Talk:Weasley family

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.

[edit] Blood Traitor status

This reads like a slam against the Weasley's. It should be clarified that this opinion is held by a small number of elitist pureblood families. Furthermore, blood-traitor is a pejorative, they haven't literally betrayed anything and it is therefore unfit to serve as a description of their position society. John Reaves 05:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you see that? "For this the Weasleys are considered blood traitors, considered by some other pure-bloods nearly as low as a Muggle-born or half-blood." This is nothing less than a statement of fact within the canon. I appreciate that you seem to seem to regard yourself as a defender of the Weasley family, and it is important to avoid being taken in by the hype of the wizarding world's major caste, but if this attitude leads to an obstruction of the facts within canon, it should not be maintained. Michaelsanders 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a "defender of the Weasleys" then you're clearly a bloodpurist. I will reword that quote for neutrality's sake. Your attitude of representing a in-universe point of view, rather than what we know is obstructing facts and making for poor quality articles.

John Reaves 14:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Be warned, you are seriously confusing 'in-universe' with 'extra-universe'. Simply: I am not a blood-purist, because there are no such things in the real world. The point remains that they are considered disreputable bloodtraitors by wizarding society within the novel. The only use of the bloodtraitor term within the section you cited is a precise statement of how they are considered in-canon. You, however, are applying POV by trying to eliminate that label in favour of how you see them - which is not how they are seen in-canon. Michaelsanders 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is how they're seen, my opinion on the Weasley's has no bearing in this argument. The in-universe view of the Weasley's by a certain sect of purebloods is not the canon view. We have seen time and time again that the Weasley's are overall allied with good. They are couageous, brave, loyal and accepting. Purebloods view other purebloods as superior in the book, yet it is an accepted fact that blood purity is not a superiority factor. John Reaves 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't drown in the hyperbole there (what do you mean, allied with good? They are allied with the Order of the Phoenix, not with 'Good'. And loyal, accepting? Is that why they kicked Percy out?). But in any case, your argument would be fine if the major tone of the article was, "The Weasleys are evil, because they are blood traitors, and readers are expected to hate them". That is not the tone. The article makes it quite clear, through its presentation of evidence, that the author presents them as superficially nice. The section you have objected to is that entitled 'Blood traitors', which details the opinion of the wizarding world regarding the family. And consequently, it would be entirely wrong to suggest that the Weasleys are the best family in the wizarding world, that they are universally loved and respected, and that Arthur will be the next minister for Magic. That is not the purpose of that section, which details what other wizards think of them. Which seems to be largely, bloodtraitor, odd, eccentric, ignorant, embarrassing, etc. WE KNOW that blood purity is not a superiority factor, but are you seriously suggesting that we dilute a section discussing what those who believe in it think of them? You seem to have serious POV problems here. Michaelsanders 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is clear good side versus badside motif in the series. PERCY OSTRACIZED HIMSELF! I'm not sure why you don't understand this. Nice of you to finally acknowledge what that section should be. Would you agree to changing the section title to "Status as blood traitors amoung purebloods"? John Reaves 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They did nothing to keep him. As for the title, fine, but stop making unnecessary changes. They are pointless, or too POV. For that matter, given that you do not have any backing, YOU are risking a temporary ban. Michaelsanders 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What could they do? Molly sent him letters and a Christmas present--he returned it. The changes were made to point out that not all purebloods view them that way. How is that POV? The reword was a minor semantic change for easier reading. I feel that I am not at risk for blocking, you on the otherhand... John Reaves 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, telling your son that he has not in anyway earned that marvellous promotion which is a step further towards his dream of becoming MfM, and that actually he is just being used as a puppet, is hardly a good conversation starter. Nor do we have any impression that any of the Weasleys other than Molly had stuck up for him, fought for him, or supported him. Instead they turned upon him. Remember that it was Molly who was encouraging the kids, twins as well as Percy, to go into the Ministry: he would have felt that her lack of open support was a betrayal (and he'd have been hurt - he's doing what she wanted him to do, and now he's being blamed? Very nice). But all this is immaterial. We do not know if 'some purebloods' do not think of the Weasleys as blood traitors, we only know the official 'party line', and that is all that can be put in; your changes, to suggest that 'some' purebloods only think of them as blood traitors are therefore POV, and an attempt to subvert the reading - not a 'semantic change for easier reading', since the previous edit was more clear. Furthermore, the neutrality is disputed only by you, you have no consensus, and therefore you should not keep that message there. I am merely trying to keep you from altering the text to present your view, namely that the Weasleys are largely beloved in the wizarding world except by a few evil bigots. That view should not be there, and attempts to insert it are wrongful. Do not do so again. Michaelsanders 15:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy shunned his family and slowly distanced HIMSELF. Stuck for him and defended him from what? The edit merely reflect FACT not my POV. You too have no consensus or backer. The rewords were for clairity. I've requested mediation, please refrain from reverts. John Reaves 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you stop: you are the one making the disputed changes without consensus. I am going to put it back to its state prior to your latest change, and then it will stay that way until the issue is settled. DO NOT CHANGE IT AGAIN. As for Percy, we are both firmly in POV territory here, and it is pointless to discuss it further (except that, whatever way you look at it, it is not an example of close knit familial behaviour). Michaelsanders 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede rv until formal mediation. You are incorrect, they are a close knit family and one members self-imposed exile does not change that. John Reaves 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been clearly shown that they are not closeknit, and the fact that they all accepted the exile of a member (provoked by all the family) is but one example of that. Now leave the issue. Michaelsanders 16:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not provoked by the family and they had no choice in accepting it. Your examples are poor and superficial for the most part. I will not "leave the issue" just because you are stubborn and insist on having the last word. John Reaves 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not provoked by the family? Mr Weasley openly and entirely belittled his achievements, in a manner suggesting that Mr Weasley and Dumbledore were of far more value than Percy (who, let's remember, kept the department running whilst the boss was under the insidiously imperceptible Imperius curse and off sick. That would be enough for Percy to justify his promotion to himself, even if it is unlikely that it was really the case). And there are far more examples: almost every chapter featuring the Weasley family at large shows them to be unhappy, or disunited, or at each others throats. They are constantly depicted as being in their natural state a factional family, in which various members play favourites or victimise others. You don't seem to be giving any examples of their close-knit nature at all. Do so, please. Michaelsanders 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly reading to far into harmless pranks and teasing. Your examples are not of the character and emotion destroying caliber that you imply. John Reaves 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If a family constantly bickers, bullys and cuts off its members, then it is not closely knit. That is a basic fact of family life. Also, your edit summaries to Ginny Weasley suggest that you are becoming unbalanced. Michaelsanders 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries are becoming talk pages, but thanks for the analysis. I was re-emphasizing Draco's traits. If they wern't close knit they wouldn't be speaking to each other at all. John Reaves 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you work that out? That is a bizarre argument: that they wouldn't be talking at all if they weren't close-knit. There are plenty of families who still talk to each other if they aren't close, and plenty who talk to each other - or bicker, or splinter - if they are an advertisement for disfunction. But you really don't seem to have any argument, apart from, "Well, they are close!" They aren't. The Simpsons nuclear group is close, albeit disfunctional (they all love each other, the kids argue at times but always make up and defend each other, the parents take care of their kids, etc) - although they are not close to the more distant relatives (Grampa's nuclear family wasn't close knit - it fell to pieces). The Weasleys aren't. The Weasley family functions according to a speak up or shut up ethic, where everyone yells or bullies each other, or stays out of it - either by tinkering with muggle contraptions, or heading off to Egypt and Rumania. That is not close, that is toxic. It is an example of an appalling family dynamic, a rule of the strongest mentality. And we see it all. You, on the other hand, argue that they are close. And yet provide no evidence other than hyperbolic mess (they are good, loyal, courageous, etc. Very specific.). Either provide an argument, or leave it. Michaelsanders 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Give me a while, I don't have quite the knack for redundant bullshit that you do.

John Reaves 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's just remove any reference to "close" or "dysfunctional" and make it neutral. How many 20-somethings maintain the close relationship that you are calling for anyway? They have their own jobs, lives, and significant others now and family is inevitably going to lower on the list of priorities. Not that means they aren't still close, leaving home isn't a break from the family, they can't be expected to hang around home the rest of their lives can they? Your idea of a close-knit family is a fantasy, that is no fighting, no discontent, eternal harmony, etc. These are everyday interactions that are the very nuances that make the Weasley's a functioning family unit. The "mess", as you put it, is hardly hyperbolic, that is exaggeration not to be taken literally. Your Simpsons comparison serves no purpose except to prove my point: dysfunctional does not necessarily mean not close. Perhaps a reread or brief glance into the books would show you. The Weasley's have the power of Love, which is a predominate theme in the series, other pure bloods such as the Malfoy's do not.

"Echo: Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the Phoenix? JK Rowling replies -> I'm afraid so"} Taken from a Q and A with JK at http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm

This is taken from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/percy.html

Percy breaks with his family: Percy got in quite a bit of trouble at the Ministry for not realizing that his boss, Mr Crouch, was in fact acting under the Imperius Curse. In spite of this, Percy was unexpectedly offered a position on Fudge's staff, a postion which he took with pride. When his parents questioned this appointment and suggested that it was offered so that Fudge would have a spy in their family, Percy was so upset that he broke off ties with his parents completely. He moved to London and refused to even acknowledge his father's pretense in the corridor of the Ministry of Magic. Molly is distraught. He even went so far as to send a warning letter to Ron, suggesting that Ron should stop hanging around with Harry (OP14).

See Also: Percy's letter to Ron same page

John Reaves 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your citation, if anything, suggests that Percy was provoked into leaving home (and do we know if Arthur ever bothered to try to talk to Percy?). And whilst in most healthy families, grown up children do not remain at home or just down the street(which is generally a drawback to living ones life), if they want continue to spend time in the company of the family, they will try to arrange things so that it is possible to easily maintain the relationship: thus, they might live only a few hours drive away. This isn't always possible, but where it is, if the person wants to maintain more than a Christmas card relationship, they will try to arrange it. Therefore, whilst in Bill's case the long distance was unavoidable (there probably aren't many ancient gold filled tombs in Britain. Actually, there are probably lots.), in Charlie's case, the fact that he chose to go to Rumania rather than to Scotland or Wales is rather telling. And you are really getting swept away by hyperbole and absolutes. Maybe this is the result of some sort of trickle down theory, because you have a bizarre view of human nature, and that presented by Rowling. Everyone has the power to love, and nearly everyone does. Draco loves his parents as much as Harry loves his, and Narcissa loves her son as much as Lily loved hers. The Weasleys as yet aren't even in the same ball park - none of them have risked their lives in any major way to save one of their own (except for Ron in the Chamber, who was sabotaged by his own wand, which he and his parents hadn't bothered to replace). As yet, Voldemort appears to be the only one incapable of loving (and that's because he's a sociopath, not because he doesn't have 'The Power of Love'). And my idea of a close-knit family is not a fools vision of no fighting, no discontent, etc. It is one where the members are able to get along, where issues are not turned into battles for dominance or arguments or gang warfare. Watch 'The Royle Family' (of which Rowling is a big fan, and which I think she was quite positive about). They argue, yes. But they live together happily, they enjoy life, and we are never left in doubt that they do not care about each other. The same cannot be said for the Weasleys, where life is neither so peaceful nor so stable. Please, reread the books yourself, actually look at what is going on instead of simply assuming that they are all close and happy and then ignore all blatant evidence to the contrary; and please, stop getting yourself so wrapped up in hyperbole (power of love, indeed. Anyone can love. And some more freely than others. In the Weasley family, love - or rather, affection - has strings attached. Molly only started gushing over Ron after he got his Prefect badge. Wonderful maternal behaviour, that. As opposed to Narcissa, who says 'there is nothing I would not do' to protect her only son. And indeed, risks punishment or even death to go to Snape for assistance.). Michaelsanders 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the definition of hyberbole listed here: [1]. Let's just remove any reference to "close" or "dysfunctional" and make it neutral. Maybe you're just a homebody, or maybe you simply lack ambition or gall, put most people do not plan thier lives around their family. Romania is hardly the farthest he could have gone if he wanted to escape his family. There are dragons in Peru, China, and New Zealand. She was merely showing pride in Ron.

"Percy, however, broke his mother's heart in 1995 when he rejected the family and took sides with Fudge against Dumbledore." taken from HP Lexicon, another concensus.

I'm pretty sure that Charlie is studying dragons in Romania, maybe he has no other choice put to study there becaus of a scholarship or availablilty. Don't you think that the family clock is an example of how much Molly cares and worries ablout her family? John Reaves 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to your personal comments: if you think this family is close, or happy, or normal, I suggest you examine your own background. Such peculiar ideas of family have to come from somewhere, and generally the litmus test is that if you regard a broken or damaged home as normal, you have been raised in a similar environment, making it difficult to recognise it as wrong or abnormal.

As for Molly: She was merely showing pride in Ron - for the first time ever. After he'd done something for her. And you will note that the Lexicon citation mentions nothing about the rest of his family. And I believe that Charlie works in Rumania as a handler. One would expect him to get a job nearer if he really wanted to. Many people do factor in family when planning out their lives, if only to ensure that they are near enough to them to be able to visit or communicate easily.

A basic rule of parenting: DON'T PLAY FAVOURITES. Parents may have favourite children, but they must not exhibit their partiality. If they do so, any hope of family unity will be lost, because a deep division between the 'mother's boy/daddy's girl' and the less favoured child will develop, as well as a rift between the parent and the ill-favoured child. Parents are expected to maintain an appearance of neutrality, impartiality - "we love you all the same." Otherwise, you're into King Lear territory. Molly, however, appears to have missed out on this rather basic lesson. She outrageously played favourites. She blatantly favoured Percy and Harry, as blatantly snubbed Ron, and engaged in an unhealthy battle of wills with the twins (which was a case of chicken-and-egg: we don't know whether they began going out of their way to offend her because she behaved badly towards them, or vice versa. The favouritism, always there, would not have helped either way). The twins responded by victimising Percy, bullying Ginny, and aggravating Molly. Percy did his best to get the twins into trouble. Ron constantly complained about how rubbish his life was, and followed the twins, who responded by variously taunting or ignoring him. Ginny tried to stay out of her family's way, except when turning to Percy for help (and that lasted long, didn't it?). Arthur and the elder two ignored the whole issue or stayed out of it. That is not closely-knit, that is not happy or healthy, that is a pretty solid case of factionalism, a blatant mess-up of basic parenting.

It is also pretty similar to the Evans family, who by Petunia's account also played favourites - they were wildly impressed with Lily, and it sounds as though they largely relegated Petunia to second place because she wasn't 'special'. And we know how they turned out. Were they 'closely knit'? Were they a happy, stable, functional family? Petunia is hardly a good advertisement for that brand of child-rearing, and we don't know what Lily was like. I doubt anyone would have any doubts about the Evans family having failed, which leads me to wonder if you are not merely working on a basic assumption that 'lots of children + parents = closely knit and happy family'. In which case, that is simple laziness. On the other hand, if this really is due to some deeply ingrained damage to your psyche, meaning that you lack a basic conception of whether the style of family the Weasley fit into is happy or damaged, I pity you. Really, I do: because if that is the case, it is likely to haunt you for the rest of your life. And nobody deserves that. Michaelsanders 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has lost any constructive merit. It only serves as a place for you to repeat yourself ad nauseum while selectively ignoring anything that you can't refute with your exaggerated claims. Any attempts at neutrality or resolution have been ignored by you as it is apparently your goal to argue your POV and pointless minutiae. Our arguments are based on nothing but speculation and what we think something should be. Although you will more than likely ignore this too, I think we should focus on a neutral section. I would also like for you to explain why my rewording is POV and not simple semantics. The sentences needed a reword, the original was obtuse and lacked clarity

John Reaves 03:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Words for you to look up: hypocrite. Also, I fail to see how I am merely 'repeating myself ad nauseum'. It is made astonishingly clear in the text that the Weasleys are not close knit, and it is your POV that they are. Furthermore, your changes to this article add nothing of value, and merely appear to be an attempt to dilute the meaning. Suggest an alternative text here, but stay off the main page until it is agreed upon. Michaelsanders 11:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I hypocrite? You would fail to see that. It's is a reword, just because somebody changes what you wrote to a more intelligible structure doesn't give a reason to revert it. Their not your words, stop taking offence to thier restructuring. You leave the main page alone, you are not an ultimate authority.

Alternate text:

From >"For this the Weasleys are considered blood traitors, considered by some other pure-bloods nearly as low as a Muggle-born or half-blood. The fascination of Mr Weasley with Muggle technology only furthers to condemn the Weasleys to this status; he is said by even moderates, like Cornelius Fudge, who are not as prejudiced as the Malfoys to "lack proper wizarding pride."

To > "Events like these have made the Weasleys blood traitors, in the eyes some pure-blood families. Mr Weasley's fascination with Muggle technology has further added to the Weasleys' blood traitor status; it has even been said by moderates, such as Cornelius Fudge, who are not as prejudiced as the Malfoys that he "lacks proper wizarding pride.^{[citation needed]}

This is purely semantic!

The definition of blood traitor is in the blood traitor article. A citation is needed.

John Reaves 12:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

p.617, GOF: "It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride." As you would know if you had bothered to look, or indeed remember a memorable quote that noone saw the need to cite. Also, it is far simpler to give the brief definition of blood-traitor already in the article, given that this is what many wizards think of the Weasley family personally. From this vantage point, it looks more as if you are simply trying to effect a cosmetic change by removing any information showing the Weasleys in a bad light from the immediate article. It is unnecessary. Plenty of people edit this article, and none have had any reason to complain about that description. I understand that you somehow feel the need to protect the Weasleys from any hint that they are neither universally loved in-canon, nor a model for the perfect family in general. However, it is entirely unnecessary, and smacks of POV. The other grammar changes are simply unnecessary, and appear to be nothing more than one-upmanship. Michaelsanders 12:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, there is no 'blood traitor' article: merely a few rather inaccessible and inadequate lines in the blood purity article. It is far simpler to simply leave the description in this article as it is. Michaelsanders 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh! What is wrong with me? I can't believe I didn't remember where a random quote was located within a 6 book series! What was I thinking adding "citation needed" to an uncited quote? What you said about definition is a good point, I'll put it back. As far as the reword, get over it . How am I a hypocrite?

"Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith." taken from wikipedia master help page on reverts

John Reaves 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot actually. In any case, now that your attempt to disprove a quote about the family having no wizarding pride has been dismissed and your attempts to hide the opinion of the wider wizarding world regarding the family accepted as untenable even by yourself, I suggest we remove all the absurd neutrality and active discussion signs, keep the wording in the article the way it is or leave someone without an agenda to reword it, and just let the page go back to its usual state of vacillating between inactivity, people declaring their undying love for Arthur Weasley, and the occasional useful addition of information. Do you have any objection to this, or are you going to continue this ridiculous and demeaning behaviour (for a start, you have misused the warning system. None of your complaints have been even remotely related to POV issues). Michaelsanders 01:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I assume that this was left by Michael Sanders. Those templates are there to encouage discussion, maybe absurd is another word you should look up. If my attempt to disprove the quote was adding the citation needed template, then you must not be familiar with Wikipedia policy. You are not in the right in reverting my edits. The original text was poorly written and I merely reworded for clarity. John Reaves 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You used the template claiming that it did not give a neutral point of view - and then followed that up with plenty of POV, but no evidence that there had been any. That is simply attempting to raise a storm to no good end. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the text. Nor, given the lack of changes from anyone else, does anyone else - but if anyone does have an objection, they will change it, and no doubt without the obvious bias you display. I have removed the templates now, since they serve no purpose other than to delude you that you are making a relevant point. I suggest that, since they no longer serve any remotely conceivable purpose, you leave them off. And stop trying to change the text. Michaelsanders 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you havn't noticed you are the only to revert my rewords, apparently anyone that has read it had no objections to it. I suugest that you leave unless you can come up with a good reason why it should be reverted, because you haven't yet. It's just plain easier to read, simplae as that. I agree though, the templates haven't had any effect, though they were appropriate. Any sockpuppeting was accidental (it's not like you didn't know it was me anyway). Just leave the text alone, it's semantic and nothing else. It seems you just fear change, your narrow-mindedness has no place here on Wikipedia. John Reaves 02:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I fear change. That's why I was trying to edit the Ginny article, and YOU kept stonewalling me. You are the one who has no place on Wikipedia, since you make your bias obvious and introduce it into the article. When your premise for your edits is that as it stood the article seemed too anti-Weasley (and yet you failed to provide any evidence of bias), it is impossible to see how can can deny it. But let's be frank. This discussion has reached deadlock, and appears to have no hope of resolution by we two alone - you do not appear to back down, and I certainly won't (my hero is Marcus Porcius Cato, just to give you a clue - though you'll probably need to look him up to understand that reference). Therefore, the only sensible option is to keep the wording as it is, and let someone else who thinks it needs solving sort it out without the obvious bias. So just drop it, because it's going nowhere. Michaelsanders 02:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You chose to portray the Weasley's as being viewed as disreputable by the Wizarding world and and dysfunctional which is simply not true, but will never be able to comprehend that though. Any bias I have is not represented in the article. What is wrong with that reword? It presents no bias and you refuse to explain why you think otherwise. As far as who your hero is, I couldn't give less of a damn. If you've modeled yourself after him, he must have be stubborn, old, stonewalling curmudgeon. John Reaves 03:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the section in question to end this edit war. If either of you touches it again or reverts I will make sure you get banned. Edit wars are not tolerated at wikipedia, so please check your egos out at the door when editing. I will say that this article needs a good amount of work and that that particular section needs to be re-written. I will be making some edits to it within the next couple weeks. If you guys have any constructive input to add please let me know by writing it in the new section that I created below.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Any opposition to archiving this section? Or should it age for a while? John Reaves 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive Input for new Editing of Article

I think the Fudge quote was appropriate and not POV, it should be put back. It only helps factuality. John Reaves 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would differ, Mr. Weasley never advanced because he liked his current job. You could however say that the position doesn't warrant much respect from workers at the ministry--but that really doesn't fit in with this section of the article. And that wasn't the POV statement I deleted, I was just rephrasing my own edit.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I realize your edit summary refered to your text. I just assumed that is why you deleted the quote. Arthur has been promoted to the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects. The quote didn't refer to his previously stalled position at the ministry it just showed the predjudice he faced. John Reaves 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put the quote back in when I get around to editing the article. It should be mentioned, but not in the context it was placed in.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Minority of pure-blood families? Except for the Longbottoms, of whom Neville likes Ron snd Ginny, and whose Gran appears to approve of Ron (which is hardly a statement of the opinion of the whole family), we don't know that 'a minority of purebloods' consider them blood traitors. All we know is that the 'party line' of purebloods is to call them bloodtraitors. It is OR to suggest that only a minority of purebloods think of them as bloodtraitors - and, by inference, that most purebloods do not. I would also disagree with the line about judging people by personality and choices - it is clear, for example, that Fleur was not judged adequately according to her personality and choices. There is also Percy and his family - neither he nor the rest respected each other's choices. Then there was Hermione, whom Mrs Weasley briefly shunned because she believed Rita Skeeter's garbage. Or, for that matter, Mrs Weasley's obvious lack of respect for Mr Weasley's choice to tinker with muggle miscellany. Or her lack of respect for the twins' desire to open a joke shop (her attitude only changed when they started bribing her with gifts). Or Mrs Weasley's lack of respect for Bill in the matter of his fiancee. Amazingly, that section has got worse: it now lacks an adequate explanation of blood traitor, contains new speculation and OR, and obvious bias (comparing them to Dumbledore being only the tip of it). Michaelsanders 10:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, if anything it is majority of purebloods (and only purebloods). Fleur had just as poor an attitude towards the Weasley's as they did to her. I've already been through the Percy issue enough with you. Mrs Weasley bought into some yellow journalism for a brief period before coming back to fer senses. So what? The Weasley's are hardly the first family where the wife disapproves of one of the husbands hobbies. What mother would respect thier dropout sons wishes to open a store? Fleur was stuck up and rude to the Weaseley's too, regardless she has been accepted as of HBP. As far as the Dumbledore comparison goes, I'm not sure I see the point but it's certainly not bias. It's just a comparison. John Reaves 10:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because Molly knows what Rita Skeeter is like? She repeats several times that she writes garbage, so why believe her about Hermione? Because a host is supposed to be polite to a guest (and her behaviour was hardly atrocious - a few complaints about chickens, and it being dull - which sounds more like unwilling recognition from Mrs Weasley than affront). And actually, I think a lot of mothers would accept, if not approve, of their sons dropping out if they had a serious and viable idea (and the funding from Harry). What happened to vim and vigour, or whatever it was you were claiming I had none of? As for Arthur's hobby - no, she wouldn;t be the first wife to disapprove of her husband's hobbies, but whatever happened to respecting his choices? She doesn't even respect him, let alone his choices. And we don't know about non-Purebloods, except that Fudge at least doesn't respect him. We do know that the Purebloods were, prior to Malfoy's arrest, pretty powerful, so it would be a mistake to state with any confidence that non-Purebloods don't think of the Weasleys as Purebloods, or at least as lacking wizarding pride. Seriously though, the whole point of a third party mediator is that he's supposed to improve matters; instead, all phnxashes has done is taken a belligerent attitude and made the article even worse than it ever was. Is that supposed to make peace? Michaelsanders 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Like, I said she made a mistake. She didn't know about the funding from Harry, she just knew that they hadn't finished school, and like any mother she was reluctant to see her children leave home. "Vim and vigour"? What are you talking about? How is she disrespecting him? True, let's just leave it at "majority" since we don't know either way. It wasn't the best reword (more, just deletion) but it was neutral. Also, please comment above on the archive comment. John Reaves 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Ambition and gall' were your exact words. And it was anything but neutral: it leaves out important information in order to give a biased point of view. The user is not only attempting to skew the presentation of the family, but is unashamed about doing so. He also has absolutely no right to call himself a 'mediator' - mediators take a calm line, they don't stride in and copy the combatants with an equally violent attitude. Phnx2ashes is entirely unsuitable to be mediating this discussion. Also, I have no idea what you mean by 'comment above on the archive comment'. Michaelsanders 11:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm don't no what that has to do with anything , but I'm not sure what happened to it. The comment about archiving in the previous section is what I was refering to. What does it leave out? If you are refering to the Fudge quote, then I agree. We should add that and change minority to majority. What else would you like to add? John Reaves 12:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave it for now. Until this mess is sorted out, it should stay as it is. As regards the text, it needs a restoration of the bloodtraitor description (since it is difficult to find it in the purity article, and simpler to define it on the Weasley page). It needs an explanation of why Malfoy would not hang out with Hermione (i.e. the definition of muggleborn or 'mudblood' that was there) - although the comment about mudblood being a curseword is irrelevant. It needs a better explanation of the family standing amongst purebloods - that they are considered as low as muggleborns due to association. It needs to address as much as we know about their standing with others as we can say - i.e. that Arthur hasn't progressed because he 'lacks wizarding pride', that they are liked by people such as Bagman - and the two give each other favours - but that the majority of wizarding opinion about them is unknown. The stain of Mr Weasley's muggle fetish needs to be addressed. The pointless, speculative and biased rhapsodising about the family ("Instead they choose to judge a person by their personality and choices (a position also held by Hogwarts' headmaster Albus Dumbledore). ") needs to be removed - their record in that area is extremely shaky, and the Dumbledore comparison is unnecessary - indeed, it appears more as an attempt to conflate the reputations of the two ("Oh. Dumbledore is wonderful. And the Weasleys are just like him! Gee, they must be wonderful too!"), and accordingly is POV and biased. Brilliant mediating from phnxashes, making the article even more objectionable than before, and behaving in an unashamedly biased manner. Have you ever done this before? Michaelsanders 12:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There could just be an anchor link like this: blood traitor. Malfoy's association to Hermione is irrelevant to an article about the Weasleys. Arthur has progressed, he was promoted in HBP. Since the opinion is unknown we should just leave it. Maybe as long as it's not phrased as "stain of Mr Weasley's muggle fetish". Yeah, I can definetly see where your coming from there, good point (just now taken). No, I haven't. John Reaves 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the question of, 'have you done this before' was addressed to phnx2ashes, who doesn't seem to be going about this properly. We both need to be clearer about what we're referring to - I just confused you, and I'm confused by the 'see where you're coming from' remark. Michaelsanders 12:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I was referring to the last part about the Dumbledore reference. John Reaves 13:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

wow wow, ok, the edit I made was only suppose to be a quick fix to solve you guys' bickering. One that I wrote at past midnight here after a very long day. That is why I created this discussion, I have said many times that I was going to go back over it and re-word it. I'm glad to see that you guys have taken advantage of this section. Now, the whole minority thing can go. You are right, there is no concrete way of knowing the prejudices of each family in the wizarding world of Rowling's stories. I placed that in there because a minority of people in the books have used that term, We should rephrase the sentence to say that. I think the Dumbledore comparison can stay, it fits. Aside from Mrs. Weasley's prejudice against women in Harry's and her sons' lives, she has only showed distaste for people who have chosen the dark side of magic or have rather vulgar personalities (such as Rita). She disliked Fluer because she was dating her son, and she believed Rita's rant because Rita was claiming that Hermione was playing Harry (whom she cares for as a son) for the fool. I would like to point out that she eventually got over her motherly bias in each case. Now to be a more acceptable mediator...The only way to solve this and to get a feel for what each of you thinks should be changed, is to have each of you re-write (in you own words) the Weasley Blood-traitor section and post it below. From there we can discuss what we like/dislike from each. ←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Er..."swarming with muggles"? Michaelsanders 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think we should wait to see if T-dot is willing to help - I'd rather wait for his input before we begin talking this over (I have never known him to make such an objectionable edit, least of all in the guise of mediation). Michaelsanders 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine. In the mean time I will cut out the objectionable material leaving:

"The Weasleys are one of the older pure-blooded families in the wizarding world. Many of the prejudices held by and associated with the old pure-blood families are not held by the Weasleys, nor do the Weasleys take pride (or shame) in their heritage of pure magical blood. For instance, a prejudiced family like the Malfoys would never associate with a Muggle-born witch like Hermione Granger, much less allow her to spend the summers with them. A recurring theme in the Harry Potter series is discrimination against those who are not pure-blooded, that is, witches or wizards with some Muggle relations – or Muggle-born wizards, as well as muggles themselves."

It says what it needs to say without being redundant or POV like the previous edits. It is my opinion now that the main trouble with this section, is it branches out too much into the Weaselys' reputation with the wizarding community. Instead maybe we should think of creating another section Titled "Weasley Familiy's Reputation in the Wizard World", delete the Blood-Traitor section and add this current section to the new one as a paragraph.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The section as it now stands is fine as an interim place holder for readers. I fail to see what difference renaming the 'bloodtraitor' section as 'reputation' would make other than the purely cosmetic change of title. Michaelsanders 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

With the current title we are only viewing the families reputation through the eyes of some pure-blood families, a very small margin of the wizard population. It is a more general title that fits better and allows us to add other view points aside from those of just these families. I also figured that the Fudge quote would fit in better under a different paragraph under the general title.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"...a very small margin of the wizard population." 25%. At least - given the (supposed) long life of wizards, and the (supposed) increase in muggle-born births, the wizarding population may be more than 25% pureblood defining. It's a minority, but hardly a small one. We also mustn't forget that the purebloods were (at least before the return of Voldemort) in effective control of the wizarding world. We know that Slughorn's protegees are the bright and powerful of the wizarding world - Molly even commented at one point in HBP that the ministry is full of his favourites, or words to that effect. We also know that, up to at least Riddle's time, nearly all his students were the 'pick of the purebloods', although by Lily's time this was changing. This being the case, it can be taken for granted that the top echelons of wizarding society are ruled or controlled by purebloods or pureblood sympathisers. Making the pureblood opinion the dominant opinion. This may not be quite the case by the start of HBP - the coincidence of Mr Weasley's promotion with the downfall of 'prominant pureblood' Lucius Malfoy may not be merely coincidence. But, given that Umbridge was maintained in her job despite the disaster of the previous year, and given that the discredited Fudge himself was maintained as an advisor to the new Minister, it could as easily be a sign of just how desperate the ministry was for experienced people to do the necessary jobs - regardless of history or background. Or Weasley's promotion could be a sop to the more liberal wizards - Scrimgeour plays to the gallery after all. In any case, given that the Pureblood philosophy is likely to be the ruling, and perhaps dominant, philosophy amongst wizards, it seems rather an empty gesture to suggest what everyone else thinks. Especially as we don't know what anyone else thinks of them (though anyone who disapproves of corruption is unlikely to think much of them. That flying car - which Weasley had written laws against, whilst trying to create a loop hole for himself - would have given them a poor reputation. As would Mr Weasley's quid pro quo agreement with Ludo and Otto Bagman - letting Otto off on enchantment charges in exchange for prime World Cup tickets. And anyone who has lost family members to Voldemort probably sees the joke shop as supremely tactless - not to mention mercenary. That said, since wizards seem to be a pretty corrupt bunch, it is unlikely that there IS an anti-corruption crowd). Although the Quibbler editor probably despises Molly - after all, there is no indication that she even knows of the 'poor motherless' Luna Lovegood - despite the Weasleys living near a family named Lovegood. In any case, if purebloodism is the predominant view in the wizarding world, either of Purebloods themselves or of those who aspire to be Purebloods or to be liked by Purebloods (think of it as Conservatism. Except 'Are you thinking what we're thinking' is far more brutal), and if we don't know what anyone else thinks of the family, then it would be rather difficult to go beyond 'status as bloodtraitors'. Unless you resort to speculation on what people thought of that car. Michaelsanders 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok now you are just nit-picking and are going off topic again (and I'm beginning to think you do this just to tire people out so you can go on ranting until you get your way). All of that is original research and can be disregarded. You could use Hagrid's quote were he talks about how half of the so-called pure-bloods are really half-bloods, but I'm not getting into that. The purpose of the section we are discussing is to give the reader information of how the Weasley Family is perceived in the wizard world. Some pure bloods think of them as "blood-traitors", Muggle-borns (like Hermione) are accepted by the family, Some at the Ministry think Author is odd for his muggle fascination, but in general he is greeted on friendly terms by many in the ministry, and the Weasley children also get the same "oh another Weasley" comment throughout the books, we could also throw in some stuff on the twins and their shop. This is information that needs to be included. So instead of wasting your time and energy trying to filibuster this discussion come up with some solutions.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You do know that the purpose of a mediator is to resolve disputes in a calm and composed manner, don't you? Have you EVER done this before? Because you are strikingly bad at it. You are adversarial and rude, an attitude which annoys rather than calms. You have shown yourself biased, careless, and have served only to prolong and indeed encourage this messy disagreement. If you cannot behave in a manner suitable to a mediator, don't bother - simply clear the stage and leave it to someone who can. As a helpful tip: if a mediator needs mediation between themself and one of the objecting parties, he or she is failing in his or her objective. And if the mediator is throwing insults, he or she is a hypocrite of the worst kind.

As to the topic - your attitude to my points merely confirms your lack of respect for NPOV, full inclusion of relevant information, and for lack of bias. If you did not properly read the message you refer to as filibustering, read it - it explains why your attempt to create a section on what everyone thinks of the Weasleys cannot work.

In closing. I suggest you simply bow out of this dispute. Leave it to someone who actually understands how to mediate. You do not. You have shown yourself unable to carry out the duty you attempted to invoke, and have been belligerant. Such attitudes are not tolerated from mediators. Nor is bias, and nor is a lack of conciliation. You appear entirely unfit to do this, and so unless you prove yourself capable of mediating properly, you will do more harm than good. If so, just go and write about how wonderful Dumbledore is, instead of pretending to be an unbiased and calm mediator.

Was that precise enough for you? Michaelsanders 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to attack me personally, do so on my talk page, you are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself with this child like behavior. I have never said I was a mediator and don't care how a mediator is suppose to behave (in fact I have been more civil to you than you deserve). It was brought to my attention what you were doing on the Weasley family article and I have tried time and again to try and get you to cooperate. Again I ask, what else do you think we should place in the section in question? I have laid out some general items that should be included.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more important that we have more than two opinions than a mediator. You're straying entirely too far off subject and we should stick to the issue at hand. First I'd like to propose that the "Extended family" and "Relatives mentioned in passing" section be moved under the "Nuclear family..." section and be followed by the pets section. This is a more logical order as it serves to better address the title of "family". The staus should be moved to the bottom. I do believe that this subject deserves its own section as it probably the only reason the Weasleys are involved in the storyline at all (that is, they are willing to associate with the "halfbreeds" and muggleborns that play important roles in the story. I think the Fudhe quote is a needed addition to provide both a citation from the series and a (presumably) non-pure blood opinion on the "blood traitors" John Reaves 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Extended family isn't nuclear family. Nor are relatives mentioned in passing. And of course the quote should stay - it is a provable line about what the former leader of the wizarding world thought of Arthur. Michaelsanders 09:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the quote gives a nonpure blood POV. I'm proposing we move the sections under the "nuclear family" section. They would maintain thier status as seperate sections, but just be in a different location on the page. That way the article has "family area" (if you may) where all the info on people and animals is located. John Reaves 10:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

'Family' - sure. 'Nuclear family' - no. That's only the household itself. Michaelsanders 10:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your not understanding me, I'll put it this way: move the 'blood traitor' section below the extended family section. Not merge the family sections. It will remain its own section, just at a different location in the article. This just keeps the themes of the srticle together, i.e. intro, family, blood traitor, et. al. John Reaves 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. And probably should be done. Michaelsanders 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, that ordering makes more sense. Seeing as we all agree you can go ahead and make the change as it was your idea. I also agree about the Fudge quote. It just needs to be placed in a little better. If either of you guys have an idea of how it could be transitioned in, let us know so we can all agree on it. I'll also try and come up with something later. Ok, I have an evening class, see yah.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielle Delacour

I just realized this. Why does she have her own sub-section? Surely Fleur, if anybody, deserves her own section. Perhaps a reword and change to "Fleur Delacour" or "Future in-laws"? John Reaves 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fleur has an article to herself. Gabrielle does not.Michaelsanders 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but why does that warrant her her own section in an article about the Weasley family? John Reaves 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A long time ago, someone decided that she needed to be mentioned somewhere. And, for whatever reason, it was decided that she should be put in the Weasley article rather than elsewhere - I suppose the Fleur Delacour article was considered to be inappropriate, since it is only about Fleur. I don't see any harm in retaining Gabrielle here, however. Michaelsanders 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think she is relevant and on-topic? I do agree that she should be mentioned somewhere, just not here; it does not seem appropriate. Maybe on the minor characters page. If the section was changed to be about Fleur, she'd certainly deserve mention. John Reaves 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How much can be said in this article about Fleur, given that she has her own article? Michaelsanders 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

True, good point. Still, can you see any reason for Gabrielle to have her own section? John Reaves 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here - not really, apart from her being a prospective in-law. However, I don't know where she could go. Michaelsanders 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about on the Minor Harry Potter characters page? John Reaves 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright. Though if (a lot) more is discovered in the seventh book, we may need to rethink where to put her (probably her own article). Michaelsanders 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been done. The "future in-laws" section could use some additions, I'm just not sure what. Oh, and don't bother trying to link to "in-laws", it's a terrible article (redirects to "Mother-in-law").John Reaves 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)