Talk:Black family tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Archives /Archive1

Contents 1 source 2 Cygnus Black 3 Original research on Dorea Black 4 Age of James partents when he was born

[edit] source

the source of info for this page is not cited. 210.9.15.116 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) I cant believe a word of it.

It is: it explicitly states that the tree was produced by Rowling at the book aid auction (at which the details were copied down by numerous fans present, the details of which all agreed - testifying to the accuracy of their transcriptions). There is a link to the lexicon publication of the tree, which Rowling has not disputed. And what is so unbelievable about it, anyway? Michaelsanders 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cygnus Black

It would appear that the forthcoming film of OOtP will feature a Black family tree slightly different to what has been published so far. HP lexicon is now recording Cygnus Black's dates as 1929-1979. This means he died in the same year as his brother in law and nephew regulus. Sandpiper 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on Dorea Black

Please note that Original Research is defined as something which :

• "introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or INTERPRETATION of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article."

As far as Dorea Black is concerned, the section stating that "Dorea's son would be James Potter" is indeed original research, because:

• It is a theory, and an original idea (it has never been stated anywhere on the family tree or by JKR herself that Dorea was Jame's mother. It is an original idea proposed by the editors of the article).
• this theory or idea is not cited using a reliable source (and a reliable source is not other theories on personal fansites).
• It is of course an analysis of one of the entries of the family tree, it's a synthesis of various informations form this family tree and the books, and it's an interpretation of these facts: the interpretation has been built by linking between them various elements which have not yet been officially linked.

"Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." -> which is the case here.

Some might argue that the "original research article states that "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data" are not original research. That's right, however in this particular situation, the "logical deductions" are creating new content, and giving a new signification to the original material used. In other words, these deductions are used to "advance a position", which is not supported by the "straightforward calculation" exception.

In other words, the section about Dorea Black is still original research and has nothing to do here. Thanks to people for not starting another edit war again. Either you can justify your edits, or you can't, and if you can't, please do not make them at all. Folken de Fanel 12:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can legitimately make a short statement reflecting exactly what we "know" for a fact - and that is this: according to the "canonical" version of the family tree, that one Dorea Black, daughter of Cygnus Black and Violetta Bulstrode, married one Charlus Potter, and they had an unnamed son together, who was apparently in the same generation (or perhaps once removed) as the generation of Harry's father James and his classmates. Yet the relationship between Charlus Potter and James Potter remains uncertain. The HP Lexicon (a fairly reliable source that Rowling has acknowledged), states:

"Charlus Potter: Rowling's Black Family Tree mentions a Charlus Potter who was married to Dorea Black (1920-1977), a grandchild of Phineas Nigellus Black (BFT). They had one son (unnamed) (BFT). It is doubtful that Charlus is Harry's grandfather because Jo has told us that "James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died." (TLC) Dorea was only 57 when she died." [1] --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of your message. I don't agree however that HP Lexicon would be a reliable source (as far as interpretations are concerned).

But anyway, if you see no objection, I'm going to use your proposed text with is much more adapted to Wikipedia's standards, than the previous version which was blatant OR and flat-out stated "Dorea is Jame's mother", which certainly isn't what we're expecting on Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Lexicon is implying that Dorea Black and Charlus Potter are far too young to be the parents of James Potter, but are perhaps instead essentially his cousins, since the parents of James were "elderly ... old in wizarding terms" when they had James; perhaps otherwise in the age generation of typical grandparents. While that also constitutes original research, at least it strongly refutes the "other" proposed original research scenario that Charlus is James' father and Harry's grandfather. --T-dot (Talk | contribs)

Oh, ok, when I saw the text from Lexicon, I don't know why, I saw "James' grandfathers" instead of "Harry's grandfather".

Anyway, it doesn't change much to the issue, since except a name similarity, we've nothing sure about Dorea and Charlus being even remotely related to Harry, so I seriously think any mention of this is original research, according to the criteria I have cited. Of course the name similarity exists so we have to highlight it, but we must remain carefull with how we handle unsubstanciated speculations. Folken de Fanel 19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not OR to explain that a serious, well respected website which is considered an expert on this subject has discussed the possibility that James is the Potter son on the family tree. It is not a question of whether the information is a certainty, it is simply important that this possibility is being discussed by people considered reliable. This is not contentious information. Sandpiper 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - but isn't it a serious POV breach if we choose one "reliable source" that supports our newest favorite theory: the "Charlus is Harry's Grandfather" theory, and then just totally ignore the equally reliable HP Lexicon counter-claim that disputes that theory? Specifically, the Lex states (as detailed above): It is doubtful that Charlus is Harry's grandfather because Jo has told us that 'James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born'.... Lots of people produce children in their 30's - I seriously doubt they would to be considered "elderly" in any terms, much less in wizarding terms. If Dumbledore is any indication of what represents the upper range limit of "old in wizarding terms", then we have a serious problem with calling Dorea "elderly" at 38 when James was born, or also 57 when she died. I think we need to either balance the POV, or state that it is uncertain. All this business about Harry and Sirius being second cousins and such constitutes drawing remarkable conclusions from theoretical speculations, not from canonically settled materials. I think this is what Fanel (et al) are getting at, and they have a right to be heard and respected in this discussion. Now, personally I think there is good cause to believe that James is the unnamed son of Charlus (why would Rowling put this on the Tapestry otherwise?) and that Rowling probably messed up - didn't think it through in the interview when she went on about James being rich and pampered because his parents were elderly and whatnot. It would not be the first time that Rowling introduced inconsistancies inadvertently. I doubt she ever thought her "children's books" would ever become such a serious cultural phenomenon, and being fictional writing, she didn't always fully think through all the aspects of her fictional universe for "continuity" purposes. Anyway back to point - we need to either balance the two distint POVs, or keep it as "uncertain", until we hear otherwise from Rowling in a clarification or in Book 7. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to debate the content, then I would point out that we don't know anything about Charlus' age. While his wife would have been about 38 when their son was born, if it was James, he could have been anything. The evidence of the Black tree itself seems to suggest that 13 is a good age to start having children, so 38 might be considered 'quite old by wizarding standards'. However, we have no information bout whether Charlus was 48, 58, or 158 when his son was born. If the Blacks are that fussy about requiring pureblood marriages of convenience, they might not mind marrying someone significantly older if he was of good family. I was listening to some stuff about ages when women would be advised to have their families by, and 38 would seem to be considered 'getting on a bit' by current muggle medical standards.Sandpiper 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

postscript: We really need to stop the reversion war, and come up with a quality encyclopedic compromise. We can certainly describe the canonical Black-Potter marriage and descent, per the tapestry, and the unnamed offspring produced from it, and that "Reliable Source A" furthermore provides some reasoning that James Potter was probably that offspring and thus the possible implications of that (eg: Sirius-Harry being 2nd cousins); but we also must explain the uncertainty of this, based on Rowling's interview statements which introduced the "old age" discrepency issue of James' parents, as reasoned by "Reliable Source B" (the Lexicon). Otherwise we are simply pushing a POV agenda. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1) The actual section has absolutely no source whatsoever.

2) Fan websites advancing unverified personal theories, that have never been acknowledged or supported by the only persons that are the real experts (JKR herself and her editors -the only ones on earth who actually know the full plot of HP, unlike these theorists), are not reliable sources.

3) The said website doesn't even say that Charlus would be Harry's grandfather, in fact they state the exact opposite: "''It is doubtful that Charlus is Harry's grandfather". In that case it is concidered the section was the expression of the editor's own beliefs and deserved suppression (or modification for the better, to be precise).

4) As said earlier (and which was ignored by Sandpiper): this section "is of course an analysis of one of the entries of the family tree, it's a synthesis of various informations form this family tree and the books, and it's an interpretation of these facts: the interpretation has been built by linking between them various elements which have not yet been officially linked" and "it is a theory, and an original idea (it has never been stated anywhere on the family tree or by JKR herself that Dorea was Jame's mother. It is an original idea proposed by the editors of the article)." Thus we're facing a case of original reseach and it doesn't have its place on Wikipedia.

5) While we have to note the name similarity, any other notion of analysis or possible explanation to this belongs to fansites, not to Wikipedia. As these fansites are not "experts" in the unrevealed plot of HP (that only JKR knows, currently), and seeing that JKR has never publicly given credit to these suppositions, none of these can be concidered reliable sources, and no one will be able to justify these edits with these kind of sources. Folken de Fanel 13:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Put it back to the way it was before the changes began. It was very careful to explain what was known, and the two main threads of opinion by the Lexicon. Michael Sanders 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear :

1) The previous version contains way too much original research, speculations, assumptions and all that, from the part of the contributor himself. So you can already forget this version, it is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards.

2) The Lexicon entry merely discuss the matter, without supporting the possibility of Charlus and Dorea being James' parents, so you can't use Lexicon as a justification for the actual article, which is flat-out stating that Dorea and Charlus are Jame's parent, which is, at best, still unknown, it is not ours to introduce such notions. Folken de Fanel 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway all of this speculation about sources is pointless if you take into account that Dorea was only 57 when she died she cant possibly be James's mother, she just isn't old enough to justify an entire generation missing in the tree. I would be inclined to guess that the male potter mentioned in the family tree as Dorea and CHarlus's son was James father. It also fits perfect in the tree as then Sirius and James are in the same generation. I know, I know, they don’t have to be but given J.K.'s past comments about bad math skills I think she would have just made it nice and neat in her mind and had the generations match. This would make Dorea Harry’s great grandmother. Submitted by BlazeOfGlory15--May 28th

[edit] Age of James partents when he was born

I was just checking the quote re James parents ge, which is the interview with JKR immediately after publication of HBP with mugglenet and TLC. The answer is actually given to a question re the deaths of Harry's grandparents:

MA: What about Harry's family - his grandparents - were they killed?

JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them.

MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well.

JKR: [Pause] Yeah. Well - yeah.

Now, the thing is, I think it is being mis-quoted. Rowling definitely says that James' parents were 'getting on a little' and 'had him late in life', but I don't think she said they were 'elderly' when he was born. This may sound like splitting hairs, but 'getting on a little' is not 'elderly'. Reading the full quote I am inclined to think that Rowling was answering the question put, and meant they were elderly when they died, but then side-tracks a little about being 'getting on a little' when Harry was born. Then she returns to her main point. Anyway, I think it important when paraphrasing this that we do not describe his parents as 'elderly' when James was born (merely 'getting on a bit'), because she didn't say that. Sandpiper 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)