Talk:Regulus Black/Archive 1

Archive 1

R.A.B. not Regulus Black

• The Argument that R.A.B. is not Regulus Black section needs to be rewritten very badly. It's written in first person essay format, which is not even close to how it should be written. I Tried to change what i could but gave up because it is all bad. I recommend the whole thing should be deleted and completely rewritten by someone else.--Nicarmour 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I find this section pretty bad as well. To begin with, Sirius' obviously biased opinion about Regulus is stated as if it were fact, which I find very problematic. Also, the fact that the locket found in GP12 isn't described as gold is hardly an argument against the Regulus theory. It still is a heavy locket and therefore fits the description of the one from the Pensieve scenes. The Kreacher argument is IMO pretty weak as well. First of all, fifteen years have passed and Kreacher could have been in better conditions at the time R.A.B. stole the locket. And second, even if not, Regulus could have gotten help from someone else. His accomplice doesn't have to be Kreacher. Neville Longbottom 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• What sort of person made this page? They even put a link to people with the last name of "Young". Someone needs to correct this..... --(unsigned)

Anyone can edit the page, even you! Go right ahead and fix anything that's wrong. -- Nunh-huh 03:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

• I contend that Regulus Black is hiding under the false persona "Octavius Pepper". --KoopaTroopa211 04:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Should this page contain a snippet about the temporary revelation of R.A.B. as Regulus Arcturus Black? (The Leaky Cauldron posted a confirmation, which is no longer on the site). --TheKtulu7 31 August 2005

I would say, not, since it would seem that leaky is no longer supporting the story except for a cryptic comment about how interesting the last few days have been. It may be that further facts will emerge. However....if they have discovered they were mistaken, I would have thought they would have printed a retraction rather than the cryptic comment. That suggests conflict. Maybe solicitors letters? Sandpiper 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should, although carefully referencing it as a rumor. Being forced to back off his information because of an uproar does not mean it should be tossed completely from this article. --cpu111, 3:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the 'Arcturus' from Regulus's name at the top of the article (where it says his name in the template). It's not canon so far, it won't be canon until JK says herself that that's his real name (I won't accept it when Leaky Cauldron says who told them, because it's not JK, it's "he said that JK said..."). If anybody has any complaints, feel free to voice them- I could see this turning into an edit war some day. I have no problem with the section about his middle name, by the way.--Oppolo 19:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw that too, and thought it was taking it a bit far to change the info box. Though, for whatever reason, when the original newsflash was removed from the website, they also neglected to revise the changes they had made to his biography name.Sandpiper 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Regulus meaning Basilisk

The article mentions that he "might have ties to Griffyndor," however I see no logical conclusion to this arguement. The fact that regulus has a connection with "little king" and that a lion is the king of the jungle is vague and unrelated at best. If anything he would have more ties to Syltherine due to the fact that a basilisk is a deadly lizard. Can someone explain why someone put that he might have ties to Griffyndor or change the article by removing that reference? Thanks.

Middle Name

A popular fansite claimed to have been informed by a reliable source that Regulus' middle name is Arcturus. [1]

The fansite claim that Regulus' second name is Arcturus has since been withdrawn without explanation. However, one of the editors of that fansite has stated that he stands behind this information. He posted the following on another site (The Leaky Cauldron):

Obviously, Jo is the source of this information. When have you ever known me to post rumors as facts? It's from Jo. That doesn't mean she talked to me directly, of course, but I do know that it came from Jo.

I honestly think that Jo figures she's already told us that it's Regulus. Read the Melissa/Emerson interview. I think she would be surprised that this is even an issue.
I have asked permission to reveal who told me. If they say I can, I'll let you all know. Otherwise, feel free to take this with whatever grain of salt you need to.
Steve
—Comment posted at The Leaky Cauldron.org

It has also been noted from the books that Regulus had a rich uncle whose name was Alphard.

• I removed this section as speculation and unencylopedic. Tedernst 15:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• • And I put it back. It is reporting of facts (i.e. the appearance and disappearance of the claim). It is relevant (since it is about Regulus), and perversely one of the more interesting things about him, which actually has happened outside the books. As to the validity of the claimed name, the source appears to be reasonably reliable and it is hard to see why they would have done this entirely without some substantiation. What I have found even more convincing is the absence of any explanation. I do not see why they would not have admitted and explained being wrong if they discovered they were. Sandpiper 17:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows has confirmed his middle name to be the forementioned Arcturus.

Family Tree

Where exactly did all that info come from? Dont you need sources for that kind of thing? I know some of it was from the book, the lestranges and molfoys and tonks etc, but where did longbottoms and potters come from? Raemie 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's from the family tree that Jo put up for donation. Some of it was published in a newspaper and the other half was written down by fans, who went to the auction to look for the whole tree. Which brings me to my question. Where do you edit the tree to put in missing things like the names of Sirius' and Regulus' parents (Orion and Walburga). Neville Longbottom 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Regulus, Sirius, and Basilisks

Who keeps deleting the mention that a basilisk egg must be incubated under the Dog Star? Noneofyourbusiness 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it from this article and moved it to Sirius Black (under Name etymology) instead. I think it belongs there rather than here because this article is about Regulus Black, not Sirius Black, and the basilisk egg being laid under Sirius is more appropriate there. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's a connection. Noneofyourbusiness 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It IS a connection, but Sirius black is a connection to a lot of things in Harry Potter, and it's not necessary to put that information on every page.--Nnythm 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Atilius Regulus

The name can also be connected to Marcus Atilius Regulus, a famous Roman martyr. This might be a clue from Rowling, saying he died as a martyr. In his story, Regulus claimed to have been given a slow-acting poison in order to help Rome. This was a lie, but it served his purpose. Of course, this does not tell fans if Regulus Black drank a slow-acting poison in the cave, or if this is once again a lie. Hmm, I looked at the wikipedia page for Marcus Atilius Regulus, and there's no slow acting poison. Can we get a citation for this? --Nnythm 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Atilius Regulus supposedly died a martyr, but he did nothing to serve his purpose - rather, he is the archetypal 'moral Roman', caring more for honour than life. So, since the reference in this article appears flawed, and the real person appears to have little to do with Regulus Black (even St Regulus would be a better fit - stealing St Andrew's relics from unworthy Constantine and hiding them in Scotland...), I am removing the reference. Michaelsanders 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if Rowling was thinking of Atilius at all, it was in an ironic sense. He was supposedly a brave man who resolutely kept his word, at the cost of his life. Regulus Black was a coward who broke his word and was killed because of it. Michaelsanders 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR and Speculation

Can anyone justify the overwhelming Original Research in the "Role in the series" section? I highly doubt it, so I intend to delete soon. John Reaves 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific when making statements like that (it was the same with the Founders). So: what are you planning to delete? A word? A sentence? The section? The article? Michaelsanders 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I've once again underestimated the grasp my fellow editors have on WP:OR and rules abot speculation-oh well. The two argument sections need to go and various tidbits from other sections. This isn't the place for stating what may or could happen. The article is for what we know. As for the Founders, if you'd bother looking at edit histories and diffs you'd understand and know what was removed. John Reaves 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your initial lack of specification regarding what you were saying 'don't keep' to on the Founder's page. And your similar initial lack of specification here. You do seem to have developed a habit recently of rushing in without properly explaining yourself. But this is hardly the place. Regarding the 'arguments' sections, they are simply an inevitable feature of such articles. They are summations of what is already being said (and has been said for over a year) in fandom, which wikipedia needs to refer to. Or would you rather completely remove any mention of the RAB is Regulus Black idea altogether, allowing wikipedia to pretend it isn't happening until HPDH confirms or denies it? That seems a little foolish.

Relax. It will be gone when the book comes out. Until then, simply accept that such little pockets of OR will inevitably hang around, and concentrate on those without justification. And cool the anger. Michaelsanders 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're the last person who needs to be lecturing about "proper explanation" with your egregious lack of edit summaries (see your talk page). The idea is to create something lasting. All this fandom stuff will be moot points in a couple years. Therefore, there is no reason to include it now. I wouldn't be opposed to a sentence or two mentioning the possibility of him being RAB. There is absolutely no reason for these "pokets of OR" to hang around. The "don't keep" was in response to a proposed poll by someone as to whether or not the information I deleted should remain deleted. I suppose "don't keep" was just easier than "should remain deleted". John Reaves 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my 'lecturing about "proper explanation"' was inspired on the mild hypocrisy of your comment regarding edit summaries to me. But I digress. In a couple of years, the fandom arguments regarding RAB will be irrelevant. But they will still serve as a snapshot of what people thought prior to the release of HPDH. My advice is to keep it for now. It serves to inform readers more fully than a brief and unhepful line or two can. And when HPDH is released, we can all come together again, and decide if there is any way to meaningfully preserve the text, or if it should simply be removed. But until then, relax. You say on your user page that you're on holiday, so enjoy it. Calm down. This information has been here for who-knows-how-long without the encyclopaedia crashing. It can wait a while longer: certainly, until you are less angry about the matter. I have put off the inevitably bitter arguments about the Founders so that I can try to have some peace in my holiday (excluding unintentional arguments with insolent thugs on the fandom page). I suggest you do the same here. Michaelsanders 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume that not explaining what this mild hypocrisy is a joke to goo along with the whole "you don't explain anything" deal, if not, you should explain. Don't tell me how to live my life or what mood I should be in. You know that those section are flat out original research essays that undermine Wikipedia - you've shown that you're smart enough to know that. John Reaves 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that it is mildly hypocritical to accuse me of not explaining anything...and, at the same time, show at least one blatant example of not explaining anything yourself (here: you were unclear on the Founders Page, but I admit - following your attempt at explanation here - that it is possible there to understand what you were referring to with 'don't keep'). Now, since it is 1:15 am, I have been online too long, and am tired, I am going to bed. You are welcome to continue this discussion, but I'm not coming back until tomorrow. Michaelsanders 01:16, 30 December

2006 (UTC)

You really have made no effort to look for what I deleted have you? You really should use edit summaries though...quite useful. John Reaves 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what are you referring to? Because you haven't deleted anything here. Michaelsanders 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to the founders page. Look up like 6 sentences, you'll get it. John Reaves 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Search for R.A.B.

This whole section of theory and speculation is entirely nonsense and goes against all the rules. Thus I wonder why this keeps staying here. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the two subsections for and against R.A.B=Regulus should go. However, the part about the middle name is encyclopedic, and at least a sentence or two stating that Regulus is the only character in the series known to have the initials R. and B. (besides those two which Hermione mentions at the end of HBP) and JKR saying that Regulus would be "a fine guess." It looks like most of that section was written in one sitting by an anon and just went unnoticed until now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just had another look, it seems I had carelessly jumped into conclusions to disregard the whole section. You're right. The part Regulus Black's middle name and JKR words can be secure, but the rest should be deleted.PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the two arguments anyway PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 11:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that was certainly a bold move. But I wonder if somehow we could salvage the "translations of the Black name" information, which provides some pretty strong "proof" that Regulus (or at least someone with the last name of Black) is R.A.B. Actually, come to think of it, that is covered in the R.A.B. article. Still... --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, keeping those things (which you mistakenly regard as "strong proof") in R.A.B article doesn't create a precedent for this article. The translations stuff is unnecessary information and only serves the purpose of messing up the article. Hence there's no need to move it back PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edits. Unfortunately fan speculation is still mentioned but I don't think it will ever stay out because of its popularity. John Reaves 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely you miss the point. Other people regard the correlated translation information as strong proof. Thus it belongs in an encyclopedia which reports facts existeng in the real world. Sandpiper 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I hold my ground. The information is already covered in R.A.B. and should only be included there, for it's irrelevant to this article. PeaceNT 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I smell an edit war

The paragraph beginning 'The series has been noted as following certain patterns' appears to be causing some problems - actually, looking back at the edit history, it seems it's already reached edit war status...Instead of endlessly restoring/deleting the paragraph, would someone from each side like to make their case and we can all come to some sort of decision on the subject? Edit warring is the most ridiculously unconstructive behaviour, especially when the edit summaries are manipulated to disguise it...(see last couple of edits). Libatius 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean 'edit a bit', then if you look at my edit and past versions of the paragraph, then you will see that I did edit it. What would you suggest I had written? Sandpiper 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable self-published sources and unverifiable sentences. That's why some want to remove it.Folken de Fanel 11:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that this is actually requiring a discussion. The section violates the guidelines on authoritive and notability in a fairly spectacular fashion. I see no reason to consider keeping it. Jefffire 12:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly? I think some specifics are needed, not just armwaving amazement. Sandpiper

The aim behind trying to start a discussion is to find a solution to this incessant reverting - you may see no reason for keeping it, but there are clearly other editors who feel the opposite and whose opinions are just as valid as yours. Neither side is going to accept the reverting of what they believe to be a valid edit, so I figured opening the issue up for discussion was the next logical approach.Libatius 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless they can justify why a section which so blatently goes against two of Wikipedia's principals then their opinions are not equally valid to my own. Jefffire 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, what principles, and exactly how? An important principle is that we quote authorities on the topic being written about. The author in question is one of the best available sources, and as such we should use him. Aside from that, there is an overriding interest in including external opinions about fiction instead of just quoting from the books. It is important that we do exactly that. Now, if you have a better source, please suggest it. Sandpiper 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, as usual, I suggest you to check WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, more particularly WP:V#SELF.

Indeed, the paragraph completely violates these 2 principles, since the majority of it isn't even presented in a verifiable form, and since it uses a self-published source, which really can't stay on WP.Folken de Fanel 10:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with your interpretation of the rules. The rules state that we express other peoples views, fine, and that the rigour required of a source depends on the nature of the subject. All this passage is saying is that some fans believe this theory. The simple existence of a book- any book by anyone- is enough to demonstrate that the theory exists and is in circulation. We do not need to show it is correct. All the ref is required to do is demonstrate its existence. Frankly, a simple reference to a debate forum in the subject is also enough to demonstrate that. As it happens, the people responsible for the book are also experts on this subject, so in fact it is a rather good source. Suggest an alternative source which disagrees with them if you are challenging the validity of the theory. Sandpiper 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules are the rules, as I've explained, you cannot simply "override" them and act as you want. It's a community, here. If you don't want to be a part of this community, fair enough, but then don't try to disturb WP. If you don't agree to the rules, simply go away.

The majority of the paragraph isn't even presented in a verifiable form, and since it uses a self-published source, it really can't stay on WP. WP is not made for fans to post their theories. WP has to have encyclopedical content, and self-published speculation isn't encyclopedical content.

The people responsible for the books are not experts in any way, and will never be.

Again, you're twisting everything, you're manipulating the words in the hope to make it sound like a personal content debate, but it's not. I don't care about theories, those I would believe and those I would not.

I'd like you to stop acting like a fool, and stop pretending you don't understand what's going on.

WP has rules, about inclusion and about the validity of sources. That's all that matters to me.

Your theories do not correspond to WP criteria for inclusion, that's all. You can find these criteria in WP:OR and WP:VERIFY (you see, I didn't invent anything). Have you seen me add any theory on HP articles ? No. So stop pretending I'm chanllenging the validity of the theory. Because no theory whatsoever has validity. Only the sources can have validity (or not). The sources you're using have no validity whatsoever. Period.Folken de Fanel 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have a theory that wiki does not report theories. This is untrue. Most of what wiki reports is someone's theory. While on the subject of OR, I would remind you research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. I don't see that WP:OR does anything except say this ought to be included. Verifiability significantly comments that a source should be appropriate to what it is being used for, which is the case here. It does not impose a blanket ban on self-publication. Much of the information about Hp has been very heavily fact checked by the somewhat unconventional method of publication upon the internet and inviting comment. This is a very good method of checking in a situation such as this. I don't understand your rather POV comment that the authors in question 'are not experts in any way, and will never be.' Firstly this is plainly untrue, as they have managed to create a book which was worth publishing, and secondly, even if you consider they are not experts now, how can you claim 'they could never be'. What disqualifies them? It seems to me that spending years researching this exactly qualifies them already. Sandpiper 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If WP:V#SELF exists, that's not for nothing. So no self-published source.

No theory about HP has been fact-checked, unless someone has already read book 7.

It's a very bad method of checking since nothing is checked.

My statement is plainly true. Not a single "expert" contributed to WKD. "Woth publishing" is only your opinion, it's a self-published book that has never been fact checked.

Fans are not experts and they'll never be. They have never spent years researching anything.Folken de Fanel 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have still not explained what you think an expert is. I understand it to mean someone who has a lot of expertise with the subject, as here. What is your definition? As I have also repeatedly said, what is being reported here is what is believed about the plot, not what is known about the plot. The two are entirely different. It doesn't matter whether the theories are right or wrong, only that people widely believe them, or merely widely argue about them. The fact that it is published at all illustrates that it is significant. Similarly, if something is widely debated on various fansites, it demonstrates that a theory is significant in relation to the topic, and should be included. As to fact checking, go read a few of the sites and watch people aguing and producing counter arguments to things, where they don't agree. (though currently there isn't too much to argue about, being some time since the last book. This subject is settled) Sandpiper 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Try to read WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and you'll know what is an expert.

But anyone can believe what they want about the plot, there's absolutely nothing notable.

Self-published = bad, and you can do nothing about it.

It doesn't matter if people believe theories or not.

Fansites aren't reliable sources. Debates on fansites are unencyclopedic.

Fact-checking is fact-checking, and nothing else. Folken de Fanel 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It;s funny, isn't it. I did read the policies, but when I read them they seem to say enirely different things to how you choose to interpret them. Sandpiper 09:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you must be delusional, because the rules are very clear and they state the exact opposite of what you say. Folken de Fanel 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest one of you file a Request for Comment for outside opinions if you cannot reach a consensus on the rules. Jefffire 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Here is the info link - WP:RFC --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot say that I entirely understand what this debate is about - it seems there has been some prior history with this article, and perhaps I was foolish to get involved. It seems perfectly valid to report *on the existence of a theory* regarding Regulus Black in an article about Regulus Black. Of course this should be qualified: there are many theories; according to NPOV, if one is presented while others are not, then this needs to be justifiable. In the current case, I think it is clear that the theory Regulus=RAB is one of the main reasons for interest in this character; also the fact that it has been posed to Rowling in an interview and not been denied is sufficient to make it a theory which has sufficient support to be reported.

However, it should also be completely clear that no theory should be reported as a fact. The fact we are reporting is that there *is* a theory, if that makes any sense. LR 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This section doesn't actually make the 'debate' clear - it's not about whether or not Regulus is R.A.B...this whole argument is just over one paragraph that was repeatedly being removed and then reverted, beginning along the lines of 'the series has been noted as following certain patterns...' - I think Folken de Fanel was the last person to remove it, so if you're interested, have a look at the edit before his and see what you think. Libatius 08:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. There appear to be two paragraphs which were recently removed. From what I see, I am assuming that things are about the one starting "the series has been noted as following ...". In that case, there is no question that this paragraph has no place here; as far as I can see it is a violation of NPOV. First of all, some statements are being presented as facts, or established opinion, but that is a matter of wording and could be rectified. The bigger problem is that the paragraph seems to cover one particular theory. If a case can be made, and concensus can be reached, that this theory is, compare to others, (verifiably) so significant it should be included here, then this would be acceptable. However, we cannot include all theories ever made regarding to every character in the Harry Potter series. Some of them (such as Regulus = RAB) have had a major impact for various reasons, and therefore should be reported. Including one half-baked theory but not others, which seems to be the case at the moment, does indeed violate NPOV. So I certainly agree that this paragraph, or something to the same effect, should not be placed on the page without a concensus being reached.

I wonder whether you would be willing to have a look at my previous edit (which was removed) and give a third opinion on whether it improved the previous article. I have outline my reasons below, but it was reverted without serious discussion. At the moment, the article is poorly written, and I thought I had rather improved it overall. (I'm not claiming it was perfect, but imho a better basis for improvement than the current mess.) LR 10:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty with your position, is that claiming the particular theory is 'half baked' is itself a point of view. I agree there should be a proper debate over which theories are sufficiently noteable to include and which are not. However, this has not happened. It seems to me that it is up to those people claiming a particular theory is 'half baked' to demonstrate that this is the case. A theory was included, and sourced. The right way to present information fairly is not to simply delete it, but to research other alternative views which may disagree and add them for balance. If the whole lot becomes excessively long or is veering away from the point, then it might be deleted for that reason, but that is not the case here. Sandpiper 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An "half-baked" theory probably means that it comes from an unreliable self-published book without any support from official words by JKR, contrary to the "RAB= Regulus". And such half-baked theories certainly can't remain on WP as they violate every rules of WP (and we can't either turn this articles into a mere list of half-baked unreliable theories from fans just so that you can add yours). It's not a matter of length, it's a matter of respecting the policies.

By the way, Sand, you're always saying that "only others have to justify themselves, not me", but can't you try once to justify your edits ? You've blindly deleted LR's version and I still can't see any explanation for it.Folken de Fanel 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the theory was half-baked, I think. What I said was that we should not include one half-baked theory but not another. I do, however, disagree with the statement that it needs to be shown that something is not sufficiently notable in order to be included. Rather, the opposite is the case; before a theory like this is included on an encyclopedic article, it needs to be argued carefully that it is of sufficient and lasting relevance to be included. I have tried to stimulate such a debate below. I have not yet seen much evidence that would convince me that this particular theory is sufficiently important; however, I am keeping an open mind. And let's try and not have this be a personal debate between the two of you either, as otherwise we'll never get anywhere. LR 09:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

R. A. B. / slight article rewrite suggested

Hello, I came upon this article recently, and feel it could use improvement.

First of all, I think that there should be no question that the Regulus / R. A. B. issue should be mentioned in this article, seeing as though it is one of the main reasons that people are interested in the character. However, the main encyclopedic documentation should be *that* this is the case, not *whether* the theories are correct or not. Also, the main article is actually R. A. B., so I feel that the corresponding section should be short.

Overall, I would suggest a slight re-write of the article, as follows.

• The opening paragraph should contain some reference to why this minor character is of interest (and hence received his own page). Something along the lines of "He is a minor characters in the first six books of the series. However, he has received much attention in the fan community due to speculations that he is to play an important role in the final installment (see below)." (Or something more refined to this effect.) Also, I think the second paragraph should be cut almost completely. There is more information here than is really relevant to the top matter of the article. The main thing is probably that he is the brother of Sirius Black; anything else can be covered in the "Role in the series" section.

• The "role in the series" section could probably streamlined a bit. In particular, having a single subsection for "Death" seems a little bit strange.

• The "meaning of the name" section is a little bit rambling, and could probably use some cleaning-up and references. Also, I feel that it is the least important section, and could well be moved to the end of the article.

• The "R. A. B." section should refer to R. A. B. as the main article. It could then be reduced rather a lot. Mainly, there should be a note of the fact that it is a popular theory that Regulus is R. A. B., and that his middle name has been reported to be "Arcturus". Any more detailed information should really be on the R. A. B. page (which may be merged into this page if it *does* turn out that Regulus = R. A. B.).

• The "family tree" section seems to be completely superfluous. I suggest removing it.

If I get around to it, I may start to make some of these pages, though I'm neither a frequent Wikipedia editor nor an "expert" on Harry Potter, so may need some help with suitable references etc. Please post any comments / opinions on these suggested changes, as I don't want to waste my time making edits which people are then going to reverse. LR 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the introductory paragraph and the section on "role in the series" as suggested. The writing can probably be improved in style, but I feel that all the relevant information is there, and it is clearer to read now. Comments and improvements are welcome; we should make sure to cite at least the Rowling quotes as well for good practice, and perhaps also give a chapter / page reference to the order of the phoenix quote if possible.

If I get bored again tonight, I might tend to the other sections as well, as suggested. LR 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what I was afraid of has just happened. Someone has reverted to the original, rambling, article, without any discussion on the talk page.

I contend that my edit of the article retained all the relevant information, but in a much cleaner and more organized manner. If there is a complaint about something that was removed, please discuss this on the talk page.

However, I most certainly will not waste more time on this. If someone else here agrees with me, feel free to revert to my previous version. LR 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Ok, since I am having a sleepless night, I will go back on my previous promise and spend some more time on here, hoping it is not completely wasted.

The previous article, to which the page has now essentially been reverted, was, in my opinion, poorly written, badly organized and hard to follow. This is the reason I decided to edit this page - I was wondering what Wikipedia had to say on Regulus Black, and found the article very difficult to parse. I will list my complaints about the various sections below in some detail, and note that I addressed all of these in various edits on May 28, 2007, before they were all removed by Sandpiper without any comment, which I consider to be bad style.

Unless there are some strong arguments why Wikipedia should keep articles which are badly written, or noticable improvements are made by someone else, I will probably revert to my previous edits at some point during the next week when I have time on my hands. Please post any comments, suggestions, etc. on this talk page, and I will take them into account. LR 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

There should be a reference to the fact that Regulus has become the subject of much interest due to widespread speculation in the fan community that he will have an important role to play in this opening paragraph. This is the main reason why people are interested in Regulus Black, compared to many other minor characters, so it's important enough to be here. (It is also a fact, whether or not these theories are true.)

On the other hand, there is a lot in here that is not of sufficient interest to be in such a prominent place. The most important fact, namely that he is Sirius Black's brother, is almost buried in the second paragraph. The other information belongs properly in the section on "role in the series". (It is not clear to me that the bit about Sirius being burnt off the tapestry belongs in an encyclopedic entry on Regulus at all; certainly not in the top matter.) LR 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Role in the stories

My main problem with this is section is that it is extremely difficult to read and just not well-organized. At many points, it is not clear where the information comes from etc. A number of things is repeated for no apparent reason (e.g. that Sirius thinks Regulus was not killed by Voldemort himself).

This section should contain the information which is currently known about Regulus from canon, which is exactly what I tried to do in my edit. I think all the relevant information was there, and much better organized than in the current version.

The fact that Regulus's father and uncle apparently died in the same year as him does not, as it currently stands, seem to have much relevance to the topic of the article. If there is some way to make this relevant, it can be included, otherwise it should be removed. LR 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the name

"Many character names" being related to astronomy seems like original research to me. My impression is that it is mainly the names in the Black family having that distinction. Names often coming from Latin can hardly be disputed, but it seems to be a bit of a truism to me, so it's not clear that it's worth mentioning here.

The order of explanations of the name seems to be mixed up. Regulus is, first and foremost, a star. Other meanings of the name can be mentioned shortly, but unless we can make them relevant without conjecture or original research, we should keep those short, and mainly have a reference to Regulus (disambiguation). The comment about "the great diamond of spring" seems cryptic, it is not clear why it should be relevant, and I am not even sure it is factually accurate. (See http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/diamond.html .) Sirius is definitely a star of the winter sky, not of spring.

Also, this section should be moved to the end of the article imho, as it is less relevant than the following section. LR 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B.

There is an article already on R.A.B., which contains reasons for the widespread belief that Regulus Black is R.A.B. It is not encyclopedic to repeat parts of that argument here in great detail, while others are left out (e.g. the evidence provided by translations). The main relevance for an article on Regulus Black is that there *is* such belief. Also the purported middle name as Arcturus should be mentioned. Other than this, I feel that this section should mainly refer to the "main article" on R.A.B., which is exactly what this macro is meant for. One can argue about how much detail there should be in this section; I tend to think that a small amount is sufficient, as in my proposed edit. To me, the important bit is that the information is accurate, and that it is not just a copy of the detailed description on the R.A.B. page, which would not be suitable for an encyclopedia. LR 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Family tree

This section is completely superfluous. There is no new information in here compared to the previous parts of the article, so it should just be removed. LR 01:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

Ok.

• My initial reaction, as commented, was that a modest article had been reduced to a stub. Now, it might be that some of that content was superfluos repetition, but the impression of your edit is that a significant amount of content has been deleted. I have to say, that I don't consider the original was 'badly written'.

Well, I've replied to this below. I would not have edited the article if I found it clear for someone from the outside. Also, I do not think that a lot of information was removed; rather, I tried to present the information concisely and clearly. I think we should start with a clear and concise article, and then try to decide for any additional bit of information whether it is really significant enough to be included, and, if yes, where to include it. LR 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article should not start by mentioning RAB=Regulus Black. This should come after all the 'factual' information about him. Whether he really is RAB or not, that information is some degree of a spoiler for the last book. Ok, it is widely known, but the factual info ought to come first.

My edit did not start that way; what I mean is it should start by mentioning that interest stems mainly from the belief that he will play a more important role in the series. LR 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Taking things out of order, It is normal to give some information about a sub-page, even when there exists a big page discussing something in greater depth. If the sub-page had been created specifically for the reason of reducing the length of the main article, then a see RAB would suffice, but it wasn't. There is no reason why this page should not give the main points of the argument so that people do not have to flip pages and read the whole other article. As you say, it is quite relevant, and indeed the main reason for interest in Regulus. I'm not sure, but it may be that people will decide to move the whole of the RAB page content here if it turns out to be true.

I don't think it matters for what reason the RAB page was created; I think it is without question that it is the main page relevant here. There is no problem with repeating some information in a condensed form, but there seems to be little to gain by just repeating everything. The previous version was very poor here; for example, the issue of foreign translations wasn't mentioned. Again, I think it is better to start with a version which is complete and concise, and then discuss whether it is worth expanding it, and how to do it in an adequate way. LR 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• meaning of the name. Regulus may now be the name of a star, but that is only because the word already existed and someone gave the name to the star. It did not originate as a star's name, but as a word with meanings which seemed suitable for a star. I doubt it was chosen by Rowling simply because it is a meaningless name of some star, but because of the explanation and meaning attached to that particular word. So it is not the case that the most important thing about the word is that it happens to be the name of a star. I don't disagree that the section should have been edited to make it clear that it is the Blacks who like star-names. What I disagree with is shortening the section and removing more info about the word. Why do this?

Because we do not know what is meant by the name, and if we discuss "meaning of Regulus", then the main thing is the name of the star, and that is also the most obvious connection with other names in the series. If you want to put other meanings first and say that they are more relevant, then that needs to be verifiable, which I believe it is not at the moment. If there are some theories about the meaning that you want to mention, then it needs to be clear that these are theories, and we need to reach some agreement on their relevance before we can post them in the article, if that makes any sense. At the moment, the section is called "Meaning of the name", and I believe that is exactly what my edit provided. We can always expand it if we agree. LR 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• role in the stories. Doesn't repeat itself, as you suggest. The next section death, does to some extent. However, the issue of whether Regulus may have faked his own death is not a trivial theory. Rather it a mainstream one amongst fans and deserves a mention, particularly since it has made its way into print. Michaelsanders introduced John Granger's book as a ref, I would also suggest Mugglenet's what will happen in Harry Potter 7, which says, Unfortunately for Harry, Regulus Black is almost certainly dead. But if by some slim chance he is alive, we expect that Harry will look to him for help in locating the last of the horcruxes. On the off chance that Regulus has been faking his death all these years.... As the section excised explains, faked death has already appeared in the books, and the ruckus about the differences between the UK and US versions when Dumbledore is talking Draco out of killing him implies that faking someones death is within his abilities. Anyway, the whole issue is a real talking point. If you feel that these are not the main issues of debate about Regulus, then perhaps you can explain what other important points have been made?

This is not mainstream, it's trivial and from an unreliable self-published book. It's personal speculation from an unreliable source, which has nothing in common with enumerating what the various "official" sources said about Regulus. Rowling and translators commentings things about Regulus is notable, random speculation from fans is not. Mugglenet's book will never be accepted as a source.

Sandpiper, don't forget that you're forbidden to do original research, and claiming that because there is one example of faked death in the previous books, we can talk about possible faked death about Regulus, is OR. Folken de Fanel 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a theory, it definitely shouldn't be in "role in the series", which is outlining the information we *know* about Regulus. It would rather fit into the RAB section, or perhaps a section of its own. I personally am not convinced yet that this theory is significant enough among all the other HP theories to be included on Wikipedia, but I am open to persuasion. I think this is going to be a longer discussion; until it is concluded, we should not include it imo. I will note that this theory was not included in the article I edited. LR 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that his father died in the same year seems relevant to me, though I agree that this might be the correct place to mention the Black family tree (which I think had a section for historical reasons). Last I looked, The BFT also said his uncle died that same year, and then there is the issue of his father beeing terrified.(PS, the info in the Black family tree article does not agree with that posted on hplexicon, at least last time I checked.)

Can't see the relevance if nothing substancial can be related to it.Folken de Fanel 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree with Folken here. IMO, a good attitude for this kind of question is to decide whether or not you will still think the information is relevant if this does not come up in DH at all. If not, then it is likely that you feel it is relevant because of some theory. In that case, this needs to be clarified in the article, *and* we need to decide whether the theory should be included at all. Does this make sense? Interested in hearing your responses; thanks. LR 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)