rather than OR then you simply have to show a source. --Mercurio 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the Slytherin sections

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)

What does the Sorting Hat not following Slytherin's views have to do with anything? The Hat clearly can sort wherever it wants regardless of character traits. Individual views of a historical figure are hardly notable sources or facts. This section read like an essay over Slytherin, analyizing him and bringing up irrelevant facts to compare to him. It was riddled with OR. John Reaves 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to leave this a while: I'm on my holidays now, so I can't depend on having much time, let alone predictable periods of computer use. In the case of anything really pressing, I might find the time, but it's likely that I won't return to full involvement until around 10th January. Until then, we'll leave the page in its current state, and I hope you'll be willing to pick this discussion up again when I get the time. Thanks. Michaelsanders 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm siding with John Reaves here. I think we could make this a poll to see if Michaelsanders interpretation should be kept. Serendipodous 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Don't Keep per my debates, edit summaries and talk page commentsJohn 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)

I have been through the archives, and I saw that this same thing has happened before with someone else. You're the only one defending the information you want kept - i.e. your interpretation. There's no reason to have the argument again or repeat anything I've already said. John Reaves 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What interpretation is that? What are you even saying Don't Keep to? Michaelsanders 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember all that stuff I deleted out of the section that you argued to keep? That's what I'm talking about. Everything I'm refering to has already been deleted (just to clear up any confusion). John Reaves 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't have time (or inclination) to properly look over it at the moment. I also said that we'd leave it out until January, when we are both on normal schedules. And then we can consider the various pieces properly. Until then, can we just leave this? Michaelsanders 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

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).

I believe that pictures are considered original research, though I'm not 100 percent positive. However, since pictures by definition include personal opinions on the characters (I would never see Helga Hufflepuff looking like a character from The Mists of Avalon, for instnace; I've always seen her looking like Professor Sprout), I think they probably should be removed. Serendipodous 10:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they should be removed. Some more opinions would be nice though. John Reaves 22:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a site with that have the pictures that were released through the chocolate frog products. The quality isn't the greatest, and they are nowhere near as lovely as the pictures already posted. I believe that Wizards of the Coast also released a set of cards with the characters' pictures on them, so those may pass muster as well. The site for those is [www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/founders.html here]. I'm going to try to upload those in their place. Tokyogirl79 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Actually I've seen another screencaps of the founders in other games.. Only Helga is slightly the same. The others are much different —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rynoa (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 April 2007 (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.

References to real history / OR

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)

You have removed accurate historical information, and accurate canon information. I believe that a brief mention of the historical situation at that time was agreed to; and names mean what they mean. The only possibly worthless bit is the HoGwaRtS. Michaelsanders 11:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It has never been agreed to. You have just reverted everyone who has removed it. It is not cannon, it is your opinion that these match up-to real historical events and times and this is a POV of yours from reading the canon. Real history has nothing to do with these characters. The descriptions of names also has nothing to do with this article, again this is POV as you are assuming the people are specifically named after certain history meanings. If you are going to claim these assertions you need verifiable sources which explicitly state this. While the info is interesting it is not verifiable and is original research as you are not citing or quoting anyone. Please see WP:OR and WP:V.--Dacium 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"If a historical context is to be kept within this article, it should be worded as to be very pertinent to the Hogwarts founders (as opposed to being more pertinent to general Wizarding world history). All unverified detail would also have to be removed. Thus shortened, I don't think it would be longer than a couple of sentences, and would not deserve a section heading. It should just be included among the introductory paragraphs (before "Godric Gryffindor"). " The historical note at the beginning, a note of historical events at that time. Name meanings are hardly POV - over-in depth, perhaps, but not POV. I have restored some of the relevant details. Michaelsanders 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed some of what you put back. "Historically, the closing centuries of the first millennium, and the beginning of the second millennium, saw an increasingly intolerant attitude towards witchcraft and sorcery. In the fantasy world of the Harry Potter stories, this is partially reflected" This is COMPLETELY your opionion about a 'reflection' of history. I don't know why this isn't clear to you. Where rowlings grew up has absoltely nothing to do with Godric Gryffindor. Moors are found all over the world based on definition. Again Saint Grodic correlations are original research and your opionion about matching up and are no verifiable.--Dacium 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name Salazar Slytherin

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

Slytherin apologetics

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)

Is this Right?

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)

• I don't think so, the sword is goblin-made and I think that is what helps destroy the horcruxes permenantly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachoolao (talk • contribs)
  • I added that clarification, using Horcruxes#Destruction as my source. It is my understanding that, while Goblin craftsmanship is exceptional, that more specific and powerful magic would be needed to eliminate a horcrux. A more specific and verifiable citation would be great. --Dystopos 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In book 7, when Harry and Hermione question the portrait of Phineas Nigellus about the sword, he tells them that "Goblins’ silver repels mundane dirt, imbibing only that which strengthens it.", then mentions that Dumbledore used the sword to break open a ring. Hermione's reaction: "The sword can destroy Horcruxes! Goblin-made blades imbibe only that which can strengthen them—Harry, that sword’s impregnated with basilisk venom!" --Dystopos 15:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SalazarSlytherincard.gif

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.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)