Talk:Harry Potter (character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter (character) article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of Harry Potter.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Good article Harry Potter (character) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
August 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive

Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2
Archive 3

Contents

[edit] Family Tree

Someone has spelled Angelina Johnson's name wrong in the family tree, someone correct it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.49.131 (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref 13

What is it? It comes up blank. Wrad 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just tried ref 13 and it opens OK. It is the "J.K. Rowling Web Chat Transcript" @ The Leaky Cauldron.org Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potter possession image

We cannot use this image until it is legal for us to grab it. This image is almost assuredly a screenshot from an illegal download of the film. As this creates a legal nightmare, I pulled it until we have some solid provenance for the image's legalisty. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be from here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Could be. Should we take the chance? I'd prefer not to endanger the project on th eoff-chance it isn't, There is no licensing whatsover from the uploader (which, from a glance at his Discussion page is not all that unusual). Should we remove this picture and upload the NYT version instead? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be the safest thing to do. Just upload the NYT one over the other. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained reverts

Hi, I only just noticed that my edits to this article were reverted. That is the second time my edits to this page have been undone, both seemingly without reason. The first time, it was done with no explanation, and when I asked the editor who did so why, they said that they were trying to protect the page from vandalism, and that I should restore my edits if I thought they would improve the article. When I did so, I was reverted again by a different editor, who simply said "perhaps you might want to discuss removing sections, achieving consensus, hmm?", which leads me to think that I was reverted simply for making drastic edits, rather than because my edits were detrimental to the quality of the page. We are encaourged to be bold here, aren't we? My edits contained summaries explaining my reasons for doing so; that "Fears" section is unsourced, unneccesary, and original research. Who says that Harry has few fears? The fans? For all we know, he could be afraid of lots of things which haven't been acknowledged in the books. Unless JK Rowling or someone confirms that he has few fears, we can't make assumptions. The whole section is pointless anyway; why can't "Fears", "Abilities & interests" and "Possessions" be merged into a shorter, much tighter "Characterisation" section? Also, the current "Character development" section isn't about character development; in order to develop a character you have to create them first, and the section should be retitled "Concept and creation" or something. I think the "Appearances" section should come before any out-of-universe information since plot details are only tolerated to provide context for the encyclopedic stuff - better to have context before rather than after. This is how FA fictional character articles such as Jason Voorhees, Jabba the Hutt, and Padmé Amidala, as well as GA fictional character articles like Jack Harkness and Jack Sparrow, are laid out. Anyway, I'm getting tired of having all of my edits to this page indiscriminately reverted with no explanation in the edit summary. If I did something wrong, please tell me so I don't do it again, but don't just revert me because I made some large edits without asking permission. Thanks. Paul730 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful post here, and as well for notifying me of its presence. Paul. Allow me to explain why I had reverted you the second time. Usually, when someone uses the argument to 'Be Bold', I am 95% sure I am dealing with one of those ass-clowns who think that their opinions are much, much more important than everyone else's, and that the rest of the editors within the WP community just don't have the brainpower to get it. They see the freedom of editing boldly but not the responsibility that comes with it. Usually, they are fairly self-destructive folk who over time detonate any sort of credibility they garner. However, I believe that is less of a problem with you, as you are willing to now discuss your edits. Congrats on that. :)
I think that you offer good suggestions, and my revert wasn't meant to intimate that they were stupid or flawed. However, you might have noticed that the sign on the door calls WP "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That means that everyone gets to contribute, and that the FA and GA articles you mentioned didn't spring, fully-formed, from the heads of one or two individuals. They were the result hard and determined work of a large number of people working together and sometimes compromising their own absolutism to think outside the box. The idea is that viewing the subject from a number of different sides gives us an edge over other encyclopedias in that - while we are not necessarily experts - we each bring a little something to the table, and that the cumulative value of that is often better than that of an expert-driven encylopedic effort. As you are a fan of Buffy, here's a translation: the Scoobies were far more successful than the Initiative in almost every endeavor.
Your edits altered the substance of the article rather dramatically, Paul. That sort of large-form edit short-circuits the editing process. You were presenting the community with an edit large enough in its scope and connectedness that it has to be dealt with en toto; either you accept the whole edit or reject it. As I believe in the editorial process, I rejected your edit. Had you introduced it a piece at a time, it would have allowed for the editors working or visiting here to either accept, reject or modify the edit to something more workable. I still think you can do this. The only hindrance to this is that it takes a bit of time. But honestly, what's the rush? FA articles aren't made in a day.
I am not going to address the substance of your arguments presented in your edit, as I think they should be introduced one by one, and have the community weigh in on them. I will join in at that time, because your edit, presented in pieces deserves consideration.
I hope I have addressed your concerns, Paul. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. And for realising that I'm not an "ass-clown". ;) The reason I objected so strongly to being reverted was, a) the first editor didn't seem to have any reason for doing so and had mistaken me for a vandal, which was a bit insulting, and b) Arcayne's slightly rude edit summary (the hmmm? was a bit patronising). I'm well aware that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - I regularly ask other editors for their opinion and advice on editing and try my best to help others. I'm not some ego-centric know-it-all (and I'm not saying you said I was). However, while those FA and GA articles certainly "didn't spring, fully-formed, from the heads of one or two individuals.", I know that at least two were completely re-written from scratch by one editor (albeit with help and advice from others). Sometimes heavy clean-up is the best way for an article to go, even if it means sacrificing cruft and plot summaries that the fanboys want to keep. This article has great potential, but it's a bit rough around the edges IMO. Most of it is good, it just needs to be summarised... quality over quantity after all. While I realise that my edits were rather large scale, and this is a highly popular article, I do believe that they were beneficial (for the reasons explained above). I wasn't really altering the subsance, just the layout. Anyway, I will try to re-impliment my edits, but I hope you (the project, not just Arcayne)actually give them a chance this time rather than revert them for being too "dramatic". Paul730 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that they will be more acceptable, if you introduce them in smaller amounts. Some of the wackier things, like retitling sections and moving them around, I think you should get some input from others before instituting them. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grouped books together?

Is there a reason why the second to forth books and the fifth and sixth books are grouped together and not separated? --Silent Elf 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some measure of brevity I suppose. The discussion of his appearances in the novels is already quite long here, seeing as they are all called Harry Potter and ....., it's obvious that they're about him. I think the first deserves slightly more space than the rest but that section might be trimmed to just mention major incidents that forward the charcter.AleXd (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Why are there no images of the character from the books? Don't the American versions have illustrations? I think since Harry is primarily a literary character, it would be fair use to have an image of him which isn't from the films.  Paul  730 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Harry is an Orphan

The lead currently states that the author's decision to make HP an orphan was her own mother's death. Although I haven't got a reference at the moment I'm sure that JK Rowling has said that the charcter was invented six months before her mother died and he was already an orphan.AleXd (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In the documentary released today, JK explicitly states that Harry's parents were always going to die. Her mother's death just made his reaction more realistic and fleshed out emotional aspects of the book. What's in the lead needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.61.227 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. I've removed the offending line.AleXd (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] birthdate

Someone should put up a definitive birth date and year, I know it's July 31st, but is it 1980 or 81? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.198.18 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1980. --UnicornTwilight (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive page move

The archive template used in this page normally includes example links of the form Talk:title/Archive1. In the case of the third archive here, the example title has not been properly substituted and the archive was located at Talk:Title/Archive3, which would be the proper place for an archive of the discussions of Title. I have now moved the archive to its proper place (Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive3) and corrected the only proper link leading to it, situated in this page's box. I have also substituted the other example links to avoid similar incidents in the future. I shall proceed to have Talk:Title/Archive3 (now a redirect) speedy-deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 09:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windsor Spectacles?

What sort of spectacles does Mr. Potter/Daniel Radcliffe really wear?

Someone said or most of the people I know wrongly perceives Mr. Potter glasses to be Windsor-type, even though it could be, it is wrong(!) If the user would examine the spectacle of the actor is wearing, on the picture being featured on this article, one can deduce that both of the eye-frames are not circular at all. Windsor spectacles are known to be fully circular.

Did Ms. Rowling explicitly specify what sort of specs Harry (should) wear???

88.105.122.20 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse-Horcrux?

I never really understood what kept Harry alive after Voldemort hit him with Avada Kedavra. I know that Voldemort used Harry's blood in his Flesh, Blood and Bone spell. I know that Harry was protected from Voldemort by his mother's magic. I know that Harry couldn't die with Voldemort lived. But at the same time, if Harry was protected from Voldemort by his magic blood, wouldn't that mean that Voldemort is also protected from Harry?

Then I had a thought; in a way, Voldemort is like a reverse-horcrux. Harry's blood is inside him just like a piece of Voldemort's soul is inside Harry. In this way, just like Voldemort can't die as long as the Horcruxes are intact, Harry can't be killed while Voldemort survives. And in that way, Voldemort is like a Horcrux for Harry. For more detailed information, see HP7, pg. 709. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.235.202 (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the reason that Harry didn't die was because when Voldemort tried to kill him, his spell ended up killing the piece of his soul inside of Harry. That piece of soul shielded Harry from the spell, so it didn't fully kill him, only send him to the King's Cross Station Near-death experience, if that makes any sense. Borg Sphere (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. (: AshleyScripter {talkback} 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] godric griffindor

im sure godric griffindor should be in that family tree somewhere--81.141.184.114 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are? Why do you say that? faithless (speak) 20:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say that he is descended from Godric Griffindor...Borg Sphere (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

True. In fact, he is decended from Salazar Slytherin. Did you read Chamber Of Secrets and Dealthy Hallows properly? --UnicornTwilight (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possesions

Hi, I was reading this article and I want to ask a question…or more of a suggestion.... Why is there such an elaborated mention of Harry's possessions under a specific heading? It confuses me every time I read it. It looks like mention of minor details for fans of the book not the general and specific information the rest of the article has.

Just for an example:

1. Sirius knife; it did played a minor detail part in fifth book, but was it was important enough to make way into an encyclopedia that contains only general and important summaries about Harry? Harry also had some socks given by Dobby and books given by Sirius, and more importantly Buckbeak, they should have also been mentioned here under possessions then.

2. Harry's two broomsticks; it’s already mentioned that he likes to play quittich and a good player. Specifically mentioning that he had this and that number of brooms and were destroyed by Macgonagall, seemed a little too much in detail to me. Brooms are common things and many Quittich players have them. It doesn't serve very specific point in his characterization.

3. Deathly Hallows; I thought they may be more appropriate to be mentioned under the 7th book summary here. Harry only had them for a little time in the last book, apart from the invisibility cloak. Dumbledore also had them for some time, but it isn’t under some specific heading.

I just mean every person has some possessions, unless they do not play a very significant part, should they be mentioned in detail? My humble suggestion is to merge Harry's important possessions with the relevant books in which they served there minor or major plot purpose and or at least exclude some like knife or two way mirror which did not contribute that much to his characterization or are common possession that most people also have, like brooms.

Other characters like Dumbledore also had some unique possessions but they are not under some specific possession heading, examples, Pensive, Deluminator, Elder Wand and even all three Deatlhy Hallows, which looks much more right accordingly to the article style.

At first I thought to edit it myself but seeing as I'm not even registered here I was quite sure that some huge edits like this without explaining the reasons might be reverted back immediately, so I thought to request you accomplished guys who no doubt have written everything here in the first place instead of doing it myself. Really it looks like that at this possessions part, things have gone into much more detail than the rest of the article. Please do consider it. Thanks in advance and very sorry if I made some mistake while posting it, I'm totally new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.229.236 (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without even reading the entire post, I agree with the IP; that section has always struck me as incredibly crufty and unnecessary. faithless (speak) 10:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Please see: Talk:Harry Potter#Requested move. - jc37 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

The article doesn't bear the "Good Article" icon (at the top right) and such, it's only mentioned here in the talk page. I'd do the edit myself, but I don't know how to. -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voldemort supposedly died?

Presently, the lead states that Voldemort "supposedly died" when he attacked young Harry. Supposed by whom? Would it not be more accurate to say "vansihed", "perished", "supposedly perished" (not sure - I'm not a native speaker) instead?--Noe (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it, though it could still be improved. faithless (speak) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of name?

Just saw this in the transcript of a Monty Python's Flying Circus episode:

It was a day like any other and Mr and Mrs Samuel Brainsample were a perfectly ordinary couple, leading perfectly ordinary lives - the sort of people to whom nothing extraordinary ever happened, and not the kind of people to be the centre of one of the most astounding incidents in the history of mankind ... So let's forget about them and follow instead the destiny of this man ... (camera pans off them; they both look disappointed; camera picks up instead a smart little business man, in bowler, briefcase and pinstripes) ... Harold Potter, gardener, and tax official, first victim of Creatures from another Planet. (See complete transcript here)

Now, okay, it's a common enough sounding name, except - compare the above paragraph with the opening lines of the first book of the Harry Potter series, which also starts off by talking about a perfectly ordinary couple (the Dursleys) to whom nothing extraordinary ever happens, and then goes on to introduce Harry, whose story is of course much more interesting. Monty Python of course long predates Harry Potter, and being a landmark British icon would certainly have been familiar to Rowling (even if she weren't British herself, but especially so since she is). Could she have been making an intentional subtle nod to the show here? Or is it just a big coincidence? Lurlock (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence. I've read something where Rowling addresses this, but I can't remember where. Possibly a case of cryptomnesia, but I doubt it's anything more than that. faithless (speak) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)