Is there an error in the article?
Is there an error in the article? I found a link mentioning one but couldn't make the corrections because the article was locked. Tiria Wildlough File:Coaslyth.jpg Owl Reception 21:22, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
- If you could actually point out what the error is, then it would be useful. Simply stating "there's an error on the page, someone fix it", without actually mentioning the error, is not very useful to other editors. --Sajuuk 21:28, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
1717 is not the middle ages
- "The Cruciatus, Imperius, and Avada Kedavra Curses were not made "unforgivable" until 1717."
—The curse became illegal in the Middle Ages
Just a small thing, but the year 1717 is not the Middle Ages. Shouldn't it be changed to the Early Modern Era (or something along those lines). It's a nitpick I know but it has been bugging me.Scopatore (talk) 23:02, March 25, 2016 (UTC)
IMO killing curses cannot destroy horcruxes
IMO killing curses cannot destroy horcruxes.
At the moment of writing this comment, the article states that horcruxes can be destroyed using a killing curse. That doesn't make any sense since it would have been fairly easy for Harry to use it on the snake. Harry had a couple chances to do that. Sure he wouldn't approve of such spell but given the circumstances he would have made an exception and get rid of a horcrux if it was that easy. But instead he went great lengths to find the sword or basilisc fangs.
The example you mention about Voldemort destroying the horcrux in Harry, using a killing curse, I've always interpreted in a different way. My interpretation is that destroying a horcrux is not a difficult task for the owner of the horcrux. If the horcrux is an object, use any means of destroying the object and it should work. The object shouldn't present any kind of weird protection like it does when someone else tries to destroy it. And if it's a living thing, then the killing curse will suffice.
One event that backs up this theory is when, in the movie adaptation, Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry is a horcrux and therefore eventually Harry must die, and he also says "and Voldemort himself must do it, this is essential". So this suggests that the killing curse was successful to destroy the part of Voldemort's soul in Harry only because it was cast by Voldemort himself.
I might be wrong of course, but this makes much more sense to me than the killing curse being useful to destroy horcruxes.
Four of the Seven Horcruxes are sentient, with 2 of them (Harry + Nagini) being actually live, walking and talking (If one includes Nagini with Parseltongue) Horcruxes. Whilst the rest put up some sort of physical fight to defend itself. I'd say there is enough sufficient evidence to suggest the killing curse could destroy or at least damage Horcruxes. But why Voldemort should be the only one to 'kill' Harry with the killing curse in order to have him destroy his own Horcrux is strange. Anyone could do it in that point in time.
- Perhaps it is possible that the creator of the Horcrux can destroy it in any way that they want, which is why it was pivotal that Voldemort needed to be the one to use the Killing Curse on Harry. It is the only way to prevent the loophole of why everyone else couldn't have used the Killing Curse on Nagini and the objects. I remember reading the line which states Voldemort had to be the one to kill Harry, and wondering why. So I agree that the Killing Curse cannot technically destroy Horcruxes unless it is somehow cast by the one who created them. --Kates39 (talk) 11:38, December 12, 2016 (UTC)