I think the horcrux in Nagini was already used up long before the battle of Hogwarts. Wouldn't Voldemort need a soul fragment to be reborn? Look in GoF on page 656 (American version. Don't know if there's a difference)... "...while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth...a spell or two of my own invention...a little help from my dear Nagini..."
I think later he says something about Nagini "helping me more than you could know" to the death eaters, but I don't feel like finding it now... Lol. Pookywb 01:54, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- No, the soul fragment that entered his returned body was the same one that was driven from his body. Nagini wasn't made into a Horcrux until after the Return of the Dark Lord. Thanks, --JKoch(Owl Me!) 02:17, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Well he killed Bertha Jorkins beforehand. As he was spirit-ish. So the Horcrux could have been created then.
- How do you know that "the soul fragment that entered his returned body was the same one that was driven from his body"? 126.96.36.199 04:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- It makes logical sense. He had an eight part soul, though only seven parts ever existed simultaneously (diary, ring, locket, cup, diadem, Harry, nagini, and the part in his body; in the order they were destroyed). The fragment of soul that was driven out was put into the rudimentary body that he killed Frank Bryce and Bertha Jorkins with. it is never mentioned that a bit of soul was never returned. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 11:41, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Plus the horcruxes weren't used to create his new body, the horcruxes were what kept the part of his soul still within him tethered to earth. He couldn't completely die as long as a piece of his soul was still earth bound. --BachLynn(Accio!) 14:11, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. Good point(s) Pookywb 19:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
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. How do you survive off 1 7th of your soul?
I changed a few things, so that the article would better reflect canon:
- 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.
- 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)
- removed the 'Horcruxes outside the HP universe' - it's totally unneccessary and inapplicable.
- changed 'Lily and James Potter' to just 'Lily Potter' since a horcrux comes from a single murder, not two.
Lachatdelarue 14:32, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- 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. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 20:08, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I want to discuss some details concerning your article about Horcruxes:
- Murders : Cedric Diggory was killed by Wormtail and not V., so this murder can't be used by V. to creat a horcrux.
- 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.
- 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.
Ciao, ciao--188.8.131.52 15:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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. --184.108.40.206 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)
- 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
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 ??? -- 220.127.116.11 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Dumbledore states, that Voldemort never intended to create 7 Horcruxes, but 7 shards of his soul. Six shards in horcruxes, one in his own body. The sixth shard was created accidentally when he tried to kill Harry reducing his remaining soul within his own body to one seventh. All this happened without Voldemort realizing it. When he created the Nagini shard he went one step further then he ever intended and what he thought would be save. At the time of the final battle there has just one eighth been left inside Voldemort, which was destroyed by his own reflected curse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).
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 email@example.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs).
Possible Horcruxes removed
Removing the "Possible Horcrux" section, seeing as they are all confirmed.
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
Could someone assist me and put the proper coding at the bottom of the article so the references are printed? I don't know what that coding is. Mafalda Hopkirk 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just put <small><references/></small> to create a reference list. If in doubt, find an article with a reference section and copy the code under the reference header. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Duh, i should have done that. Mafalda Hopkirk 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Your signature with timestamp
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. If Harry is a horcrux he would have been destroyed when he was wounded by the basilisk fang.
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)
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)
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)
Actually, there is a very Non-Canon version of how to create a horcrux: here's a wikihow page... http://www.wikihow.com/Create-a-Horcrux ...good luck with whatever you want to know about how to make a horcrux. --bringKAYTtheWAFFLES! 12:49, 2 March 2010
Incantation for this curse. OK, so I'm interested in what would be incantation for this curse. I would say the incantation for this spell is on Parseltounge. Reasons to believe that is that only Parselmouths have suceeded in making them (Herpo the Foul and Voldemort), and that some have even died in process of making Horcruxes, in other words, they probably said the incantation on parseltounge incorrectly (like Ron, it took him few tries to open the CoS in DH), and wrong incantation can cause spells to backfire. Someone please reply on this, as I'm really interested in what community has to say about this. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (Talk) (talk • contribs).
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)
- In the appearances section, it states that Hocruxes first appeared in the first book and film. I take it that someone was talking about Harry, but he's not a true Hocrux, is he? Alumeng 23:50, September 25, 2011 (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)
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 Talk 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)
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'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. --188.8.131.52 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". - 184.108.40.206 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)
- Actually, I went back to the source material, from The Prince's Tale in DH:
- 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. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, Dumbledore seemed to suggest that it was the murder of Frank Bryce, not Bertha Jorkins, that tempted him to use Nagini --220.127.116.11 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) - 18.104.22.168 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
confusion regarding the horcruxes
I have read HBP 3 times and I am confused, dumbledore said it specificaly that valdemort ripped his souls into 7, the seventh resides in valdemort himslf which means here are 6 horcruxes, but everywhere I look to research they always state that there are 7 horcruxes... I am confused can anybody help me? please send me a msg at firstname.lastname@example.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs).
- Voldemort intended to give himself a 7-part soul through the use of 6 Horcruxes. However, he unintentionally and unknowingly made Harry into an unofficial Horcrux when he tried to kill Harry as a baby, so he ended up with an 8-part soul without even realizing it. - Nick O'Demus 03:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you say Harry is a Horcrux, why did he survive in the Chamber of Secrets? you remember this "Harry Potter plunges the sword into the roof of its mouth (Basilisk), killing it. However, one of its poisonous fangs sinks into his arm, injecting a deadly poison". So, in the end Deathly Hollows when Harry faces the Dark Lord and Valdemort cast the killing curse why did Harry came back from the dead. Can somebody explain this error.
How is Horcrux pronounced, exactly? Being made from French words, one would think it would be pronounced Or-kroo, but being used in English context, it would be pronounced Hor-cruks. Trivial and somewhat irrelevent, I know. Just curious. Xnaminex 22:31, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
- In these cases we can go by the movie canon, as such, "Hor-cruks" is the correct pronounciation (or the most colloquial one, at least). -- 22:44, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
am I the only one who thinks the horcrux concept seems very much like a phylactry, that is to say, the object in which a lich embeds a portion of its soul? many point out the LotR thing, but I think it is much closer to the lich mythology —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
- Already mentioned in the article, under Parallels in the Muggle World. - Nick O'Demus 08:31, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Pirates of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
In this film, Davy Jones places his heat in a Chest and cannot die unless it is stabbed. Also They both get changed in similar form to animals when they separate from their soul or heart. please Look a this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
Davy Jones face was turned into an octopus because he failed to perform his task of ferrying departed souls to the afterlife, not because he removed his heart. Calypso explains this in part 3, and Will's face is normal after he removes his heart. Voldemort may have had some similarities to a snake after he split his soul, but his face wasn't completely transformed into an animal like Jones' was. More importantly though, Voldemort split his soul, while Jones completely removed his heart, but kept it intact. There really aren't that many similarities between Davy Jones and Lord Voldemort. If Davy Jones is similar to anything in Harry Potter, than it would be The Warlock's Hairy Heart.Gowron8472 21:41, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
Importance of seven.
> However, inadvertently and by chance, his soul was always split into the magically significant seven, because the Diary was destroyed before Nagini was made a Horcrux.
Actually, I would think not. There have been seven splits, yielding eight fragments. With Harry, we reach the significant seven (soul fragments, six horcruxes), which lasts for something like eleven years. With the destruction of the diary, we get back to six (five horcruxes), for a couple of years until the murder of Bertha Jorkins, when it's again seven and six. This lasts about three years with the destruction of the ring (after that, as they say, it's history). Always, therefore, does not apply.
Talk about putting all one's eggs in one basket...
Ngebendi 21:51, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- The fragment in his body is the seventh piece. When he killed Harry:Diary, Ring, Locket, Cup, Diadem, Harry, and the part in his body = 7. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 22:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly: seven fragments existing at the same time, but there have been eight in total. How does this influence the results? What is more important: the total number of horcruxes ever made, or how many do exist in the same moment? Ngebendi 22:35, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
I think the article is just pointing out that he did accomplish having 7 at anytime. It doesn't really appear that 7 helped keep him anymore alive. He was defeated. Lol. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 22:38, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- It looks that Voldemort failed miserably in his purpose - if he limited himself to two or three horcruxes, he may have stayed alive indefinitely. Ngebendi 10:57, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Indipendence of souls?
In the list of Voldemort's horcruxes it is stated that his soul fragment is part of Potter's soul. Is it, or has it just taken up residence in his body, with both souls indipendent of each other? Ngebendi 21:55, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
This is a complicated point. Voldemort's soul fragment is attached to Harry's like a parasite but is actually seperate. So it's not a part of Harry's yet not truly independent. Bransrubar 18:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Need for Murder?
are we quite sure a murder is required, i thort any act of extreme evil would suffice.Jackeatley 16:23, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible that other acts of evil split the soul, but murder is the only one identified in the text. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 18:15, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it has to be murder, cuz in The Half-Blood Prince, Slughorn said that it required "the supreme act of evil...murder." LeafNinjaGoku 01:44, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
The Horcrux Chart
I noticed the Horcrux chart is a little incomplete. It doesn't list when (or an approximation) of when the Horcruxes were each made. I don't know how to edit a chart, or I would have put in the dates I knew. 184.108.40.206 21:56, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
The Horcrux chart is incorrect. Quirrell was never a Horcrux, he was simply possessed by the main part of Voldemort, the one that was kept alive because he had horcruxes, until he could make his own body. I'd like to correct it but I don't want to damage the coding. Someone fix it please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuhh (talk • contribs).
- Quirrell was, in fact, a "temporary Horcrux"; this comes from J.K. Rowling directly via Pottermore (you can read the information here). -- 15:04, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
When I view the article underneath the "Nature" section there appears at the end after talking about Magick Moste Evile: "Your mother was a whorecrux". Whenever I go to edit it, however, it doesn't show up. Just noting it here so someone can figure it out. The Platinum Shadow 01:07, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
Whoever removed the quote of JK's proper Horcrux definition from the page (which I have now restored): don't. Its important info pertinent to the topic, unlike what it was replaced with (the magick most evile quote) which has its own place in the nature section. Many thanks Green Zubat 18:55, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
- The current quote is out of universe (see HPW:POLICY), although the info from it can be assimilated into the article or be included in the Behind the Scenes section, HPWiki's MOS instructs us to use an 'in-universe' perspective when writing about subjects in the books. KingRamses 07:11, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of the main Horcrux page, it showed that the amount of soul within each Horcrux decreases significantly by half. However, in the HBP book, Professor Slughorn did say that "killing rips the soul apart." So if the soul is ripped by murder, won't the Horcrux creation process just blend that particular torn bit of soul into the Horcrux instead of methodically splitting it in halves? So when Voldemort murdered all those people, his soul should have ripped according to the murder committed, therefore the Horcruxes created should just contain the bit of soul ripped by the murder, not 1/2 then 1/4 and so on...
I happen to heartily agree with you. This requires further explanation. It is not quite explained in the article in which way the soul is fractured, either by sapping from the other horcruxes to diminish each part so that from, say 1 person and 1 horcrux each 16,6666% is drained to get equal parts of 33,3333% or that the original person to create them is ripped as your method suggests. That ought to be cleared up.220.127.116.11 12:00, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
I deleted appearences in Philospher's Stone (Book, Film, Video Game) and Prisoner of Azkaban (Book, Film, Video Game) as both Harry and Quirrel were not true Horcruxes. JKR controdicts that cannon. I kept the Goblet of Fire because of Nagini and Order of the Phoenix because of Nagini and The Locker , the latter not in the movie. If you disagree, feel free to edit it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kartoffelwunderbar (talk • contribs).
I dont get it. It says on the page that Voldemort couldn't move on from Limbo. And that is why the creepy bloody baby was there. But Voldemort was still alive after Harry Left limbo.Ravenclaw Eagles14!!!!! 03:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Featured Article, But "Needs Cleanup"?
This article is tagged as being a Featured Article, but it also says that it needs cleanup. Now those two don't really gel with each other, a featured article shouldn't need "clean up." So we need to either figure out exactly what it is about the article that needs to be cleaned up (and I don't see anything about it on this talk page), or the tag needs to be removed. ProfessorTofty 05:03, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Quirrell isn't a Horcrux...
As it is always stated in the books and films that there are seven horcruxes, (because the number seven is supposed to have magical qualities) I have deleted the Quirinus Quirrell section in Lord Voldemort Horcruxes. Orangeminusred 16:01, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
- And that information has been restored. There have been many attempts to remove it, but it keeps getting put back because of Pottermore, which we accept as a valid canon source. ProfessorTofty 17:55, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Horcruxes are simply separate pieces of one's soul, including the one currently alive and one's made accidentally. In that case, Quirrell was in fact a Horcrux until Voldemort left him to become an embryo-like mass of flesh. Also, that mean's that the fragment within Harry is 1/128th of the whole, which explains why the horcrux in Harry doesn't do anything besides giving him massive headaches from time to time. 18.104.22.168 06:02, May 21, 2012 (UTC)Nebuchadnezzar 05:50, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
I was reading this bit of trivia and thought of something:
"It is unknown if Horcruxes were taught by Amycus Carrow while he was teaching Dark Arts at Hogwarts during Voldemort's reign."
If I remember correctly, Voldemort was pretty protective about the horcruxes, so I doubt he would allow anyone to teach it there. Not only would the youthful generation of witches and wizards learn about the circumstances of his immortality, but also the weakness that come with them. I am curious to the community's opinion. 22.214.171.124 03:05, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Latin plural of "crux"
Though the books clearly state the plural of Horcrux as Horcruxes,a it may be interesting to some that the Latin plural of the word "crux" is actually "crucēs". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xensyria (talk • contribs) 14:12, July 10, 2012 (UTC).
- The above argument is irrelevant; this wiki is in English, not Latin. Although some English words from Latin have had their plural imported as well (e.g. radius, radii), far more have not, so although the plural of "phoenix" is technically "phoenices" (hence the land of Phoenicia), and is referred to in some works as such, throughout the HP canon the word is "phoenixes". Since "horcrux" is (I believe) an invented word which just happens to have a Latin root, we're free to devise an English plural for it, just as we are for "virus", which doesn't have a Latin plural so the only correct plural is the English one, "viruses". — RobertATfm (talk) 17:49, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
LEGO Harry Potter: Years 5-7 has a cutscene sort of showing Tom Riddle making his Horcruxes. I mean, it shows him touching his chest with his wand, then a large heart appears and splits into six, which turn into the Horcuxes (or, rather, the diary, ring, locket, and three blanks for the ones that are unknown at that part in the story). Would an image of this be useful to this article, at least in Behind the scenes? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
| This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.|
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.
I'm Belac Reteet. I've noticed that Horcruxes are not clasified as beings or entities in any way, which strikes me as odd, because the books indicate that they are both in many ways. The Riddle Diary is clearly sentient, as it is the main antagonist of the second book. The Slytherin Locket is also revealed to be alive by the conversation it has with Ron Weasley in book seven. There is also the fact that horcruxes scream every time they die.
Proffesor Toffty, a Harry Potter Wiki administrator disagreed with me at first, but when I explaned my theory about the soul fragments in the horcuxes retaining the personalities of the original person, he thought I had something. It is my belief that we should start thinking of horcruxes more as living creatures rather than inanimate objects. belacreteet (talk) 05:38, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I mean you no disrespect, but I have to disagree. If someone is carrying a jar of paint and a drop spills into a glass of water, is that water automatically paint as of itself? No, it is water with paint in it. Likewise occurs here; a soul was put into the object, but it is not the object's soul itself. The diary is not the antagonist, but rather the piece of soul preserved therein is; the diary is merely a means of channeling that spirit forward. Likewise, the locket didn't converse; the windows were opened and the soul Riddle put within came out and conversed. Yes, they retain the personality of the original person, because they are in themselves a portion of the original person. Again, not trying to be rude and not ranting, just trying to provide my opinion with examples. --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:43, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I still hold the same vewpoint I did before. I like your paint and water analagy, but I still disagree. Saying "Horcruxes are not sentient, but the soul fragments inside them are." would be like saying "Humans aren't alive, only there souls are." If that were true, we could remove the categories, Being, and Creature from the equation entirely (exept for nonfisical beings like ghosts). That's all I have to say for now. Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 03:08, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Belac Reteet. A horcrux is an object with a piece of the soul in it. Remove one of them and it's not a horcrux. So I would say that they are sentient.-- PerryPeverell 15:02, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm Belac Reteet. I would like to thank Perry Peverell for his support, and inquire as to who else would support me in my argument. If anyone else would like to express their oppinion on this matter, please don't hesitate to but in. Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 02:31, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you can say that something isn't alive because it is "just a soul in an object". I would say that, and least in the Harry Potter universe, a living being is something which contains a soul and which the soul can at least control to some extent. As for sentience, most fiction defines sentience in a different manner to Wikipedia, in that in most usages in fiction the only known creatures in the real world that sentience would apply to is humans; in fiction sentience typically refers to something with an intelligence near or above that of humans. Wikipedia's definition could just as easily apply to many different kinds of animals. I would say that horcruxes (particularly the diary) demonstrated enough independent thought to be considered near-human in intelligence. --SnorlaxMonster 10:37, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm Belac Reteet. I would like to thank Perry Peverell for his support, and inquire as to who else would support me in my argument. If anyone else would like to express their oppinion on this matter, please don't hesitate to but in. Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 02:31, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Very well, then, I suppose it couldn't hurt to say they're sentient enough. But yet, it isn't their soul; it's someone else's soul they're borrowing. Does it still count? I admit that, adamant though I am of the idea, it would be for best to call them sentient. But would your answer maintain the same for my latest question? --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:38, January 24, 2013 (UTC)