User talk:Michaelsanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Michaelsanders, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Bhadani 13:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horcrux?

Is that section about it being the Horcrux creation spell being what kills the victim in the books? I should warn you, if it can't be backed up with a passage in the Harry Potter books, or in an interview by J.K. Rowling, then it probably will be removed as "Fan speculation". It was my impression that the sequence of events ran: Commit murder (evil act tears soul apart) -> Cast Horcrux creation spell on physical object -> soul fragment is transfered/trapped in object. However, my impressions are not always right, which is why I ask if it explains differently in the books, and if so where? - Vedexent 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts Houses Character Traits

I found your additions (20 April 2006) regarding character traits of Hogwarts houses to be speculative and removed them in light of the Wikipaedia neutral point of view policy. If there are references from the books, movies, or the author that, for example, indicate that Hufflepuffs are tribal or that Ravenclaws do not care about success, then please put the additions back in with attribution and write me a nasty note. Alternatively, consider rephrasing your additions as opinion. - PhillyIdol (21 April 2006)

[edit] The Hogwarts Founders, original reasearch

Hi, Michaelsanders. I have again removed your edits to the article in light of these violating Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, which I try to explain in the article's talk page. --Mercurio 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please refrain from personal attack edit summaries. Telling someone to get over themselves is unhelpful to the wikipedia project, I suggest you sit back have a cup of tea and go thoroughly read all the wiki policies. I would also advise on re-wording your agressive user page, wikipedia is no place for personal crusades. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumplestiltskin

The prurient "reading" attributed to the Opies has been commented out until you can provide at least the name of the Opie publication where this appears. Thank you. --Wetman 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on Lord Voldemort

Hi Michaelsanders, I reverted your edit on the Lord Voldemort page because of the WP:NOR policy: no original research. While I enjoyed reading your paragraph about the House of Anjou, Wikipedia is not the right place for that. You should write an essay about it and submit it to a fan site, perhaps the Harry Potter Lexicon [1]. So you don't have to go searching though the versions, here is a copy of what you wrote:

The House of Anjou and the Family of Gaunt

Lord Voldemort is maternally descended from the 'House of Gaunt', which has semi-noble history, and which has been suggested by fans as being descended from the historical figure John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III of England (this being supported by a connection of the family to the Peverells, a family supposedly descended from an illegitimate child of William the Conqueror. It is interesting, then, that there are similarities between the historical Angevin ancestors of John of Gaunt and the fictional Lord Voldemort: passionate and dynamic, with clever minds and strong wills; having a hot temper which sometimes prejudiced their calculated schemes; their minds and bodies appeared to work faster than those of normal men, and they appeared larger than life. When they conceived anything, it was on a grand scale. Furthermore, courtiers said of the household of Henry II that to be there 'was to know the fires of Hell'; Richard I had a 'ruthless energy that brooked no opposition'; and 'John defied every man, seeming to challenge the whole world single-handed... "He feared not God, nor respected men."' The violent temper of the Angevins, and their vicious reactions to being thwarted, has been described as 'almost pathological in its intensity'. It is disturbing how closely these descriptions of the House of Anjou match what we have seen of a fictional character who may be supposedly descended from the House of Anjou.

Thanks! --Fbv65e del ^{(discuss | contribs)} 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Use Edit Summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Martinp23 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially when reverting, lest it look like vandalism. I reverted your edit to Rita Skeeter based on the fact that it was speculation, violating No original research. Please find textual evidence or an interview from Rowling if you want to include those edits. Karwynn (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RIta Skeeter

I've opened up a talk section about the disagreement we seem to have, and I'd like your input: Talk:Rita_Skeeter#Business_about_the_Slytherins See you there, Karwynn (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizards and Judaism: a comparison

First of all, the obvious: we have a very small group of people, who are a minority *everywhere*. And who have been consequently suspicious of the majority around them. This group of people has been perennially persecuted by the majority, until finally one huge period of persecution persuaded the victims to decide that ‘something must be done’. In the case of the Jews, the Holocaust persuaded not only them, but everyone, that the persecutions must stop. In the case of Wizards, they chose to take themselves out of the equation permanently, following the mania of the 17th century (the Seclusion began around the end of that).

Owing to the factors which created their oppression, any serious land-ownership iis scuttled. In the case of the Jews, it was simply the brutal prevention of land-ownership by any Jew in most countries. In the case of Wizards, it was more subtle: the Ministry ordered them to sell up and go into hiding in such enclaves as Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade (which are somewhat reminiscent of the old ghettos: with Hogsmeade, perhaps, as The Ghetto, in Venice). Wizards can still own land (the Malfoys have a manor, and the Weasleys own a good chunk of real estate: presumably hereditary and entailed, otherwise they could neither afford it nor resist selling it), but a ‘practising wizard’ would probably have difficulties being important in land ownership (it would probably create account irregularities if one replaced a window with magic, say). And there is no way that a wizard can safely be a farmer: there aren’t enough wizards in Britain to maintain a farm, meaning that the farmer would require muggle assistance: thereby axing any chance of using magic on the farm.

Instead, what we have is a culture which is largely commercial, focusing on the buying and selling of goods. And the most imposing public edifice, aside from Hogwarts, that we have seen so far, is Gringotts. A bank. Which looms over the rest of Diagon Alley. And, indeed, Gringotts is a big employer in the wizarding world. Apart from that, and from public institutions such as St Mungo’s, the Ministry, and Hogwarts, there do not seem to be many other jobs in the wizarding world: unless one starts up a business of ones own, and becomes self-employed (Diagon Alley seems populated by these: for example, Madam Malkin’s robe shop, which she runs personally, and Ollivander’s, which one presumes is a family business).

There is the issue of language. Certainly prior to 1948, most Jewish families did not use Hebrew as an everyday language. It was used generally as a Ritual Tongue, used for prayers and blessings and at appropriate occasions (Bar Mitzvahs), but it was not even appropriate for everyday use (prior to the 20th century, many everyday words had been lost, or never developed, meaning that one could not adequately speak in Hebrew in trivial matters). Instead, Jewish families would generally speak in the language of the country they lived in (or in Yiddish, a mediaeval mixture of Hebrew and Rhenish German, and carried all over Europe by immigration. Since there has not been any equivalent immigration in Wizarding Terms, there is no easy equivalent for Yiddish – we have not seen any wizards speaking a debased form of Latin). And then we look at Rowlings wizards. Most – indeed, none, so far as we know – use Latin as an everyday tongue. It is the language used in wizarding rituals – for spells (that we have never known a wizard perform magic by using his own language would suggest that the words are as important as the intention). And at least some wizards seem to have a basic knowledge of Latin (Snape was able to give meaningful names to his spells – levicorpus ‘levitates’ the ‘corpus’ (body), and sectumsempra effectively means ‘slash’). Both Jews and wizards are looked at with a mixture of amusement and confusion, at least in part, because of this use of an unfamiliar language.

There is the issue of clothing and names. Vernon’s distaste for the wizards he saw would have been more pronounced had he not thought it was all a gimmick for charity. I suspect he would be just as disdainful of a person in the typical Jewish garb – yarmulke and all. And the names of the wizarding world, which seem odd and, perhaps amusing to we outsiders, are not strange to wizards, any more than a typically Jewish name is to a Jew (Weasley, perhaps, is the equivalent of Meier. And Sinistra as odd as Gosstompsky. ‘Draco Malfoy’, on the other hand, was sniggered at by Ron Weasley in Book One, suggesting that that name is odd to the ears of a wizard. Or maybe, since the Weasley’s are not a particularly tolerant family, it is simply a general insult).

And then there is the issue of blood-purity. Which certainly did exist, once upon a time in the ghetto, even if it doesn’t really exist now. That it did exist is certain. And it was probably as hard-line in the Real World tm as in the Potterverse. Whilst I would hesitate to state that the terms pure-blood and half-blood themselves were ever used prior to Harry Potter ( because I simply can’t say), the basic gist was always out there. I should know. I have always thought of myself as Half-Jewish, though I have only ever used the term half-blood ironically (and, at that, only since I heard it in HP).

Quite simply, a Jewish boy had to marry a Jewish girl. A Jewish girl had to marry a Jewish boy. They had to marry those roughly in the same class as themselves. And the status of a Jewish boy was determined by his performance in the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Officially, this was then, as now, merely a public recognition of an automatic coming of age; one's chances were officially not affected by one's performance in the ceremony. However, in the claustrophobic and crowded culture of the ghetto, only a third of the population would marry. And generally, the mothers of those girls considered 'best' within that society (regardless of outsiders or modern viewers might think of them) would choose those boys who were also considered 'best' (again, regardless of outsider or modern opinion). Status, class, wealth, were factors in this. So was the boy's perfmormance in his Bar Mitzvah.

Now consider the wizards. Specifically, familys such as the Blacks. Who, such was their conviction that they were ‘practically royalty’, seem to have forgotten that they actually lived in a tall, narrow, dingy house in a particularly nasty part of Muggle London, which could easily qualify for the label of ‘Muggle Dunghill’ (as a wiser person pointed out, Bellatrix’s comment was in fact a blatant case of Pot vs Kettle), where they seem to have spent most of their time cowering inside, keeping it hidden s that some foolish Muggle tradesman wouldn’t knock on the door. This family, who would rather their children marry Purebloods from the Flint or Crabbe families, than any Muggle-born or Halfblood. Consider the fact that expulsion from Hogwarts requires ones wand to be snapped, making one effectively no longer a wizard (Hagrid, though a professor, is not a wizard, because he never passed the Ordinary Wizarding Levels. And also because of the little matter of his having demonstrably taken a dangerous beast into a castle full of children, but that clearly isn’t something which gives anyone – except perhaps Ron – much pause for thought).

Consider the restrictions on marriage in Jewish society, prior to 20th century. A Jewish girl wasn’t allowed to demean herself by marrying a non-Jewish man. Any children between a Jewish man and his non-Jewish wife were not even Jews (an attitude which I will attest to having largely disappeared, at least in moderate circles). Which, transferred literally, gives an interesting reading of several Halfbloods in canon (Snape is the product of a witch and a muggle, but was raised as a wizard; Voldemort was produced likewise, and would have been raised as a wizard had his mother not died; Dean Thomas, on the other hand, is the product of a wizard and a muggle, and therefore is considered Muggle-born rather than halfblood – though only through the sleight of hand in his backstory which left him unaware of his true paternity). Certainly, the two are closely linked: in both societies, pure-bloods were welcomed, half-bloods were disliked, and converts (which a muggle-born effectively is: Hermione Granger is a pretty good example of any sort of convert ruthlessly eradicating her former life) were shunned. And these attitudes, in moderate circles are changing today. In the more orthodox circles, however, you can still get families who are proud of being pure Cohens, say. Or people who, for all their basic identification with the country they live in, are still oddly proud of not having ‘a drop of British blood’.

The Weasley family, in a Jewish!Harry Potter scenario, would be reform Jews. Moderate. They don’t care very much about who the kids marry (to a point). They still respect the rituals, but are very much willing to fit in with those around them (the Weasley kids, you’ll notice, have no problem fitting in with the Muggles around them. Albeit whilst wearing 1950s Fair Isle Jumpers). Indeed, Mr Weasley, in this scenario, would probably have Discovered Jesus, with all the attendant irritation from the rest of the family, who are happy with their own culture and religion, and don’t want the Traitor banging on about his great love. Hence his banishment to the garden shed. Mrs Weasley, who has far less tolerance for those unlike her, probably came from a more orthodox family (we know that her uncle and his wife were respectably displayed on the Black Family Tree, which bodes ill for our view of her family), and consequently has a less flattering opinion of those who are not as respectable or well-behaved, or attending to tradition as her (she certainly thinks far less of Muggles than her husband : ‘swarming with muggles’ anyone? But her dislike of Fleur is probably more a personality clash than a hatred of ‘halfbreeds’.). And consequently finds being married to someone who doesn’t really care about tradition a bit of a chore (one can imagine Molly getting in a strop over a pork meal, with Arthur being baffled, and the twins going out of their way to irritate her).

The families such as the Malfoys and the Blacks, in this iteration, are Orthodox. With all the attendant stereotypes. They probably keep the milk and meat separate, do no work on Saturdays, and stick the crockery in the attic at Pesach (or get the House-elf to do it). And they don’t care how they come off to outsiders.

So, what part does Voldemort and the Death Eaters play in this scenario? Obviously, the crude and simplistic ‘Death Eaters = Nazis’ is not appropriate: whilst the Death Eaters do attack magicians, their primary enemies are the muggles (given that Voldemorts public motivations, that of wizard domination, are not his private goals – immortality – he cannot really be considered here). The muggles being the oppressive majority that wizards want to escape. The avowed goal of the death eaters, reputedly, is to break the wizarding seclusion, and to allow wizards to live openly as wizards, without fear of persecution. What the Death Eaters effectively want, is a Land of Their Own. And if they need to use force to get it, so be it. If they have to oppress the majority of those who live in that land, so be it.

The Death Eaters are not Nazis. They are Zionists. Possibly the main Jewish terrorist organisation operating in Palestine prior to 1948: Irgun (who were terrorists: their crimes include the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem). Or possibly the State of Israel, who, you may recall, have effectively conquered the homeland of the Palestinians. As well as engaging in various atrocities with Egypt and Lebanon, and behaving in a manner which has earned other countries a diplomatic cold-shoulder.

And finally, a minor point. If wizards are Jews, then, naturally, non-wizards (‘Muggles’, a mildly offensive word to those who are muggles but used freely by wizards) would be gentiles. Which leads us to the offensive term ‘mudblood’. And the term generally regarded as, emotively, its equal in pure foulness – the ‘n-word’. Except, as one discovers when reading various fan-forums, the racial analogy is rather clumsy, because, to be blunt, no parent is going to discover on their child’s eleventh birthday that, having thought the child was black for the past eleven years, he is in fact secretly white. Nor does it make much sense to call Hermione mud-blood, if one compares it to the ‘n-word’, because according to that analogy, Hermione is not black: unless she still is ‘black’, in which case she is not ‘white’ and cannot be at the school.

But there is an equally deplorable word, which seems far more appropriate. It is as offensive as mudblood is in the wizarding world, and possibly as offensive as the n-word really is. And it would make a lot more sense, on Draco Malfoy’s lips at least, than the ‘n-word’. It is the ‘S-Word’.

In Malfoy’s eyes, Hermione is a shixter.

[edit] Black Family Tree

Seeing your talk page, you have a history of breaking the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. You must realize that you have no evidence that the Potters and Weasleys are related other than a Potter married into the Black family. Are all people with your last name related to you? Do not get me wrong, I agree with you that it is strong possiblity that the Potters and Weasleys are somehow related. The fact is until you can back it up with reliable sources this section will be deleted again. If you continue breaking the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy your account can be blocked or worse you will be banned. So, either cite reliable sources or delete the Weasley - Potters section from the a Black family tree. (Duane543 17:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

My whole point is that this section of the article is based on the Theory that the male Potter is James. Until you can prove the male Potter is James through reliable sources, the section should be deleted. If you want to keep it that baddly, why not move it to the talk page of the article. That way people can still see your work and I would not think that you would be breaking any Wikipedia's policies, but I do not know for sure. If you still think that I am in the wrong about you breaking the Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research policies, please feel free to write to an Wikipedia administrator about it.(Duane543 00:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

So what do you want to do? Move it to the talk page or delete it. (Duane543 14:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi Micheal, I deleted the section because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research. If there is some notable evidence (either from J.K. Rowling herself or from one of the official sites) that Dorea Black is Harry's grandmother, then a brief mention of how Harry is related to the Weasley family might be appropriate, but certainly not one as long as this section. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasley Description

Please edit only to reflect canon. The narrative description of the family is not a negative one, therefore the article's should reflect that.

John Reaves 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. John Reaves 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Reaves 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on the Ginny Weasley Talk Page John Reaves 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article in question to end this edit war. Please refrain from stonewalling someones edits next time, and instead work with them to resolve the issue. ←Phŋж2 Âshəs |Đ|©| 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellatrix

I'm sorry fo that mistake on the site about Bellatrix Lestrange. I copied the description from the site about Narcissa and I forgot to write that it's about Bellatrix. I am going to correct it.

[edit] Re: Comments to fb5edel

Our old conflict also involved edits based on speculation, but as I noted to him, that one has already been resolved. It wasn't meant to offend you, but if you feel offended, I can always remove that part of the comment from his talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, no need for further explanation. My comment was based on a quick glance at the topic. I've removed the text that would seem to indicate that your current discussion is regarding speculation. As to this current issue, I am staying silent for now unless there is still a need for third party opinions. Oh, and where did I say 'well done'? I suppose if you were talking about my postscript comment, that was in appreciation for his own note of confidence on ME, not on anything he did on the talk page. Please, I've been on Wikibreak for a while, and yes, I didn't read the talk page too clearly. I've removed the speculation text, so there is no further need for you to feel offended. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, taking in everything, I can see how you would think I'm congratulating him. Hopefully, it doesn't read that way now. As for the topic, I'll stay silent on it, since you believe the topic on hand is trivial anyways. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I thought you favoured "if you have something to say about a person, you should tell them." Since you obviously don't believe that, I'll watch what I say whenever I see that you're around, okay? Besides, my words weren't even about you, so please stop with the jumping on me for every little comment I make, okay? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here you go. My opinion on Lord Voldemort considered all the discussion I read before, AND it was based on my previous experience with the two articles. I find it insulting that you would think I would just wade in and spout off without thinking. I've thought long and hard about the Lord Voldemort/Tom Riddle discussion. I've been involved in those discussions for a while. I was asked to make a opinion, and I made it. I used to be quite involved with Harry Potter articles, but I've largely stayed way from the quagmire that they've become. However, you will note that I've only lent my recent opinions when it was asked for, and each time, I have thought about it before wading in. I am not some new guy who suddenly popped in with sudden thoughts: these are based on discussions I've held a long time ago, and I still read discussions before I lend my opinion. I'm not going to let one person slag me and let it slide, but at the same time, I only lent my opinion when it was asked for. You're giving me more reason to stay away, and while I'm sure that's exactly what you want, quite frankly, I'm not the sort of person who will keep doing something out of spite. I will give you exactly what you want and not be involved in any sort of Harry Potter discussion where you're involved. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Riddle being redirected to Riddle family was done outside of when I discussed it, therefore, yes, I don't fully know why it was done. I only point out the directness because I really have found that I have to be extremely careful when I speak to you. I am usually more direct with other people, but I've felt pretty frustrated when I have to watch my words with you. Perhaps I don't have to be, so maybe I was wrong in this regard. The speculation thing was a mistake, yes, but it was one comment and I already removed it. Did I apologise for it? If not, here it is: I apologise for saying that my previous conflict with you was "also about speculation". Yes, without a doubt I am being much more incoherent than usual, because I am feeling pretty frustrated. I know I shouldn't be, but I've felt pretty frustrated whenever I've been in a conversation where you were involved. Is that something against you? I'm not sure. Maybe it's me. I'm sure it's me. Regardless of whether it's you or me, I think it's in both our interests (more mine) that I remove myself from these conversations, lest I get even more frustrated and more incoherent. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not sure I like my editing style either. In any case, Harry Potter articles took up too much of my time and mental stress, and that's really not what I came to Wikipedia for. The fact that you don't particularly like me is fine, but also proves that I've become too brusque on Harry Potter articles (and in general), which is very contrary to how I used to be like. When I found myself like that with closing controversial AfDs, I took a break from it to reduce my Wikistress. I don't think I'll become less brusque on Harry Potter articles, because things in there haven't changed at all: there were a few of us who had to deal with the same things on a daily basis on Harry Potter articles, and that's not going to change. Since these are the same arguments again and again, my way of dealing with these things has become shorter and shorter. Therefore, in the interests of removing another grumpy old man unwilling to change, I remove myself. I think Harry Potter articles will be much better without me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Test

Hello.

Yes, I was actually doing this to prove to a friend how quickly false edits are caught and removed on Wikipedia, I've seen other people do this in edit history and didn't think that this minor form of vandalism had consequences on Wikipedia: but I do not plan on repeating this action anyway. --Alegoo92 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts

I never said it had five houses. Have I even talked to you? 65.118.187.102 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head Boy/Prefect

Yes, I understand that. But is it impossible to assume, that since it was mentioned that both James and Remus became prefects, that James became Head Boy while Remus was still a prefect? Disinclination 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi! I've replied to your post on Talk:Severus Snape. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] outside opinions

Hey Michael, Is their any editor(s) in particular that you like that you would want to give an opinion to the Slug Club debate of ours. OR Should one of us post a message on the WikiProject Harry Potter talk page to get the opinions. (Duane543 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Looks like User:Fbv65edelput the Slug Club page up for deletion. Just thought that you would like to know. (Duane543 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for clearing that issue up. (Duane543 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] slug club

How could I resist? Sandpiper 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] book 7, continuation of debate with John Reaves

Our discussion had got very off my original post to Reaves, so I thought it better to post reply here. I can't remember now where I saw the comment which I alluded to, about Rowling writing Dumbledore as a suicide bomber. So I can't be certain why I took the comment that way, or whether I am right. She said something like 'it is far far too late to change things now', and I think the conversation was why I took it that way. Plus the fact that it is essentially what is going on, and that actually heroes dying for a cause is a traditional literary theme. 'It is a far, far, better thing I do now than I have ever done before', (er, famous quote by I'm not sure where from ! tale of two cities, set in revolutionary France?) It is perhaps ironical that suicide bombers are currently demonised, yet volunteers leading raids to almost certain death in WW1 got medals. Rather a matter of perspective. But I suspect Rowling is a bit sensitive about Dumbledore's hero's sendoff because of the recent London bombing.

As to Rowling and book 7. I am not pessimistic. She has been criticised for erratic plotting, yet I do not see any major inconsistencies. There is a traditional approach in some books for the perspective in a book to jump about, maybe a few chapters about one set of heroes, then some about a different lot. Here she had 7 books, and although people have tried to draw out similarities between them, I suspect she tried to vary the plot as much as possible between each. Basic plot is always the same, Harry clobbers Voldemort AGAIN, but she has done a very much better job of making each book distinct than have quite a few authors I have read. It may be people are worrying because she seems to take up a theme then completely drops it in the next book, but this may be deliberate. So far (...) I don't see anything to suggest her plotting is anything other than brilliant. But that judgement will depend on the degree of minute plot detail she can seamlessly wrap up in the last book. She did comment on TV that it was going well, but she was amazed how many details there were to include. I think she meant exactly this. It could also have implied that there exists an essentially complete version of the book, but with lots of work needed to insert little detail. Might even have people checking it by now. Who knows.

She may not like fantasy, but she seems to have an excellent grasp of traditional myths, and studied it at university. I think it possible that her starting point was the tale of Beowulf, who I am sure lent his name to Dumbledore. I think her famous train journey where this supposedly began was her idling away the time seeing if she could think of a modernised version of Beowulf, which she had had to study. She actually won an award for HP where someone else won an award for a new translation of Beowulf. People asked her how she thought of her book compared to the other winner. Whether the book started with Beowulf or not, there is too much of that story in HP for her not to have included it deliberately, (but she meant us to know that, she used the name, almost all HP names are significant, so she must have been dead pleased). Now, I would love to get that into an article, but she won't say anything about it until after the last book, if she ever does.

I expect the last book will be much more like the others than people think, as far as its 'feel' goes. It will probably go outside of school, and sounds as though Voldemort will actually get to do some battle fighting on stage. Her prose reads ok to me, but it is perhaps what has been most criticised. I imagine she gets better with practice, so I don't imagine it will be worse than what we have so far, which is perfectly fine. She has always been writing 'popular' books, not ones where you need a dictionary to check the meaning of words. Dumbledore will no doubt make an appearance somehow, but if her claim than dead means dead,dead,dead, is really justifed, probably he will not be taking a very active part. But then, actually, he often has not. He has always been working behind the scenes, and i can easily see how Rowling would be able to introduce 'plans' he has already made and told people about. I think Snape is due for a total character turn around by the end of the book, and despite her protestations that she does not lie when she answers questions, I think she will be seen to have made some very constructive answers to certain past questions. Sandpiper 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment about the birthdays article

I'd go chronologically since the article is about dates. Also, there seems to be some birthdays missing, most notably Dumbledore's. I guess the birthdays without years could go in thier own section. John Reaves 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant. Any known dates for anybody should be included. John Reaves 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, can we delete the Zodiac signs since they're irrelevant and unrelated (and astrology is stupid)? John Reaves 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion about it, but I think it's safe to assume that nobody will miss them. John Reaves 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wirral Grammar School for Boys and its History

Could you tell me anything you know about former German & French teacher Dr F P Gopsill at Wirral Grammar. Also, at your time in the school, what languages could be learnt?, and what other things do you know about the history of Classics and Languages teaching and the subjects taught in the school's history, since 1931? I would really like it if you could respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aconnell1993 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re:Assistance

Hi Michael,

Sure, I'll do what I can tomorrow. Thanks for asking, Deathphoenix ʕ 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we are both talking about the same thing, had a look at the AfDs. I'm afraid that while I do agree the content ought to be included, I don't really agree it ought to be separate from the articles others had suggested as places to put it. In general I think all information on one topic should be in one place, as far as possible. Having it in two places makes it very easy for two articles to disagree with one another, or each to contain only half the story (unhelpfull to readers). I have seen this sort of thing quite often on wiki, where different people have started articles with different titles on essentially the same subject. Wiki is frequently badly organised. (try looking up tumuli/burial mounds or another dozen or so names for those lumps of mud with people buried under them.) On the whole I tend to be looking for opportunities to combine related articles rather than split them, unless there is a apecific need to keep them apart.

But you are right that there is a significant faction of people who don't think fiction should be included, certainly not to the level present in HP (notwithstanding 'wiki is not paper'), and who have written content rules rather designed to ban the sort of stuff presently in wiki HP. The trouble is that different people are interested in writing rules to those interested in content. Sandpiper 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Micheal... pretty much what Sandpiper wrote. I think I'm in the middle with regards to inclusionism vs. deletionism. I believe that fiction can be written in an encyclopedic way, but on the flip side, there can be some things written on fiction that is unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted. FWIW, the two lists were not unenyclopedic, but, as Sandpiper said, the information on one topic should really be in one place when possible. Not everyone is rampant in deletionism: most trivial Harry Potter articles actually end up getting merged to other articles, rather than actually deleted. This means the content is still kept, but in another form. While it can be stressful to have an article nominated for AfD, I can say with some confidence (since I've closed many contentious AfDs before) that these two articles look to be heading towards being merged rather than deleted. No, I won't be closing these AfDs (due to conflict of interest concerns), but the consensus seems to be leaning towards a merge. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hey, Sandpiper and I often have our disagreements, but we've been able to work together well enough. No reason why you and I can't do the same. :-) As for T-dot, he's involved with a few other Wikipedia projects, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I've cut back on my Wikipedia activities a fair bit, so it's easy for me to lend a voice when needed. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crouch

This is true, but I believe 'Bartemius' is only mentioned in formal circumstances, and perhaps the first reference by Dumbledore? Anyway I doubt people searching for him will search Bartemius, and that's why there are redirects anyway. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I see your point. When it comes down to two equally popular names (if we agree that they are equally popular… I'd still say that Barty weighs more than Bartemius, but we can let this be for now), besides going with the shorter name, WP:NC(P) suggests using Google to see which has more hits. Bartemius Crouch has 15,000; Barty Crouch has 119,000 with a link to the images page from the web results (meaning that there are more images for Barty than Bartemius too). --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/User_talk%7EMichaelsanders_ec6a.html"