Talk:Hogwarts founders/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Michaelsanders

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's clear as crystal in the novels that Salazar Slytherin wanted only pure or half-blood wizards in the school, and that his house only admits pure or half-bloods. Why are you trying to suggest it isn't true? Serendipodous 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the recent additions to the article. It had an apologist POV, seeming to argue that Slytherin is misunderstood and that what is said of him and his ideology is inaccurate, including a statement that the Sorting Hat's account of the founders was probably biased. Rowling has said that the Sorting Hat is reliable. World Book Day 2004 JKR chat transcript at quick-quote-quill.org --Mercurio 08:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mercury McKinnon and Serendipodous

I'm afraid that you don't understand. What historical basis within the novels is there to suggest that these were Slytherin's views? Just because Rowling repeatedly favours the "They do say..." method of talking about the past, doesn't mean there isn't a case for more objective and neutral examination. Every year seven student is told in history lesson that first-hand sources are not to be trusted, because they will be strongly biased. And the Sorting Hat, the primary source of 'The Tale of Evil Slytherin', is very much a primary source. It belonged to Godric Gryffindor, one of the main protagonists, and an enemy of Slytherin. Do you really think it will even attempt to be objective? I am not saying that Slytherin IS misunderstood, or that what is said of him IS inaccurate: I am saying that we should not automatically ASSUME that we have been told the full truth by a hat (To 'assume' "makes an ass of u and me"). And while the Sorting Hat may think it is reliable, it doesn't mean that IT hasn't been lied to, or that it hasn't misunderstood. Or that we the readers haven't misunderstood everything we have been told about Hogwarts' past due to the lack of any presented historical context. As for the nonsense that his House only admits Pure-bloods or Half-Bloods: what about 'The Weasley Cousin', who'd have a dubious claim to even being a Half-Blood (she is the daughter of an unspecified Squib accountant (who in the eyes of Pure-blood fanatics wouldn't be magically blooded at all- consider Marius Black), and a muggle). The Sorting Hat would have to be unreliable if it refused entry to the most ambitious simply because they had no immediate magical ancestry. Even ASSUMING that it could tell. Can I warn you not to be so gullible as to automatically assume that every fairy-tale told is 100% accurate? And please, don't confuse 'Apologism' with 'Objectivity' or 'Neutrality'.

MichaelSanders (I'm assuming that's who I'm talking to) you are treating the Harry Potter stories as if they were historical fact. They're fiction. The founders never existed, the wizard world never existed. They only existed in the mind of JK Rowling and thus we have only what she says to guide us as to what they thought and did. Since Rowling has made it very clear that the blood purity ideology began with Salazar Slytherin (to say nothing of the fact that Salazar Slytherin left a mass-murdering monster in the school specifically meant to target Muggle-borns) that is what we have to assume. Mafalda Weasley is not canonical. She was part of an earlier draft that never happened. We don't even know if she was a half blood or not; her mother could easily be a witch. We don't know, because she's not part of established canon and Rowling never used her. Serendipodous 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MichaelSanders. What standard of verification do you want before you accept that something claimed in a story is true within the world of that story? For example, for the Sorting Hat's account of the founders -- Do you need a quote from a textbook on magical history? Do you need your magical equivalent of Geoffrey of Monmouth, your "unbiased" historian? Do you need a quote from a Slytherin or a descendant of Salazar? I don't see how these would make a difference, since the same doubts can always be cast on them. Their neutrality (within the story, as you seem to be seeking) can never be established. I guess an omniscient third-person narrator would be unquestioned, but this is not workable here as the Harry Potter series is primarily told from Harry's point of view. Another would be the author confirming facts in venues outside of the work itself, but that is unfeasible (and, personally I find, inelegant; a piece of writing should stand up on its own).

As Serendipodous was saying, in Harry Potter (and other fictional worlds) the only way readers have to learn about the state of that world is through the author's words. These revelations can be through a narrator's statements, if the author is writing that way; if there is no omniscient narrator, then characters are the author's vehicle for imparting knowledge about the fictional world. Which statements then should one simply accept as true and which ones should be held suspect? Where does one draw the line?

Should readers doubt each characters' every pronouncement? I guess they are free to. But as clever as Rowling has proven to be in creating surprise twists and revelations, I don't think she (and most authors) intended every statement her characters make to be subject to suspicion. Otherwise, a reader describing the world would have to precede every detail with "according to Character X" and "if you believe Character Y". There would then be endless combinations of possibilities where character statements 1 to 731 are possibly true, but 732 to 1209 are possibly false. Exploring these possibilities is fine fodder in fan forums, but in an encyclopedic article and specifically in Wikipedia -- it is inappropriate.

I would draw the line this way: take statements as true (attribution is always good), unless there is a very clear reason in-story to indicate it should be doubted (admittedly there is no absolutely objective standard for this; consensus would be the judge). Thing is, the Sorting Hat is a witness of the actual events it is describing. In addition to the author saying in a chat that the Hat is sincere, I don't see any reason in the stories to doubt this character's credibility. --Mercurio 09:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm very sorry. I have been labouring under the impression that the novels have something vaguely relevant to say about real life. And that to be fully understood, they have to be considered by real standards (JK Rowling has even said that her criticisms of pureblood fanatics are a criticism of racists). And again, you have fallen into the trap of ASSUMING that you all you have been told in your fairy tale reading of the book is true. Do you seriously believe that fictional characters cannot be considered by rational standards? That in the case of all fiction, we have to take the narrators or characters words as God-Given Law? Do you similarly believe that 'The Little Mermaid' is simply the story of a mermaid? Which has absolutely no relevance to the life of Hans Christian Anderson? The main characters in the Godfather believe that their way of life is right: do you take that for granted, or to you actually consider the points being made? Do books have any real influence on you, or do you merely drift with the 'nice stories'? To recap: in the novels, there is little historical basis to suggest that Slytherin was 'evil' (a nice cover-all word to avoid explanations), or that he ever left the basilisk in the school. We don't know how that got there. Because we have only an unfounded story (don't just take it for granted, consider why it might have been told!) and the word of a hat. Bear in mind Hermione's rant in GoF: that 'Hogwarts a History' is actually 'Hogwaarts: A Revised History'. Or 'A Highly Biased and Selective History'. Do you hold such a little opinion of Rowling that she is incapable of wider points? Do you not think that Hermione's comments might have a wider relevance? Also: try reading Terry Pratchetts 'Discworld' Novels. Especially 'Witches Abroad' and 'Thud'. Then see if you still subscribe to the 'It's just a stroy, why bother thinking about it' forum.Michaelsanders 12:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The case for objectivity:

1. J.K. Rowling is not infallible. She makes mistakes. Let us take an example. She has stated that wizards and witches do not die of old age. Unfortunately, she presents three such cases in the very first book: Professor Binns (who simply wakes up dead one day), and the Flamels (whose death is figuratively ‘like going to bed at the end of a very long day’.) Oops. Then there is the muddle over Hermione’s age (she was originally stated by Rowling to be the youngest, then to be the oldest when this proved unworkable). And the time when she confused Ron’s wand with that of Cedric Diggory. Oh yes, and the time when she said that ‘The Weasley Cousin’ would appear in GoF. We can see how that turned out. Personally, I don’t think she’s wrong here. But I also don’t think she is so clunky as to condemn a quarter of a school as irredeemably evil. Or to make one of the school founders unquestionably evil, and the others unquestionably good. She is a canny enough lady to lead us up the garden path and back.

2. The books have presented a consistent message of not taking for granted what information we are given. Of not taking for granted what we are told, of not trusting first impressions. Of asking questions. Remember how we trusted Quirrell, and thought Snape was the PS villain? Oops. Remember how everyone believed the rubbish written by Rita Skeeter and co? Do you not think there was a point to the obvious hatred of her Rowling stirs? Have you not noticed that Voldemort sows misinformation to his own benefit?

3. Hermione’s precise complaint: “It’s all in ‘Hogwarts: A History.’ Though, of course, that book’s not entirely reliable… Not once, in over a thousand pages, does ‘Hogwarts: A History’ mention that we are all colluding in the oppression of a hundred slaves.” Do you think it has failed to mention other things?

4. Binns, the history teacher (and so probably the most trustworthy in his field), says: “Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago – the precise date is uncertain – by the four greatest witches and wizards of the age… they built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when Magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution.” So far, Slytherin seems to have reasonable grounds for not trusting Muggle-borns, does he not? “Slytherin wished to be more selective about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families. He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them untrustworthy.” Okay, hardly a wonderful person, but it hardly makes him Voldemort Mark-1. And, of course, Binns has already explained that there was a very good reason for not trusting Muggles, and by extension Muggle-borns. Binns is also not saying that Slytherin actually refused to teach these students, only that he disliked it. And there might have been any number of reasons for this – for all we have been told, he could have been irritated by their ignorance of the magical world. Because we haven’t actually been given that much RELIABLE fact. And this account from ‘reliable historical sources’ is hardly totally condemnatory. Yet, you have ignored it, and, like Ron Weasley, jumped to the conclusions which you have been LED TO BELIEVE: that “Salazar Slytherin was a twisted old loony” who “started all this Pure-blood stuff.” Binns did not say that Slytherin “started all this Pure-blood- stuff” – Ron ASSUMEs.

5. “You have been informed that a certain Dark Wizard is at large again. This is a lie.” Umbridge was very certain about that, wasn’t she? About as certain as you are about Slytherin being 100% evil? And we know how accurate she was. So, why do we not consider if there are any other things stated with certainty which may be WRONG? Or do you think that Umbridge is merely a comedy character – that Rowling is not using her to make a point.

6. You think that the Sorting Hat is 100% accurate, no hidden meanings or misunderstandings. Okay, then, let’s consider what else it says: in Book 5. The Hat says: “For were there such friends anywhere as Slytherin and Gryffindor? Unless it was the second pair of Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw? So how could it have gone so wrong? How could such friendships fail?” (My Italics). Not “Such a friendship.” “Friendships”. Plural. And since it has just referred to two friendships (Slytherin & Gryffindor, Hufflepuff & Ravenclaw), either the Hat is seeking to mislead us, or Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff ALSO fell out with each other. Strange that nobody has mentioned THAT. Maybe even suspicious. Almost as if the Hufflepuff vs Ravenclaw has been covered up to boost our animosity to the Slytherins. It is also significant that only Hufflepuff is described as ‘good’ by the hat (either that or it is willing to pointlessly distinguish characters for the sake of filling a line), and that Gryffindor is given the dubious description of ‘daring’ (personally, I am reminded of two sayings: “He who dares, wins,” and “History is written by the winners.” But personal assumptions are not valid.). But ALL the Founders are shown by the hat as being responsible for a mini-civil war within the school. Strange that THAT has never been mentioned before. And if this conflict was launched in response to Slytherin taking “only Pure-blood wizards”, as the hat claims, it seems extreme (and reprehensible): especially since the other Founders were apparently happy to let him run his house as he wished, and since the agendas of Ravenclaw and Gryffindor were rather dubious themselves. There is a LOT that we are not being told. And even if the Hat is reliable, there is a lot it isn’t telling, or explaining. And it also seems to have a weakness for rhyme – one wonders whether it is willing to edit its songs in order to make them scan.

Finally, Rowling seems to have a BIG axe to grind against racism and related issues. And she shows this apparently throughout. If there is one group she hates in the books, it is the pure-blooded elitists, whom she has compared to the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. To groups of people who hold prejudiced views based on their own ideas, and who warp anything they come across to suit their own ideas. Who deliberately misunderstand whatever they read or hear, such as the Bible, or genetics, and use it to back up their prejudiced ideas. Sound familiar?

Oh, and having very carelessly not researched your statement, I have now done so: Arianna: Can we believe everything the sorting hat says? JK Rowling replies -> The Sorting Hat is certainly sincere. Sounds like she is hedging to me: she is saying that it believes what it is saying is true. Please don’t be so slapdash in future. I’ll be trying not to.

I was not being slapddash. What you choose to interpret as Rowling as the author deliberately trying to be obscure, I see plainly as the author's way of replying "yes." I will be sure to congratulate you if ever the Sorting Hat turns out to be inaccurate. --Mercurio 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and do you remember the tale of Rumplestiltskin? The story in which a woman has to give the name of a little man to win, and ends up being rendered infertile? And that it started out as a condemnation of female masturbation? (‘What is his name?! What is his name?! What is a stilt with rumpled skin?”) You probably thought that it was just a nice fairy tale for children. Michaelsanders 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would thank you to please not be condescending and insulting to other Wikipedians. And just to correct your snide remark, I am well aware that fairy tales and nursery rhymes may have adult origins and "hidden" meanings. I just don't see that in the topic at hand. --Mercurio 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Hi. Thank you to the person who commented that I and previous editors "appear incapable of objectivity."

There is a difference between being objective and adopting a neutral POV (as required by Wikipedia), and presenting the POV that certain information is dubious -- even more so when original research is used as justification.

For instance, it is sufficiently being objective to preface information from the Sorting Hat's song with "According to the Sorting Hat". It is not objective to say "According to the Sorting Hat (Gryffindor's hat, and thus probably biased)".

There is insufficient basis to make a statement that the Sorting Hat is "probably" biased. The contention that just "because Gryffindor originally owned the hat, it's biased" is a selective argument; it accepts the hat's admission that it was originally Gryffindor's, but disbelieves/ignores the Hat's very next line -- "the founders put some brains in me", which indicates the participation of all the founders in its creation. In fact, if the Hat were biased for a particular founder, it would be counter to the very purpose that the Sorting Hat was created -- that of representing all 4 founders after their deaths. There is nothing to suggest that the Sorting Hat is impaired in this function.

Thus, the contention is non-neutral, since it pushes the speculative idea that the Sorting Hat should actively be doubted rather than believed; hence, it deserves to be removed.

Similarly, the rest of the article revisions in question are highly speculative and argumentative, constituting original research. This may belong in a personal essay explaining one reader's analysis and opinion, but is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Mercurio 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that it is not 'original research', but an alternate reading Michaelsanders 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

MichaelSanders, perhaps you have not been around Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with "original research". If you take the time to follow the links provided, you must see that "No Original Research" is one of the triumvirate of content policies with which all articles on Wikipedia must comply. If you understand the policy, you will realize that your edits do constitute original research, and hence do not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines.

In a nutshell, the no-original-research means that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas."

Further key points in the policy (these are just excerpts, please acquaint yourself with the full discussion)--

What is original research? Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

What is excluded? An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.

See also What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

So, MichaelSanders, your alternate reading -- which includes skepticism of straightforward readings of some HP concepts, and proposal of possible origins and justifications of Slytherin's ideology (both of which were highlighted in the article as to set its tone) -- is precisely the kind of new analysis that constitutes original research, and as such will have to removed again from the article. If you do not think it is original research, please cite reputable sources for such analysis. --Mercurio 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

... (and one more pleasing to an encyclopedia than the concrete statement that 'Slytherin is evil because I think the author says so'. I am not saying that the sorting hat is not to be trusted, merely that it is flawed to base ones contentions so strongly on a primary source (which every historian knows are inevitably biased). I have not, you might note, stated that "Slytherin was wonderful, and all evidence to the contrary is wrong". I am arguing that more reliable secondary sources avaliable to the likes of Professor Binns (sources written by the likes of Geoffrey of Monmouth: a thoroughly unreliable historian who would at least give some suggestion of the ideas bobbing around at the time) are going to be less biased, and more objective: attempting to give a view of events less hamstrung by preconceptions. Attempting to give more of the facts, and less of the opinions (or at least, the facts as they exist in Rowling's fictional universe). Now, let us consider a more noteworthy author: Shakespeare. Now, if you were to write in an article on Hamlet that Hamlet is entirely good, and Claudius is entirely bad, you would be strongly condemned. With good cause. For all that that is a fictional universe. Now, I would argue, as a historically minded person, that fact trumps opinion. And there is little other than opinion to support the idea that Slytherin was a 'twisted loony'. But the school historian presents the more balanced view that in a time of persecution of magicians by muggles, Slytherin distrusted the children of Muggles. Surely this more neutral view takes supremecy over the words of an inexperienced second year who is strongly biased against Slytherins (and who even admits that he had no prior knowledge of Slytherin's views). As to the Sorting Hat: 'sincere' means 'trustworthy intent'. This means that it is probably not trying to mislead the school. It does mean that it may have been deceived in the first place. And this is not a forum for canvassing the accuracy of the Sorting Hat. Merely accept that 'sincere' is a loaded word. That until the books are over (and maybe even after) we have to accept that there is a need to present a balanced opinion. That you must not be thwarted by your prejudices. That you cannot refuse, in a balanced article, to accept that there is more than one side to the view. That you cannot insist on things, merely because they appear 'obvious' to you. Ask a Shakespeare critic if it is 'obvious' that the Duke of Vienna is intended to flatter James I. And they will tell you that the issue is far more complicated than "yes/no". If you have genuine objections to my edits, make them. I admit that my statement that 'Gryffindor's hat was probably biased" was probably too unbalanced itself. But if your only complaint is that it doesn't fit with your opinion, then you have no right to do anything. Michaelsanders 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a very genuine objection which I have already told you. Wikipedia is not the place for advancing original theories ("an alternate reading" as you called it above). "No original research" is one of the 3 core content policies of Wikipedia. --Mercurio 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In Measure for Measure, on several occasions, fornication outside marriage is condemned as wrong. According to you, we should accept this as true within the fictional world of Vienna. Shame most critics disagree. Michaelsanders 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I take it you haven't seen the 'R.A.B.' page. Or you have, but that doesn't offend your prejudices. Because that page is as speculative as any of my sections on the Founder article. And research is entitled to be in the article if it is based on what is actually quoted in the book. Do you want me to put the 'case for objectivity' directly into the article, since I took even more care to put quotes in there?Michaelsanders 22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You do know that there is simple speculation on the RAB page? And that this is as valid a reading as yours. You can say that "Harry Potter thinks..." and "Professor Binns thinks...". But there is no solid statement, one way or another. Making both ideas equally valid. And since I sincerely doubt that Rowling intended to condemn a quarter of the wizarding world as evil, I think it should be there. But please, present evidence where Rowling has said agreed with your supposedly neutral articles statements. Michaelsanders 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your line of reasoning. You seem to equate the removal/non-inclusion of your "alternate reading" to the article positing that "Rowling intended to condemn a quarter of the wizarding world as evil." How do you make that jump? The article states or implies no such thing without your disputed assertions.

Your last several posts (and personal accusation on my talk page) have indicated that you do not yet understand what "original research" is despite all attempts to explain this to you.

A straightforward reading and retelling of the primary source does not require (as you've asked) "evidence where Rowling has agreed with your... statements". The work itself makes these statements plainly, and they are simply being reported in the article.

As the guidelines clearly say, it is new interpretations such as yours that require a reputable source to publish them before they can be considered not original research and, hence, appropriate content in a Wikipedia article. There is no malice or ill-prejudice on my part as you've accused; I am simply enforcing the no-original-research rule, an underlying pillar of Wikipedia.

I am tagging the article for dispute resolution. I request our peers to chime in with their opinions, and hopefully set one or both of us right. Thanks. --Mercurio 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit of calm, please?

Hello, I just stumbled across the above. Please, can we at least leave out of the actual article lines discussing what constitutes original research? A reader doesn't (or shouldn't have to) know what the devil this means or its relevance to an informative article.

Some points which occure to me:

• The hat must by definition know what sort of student is suitable to go into Slytherin house, because the hat makes the choice. So whether it has a true or false view of Slytherin's character, it is now the final arbiter on what makes a good slytherin, and certainly chose all the Slytherins we know about.
• Horace Slughorn. Is not a dark wizard. Is not a follower of Voldemort. Is potions master, not DADA. Is certainly a believer in blood purity, but not to the extent of being above all other considerations, he respects ability more. Is an example of a Slytherin from a pre-Voldemort generation, and presumably thought to have been a good role model, or would not have become house master.
• It would seem from the books (well, it says so somewhere, but I don't recall exactly where) that Voldemort played up the blood purity thing to gain supporters, to create a cause. If it was really that central to being a Slytherin, it seems hard to understand how Voldemort, and later Snape, could have got away without being revealed as half-bloods. if it was that important, someone would have demanded to see their pedigree.
• The point about founders arguing. The wording quoted here still admits of the meaning that although at least two friendships are discussed, only one of them was broken off. The hat is talking about a class of friendships (plural), none of which could conceivably fail, yet one did. Thus one can legitimately say how could such friendships fail, talking about the class in general, even though only one actually did fail. As one might talk about one bank failing, how could such institutions fail?
• JKR has most certainly been leading us up the garden path about all Slytherins being evil. This is one of those misinterpretations which has been fostered through the books. Draco has just proven to be a good guy really (he refused to kill Dumbledore, remember?) Snape is all set to be hero of book 7 (my view, but a lot of others would agree with this sentiment, if not the precise description). It is entirely legitimate to report that JKR has a habit of misleading people, but in the generality of this particular argument, she has already shown us Horace and Draco as good Slytherins. And actually, Draco's mother and most of the Black family, while dark wizards are most certainly not Voldemort supporters. There seems to a pattern developing of Slytherins, at the final choice, coming over to the 'good' side. I do not know precisely what JKR envisions as the entry requirements for Slytherin, but it is a set of inclinations and those we have seen are not necessarily representative.
• I thought I recalled that the hat was created because Slytherin walked out, so the others had to 'play fair', and create a means of sorting students which still reflected Slytherin's views. Even if the hat is fairly representing its own experiences as a sentient being, it sounds like it never met Slytherin himself.
• If I remember the quote correctly, wiki encourages 'source based' research, indeed demands it. Wiki has a schitsophrenic view about OR: it is used as a tool for arbitrating disputes, but the policy still concedes (has to) that writing as a creative act is impossible without doing research; wiki also only accepts 'original' text, ie not copied from somewhere else. People frequently leave out mentioning these facts as they rather weaken the power of claiming 'OR' to win an argument. Careful research is frequently required when making selective quotes from a source, which is exactly what we are doing here. Now, there is a difficulty, because it is apparent that many peiople have jumped to the obvious conclusions about Slytherin, According to wiki policy, it is proper to report what is commonly believed, even it is almost certainly wrong. The trick is to find a form of words that people can agree on which makes it clear that one faction has taken a particular view, while another has taken a different one. It is wholly impossiblt to write anything without taking a POV on the importance of different facets. So that is what we do, whatever the policy says. Remember, be bold.
• It is not reasonable to merely report 'surface' facts from the books. Sure, a simple article might do that, but we want good ones. So paradox and contradiction should be highlighted. There is no reason not to treat this seriously, even though the source is admitted fiction (unlike much 'history', which claims to be fact whether it is or not). I draw the line at theorising about those facts and contradictions, that is not our business. But as with RAB, if the controversy over the facts exists in its own right in the outside world, then that whole debate and arguments made in it may themselves become worthy of being reported in an article. The RAB article is at least as much about the controversy as it is about the character. Sandpiper 23:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any debate regarding Slytherin's motives, at least not until it was brought up by MichaelSanders. Now, doubtless, MichaelSanders is making a decent point. But the problem I have is that ultimately he is reporting opinion, not fact. We don't know anything about the Founders beyond what Rowling has already revealed to us. It would be premature to second-guess Rowling's agenda before the final book is released. The irony of this is of course MichaelSanders would probably say that he is trying to avoid that very thing. But there is a difference between going by what Rowling has stated, and going by what Rowling hasn't. Michael's addition introduces a position not supported by what is in the text, only by what isn't in it, which is open to interpretation, and therefore any conclusions drawn from it must be considered personal opinion. My original draft of the article claimed that Slytherin is "generally credited" with starting the pureblood ideology. It made no claims of absolute fact. Also, MichaelSanders seems to unconsiously equate "bigoted" with "evil," which, as you point out, is not a line Rowling seems interested in drawing. Slytherin is not evil for believing in blood purity; however, he is evil for leaving a basilisk in the school to kill off Muggle-borns. Serendipodous 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It always takes forever to figure out who is right and who less right in these situations. But I suspect the absense of great debate may be the point. I noted the argument made that there is rather little about Slytherin, personally. Having read the books, but not thought about this specific point really before, my inclination was not that Slytherin had invented the blood purity thing, but that he was a proponent of it at the time Hogwarts was founded. The source material for these kinds of article is primarily the books. Now, there is potentially a difficulty that whereas a careful reading of the source may show that it says a certain thing, a lighter reading may give a different impression. In the nature of things, most readers would have a 'light' reading, and so the consensus view of what the books say might in fact differ from their actual content. JKR rather relies on readers misunderstanding truths which she presents. As I said, I am yet to become an expert on this particular issue, but the arguments presented on this page (while things may have become a little heated) do suggest that this situation may apply here. So the general issue then becomes, would it be original research to report accurately what is written in the books, rather than what is commonly believed to have been written in the books. This is not an issue about deductions from what is written, but about the actual words of the source and their common english meaning. Of course, it can fairly be argued that comprehending words is an exercise in original research. No two people can communicate without carefully analysing the meaning of the coded symbols presented to them by the other party. We do this extraordinarily complex and original analysis continuously. Compared to that, explaining the meaning of a fixed text is a piece of cake, yet people get exercised about the lesser leap of original research rather than the greater one. Sandpiper 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely it makes more sense that Slytherin just needed somehwere safe to keep his pet? Sandpiper

Or the basilisk could have nothing do do with Slytherin at all; it may be a complete coincidence that it happens to be in his chamber. Or maybe the Basilisk IS Slytherin, in an animagus form, or maybe the basilisk never existed, and is merely an illusion created by Dumbledore to test Harry. Or the basilisk could be an aspect of Voldemort's memory manifest. You could find reasons to justify all of those interpretations in the books, if you look hard enough. It's a bit like those Christians who look for Satanic influences and dark magick in Harry Potter. The evidence is there, if you want to find it. But if you want to make any kind of analysis of the books, you have to make some concessions as to what you think Rowling intended, otherwise you could invent any reading of the book you wanted, and all would be equally valid. I mean, I suppose I could write a critique of Animal Farm that made the claim that it was not, in fact, an anti-Communist parable but actually a veiled piece of pro-Soviet propaganda. If I looked hard enough, I could find some way to justify my point. But would my reading be considered valid? Serendipodous 17:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I don't really understand is why MichaelSanders is singling out Slytherin for special treatment. We could just as easily claim, since our knowledge for all the four founders comes from the same sources, that it is possible Ravenclaw in fact preferred dullards, that Gryffindor preferred cowards, and that Hufflepuff was a hypercompetitive Quidditch captain who had no time for losers.

i would say the answer is that Slytherin's character, and hence the character of Slytherins in general has more importance to the books than either Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. Hence more attention to details. Sandpiper

Ah, but how do you know that Slytherin is more important? For all you know, Rowling may be hiding a bombshell in book seven that suddenly reverses all of what we thought we knew and that in fact Ravenclaw and Hufflefuff's ideals were the driving force behind the story. You see, if you go by what's not in the story, you can suggest anything. Serendipodous 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah,Ah, but I base my comments on what is in the books so far. Sandpiper 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah hah, but much of MichaelSanders's argument is based on what is NOT mentioned in the books so far. You see?Serendipodous 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have never heard Rowling say that wizards don't die of old age; in fact I have heard her say the exact opposite many times. She said that wizards have much longer lifespans than Muggles, and that Dumbledore, at about 150, is near the end of the average wizard lifespan.Serendipodous

Don't lets get started on lifespans. She has said that wizards live longer than muggles, but there seems precious little evidence for it from the characters we have met. They seem to die young. Sandpiper

I was hoping that the dust had settled over this whole issue. So let me say where I was coming from. I read the original article, ages back. And thought that it was too careless in its details on Slytherin, since it missed fundamental details given about Slytherin in the second book, instead presenting the issue wholly from the 'superficial reading' angle. And I very lazily didn't bother to do a proper balanced rewrite of the Slytherin section which presented the issue properly, instead carelessly tacking on the alternate. With the resultant cat-fight, for which I feel I am largely responsible. However, since then, as you might have noticed, I actually calmed down, found the time, and rewrote the Slytherin section. And was frankly relieved by the cessation of verbal violence. I am also glad to see that someone else has actually intervened and thought the issue through. But I do take issue with "Ah hah, but much of MichaelSanders's argument is based on what is NOT mentioned in the books so far. You see?" - I have actually taken the care to only state what is in the books on this matter, and not discounted apparent contradictions as troublesome. I have not attempted to explain these contradictions (if anyone thinks they should or can, they are welcome), but have presented them, as they are presented in the books. To do otherwise would be somewhat against the spirit of an encyclopedia. And if anyone wants to focus on any other founders, I would welcome it (though since Rowling seems to have had precious little at all, let alone contradictory, to say on these, it would be hard to do). As for 'original research': in a subject such as Harry Potter, which does not have much in the way of literary criticism, etc., surely it is very difficult to not 'originally research' some things. By that logic, we should avoid discussing the mystery of RABs locket, because to do so requires original research (is that speculation on Mundungus Fletcher and Aberforth Dumbledore still on that page). Or steer clear of mentions of Dumbledore's house, because Hermione's statement is not concrete, and further attempts to prove or disprove the idea are original research. Or avoid anything other than the utter basics, because further statements on the subject are original research (question: if you try to find out what Rowling has said on a subject, is that original research?)? Surely you can distinguish between reporting of what is presented in the books (confusing and unfulfilling as the result will be) and speculating on why? Michaelsanders 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

well, I noticed in the GOF film, as did others because it is here somewhere, that Dumbledore remarked on setting fire to the (his) curtains in the Gryffindor bedroom. good stuff those wizarding curtains, 150 years old and still in use. RAB's locket is a very well debated topic 'out there'. There are thousands of internet posts on the subject, way too many to read. But such debates do generate consensus summaries of what has been discussed, and while I might not myself have chosen exactly what has arrived here, i don't see it as unrepresentative of the debate. I think this much better than simply stating the bald facts about the locket, especially since it looks very much like JKR set it up as a puzzle to be cracked well before the next book. Reporting that Mundungus was scrounging from the Black haouse is simply reporting, and while the stuff about Aberforth clutching his neck is a bit much, it is presumably also in the book and a relevant excerpt. But i dont think you were disagreeing with this. Sandpiper 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: if it is there and relevant it should be cited, not deleted with the irritating excuse of 'original research'. The whole can of worms that is the 'Drawing Room Locket Horcrux' is out there in the public domain, and should (I would say NEEDS) to be cited on its relevant page. And support for these theories in the books (which will have been used to formulate the theories) HAS to be then printed, to give as full a picture as possible. We are cheating only ourselves by doing otherwise. Michaelsanders 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also,regarding an earlier point. Although I would not mention it in the actual article, I got a very strong impression from the history lesson (when rereading the book: the first time around, I went along with Ron's 'twisted loony' view since that came after the history lesson and was a very assertive comment) that Slytherin's lack of trust in Muggle-borns was connected, and probably largely due (or at least he claimed it was due) to the persecution practitioners of magic were suffering at the time (which Binns has referred to in the paragraph prior to his specific references to Slytherin): and if that was the case, one would expect him to be slightly mistrustful of muggle-borns. One could also construct any number of other reasons for the issue (transport must have been a problem). I am not suggesting adding this to the article, since it is only a theory. BUT I find it too implausible that the reference to persecution of wizards by Muggles almost immediately before the reference to Slytherin hating the magical children of Muggles is entirely unrelated. And I personally doubt that it is intended to be unrelated. As I said, this is staying away from the article. But I hope it provides food for thought. Michaelsanders 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased Editing

Quick point: comments that "It is possible that Godric Gryffindor is pure-blood because he was the best friend of Slytherin and Slytherin was so biased that it would have been 'unpure' of him to be best friends with a half-blood or muggle born" are unhelpful: they are not only speculation (which on its own would be an interesting point) but built on an absurd argument, as well as horrifically biased. Whoever did this, please do not. Michaelsanders 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancestor/Descendant

Could whoever wrote that Riddle is referred to as an 'ancestor' of Salazar Slytherin rather than a 'descendant' please specify where that is written? Michaelsanders 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Deleted the whole ancestor / descendant and went back to "heir" - which is clearly stated in canon. Nevertheless the entire section on Slytherin reads badly - like it was cut and pasted from several 7th grade book reports. --T-dot 14:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael you HAVE to edit that section back

If you read it objectively, what you do through most of it is accuse other Harry Potter fans of being easily-led dolts.

Fans, however, have been influenced by the presence of a number of prejudiced people in Slytherin House from the beginning of the books, and by a statement from Hagrid that all dark wizards and witches are former Slytherins (a statement shown in PoA to be a generalisation)

How do you even know this is true? Can you see into the mind of every Harry Potter fan on the planet? Can you interpret their motives? This is purely your own opinion and has nothing to do with anything in the novels. You have your opinions about Slytherin, but they can't be verified one way or the other at present and there's no reason to go labelling anyone who disagrees with you as simple-minded. Serendipodous 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... Right then. The first clear statement on Salazar Slytherin (as opposed to Slytherin House) is given by Binns in CoS, in a speech which, upon rereading, seems to give a blatantly obvious explanation for Slytherin's behaviour towards Muggle-borns. Muggles are running around Britain burning and persecuting any wizards or witches they find. Slytherin doesn't trust the magical children of said Muggles. A link there, do you think? Now, I think, according to Wikipedia policy (correct me if I'm wrong), since that statement regarding SS is the first about him, that is to be taken as 'established canon fact'. And we should simply ignore Ron Weasley's 'Salazar Slytherin= Twisted Loony' remark as 'original research', since it comes later, shut our eyes to it, and never speak of it again.

You'll notice that is not what is done. The subject is controversial, it needs careful, indepth discussion. There should be room to make clear what exactly is going on regarding this controversial figure in the Series. Moreover, as someone (possibly yourself) once pointed out to me, Wikipedia is computer based, not paper based. There are no space-constraints. As for the claim that I accuse other fans of being 'easily led dolts': first of all I had no intention of doing that. Please tell me, what is your opinion of Salazar Slytherin? And what produced this opinion? The issue of Slytherin as he stands in the stories needs to be carefully considered, as does the write-up in this article. What is not needed is the broad stroke of the censor's pencil. Michaelsanders 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with Salazar Slytherin, or whatever may or may not be in the novels. My comment had to do with your needless mention of what "fans" (all of them?) apparently have been led to conclude. This is an article about the books. It should stick to the books. If you feel the need to back up your argument by accusing Harry Potter fandom of collective shallow thinking, you need to rethink it from the ground up. Serendipodous 10:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hate to butt in on a good argument - but the whole "Some fans say ..." argument is a clear example of unencyclopedic Weasel wording, and, as such, is to be generally avoided according to Wikipedia Guidelines. If the statement that follows cannot stand on its own without the "some people think" pre-condition, then it does not belong, except perhaps in an article specifically devoted to HP fan speculation and their "feelings". Just thought I would put that on the table. In addition, the argument: "Muggles are running around Britain burning and persecuting any wizards or witches they find. Slytherin doesn't trust the magical children of said Muggles. A link there, do you think?" sounds very much like original research. it may be "logical" - but if J K Rowling did not specifically state it (herself or intentionally through an authoritative character) - then it is original research, in my view.

Besides - didn't Rowling pretty much dismiss the whole witch hunt period as an exercise in futility by the ignorant Muggles - by mentioning that any "real" witches could not be harmed by the burnings; and some even enjoyed it - pretending to be in agony while putting on a show. The only ones harmed by the witch burnings and persecutions were the Muggles (and perhaps Squibs) who were falsely accused of witchcraft. The "real" Harry Potter style witches and wizards could simply dissapparate or use other spells and charms to avoid injury or even being "caught". Slytherin would not care if some Muggles burned some Muggles, in fact he would have been delighted by such practices. This is not to dismiss the "REAL real world" burnings and killings and persecutions that occured, for example in Salem, which was certainly a low spot in our collective history. --T-dot 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Later book, original research. And in any case, what do you think Nearly-Headless Nick and the Headless Hunt are supposed to be? Whether or not they were supposed to be executed for witchcraft (I vaguely recall that Nick was executed for being in a royal garden at the wrong time), the point remains that they did not apparate away. The history book is being overly optimistic. For that matter, so could Binns: maybe Slytherin was 'a twisted old loony' who simply despised those who weren't purebloods. That is exactly why there needs to be space to represent the full range of the presented ideas in the books. Michaelsanders 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Glen and Glyn

Couldn't a Welsh valley be referred to as a 'glen', given that in Welsh a valley is a 'glyn' (I take as an example 'Owain Glyndwr', 'Owain of the Dark Valley', who is referred to as 'Owen Glendower' in England)? Michaelsanders 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you can find a source for it. What's probably best is to just wikify it to glen. If you want to make the glen=glyn case, I'd do that at glen, but make sure you've got a good source. Karwynn (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)