Talk:Horcrux

Gaunt's Ring
I don't think it can be determined what the murder was that created the ring horcrux. Tom Riddle murdered his parents the summer before his sixth year, but he did not talk to Slugworth about Horcruxes until after the murder. So either Riddle already knew about horcruxes before his talk with Slughorn, or another murder was used to create the ring horcrux. --Wydok 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He already knew how to create a horcrux. He was trying to find out what happens if u create 7 horcruxes.

Archive
I changed a few things, so that the article would better reflect canon: Lachatdelarue 14:32, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Hufflepuff's cup is only a possible horcrux, seeing as how it hasn't been found and verified as a horcrux. I'm sure Dumbledore is right about this one, but it's still not proven.
 * 2) changed 'Regulus Black' to 'R.A.B.' (who could possibly be Regulus Black' - it hasn't been proven/stated yet that Regulus is R.A.B. (unless I've missed something, if so, please correct me)
 * 3) removed the 'Horcruxes outside the HP universe' - it's totally unneccessary and inapplicable.
 * 4) changed 'Lily and James Potter' to just 'Lily Potter' since a horcrux comes from a single murder, not two.


 * All's well except for the part about Horcruxes outside HPU. I put that in just as an interesting tidbit. After all, all the unnecessary stuff that can't go in Wikipedia can go here. It's our policy.    20:08, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to discuss some details concerning your article about Horcruxes:

Ciao, ciao--85.36.49.40 15:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Murders : Cedric Diggory was killed by Wormtail and not V., so this murder can't be used by V. to creat a horcrux.
 * 2) Locations : I think of the Room of Requirements as quite a suitable place at Hogwarts to hide a Horcrux for V. could have wished all evil protections he can think of to secure his hiding place.
 * 3) Horcruxes: It isn't very logical that Harry became Lord Voldemort's sixth and final Horcrux when Voldemort killed Lily Potter because V. tried to kill Harry afterwards. Why should V. create a Horcrux with the murder of Lily and then try to destroy it a second later by killing Harry? Doesn't make sense, I think.


 * It is not logical that Lily Potter alone was used to make a horcrux, but what if the curse was meant to kill the entire family at once? Also if Harry is a horcrux, does V. realize it? Perhaps he doesn't and created six others, for seven horcruxes total and an eight part soul. --71.139.185.229 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Voldemort insisting for using Harry's blood to get back to a body means that he uses his Harry-Horcrux so that he can then kill him freely? And about Dumbledore's gleam of triumph meaning that now Voldemort can be destroyed without risking Harry's life? Snapeisgreat 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable conclusion. I wouldn't be surprised if it were correct. The  Chosen  One  (Choose me!) 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read over one of the accounts of the Potter murders (I forget which book it is in offhand), Voldemort was not interested at all in killing Lily. One theory suggests that Voldemort was going to kill Harry and then use Harry's corpse as the horcrux. --Wydok 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He was planning on using Harry in his Horcrux method, but I didn't think he was going to use something degradable as a Horcurx. What I think Dumbledore was saying about your Hourcrux theory was that he would use Harry's murder as the catalyst of the Horcrux spell. Sith Penguin Lord 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just reread Goblet of Fire: Chapter 2 page 20 states "Voldemort then turned his wand on Harry; he had performed performed the curse that had disposed of many full grown witches and wizards........insted of killing the small boy the curse had rebounded" this says Voldemort was performing killing curse..not horcrux and never got the chnace to make a horcrux of harry's death

Seven horcruxes
You had the one in Voldemort's body, and his five others in an object. He planned to make one after Harry's death to get seven, but got stuck with Nagini instead. Didn't the reflected Avada Kadavra cures kill one part of his soul, so wouldn't that meen Voldemort would have to create two horcruxes after his fall to have seven, and it most likely didn't happen untilthe Goblet of Fire, as that little doll of a thing didn't look anywhere near to rip a piece of his soul away? Just noticed a little ambiguity in J.K. Rowling. Sith Penguin Lord 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the reflected Avada Kedevra turned him into a bodyless soul, but didn't destroy this part of the soul. Barraki 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * voldemort did not know, that harry was a horcrux - at least i understood the book like this. nagini was the senventh horcrux voldemort made deliberately. Therefore voldemort made accidantly 8 horcruxes instead of 7, and one of the horcruxes is missing/unknown - the one he used after the attack at harry's mother to regain live ??? -- 192.160.142.3 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The mirror under 'murders'
I think that someone should remove the referance to the mirror of Erised in the 'murders' section. If Voldemort sacrificing Qurril was such an importent thing as Creating a Horcrux,J.K. Rowling would have had them put it in the Movie version of the Philosopher's stone instead of Voldemort leaving Quarril to die. I have read the book twice and I am confused.. I hope someone can help me. there are 7 horcruxes, the diary, the ring, the cup, nagini, diadem, the locket and harry but dumbledore says that the 7th horcrux is lord valdemort himself that the person has to have the pat of the soul that makes it 8 then??? please email me idp_green@yahoo.com

Possible Horcruxes removed
Removing the "Possible Horcrux" section, seeing as they are all confirmed.

Different ends
Um, each Horcrux was destroyed by a different person, all of them being important characters of the story. That's right, is it relevant to point out that somehow J. Rowling gave herself a guideline to avoid giving anyone the possibility to destroy two of them?--Kirochi

Moaning Myrtle
Added from my talk page -

''The character's name is "Moaning Myrtle" in the story, not "a student named Myrtle." Therefore, for the list of Horcruxes, we go by the actual names of the characters as they are addressed in the story. It also looks more unified in the list of the Horcruxes for only the names to be used rather than the unnecessary "student" information. It would seem very cliche to state on each murder: "a witch named Hepzibah Smith," "a muggle named Tom Riddle Sr.," "a Ministry witch named Bertha Jorkins," etc. It doesn't fit and seems repetitive. Names alone are all that are necessary in a short list. If we want to know what they were, we can go to their articles and see. For the purposes of the list of Horcruxes however, only the names are necessary. In addition, Rowling herself has said that "Moaning Myrtle" was the one whose murder was used on the Diary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SithLord990205 (talk • contribs).''


 * The ghost's name is Moaning Myrtle. Saying something was created out of "the murder of Moaning Myrtle" is saying it was created by destroying the ghost. If we knew her last name, it would be Myrtle Smith on the list of murders. Just as, if you were talking about something that Nearly-Headless Nick did during his living years, you would say "Sir Nicolas de Mimsey-Porpington", as this was his moniker during his living years. This is merely a matter of grammar and the usage of proper nouns. I would also question your statement that JKR stated verbatim that the murder of a ghost was the murder that created the Horcrux as in THE BOOK, Moaning Myrtle herself states that as a student she was killed by the Basilisk. Mafalda Hopkirk 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We can go back and forth on these edits and rollbacks for as long as you like but just so you know, I'm not going to just shrug off the incorrect usage of proper nouns. Mafalda Hopkirk 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask for Admin intervention on this as the user continually edits the page to reflect false information. Mafalda Hopkirk 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already made a decision on your talk page -- I'll copy it here. "I've looked over it. I've changed it to just "Myrtle" since her last name is not known. But I agree putting it as "Moaning Myrtle" is incorrect since that is what she has been known as once she became a ghost." -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

http://images.wikia.com/common/skins-200803.2/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp

Article image
Would it be possible to remove the image of Nagini? Being ophdiophobic, that pic freaks me out, and I don't want to have to look at it every time I check to see if there is any information I can add to the article. And by "remove," I don't mean removing the whole template; just replacing that image with an image of another Horcrux. - Cubs Fan2007 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Horcruxs and Harry
I belive that it is essential, especially in a Harry Potter Wiki to provide all the information that is learned either directly through the books or indirectly through JK Rowling herself. This isn't a big edit at all, but I suggest that we at least footnote that Harry isn't a Horcrux, but was just called one to save JKR the time of explaining what happened to him. All the information about it can be found here. For all practical purposes it works to call him a Horcrux, but as soon as the Harry Potter Encyclopedia comes out, then calling Harry a horcrux would be incorrect. --Kbloor 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Harry a Horcrux?
I think J.K. Rowling explicitly said in an interview that Harry is not a true horcrux, and he really doesn't fit the criteria for one as defined in the article. For example, he doesn't possess people who are near him, and Voldemort did not perform the ritual to create a horcrux when he killed Harry's parents and attempted to kill Harry. Even if we do choose to keep him in the article, I think it's definitely worth pointing these things out because he is really not a horcrux in the conventional sense of the word.

Also, if I were reading about horcruxes for the first time from this article, I wouldn't have a very good idea of their purpose and mechanism of action. The avoidance of death, which is so central to the idea of a horcrux, is only mentioned briefly in the article, and it's never explained in what way the horcrux does this, and the limitations of it.

Destruction of Gaunt's Ring
In the table it says that Gaunt's Ring has been destroyed in Gaunt's house. However, Phineas Nigellus said that the last time he saw Gryffindor's Sword in the headmaster's room, it was used by Dumbledore to destroy "a ring". I took the liberty of changing it already.GeneralDuke 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good observation. Thanks! 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sauron/Tolkien edit
Just leaving the reasons for the edit. Sauron did not put ALL of his power into the One Ring (see Shadow of the Past (FOTR), and some of the Letters), and there is strong evidence that he had a physical form during the events of LOTR, despite not possessing the One Ring (several sources, best place to see is http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Creatures.html#SauronForm).

Stevehim 05:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Horcrux Curse
Is this a curse? what type of spell is it... The Unbeholden 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about the objects. Anything that is known about how to create them would be in the Creation section. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First Appearance
Isn't the first time a Horcrux appeared in the books in the second book, when Riddle's diary was found? GeneralDuke 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was. The diary was simply never named as a Horcrux until Half-Blood Prince. Oread 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image in Infobox
Is the image in the infobox legitimate, or fan-made? It doesn't look official to me, and if it isn't, it should be removed. Oread 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image for the infobox, it's a promotional image from the calander.  Jayce Carver  Talkundefined 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Locket
Pardon me for bringing this up guys, but the locket we see is merely the locket from the cave left behind by Regulus Black. That is not the actual locket of Salazar Slytherin, hence why there is no "S" on it. It was even noted in the book that Regulus' locket did not have the "S" on it either. So that is not Salazar Slytherin's locket, but merely the fake left behind by Regulus and Kreacher. Am I correct in saying that? Hero of Time 87 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds true to me. Jacce 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the film version does not have an S on it either. The image in the article is still the fake locket, the real one as you can see from the main image has something writen round the outside of the crystal.  Jayce Carver  Talkundefined 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what he said though. The Locket from the Cave is the one shown with numbers on it, a Black family heirloom. The real locket is not shown in film yet until Deathly Hallows. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Murders
Lilly Potter's murder didnt cause harry to be a horcrux. It was when voldemort tried to kill harry, that destroyed voldemort and caused his soul to go into harry, leaving a scar.--SEATTLE♥WIZARD 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that before one can place a portion of their soul into a Horcrux, they first must make their soul unstable enough that a piece can be removed. It is the act of murder that creates that instability and tears the soul. Whether or not Lily's murder was the exact one that tore off the specific piece that resided in Harry is debatable. Voldemort killed many more people than the 6 or 7 needed to create his Horcruxes, and Dumbledore stated that it was likely that the reason a piece broke off when the curse rebounded was that by that point his soul had become extremely unstable. Voldemort was a mass-murderer; his soul was already broken before he tried to kill Harry.


 * Nick O&#39;Demus 11:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * His soul was unstable from creating Horcruxes, not murder. Furthermore, the ACT of killing is what damages the soul, not the actual commission and therefore, the intentional commission of murder on an innocent child would undoubtedly be as effective as any other murder even if it wasn't successful.  The combination of a weakened soul and the surprise collision with a killing curse, there might not have been any need for an act of killing at all.  Whether Harry's name should be put up in place of Lily's is debatable, but unless there is something from JKR saying it was one over another, I'm not sure we should be promoting Lily's as the most likely. --75.155.4.128 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom Riddle - "How do you split your soul?"
 * Slughorn - "Well, you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature."
 * Tom Riddle - "But how do you do it?"
 * Slughorn - "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage."
 * HBP ch.23
 * Key words there "committing murder" and "killing", no mention of "attempting" or "intending". - 68.94.231.248 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I went back to the source material, from The Prince's Tale in DH:
 * "Tell him that on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, ... the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself on to the only living soul left in that collapsing building."
 * There seems to be a few consequences of this. The word blasted implies that the break in the soul happened not from any murder at all but rather from the Killing Curse hitting Voldemort.  Furthermore, Horcruxes do not require being attached to living objects so the fact that the soul sought out the body of a living individual, it is actually not a Horcrux (though we knew that as JKR told us this already).  Why wouldn't Slughorn have indicated a soul could be split by the act of failing to die when a killing curse hit you?  Probably because no one had such a "maimed" soul as Voldemort so they wouldn't know.  However, there are regular references to the extreme mutilation of Voldemort's soul and I believe (though I'd have to search for a while to find it) that there was even a mention of his soul being unstable.
 * On a very different note, in the Harry Potter world, act is not the same as success. Consider, for example, Harry's act of sacrifice (from DH, The Flaw in the Plan):
 * 'You won't be able to kill any of them, ever again. Don't you get it?  I was ready to die to stop you hurting those people - '
 * 'But you did not!'
 * '- I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did.  They're protected from you.  Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding?  You can't torture them.  You can't touch them. ...'
 * Harry and Voldemort
 * BTW, despite what other pages say on this site, there is evidence to support Harry's claim. Neville was able to break out of the Body Bind curse and was reasonably unscathed from the fire that was placed on the sorting hat as evidenced by the fact that he was still alive.  While this might not, necessarily, be true of this particular incident and killing might not have had anything to do with it, it does demonstrate that actions and intents are one and the same as far as magic is concerned.  This is hardly surprising - after all, wouldn't it be the psychological state that you're in of trying to kill someone that would be the main damage to your own soul?  Just something to think about --forgottenlord 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Harry and Voldemort
 * BTW, despite what other pages say on this site, there is evidence to support Harry's claim. Neville was able to break out of the Body Bind curse and was reasonably unscathed from the fire that was placed on the sorting hat as evidenced by the fact that he was still alive.  While this might not, necessarily, be true of this particular incident and killing might not have had anything to do with it, it does demonstrate that actions and intents are one and the same as far as magic is concerned.  This is hardly surprising - after all, wouldn't it be the psychological state that you're in of trying to kill someone that would be the main damage to your own soul?  Just something to think about --forgottenlord 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lily's sacrifice only placed Harry under the protective magic which deflected Voldemort's Killing Curse. It was when Voldemort actually cast that spell at Harry, and it rebounded on him, that a piece of his soul ended up in Harry. If Voldemort had simply walked away after murdering Lily, without touching Harry, the protective magic never would've taken effect. No Killing Curse would have rebounded on Voldemort and caused a piece of his soul to latch onto Harry's. Thus it was technically Voldemort's attempted murder of Harry which made Harry into a Horcrux. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f (Owl me!) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nagini's Murder
IIRC, Dumbledore seemed to suggest that it was the murder of Frank Bryce, not Bertha Jorkins, that tempted him to use Nagini --75.155.4.128 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dumbledore never said it was specifically Frank Bryce, just "an old muggle man". However, JKR said in interview that it was Bertha Jorkins. (http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156) - 68.94.231.248 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)