Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

note to editors

This page is locked so i can't edit it. I find the part which it states Rowling "moved back to England in Edinburgh" to be frightfully wrong and even gramatically. Edinburgh is in Scotland.


I also notice a discrepancy. In the intro section, the article states, "The majority of the series' action takes place between 1991–1998..." But the first line of the Overview begins, "The story opens on the morning of November 1, 1981..." Which is correct? Egthegreat 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While the first day of series action begins 1981, Harry's time at Hogwarts spans between 1991-1998; readers only experience a single day in 1981 and the vast majority of the time is spent in those seven years (though with slight deviations in HBP and pensive scenes) so from where I'm sitting, the two are consistent. TonyJoe 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

I put Book Sales under Harry Potter (statistics). EvilPheonix must have missed that.

Recent vandalism

On the subject of the vandalism, I suggest that we implement a spoiler somewhere in the page, so those who want to see the 'X kills Y' thing can see it if they want to, and those who dont want to see it don't have to, if they stumble on it. Voporak 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


How about a request for page protection to prevent the "X kills Y" vandals from continuing. While it would be inconvenient to lock this article down, frankly I think it's probably even less convenient to be reverting this a zillion times a day... Ken talk|contribs 03:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best to protect it but have an editable subpage e.g. Harry Potter/e, that the protected page is updated from (like Wikipedia:Copyrights. --ßjweþþ (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirley sure what page protection is but my guess is it would be a good idea this constant vandalism is quite annoying Shimonnyman 09:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I have another idea couldnt we get a sysop to block the IP of the person who had vandalised it over and over? also block all the vandalised content from history so the spoilers or inappropriate launguage wont show up in history?Shimonnyman 11:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea, should we block the person for the article or from wikipedia itself? Zhanster 00:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I am and admin, am watching the article, and the article has been added to the WP:CVU watchlist. Any vandalism to the article will result in the swiftest and severest consequences possible. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article seems much less problematic than many, though someone seems to have pinched the sales statistics. Sandpiper 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


What arcticle has this person been vandalising? User: Gofo 05:21 18 November 2005 (UTC)

release dates

Should we have worldwide for release dates? I think that is a bit snoby as some countries have gotten books much later I believe for instance some countries still dont have Half-Blood Prince yet so to say worldwide is misinforming or if fewer countries didnt get them we should list the release dates for those. I'm not worried about the techical detail that some countries probably dont get it at all but JK Rowling did say that if we did a worldwide release the books would take years longer to publish wich shows it isnt worldwide. anyways thats my two cents.. --Shimonnyman 09:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is the worldwide release date for the English-language version. The delays are for translations, which are a different matter. Carter 17:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes but we nowhere in the article said we're talking exclusivly about the English version and you can't argue that as even the english version is not translated as such but modified region to region so it is not as if the English translation is even a specific one.If we want to specify somewhere this article is concerened with English versions only then we can talk about English versions only but when I look up Harry Potter sometimes im thinking of translated editions and such.--Shimonnyman 21:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Sending out the books and whatnot takes time after all the translation. I'm just happy to get the books when i do. Luna Lovegood 20:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (moved by Bigbluefish - see User_talk:Luna Lovegood)

Individual Book Articles

The six articles relating to each of the six released books seem to rather incongruous. For example, the first two show the main Bloomsbury cover medium-sized, the third, fourth and fifth have a full edition list and list of cover thumbnails; the sixth has a picture of people queuing to buy the book. I think it would make sense to choose a common format for the articles, at least in this respect if not others, and this would also make them more navigable for readers who were comparing the books.

Given this, does anyone have any suggestions as to the preferred approach for the articles?

Bigbluefish 19:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, spread the pictures through the article as it looks better that way Sandpiper 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Harry Potter set in 1991?????

You could've fooled me. In the 4th book, Harry mentions a PlayStation that Dudley threw out the window. The PlayStation came out in Europe in late 1995, but the book's story line started in 1994.

Mmm…see, that's part of why nobody really knows when the books are set. The 1991 date for the first book comes from Nearly Headless Nick's Deathday cake, which says he died in 1492, IIRC, 500 years ago, which would set Chamber of Secrets in 1992-1993. Of course, we can't reconcile the PlayStation with that, and we can't reconcile the birth date of Nicolas Flamel with that, but it's the most concrete thing we have. I think I remember an alternate timeline setting book 1 in 1996 or something, but I don't recall exactly what that was. I think there's an explanation of this over at Dates in Harry Potter — if there's not, there should be. The dates are mostly an attempt to ground the story into "reality" and don't mean much outside that. Hermione1980 23:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

the dates are a commen debate umong potterphiles.

I think that the Harry Potter books are set in the 1990's and the 2000's (Philosopher's Stone in 1997, Chamber of Secrets in 1998, Prisoner of Azkaban in 1999, Gobelt of Fire in 2000, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them in 2001, Quidditch Through the Ages in 2002, Order of the Phoenix in 2003, and Half-Blood Prince in 2004-05. And Harry Potter and the Mirror of Fulmat (the seventh book) in 2007!) --Janet6

Deathday cake, anyone? That's the most verifiable source we have. Might I also point out that Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch are not part of the series, and that book seven is almost certainly not called "Mirror of Fulmat" (I think Rowling has even said as much on her website). Perhaps you're getting the dates the story is set in confused with the dates when she wrote them? Hermione1980 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the actual dates in the book are a source of discussion and there's not really any way to know with certainty, however the system that has been adopted for Wikipedia articles is to set Harry's birthyear in 1980 and go from there. There's been a spat of people changing those around lately, and we generally discourage making such changes without establishing a consensus for it. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It sure surprises me that the dates are in the 1990's at all. When I first saw HP&tSS, I thought it was in 1999-2000. This was on account of the Nimbus 2000. -- Jason Palpatine 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

relations with Muggles

Cut from intro:

concealed from non-magical people ("Muggles")

How sharp is the segregation between magical people and Muggles? There's a reference in the first movie to a marragie between a witch and a Muggle man ("bit of a shock for my dad when he found out") - when a Gryffindor boy introduces himself to Harry as a "half and half". Uncle Ed 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

But on the whole, they are concealed. "Nah, we're best left alone" I think is what Hagrid says in book one. That's why there's a team of Obliviators, the Office of Misinformation (or something), and a whole panic plan in place in case the Muggles find out about anything weird. Hermione1980 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I just watched the movie again yesterday. Harry Potter speaks to a train station employee - and he makes no effort to conceal himself. Hagrid tells a woman, "What are you lookin' at?"
In the first book, many magical people are seen walking the streets in eccentric garb.
Instead of "concealed" which implies making themselves invisible, how about "segregated" or living separately? Uncle Ed 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
In general, they don't always avoid being seen by Muggles, but they generally make some effort to appear normal when in public among them. Their unfamiliarity with Muggle customs means they don't know how to dress in proper Muggle fashion (in general), and a few might not even bother, though that's highly discouraged. But laws prevent them from doing magic in front of Muggles or to Muggles, or giving them enchanted objects, etc. In your example, Harry speaks to the train station employee, but he doesn't ask him where all the wizards are that are supposed to be there, and when the employee doesn't know about 9 3/4, he tries to drop the conversation as quickly as possible. Wesley 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say "concealed" is the proper term, because although Muggles may be able to see witches and wizards, any magical distinction between Muggles and non-Muggles is invisible. The Muggles generally tend to think that witches and wizards are simply crazy people who dress strangely.

This is not a Harry potter forum. EamonnPKeane 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More plagarisim

Do some research on "Tanya Grotter and Her Magic Double Bass". That's the musical bass, not the fish bass. ;) Those books were by a Russian author, whom was sued by Rowling or her agents. Another case was a "Red Wizard" Hallowe'en costume that included a pair of fake glasses and a scarf similar to Harry's.

and don't forget the Barry Trotter series of books. Zhanster 08:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the Barry Trotter books fall under parody rather than plagarism. Brother_William 1st November 2005

The Barry Trotter series more of plaigarism. --Janet6

On the subject of plagiarism, should an effort not be made (once and for all) to distinguish between parody and plagiarism? Surely it is inappropriate to put 'Tanya Grotter', whose author was successfully sued, in the same category as 'Barry Trotter' which is a very clear example of legitimate parody? Libatius 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're getting some terms confused here. Plagarism is limited to the copying of documents without giving reference to the source and passing it off as your own. Parody does not even attempt to pass it off as an original work and is, rather, a derivative work. Although most derivative works are in violation of copyright, the United States has protected parody under fair use laws. See parody for more evidence. Note that parody will never be plagarism or a copyright violation. Sasquatch t|c 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Book Sales

What was the point of removing the book sales statistics? When I first read this page I found them interesting. Admittedly, their list was a bit repetitious of other lists here already, so I have restored them but included them into the list of editions, where they just take one line per book. Sandpiper 07:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Film Visits

Should we include the numbers of cinema visits/ticket sales with the film titles list, complimenting the number of sales for each book? Sandpiper 07:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Other Books

I don't know much about them, but this is supposed to be a summary of all the books and films, and I don't recall a mention of the two spinoff books for comic relief? Sandpiper 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the two spinoff books you're referring to are "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." I don't know enough about them to make a knowledgable entry, but I do know that Rowling wrote both of them, and all the proceeds from those two books went to charity. "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" had an entry that led many readers of the book to believe that Crookshanks was at least part Kneazle. Beyond that, I don't know anything. DougWykstra 17:01 28 February 2006

Religious Miracles as Magic

I'm not sure what source the author originally used, but I've reverted the edit about some Christians being against Harry Potter because it teaches kids that Christ's miracles were another form of magic. I found this page that says something very similar (see #8), and I'm sure there are plenty others as well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: I reworked the sentence to fit closer to the source I found (still not sure of the author's original source). Instead of reading Some claim it undermines Christianity by implying Christ was a wizard and his miracles were magic. it now reads Some claim that children who read the books may begin to view the miracles of God as simply another form of magic. I feel this is more in line with the source that I found, and perhaps more closely resembles the anti-Potter views of some Christians. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, wasn't this something to do with a comment by the current pope, before he became pope, or possibly the last one. Not exactly a minority cult. Sandpiper 22:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Back in 2003, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made comments that you can see on this page. The key sentence that people focused on in these short letters were:
It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.
However, when he became Pope, there was a Vatican radio address that reversed this position. A transcript of this address can be found here. You can look it over, but it seems the jist of it all is that he claims it was a joke, and that he actually views Harry Potter as positive, since they are battles of good vs. evil. Which opinion is truly the Pope's is debatable, but his current "official" standing on it is what is addressed in that radio address.
If someone feels this is noteworthy enough to put in the article (which it probably is), feel free, but it probably shouldn't be more than a sentence or so, especially since his original negative remarks weren't exactly specific.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Fansites

Why do we have a list of fansites at the bottom of the page if we are going to link to Harry Potter fandom, which already lists some good ones. Should a section be made on Harry Potter fansites? We do have a category labelled Harry Potter websites. --Ariadoss 00:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Lord. Delete them. Delete them all. Link to Harry Potter fandom and link to that only. Creating a "Harry Potter fansites" article is just going to invite a whole lot of owners of two-bit geocities sites to put blurbs in. Hermione1980 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, well instead of deleting them for now, I alphabatised the list and only kept the sites above a pagerank of four, or that looked decent enough. I had the articles about more popular sites link to their wikipedia entries. --Ariadoss 00:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought that any web sites that are not official are supposed to belong to the Harry Potter fandom page. Did consensus suddenly change to include all the fan sites in this main page, or did someone just include it and not get reverted? I'd like to see most of these (except maybe the Harry Potter Wiki) moved off the main article and onto the fandom article where these links used to be at. If there's no objection, I'll move these myself. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I feel that the current links work, as long as no one adds more. Like I said I alphabatized them, and linked to the wikipedia articles for the sites that had them. I think if the site has a wikipedia article, a pagerank of 4 or more, and/or a decent layout it is probably a good source of information for fans. Also I personally checked out the sites I left after cleaning up the link section. --Ariadoss 07:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Good work with pruning the links, BTW. It's just that including fan sites and other unofficial sites in this "official" Harry Potter article seems to go against what was done before by having only official links in this article and fansite links in the fandom one. Now there are much less links in the fandom article than on this one. I think the blurb "For further fandom links, including "unofficial" websites, see Harry Potter fandom" (or Harry Potter fandom#External Sites for a direct link) would do well as a piece of text placed under the "Fan sites / other resources" heading, as it clearly points the user to the whole host of unofficial sites and prevents an overlap of repeated links to unofficial sites. --Deathphoenix 17:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added Quick Quotes Quill as a reference, because it is the main reference I'm using to add information from Talk/Uncited. But I can understand if you feel that even that fansite shouldn't be listed, and won't object to the removal of the link. Pruneau 02:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "story time" mean?

I've decided to be bold and move these sites to Harry Potter fandom (to be completed shortly) after seeing five sites given Wikilinks on the top of the "External links" section. These five have articles, so they're notable enough to be given a Wikilink, but that also leaves everything else as "not notable enough". Fan sites were originally intended to be given space in the fandom article, so I've decided to move the links there. --Deathphoenix 13:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the Notable Harry Potter fansites section? Are we just listing all the HP fansites with Wikipedia articles there? Cause if that is the case you are missing a some. --Ariadoss 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think those links were already in the "See also" section and I assumed they were put in there for a good reason. Why trying to organise alphabetically and by category, I split them out. You have a good point, these sites are already covered under the fandom page, which has an entry in this section. To avoid any further problems with notability of fansites, I decided to nuke the lot and let the fandom link cover it. --Deathphoenix 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I feel that was a good solution, no need repeating content. --Ariadoss 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The future possibilty of a Harry Potter expanded universe (aka books that may not be written by Rowling, and/or set in the Potter "timeline"), will we need to revise the whole fansite thing, or add a new article?
For now, Harry Potter fandom#Fan fiction is good enough to address fan fiction. When and if an "expanded universe" starts getting written and officially published, we can address it then. If it's small, a section in this article. If it gets to be large, an expanded universe article in the nature of Expanded Universe (Star Wars) isn't out of the question. --Deathphoenix ? 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

reverted spamming

i removed the CHEAPIPODSHERE.com spam edit but why malo reverted it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 November 2005.

I think you are slightly confused, here was your edit and I reverted your changes because you removed a warning not to add spoilers. There is no mention of cheapipodshere.com spam link on this page. Did you mean a different page? -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The cheap ipod link was added by someone by a code which cannot be seen by the edit and only can be seen on the articale...removing the paragraph header solved this problem..meanwhile i saw the warning not to add spoiler on the article so i thought that it would be unsightly to be there so i removed it 218.186.216.126 10:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed Naruto fan speculation

I remove the following paragraph from the "Other Analogous Works" section, because it is obviously reaching, baseless speculation, stuck in here by some overeager Naruto fan. The "connections" between the two series are so broad as to eliminate any real similarity (and even if they were similar, what does it matter? I've never liked these types of sections). And I don't think I need to point out that Sasuke "resembling" HP is pure rubbish. Frankly, this is the sort of stuff I loathe to come across in Wikipedia. --Marcg106 05:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The manga and anime series Naruto shares many similarities with the Harry Potter series, if only for their similar premise — a coming-of-age journey of an orphaned main character surrounded by comrades, set in a microcosm of sorts and accentuated by supernatural elements. The long path from rejection and loneliness to discovering the importance of friendship features in both; the choice of fighting for the sake of one's friends and family versus fighting and caring only for oneself is a striking point of similarity, probably being the most important theme in both works. One of the major villains in Naruto, Orochimaru, is similar to Voldemort; Orochimaru can summon snakes, is very snakelike himself, has largely conditioned immortality (as to discover all the ninja techniques in the world, much like Voldemort, who tries to do much of the same but with magic), and is seen to embed his subordinates with cursed seals. It should be noted, however, that Orochimaru is based largely upon the identically named character in the Japanese folktale Jiraiya Goketsu Monogatari. One of the main characters, Sasuke, somewhat resembles Harry Potter according to some fans.

Yeah, it is too broad. These kinds of stories are very common. - Marc (unregistered user)

Error in release dates?

  1. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
   * Release: Expected Early Summer 2007
   * Director: David Yates
  1. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
   * Release: Expected  2008-2009
   * Director: Unknown
  1. Harry Potter and the _______________
   * Release: Projected 2009-2010
   * Director: Unknown


Query: How can the 6th movie be expected to be released before the 5th? Is this an error?

Most likely it is an error. Its predicted the movie will be released sometime in 2008. — Sarz 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

IMO this should at least briefly touch on the literary criticisms leveled against the series.

Fixed this to be a bit more vauge as there is no solid date(s) set. Filming for Order of The Pheonox starts in January so the movie could be ready as soon as next Christmas and as late as early 2008.

Release date for movie 7 is estimated to be before movie 6. It should be approx 2009 not 2007.

Removed material

I'm removing a bit of uncited material from the article. I'll list what I remove here, please assist by locating evidence that verifies these assertions. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. The information about the last chapter is kept very secret, and the only public information is that the last chapter is written in the style of an epilogue, and will explain the fate of the surviving characters after Hogwarts.

19.8CM of Fiction

Is there really any need for the picture, showing that the books add up to just under 20cm?

Seeing, as the books are avaiable in hard back and paper back, childrens editions, adult editions and dozens of languages.

If you are going to post a picture like that, it should be a) Of decent quality b) Of the british children versions, and they should all be in the same print/edition.

Other analogous works

This section has seen some additions as of late, including similarities to X-Men and other stuff. I think we gotta nip this sort of thing in the bud before it gets out of hand. I'm reverting some of the more recent edits. The premise behind Harry Potter is actually very common among several works (especially fantasy and manga/anime): we don't need a mention of every single little show that vaguely resembles Harry Potter, which in itself, closely resembles a fairly common theme in stories. I've removed them here, but I was a little cautious with the ones I left in. There's some tenous connection, such as being directed by Chris Columbus, or that Rowling was questioned about the similarities. I want to remove tenuous information, but I don't want to go overboard, so I decided to err on the side of caution here. --Deathphoenix 14:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

was there

a news report about harry potter books being burned in america, because the pope says there saying magic is a good thing, what happened?

This is covered in the conterversy section Hagamaba 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Music

I am trying to find the sales figures for the soundtracks for the HP in popular music section that I started. I've looked at soundscan but I'm not wanting to pay for this info. Some help in this matter . I also am hoping to find more information on HP "inspried" or named music for this section. Also I am wondering if any of the mods for HP thinks that Music should have it's own page given it's role in the pages, on the screen and elsewhere....thanks for your help everyone. Hagamaba 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Pece Kocovski 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do wizards and witchs in Harry Potter believe in God(s)?

I'd like to know if they are either Atheist or agnostic like.Answer in time Please.Thanks.

Witches and wizards appear to have no formal religious structure, although they do celebrate Christmas in a non-religious manner. However, it is clear that many of them are spiritual, and that they believe in souls. 216.108.172.249 04:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the Fat Friar is about the only direct instance of the real world's organised religions in the stories. Basically, Rowling avoids including any detail on religions, without actually precluding any of them (allowing for a little suspension of disbelief, of course). So if you want to believe there's a chapel or meditation room at Hogwarts, you can do so without contradicting the stories; and if you feel that the existence of magic totally invalidates Religion X, you can read it that way too. -- Perey 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Rowling skirts around religion for a very good reason. Can you imagine the minefield she'd have to cross in dealing with the religious beliefs of the Malfoys or the House of Black? Serendipodous 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If wizards and witches believe in Gods, then they will be celebrating Christmas the religous way, and there will not be so much spirits. --Terence Ong Talk 05:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Believing in God wouldn't make the ghosts go away. Serendipodous 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

well, Many people say "Oh my god" --Divya da animal lvr 20:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Many religious people I know say "Oh my god." While I doubt witches and wizards are particularly relgious, there's not much evidence either way. 18:00, 6 July 2006

Harry was christened, and Sirius Black is his Godfather... Yiggdilobith 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this too seriously. The whole setting of the books is, as with similar Boarding School Novels, essentially within a cosy English cultural setting which includes elements of the church, "christians with a small c", christmas, carols, chapel etc, but no prayer or Christ. I grew up on such stories as did many others in far-flug parts of the remains British Empire, but until HP they'd been out of vogue for a generation, and were never read in the US of A. --Snori 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Harry Potter Right-Handed or Left-Handed?

I know it clearly states in Sorcerer's Stone that Harry is right handed.

  "Hmmm," said Mr. Ollivander, giving Hagrid a piercing     
  look. "Well, now- Mr. Potter. Let me see." He pulled a long      
  measure tape with silver markings out of his pocket. "Which is 
  your wand arm?"(Pg.83 SS)

  "Er- well, I'm right-handed," said Harry.(Pg.83 SS)

But in the American covers it shows him left handed.

  • Sorcerer's Stone he's about to catch the Golden Snitch with his left hand.
  • In Chamber of Secrets he grabs Fawkes with both hands.
  • Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, and Half-Blood Prince he is holding his wand with his left hand.

And on the chapter pictures you will also see him doing left-handed stuff.

Harry states that he's right-handed. The two examples (I assume you have another one coming) don't necessarily mean that he's left-handed. There's nothing wrong with a right-handed person grabbing something with his left hand. However, if the American version states one thing that's contrary with the other versions, I say the U.K. version overrides all others in terms of "levels of canon". --Deathphoenix 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Is your fourth point from the movies? If so, the books override the movies in terms of canon. Also, illustrations in the books are not explicitly canon either. Hope this helps, Deathphoenix 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, all of this is from the books, not the movies. Anyway I know there's nothing wrong with holding stuff with your left hand when you are right-handed, but if he's right handed, that means that his wand arm is his right hand, so he shouldn't be holding his wand with his left hand, probabbly because if he should need it won't work as good as if it was in his right hand.

For more pictures of Harry using his left hand, go to http://mugglenet.com/books/chapterpics/index.shtml

Also I personaly think that the American version of the books are better, because the books are a bit longer and have more information.

Yeah, but Harry explicitly states that he's right handed. I think Harry himself knows more about whether he's right-handed than a few illustrations. Also, regardless of whether the American version is better or not, I think the British versions would be higher level in canon because the British versions are closest to J.K. Rowling's original versions, since she herself is British. --Deathphoenix 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that he is right handed, because the text part is more inportant that the image part in the books. But I was just saying that Mary GrandPré must be wrong, otherwise why would she have drawn Harry left-Handed if she has read all the books? And about the British version, I still think the American is better because it has some stuff that the British doesn't have. Just go to http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/dumbledoreclues.html and read the part that says IMPORTANT REVELATION! UK Edition Missing Important Text! Punk-Lova 22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this web site. I'm somewhat familiar with it. Its whole premise is to try and prove that Dumbledore isn't dead. I don't have the US edition, nor do I have the actual UK version, so I can't compare these things for myself. In general, regardless of any missing test, the UK versions still supercede the US versions. --Deathphoenix 08:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think the American version is better, but thanks anyway for your help. Punk-Lova 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for discussing it. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if it were relevant, there is text in both that isn't in the other. eg,

British - 146-147 His eyes lingered for a moment upon Harry's trainers. 'That was you blocking the door when Zabini came back in, I suppose?' He considered Harry for a moment. 'You didn't hear

US - 153 His eyes lingered for a moment upon Harry's trainers. "You didn't hear Skittle 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

About the 'Is Harry left-handed' issue: the cover illustrations for a novel are usually drawn by an independant artist, and the author has relatively little input, other than those (rare) cases where an illustration clearly doesn't match the intentions of the author. IIRC, the generally-applied 'rule' is that the written text takes precedence over the illustrations in matters of 'canon'. DarkMasterBob 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia?

See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread. Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Book 7 Release date

The Harry Potter community has rumoured and theorised the release date of book 7 as being 07/07/2007. One article in particular,[1], gives comprehensive details as to why this might be true. I have edited the release date of book 7 to "rumoured July 7, 2007" while leaving the officially unannounced message there. I also provided the same citation alongside. TydeNet, 21 Jan 2006.

This is complete fan speculation based on nothing but perceived symmetry, so I personally don't think it belongs in an encyclopedic article. For accuracy's sake, the release date should be listed as unknown. —simpatico hi 08:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. However, it is a shame that Wiki users will not be enlightened to the existence of this theorised release date. At least, the link should be left in the references. Also, I only added a sidenote to the unknown release date; I did not change it completely.

  • Thanks for your understanding. I think your wording is better, too. TydeNet 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    No problem, I agree it's an interesting theory, but I wanted to make it clear this was purely speculation not "rumors" (which to me implies "unofficial" facts based on "insider knowledge"). :) —simpatico hi 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On another official HP site I read that JK Rowling started the precursors and research for book 7 at the end of 2005. And that she may or may not finish it this year. An interview/HTML magazine article said it might get released late this year[2006]. I hope that fills everyone's angst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.82.138.66 (talk • contribs) 14:48, January 23, 2006.

That, I highly doubt. I don't think she's ever finished a book in less than a year, and on her website she implies that she only started writing it in January. That would mean the book would be written, edited, and published in less than 12 months. Also, all the books have had summer release dates, why would she break that pattern now? IIRC, from interviews books where she was rushed (CoS, PoA) were extremely stressful for her, which is why she now takes her time writing them. This is the last book in the series, I think she's going to take the time to make sure it's right. —simpatico hi 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put this speculation back on the page a couple of times. Although WP:NOT a crystal ball, I feel that this speculation is very plausable and likely. Also, even if it's not true, it makes a significant addition to the article by giving the reader a roundabout date, which will probably be plus or minus one month of the true release date. In addition, having the external link there greatly reduces the number of people changing the release date from "Unannounced" to "7/7/2007". I'd welcome your comments if you agree/disagree in any way. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really do disagree. This information is unverifiable, and complete speculation. I am removing this information, and it should not be re-added unless official citations can be provided. --DDG 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Also STRONGLY disagree. "Some Fans Speculate" is not encyclopedic, nor authoritative, and not particularly interesting or significant. OK wait - so I speculate that it will be released on Harry's Birthday - July 31 2007. NO WAIT - I just found out she will be good enough to release it on MY Birthday since that date adds up to some Numerologically significant number - the number of letters in the last Chapter, which also has my initials in the Chapter name that I read somewhere it was - and I know this is true cuz I also heard it from someone that knows someone that talked to Rowling's nanny and besides she likes me cuz I am such a Superfan. OK then I'll put My Birthday up! BS. If and when J.K. Rowling produces a target completion date in a verifiable documented interview, or on her web site, then that belongs (with a proper source citation). -- T-dot 20:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I certainly understand your points, and I will not put it up again. We could put something along the lines of "based on typical writing time, etc.", but the readers can deduce that on their own based on all the other release dates. Until we get any kind of official word from Rowling, I'll keep an eye on the "Unannounced" tag. Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad we could have further discussion about this point. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well T-dot, it seems you're even more pig-headed than I thought. Have you even taken the time to review the speculation aricle yourself? It isn't something that was pulled out of left field; on the contrary, it is in many ways the complete opposite. You're quite ignorant either way, as it'd be impossible for someone intelligent to type that sort of garbage had he/she read the article beforehand. And then, you're even more ignorant if you have not read it. I'll make sure this gets passed on to higher authorities as I honestly believe this deserves mention in at least one section of this or some other book-7 related page. Fans need to know this sort of thing, they have an insatiable hunger for it, and since Wikipedia is such an authorative source of information, it seems only logical that the very intelligent, well-justified speculation article be linked to from here. To have this luxury denied by some power-tripping mule would be injustice in the first degree.
  • As for DDG, well, my good man, it appears as though you missed the external link (so-called "official source") entirely. Seems you're the most ignorant of the lot. TydeNet 08:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks aren't going to sway us to your side, and if you continue them you will be blocked. The HPANA page you've linked even expressly says "Lest there be any confusion (which I see there is), this is only a theory! JK Rowling has made no formal announcement about the release date yet." --DDG 15:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't accept blackmail. I'm going to press on until the date or link to the article makes some appearance on one of the HP pages. It is imperative that fans have their curiosity (in part) satisfied, but of course Wiki Nazis (e.g you) don't care about the public opinion of wikipedia as you're all too stuck on this whole WP:NOT hocus pocus. Even if I have to create a speculation page (just so people know what it is), I will make sure it gets published. If you block me, well that's a pity, seeing as I'm a regular contributor to Wikipedia and will make further contributions in my areas of expertise as time goes on. But go ahead, for the sake of your own over-inflated ego, block me. Wiki will be worse for it. P.S: WP:NOT the Nazi Reich. TydeNet 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright, any and all personal attacks need to stop. Whether or not we are agreed to put up a speculation detail is beside the point, there's no need for exaggerated jibes and insults just because our point-of-view isn't being heeded. I agree that an entire article for HP speculation, much less Book 7 speculation, is unwarranted, BUT a section or even a single sentence mentioning fan speculation pointing to the last book's release as 07/07/07 is fair and valid, because numerous webpages of "to be released" works feature "unconfirmed," "rumored," and "speculative" information. All that needs to happen is that we don't throw too much focus on the date, perhaps try and get an original cite for it, and make sure it's labeled as "speculative." That's all. Cybertooth85 06:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All that needs to happen is that we don't throw too much focus on the date, perhaps try and get an original cite for it, and make sure it's labeled as "speculative." Thank you. That was already done, however some power tripping admins saw an end to it. Pity, eh? TydeNet 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter iPod

The Harry Potter iPod does not come preloaded with the audiobooks, these books are downloaded seperately via iTunes as per http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/7200304/wo/Vn3LlZlZR3663WTBQNB1gAKef1g/2.0.19.1.0.8.25.7.11.1.3

filming locations

This section mentions Borough Market- I think this should be Leadenhall Market —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.142.154 (talk • contribs) 10:45, January 28, 2006.

The entrance to Platform 9 3/4 is filmed at the more picturesque St. Pancras Station, adjacent to King's Cross Station in London.

Accusations of promoting the occult

The German sentence attributed to the pope says dies (this). It is referred to as "they" in the article and "those" in some translation on the web. But dies is singular. Hence, it can refer only indirectly to the books, if at all.


  • Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —simpatico hi 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Okay, maybe I am just being picky or overly detail-oriented, but I think something needs to be done about capitalization of words like Muggle. I think that if J.K. Rowling capitalized a word, then we should too. I've changed some articles to be consistent with JKR, such as the one on Blood purity, but I keep seeing more instances with lower-case letters. So I thought I'd mention it here. I guess I partly wanted to see if there was another view on the subject, or if I could just freely make changes as I see fit. Kam Tonnes 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'd do it myself if I had the time. I'm very picky on this capitalisation stuff too. Hermione1980 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd been wondering this as well, because when the need for fixing Blood purity links in character infoboxes came up (something that took some time to fix), I noticed a huge inconsistency in the way Mud Blood, Pure-blood, and half blood were written (just a few examples). Trying to get a consistent way of writing these types of words is important. Cybertooth85 06:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Themes section

I was thinking: It might be good to have a themes section. I know that "racism, genocide, anti-establishment and prejudice" are discussed shortly, but there is also the "things-are-not-as-they-seem" theme (ex. Snape turns out to be OK at least in Philospher's/Sorceror's Stone despite seeming bad throughout, Moody/imposter Moody, etc.), and the "choice between what is right and what is easy" theme. What do people think? Olin

We used to have one, I actually contributed about two paragraphs to it, or something like that. It was deleted though, not sure why. I think a whole article could be written on "Themes within Harry Potter," or something to that effect. --Ariadoss 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello! Isn't it a spoiler that the last word of the book will be "scar"? This is mentioned before any spoiler warnings. If this has been discussed before, than my apologies. I did not want to nose around since I have not read the 6th book yet. But should definitely consider moving that to like a "trivia" column or something. --Cumbiagermen 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

ewww...

Who put that nasty image here? Whoever did that shall be blocked for sure. User:KinseyLOL

what image?

What image? 68.95.141.158 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There was an image of a peirced You-know-what on here a while back. Somebody removed it.

Pictures

For the "Harry Potter" logo at the top of the article, someone keeps changing the size from 150 to 250. I have no problem viewing this on Firefox, but in Internet Explorer the image is placed on top of some of the text and I can't read it all. Does anyone else experience formatting problems like this? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I've culled out some information in the article that was uncited. Please feel free to help research this material. Rather than posting it to the Talk page where it may get lost in Archives, I've created a seperate archive for text removed from the article, that can be re-added once verification can be established. The archive is : Talk:Harry Potter/Uncited Thanks! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

CHaracter information boxes

Could somebody please have a look at the character boxes? Someone seemed to have trolled them (I suppose) and I cannot undo it. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissa_Malfoy for example. That was done to every character box, at least everyone I looked at. Neville Longbottom 10:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much to whoever reacted that fast. :-) Neville Longbottom 11:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

promoting the occult section edit

The text I removed was:

Simply stated, this project like others such as "Lord of the Rings", "The Chronicles of Narnia" and the wonderfully up and coming project "The Ancestral Trail" are all seemingly mythologically based. This means a fear of old wives tales and bestiary figures tend to scare those believers that these works could be occult or satanist driven. Dark arts have always been at the heart of christianity and other religions because this has always been a sure way of attracting the simple minded puritans to the side of good fellowship.

This seemed frightfully biased/poorly written to me and, since I couldn't figure out a way to reword it without just repeating what had been said earlier, I figured it was probably unnecessary. Feel free to disagree, though. Cantara 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You rock my world. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Release Date

The supposedly "confirmed" release date of the next film (OOTP) is neither authentic nor authoritative. All links trace back to gossip, rumors, and speculation on the HPANA, with absolutely nothing that can be attributed to anyone at Warner Brothers. The only sources for a "confirmed" release date are the HPANA itself, and other HP and entertainment fan sites. What we have here is such a vast amount of fan and entertainment world speculation that is reinforcing itself, that it has reached critical mass, which makes it "self confirming". This is not encyclopedic. This is speculation. The Wikipedia's standards for authenticity are supposed to be higher than the fanatical "first one to post a date wins" web sites. Here are the exact quotes from HPANA: [2] [3]

  • Earlier, sources told us the date was targeted but that Warner Bros. had not absolutely committed to it. Targeting a release date is not uncommon, as it gives the studios and their competitors a chance to stake a claim for opening weekends (and who wants to go up against a Harry Potter movie?). In many cases, a targeted date becomes the official date.
  • Please note that Warner Bros. has made no official announcement, so please treat this as a rumor till confirmed.
  • It would seem that many entertainment sites, including Rope of Silcon are jumping on the bandwagon and announcing the release date for Order of the Phoenix as July 13, 2007. Again, we are still awaiting confirmation about this and will be sure to let you know once we have found out anything.

It may well be that the movie will be released on July 13th, give or take a week or two, but since Warner Brothers has NOT announced a release date, we are depending on fan speculation and rumors as the basis for fact. This is not encyclopedic, and is not proper for the Wikipedia. I think we are going to need a discussion and ruling on this. My view is that the Wikipedia can only post "2007", until Warner Brothers officially and publically anounces a release date. If they indeed announced a "target date" of July 13, 2007, then let's have a link to that press release, and post it as a "Target Release Date" - and not "Confirmed" as everyone seems to believe. --T-dot 12:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that IMDb, which is arguably more reliable than fan sites, posts an entirely different release date altogether. It's still not an official release date, though. I'd like to know what IMDb's source is. --Deathphoenix ? 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the expected release date should be shown as unknown, any date that is stated prior to an official date from Warner is pure speculation and should not be included. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Release date of July 13, 2007 has been confirmed by WB, according to this story on the Leaky Cauldron. Hermione1980 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I know of Leaky Cauldron's claims; however, I have yet to see such an announcement from from Warner Brothers themselves. The only confirmation I've seen (such as from here) is that the movie will be released in 2007. I have yet to see an official date. --Deathphoenix ? 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Article

This main Harry Potter article needs to be shorter. It covers many seperate aspects of the Harry Potter world, and as a result is very, very long. The article titles "Harry Potter" should be a basic plot summary, some info on the author, and some info on the actual books. The rest of it can be put in seperate articles elsewhere on the portal.

Yep. I'm working on improving the summarization of the article and all that. Also, you can sign your comments to Talk pages by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~. That way we know who made comments on the Talk page, and when. Thanks! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Questions (spoilers)

Just some questions I had:

1) Couldn't Harry just have Accio'd the golden egg? Or was there a rule that he couldn't? 2) Couldn't Dumbledore just have scooped out the potion containing the horcrux and throw it away? 3) What would a boggart look like if someone feared boggarts the most? Would it reveal its true form?

Yeah, that's it. Sorry if there are really simple or obvious answers to these. --Thrashmeister 12:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you have questions like these, a wizard did it. Jefffire 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1.it probably wouldnt work,there probably was a charm,ect. 2.porbably the same thing. 3.my guess would be that if a boggart was there greatest fear they wouldnt see him.

  1. The dragon was sitting on the egg - it wouldn't be very happy.
  2. Dumbledore tried a number of methods of removing the potion (scooping it out, transfiguring it, etc.) and concluded it had to be drunk.
  3. Fearing boggarts is like fearing dementors - they are both like fearing fear (see Lupin's comment in book 3). Brian Jason Drake 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy genre

What fantasy genre does HP belong to? Not high fantasy for sure (?) What is the genre called when you mix a fantasy world with our world (like Narnia)? And I wouldn't call the Hogwarts world advanced and "fantasy" as e.g. Tolkien's world.... --Shandris 12:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Harry PotteriPod

There cool

Yeah, and...? -User:KinseyLOL

Response to witchcraft based criticisms

I removed these sentences:

"There has been no proven statistic of higher rates of practicing witchcraft in children; on the contrary, many children indulge in the fantasy of it. With the succesful releases of each book and movie has spawned many websites and fan sites of groups around the world ranging in age from 11 to even 25. So it is probably safe to assume that these books will cause little harm to children, unless they do not know the difference betwen real life and make-believe and attempt to mimic these actions. There have many other books dealing with witchcraft and they have not been show to harm children."

They were in the wrong criticism sub-section (in "Injuctions" instead of "Occult"), but I didn't move them up to the appropriate section because they seem unencyclopedic. The "indulge in the fantasy of it" sentence just reads funny. But the sentence "So it is probably safe to assume that these books will cause little harm to children, unless they do not know the difference betwen real life and make-believe and attempt to mimic these actions." is even worse, because even if children were to attempt to mimic the magical actions in the book, no harm would come to them, because attempting to cast the spells described in the Harry Potter books would do absolutely nothing. So that sentence is unnecessary, and the whole paragraph doesn't add much to the article. thx1138 11:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Crap load of edits

So does anyone object to any of the stuff I've done the past day? TonyJoe 19:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

References

In My Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TonyJoe/sandbox) I've changed the refrences to the kind currently used on the Lord Voldemort page which ends with a list of refrences at the end of the article, does anyone have a prefrence?

Semi protection

Why is this semi-protected? Shouldn't the reason be stated somewhere? pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

there should have been but it's unprotected now. Sasquatch t|c 05:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

GA

Hey, I was just skimming and I would reccommend cutting down on the Fair Use Images (I counted nearly 20) which is probably a fair use breach. It may be an idea to remove some unneccessary book covers or film reels. And don't forget Fair Use Rationales ;) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cut down some of the fair use images, primarily by deleting the film section. Also replaced the HBP cover in the analogous section with a substitute and got rid of the semi cheezie crystal ball shot. By my count fair use images are at around 13 now.
Rationales will have to wait until tomorrow (I'm going to bed), if anyone else is willing to do it, go for it. Out of curiosity, why is it a violation of the Fair Use policy to post a lot of issues under fair use TonyJoe 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I think it has something to do with not being in direct alignment with the text. Generally having a gallery of fair use kills the fair use argument. It should be okay now. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 09:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just finished up those rationales (one copy in invisible text, one copy on the image page). TonyJoe 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We should only use the covers on the individual articles, or where the images are the subject of critical commentary. This article is not about the books, but the series in general, nor does it provide any critical commentary on the covers (nor should it...) ed g2s • talk 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The fair use for book covers can be claimed if it is being used to "illustrate an article discussing the book in question." The template doesn't say that the book the covers cover need to the main focus of the article, merely that the article needs to discuss the book in question. Each book save Order of the Phoenix is discussed to some length outside of the link beneath the pictures (or former pics I should say as they're no longer there).
However, even in the absence of some kind of discussion of Order of the Phoenix the covers can again, be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. If this is allowabe, isn't it a logical conclusion that the books can collectively be used to illustrate the series in the absence of a "series cover?" If one is allowable to illustrate a single article, why can't they all be used to illustrate the series?
Where's the logical flaw?
TonyJoe 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
"illustrate an article discussing the book in question." is a very loose definition of our policy. Principly, fair use should be used as little as possible. An article about the book should have the picture, as it is a property of the book and the article is trying to collate all information about the book, however in an article about the series, the appearance of the book cover is of little importance (based on the fact that it is not mentioned). Ideally the appearance of the cover should be discussed in the main article to justify its use. ed g2s • talk 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
“‘Illustrate an article discussing the book in question’ is a very loose definition of our policy.”
Understood, but the cover art policy only goes as far as requiring critical commentary, that’s the strongest it gets. This article delivers a section on criticism. Is this your stronger definition because this article meets it? Is there a stronger definition.
As in a critical commentary of the image, or a specific point that is illustrated by the image. ed g2s • talk 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
“An article about the book should have the picture, as it is a property of the book and the article is trying to collate all information about the book,”
Conversely, if a picture is the property of the book it belongs to, why is it not the property of the series it belongs to and if it is the property of the series, why can’t it be utilized in an attempt to collate all of the information on the series? Surely there is just as much to be gained in collectively illustrating the series as would be gained in collectively illustrating a single book.
“However in an article about the series, the appearance of the book cover is of little importance (based on the fact that it is not mentioned).”
I would agree if perhaps it was a single cover but that’s not the case with eight covers collectively illustrating the series as one would individually illustrate a single novel.

TonyJoe 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The usage on the individual pages is acutally a separate matter - I probably shouldn't have used it as a comparison. The point is that the context here is a list, and the list serves is purpose equally well without the images. If the context was a comparison of the covers, then perhaps. ed g2s • talk 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not correct, the context isn't merely a list, the context is an illustration of a series within an article discussing said series, similar to other articles that use an individual cover to "illustrate an article discussing a book in question." That's the context that is in the same spirit of every other article that uses an individual cover to illustrate a single novel, whose usage in those cases would be to you, allowable. And no, a list of links won't illustrate the series just as well so in my opinion, the status quo won't do.
Is this the kind of issue that needs consensus? That's hard to reach with two people. How would I go about appealing? We've both stated our case, so what do we do now?TonyJoe 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The books did not "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text" (WP:FUC #8). Note that "the subject of an article" does not refer to the books, even though they are part of the subject, otherwise I could agrue that in List of British companies, each entry should have a logo by it. If you still think I don't know what I'm talking about, you could ask for further opinions at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. ed g2s • talk 02:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • groans* Honestly, you seem to speak with authority on the subject, but the entire argument seems to be fraught with bull shit. The books aren't just a part of the subject, they are the core of the subject, the essence of the series. Listing the books as I said would illustrate the core of the the subject. What exactly is the big deal about eight pictures? TonyJoe 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Content

I've been looking back at some of the old versions of the article and I was a little shocked at the level of content that was deleted. Sections on plagiarism and the style and content of the series would make the article a whole lot better; does anyone remember why it was deleted? TonyJoe 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The GA will be removed for now

For more comments see Wikipedia talk:Good_articles/Nominations#Harry_Potter where a fellow GA nominator/wikipedian gave more insight in what could be added to the article. I agree totally with his comments, I was also opting for that. Lincher 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The stability of the article is a problem... plus see Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Nominations#Harry Potter, it fails criterias 1a through 1d. Lincher 17:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

In addition to my thoughts on the GA talk page, please consider the following:

  • Synopses of the plot and major characters are needed, a few paragraphs each should do it. (See WP:FICTION)
  • Regarding "Reception": "Literary Criticism" could be spun into its own "Criticsm" section, followed by "Controversies," which would include the "Injuction..." (title shortened to "Canadian injunction" or some such). A personal peeve of mine is the use of section headers for small sections, so consider using definition lists or just simple paragraphs to make a long section. The plagarism section could be cut down to two or three sentences and put in the controversy.
  • The "Other analagous works" section is of dubious value for its length, and the dearth of inline citations makes it vulnerable to charges of original research. Remember: "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."
  • "See Also": either make the formatting more consistent (and filming locations should not be its own subsection), or simply remove them all and refer to the category. You might also want to consider expanding the navigation box for this purpose.
  • "Releases": What about the movies and games? What were their rankings and revenue?
  • "Series" should be prosified or moved to the bottom of the page. Better yet would be to simply use {{further|[[:Category:Harry Potter books|Harry Potter books}} (I'm not sure on my coding there), or to generate a comprehensive list of HP media and make an article called "List of Harry Potter media."
  • "The Future": "The" generally should not go in headings (per the MOS), and this section should arguably go under "Overview."
  • "Harry Potter the Brand": also per the MOS, the article name shouldn't be repeated. Something like "Commericial success" would be better. Perhaps you could list how many books, DVDs, games, soundtracks, etc. have been sold.

Good luck. I might be back. :) --Monocrat 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestions and have already begun working on the ones on the GAnomination page, mainly concerning the publishing history (as I'll hope you might have noticed), although I do kind of take issue with needing a synopsis of major characters. I don't quite see the need to talk about the characters hereTonyJoe 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, the inclusion of a character synopsis is up to the community of editors (as are all my thoughts!), but I make it based on WP:FICTION as well as Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, since the characters are a major part of the topic. I haven't read the books, so there's no chance I can put one in. I'm not a Potter fan (or hater) myself, but I think the topic is certainly worth of FA status, hence some of my nitpicky thoughts.--Monocrat 13:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

There's almost no reedeming qualitiy to the Anit HP community article and most of its content has already been included here. It would probably be best to just get rid of it or turn it into a redirect. TonyJoe 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightning Rod?

In the second sentence of this article it mentions that Harry Potter has "been a lightning rod for criticism, both literary and otherwise". While it maybe has been criticized, and this deserves mention, I'm not sure it has exactly been a "lightning rod" (I would conisder 'The Da Vinci Code' a lightning rod). Also, this isn't one of the first things that comes to mind when one brings up the subject of Harry Potter so I think this line should be moved to a more appropriate place within the article and rephrased from 'lightning rod' to something more moderate.

I agree. The non-literary criticism mostly comes from one small segment of the American population. thx1138 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree too - I thought I'd missed something when I saw 'lightning rod'. It does seem a little over the top. Libatius 12:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of it TonyJoe 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Overweight people

I removed the following sentence, added by User:OrangUtanUK to the Prejudice & Discrimination section, as minor edit:

However, it is worth noting that Rowling herself exhibits a little prejudice in her treatment of overweight people. Without exception, all her overweight
characters are negative.

I feel quite strongly that that sentence is not true; see for instance [4] for an argument. If we are going to include something on overweight people in Harry Potter, there should be a reference, and it should be phrased in a less objectionable way. Pruneau 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I second that, Pruneau. Several examples of at least partially positively-portrayed "plump" or "overweight" characters (so described by J.K. Rowling herself) come to mind immediately: Hagrid, Mrs. Weasley, Neville Longbottom, Professor Sprout, even Horace Slughorn, and I'm sure there are more. In addition, there are a host of negatively-portrayed or evil characters who are not described as overweight: Aunt Petunia, Draco Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy, Quirrell, Snape (ambiguous yes, but certainly has many character flaws), Barty Crouch Jr., Barty Crouch Sr., Rufus Scrimgeour, right down to Voldemort himself. In fact the only overweight negative characters I can think of are Uncle Vernon, Dudley, Crabb, Goyle, Millicent Bulstrode, and Dolores Umbridge.

The statement by User:OrangUtanUK just has no basis in fact.

NetherlandishYankee 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I'll do a little re-reading and get back to you. There are certainly a number of positive plump characters, but I am not persuaded away from my opinion that Rowling uses body shape (actually, very thin as well as very fat) as a metaphor for moral dissipation. I'll obtain the introductory description of each of the characters in question as the authoritative source.

I would just mention that being very fat myself I am sensitised to the way people indirectly refer to body shape in a negative way, and the prejudices that come with this. You might like to draw parallels with racial prejudice. The Dursleys are fat and ignorant; Slughorn is fat and lazy; Neville is rather plump and (although courageous and loyal) rather incompetent.

I agree that this is an issue that perhaps should appear in a separate article, as it may be relevant to Rowling's writing after the H.P. series.

OrangUtanUK 8-June-2006, 11:23 utc (12:23 BST)

I agree that the statement above has no basis of fact but I don't necessarily think that it should be barred from the article. The claim that JKR has something against fat people recieved quite a bit of media coverage, in fact it developed in much the same way the "Goblet of Bile" controversy did with one commentator saying something negative and other critics along with a few million rabid fans rushing to her aid. It was widley discussed on fan sites, forums, and major print media and I think it would definitely amount to being listed in the controversy section.

TonyJoe 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Other analogous works

Does anyone else think that it might be a good idea to rename this section "influences" and then just list some of the works that predate Rowling whose influences can be seen in the series? That way we can shorten the section and discourage people from adding any minor manga in print and make the section slightly more encyclopedic? TonyJoe 21:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. We need a section with mythological references and the like, not a list of unknown books portaying an orphan or a wizard. Pruneau 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Scrapped and started anew, though more is needed on the general familiarity of the plot. TonyJoe 05:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Question

How exactly did Harry gain his powers from Voldemoprt? I swear all it says in the books are that he was saved by an ancient powerful protection spell but somehow the powers transferred to him. How? Was it diliberate or accident? Simply south 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Briefly: Voldemort transferred some of his power to Harry when tried to kill him. However, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing Wikipedia articles only; if you want to discuss the story, there are dozens, if not thousands, of forums online. Exploding Boy 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Spoiler

In one sense, the article is full of spoilers, but obviously the writers of the first few paragraphs have been careful not to give to much away, beyond the inro. I personally think that it is unnecessary to relate so much of the first chapter . Anyway, I did take out a refence pertaining to Snape in the list of characters. I think it constitute a complete spoiler and added nothing. --Amandajm 17:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got mixed feelings about this. I sort of feel as if the first chapter of the first book is almost a built in overview of the series, maybe py purposeful design by Rowling. The happiness of the wizards illustrates the horrors of Voldemort's rise, the weird stuff shows that there are two seperate societies, and the chapter shows both why Harry is famous and the extent to which he is, while still leaving the obvious question without saying it of "why the hell did LV try to kill a baby anyway. The overview imo gives a good ammount of plot info without giving too much.
I personally feel almost the same way about the theme section though. That section gives a lot away, practically saying that Sirius is innocent and telling a number of times why Harry survived; it even touches on the prophecy...151.198.139.166 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)<---This is TonyJoe, who is to lazy to sign in.

Missing tag

There is a part in the article which seems to be unfinished:

"Please note, most links lead to spoilers. Those that are noted will carry the following tag:"

The tag is not given. Will anyone insert it or shall we delete this message? Adam78 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It must of gotten lost in the course of some edits, but I think its back to the way it was before now. TonyJoe 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nominee

I'm concerned about the stability of this article. The average day does not see less than 20 edits and I see many reverts. But I'll leave this for the next reviewer to decide. --SeizureDog 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • comment: Well for what it's worth, reverts aside, many of the edits of the past few days have been in an concious effort to improve the article to good article status, before and after the last failing with many if not all of Monocrat's suggestions being implemented and it would be a bit ironic if it failed due to those edits. As for vandals and reverts... it obviously happens but with the edits being reverted relatively quickly it hasn't since it's recent unprotection interfered with the article significantly. 151.198.139.166 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)<--- again, this is TonyJoe who is too lazy to sign in.

Yet more suggestions

Hi, there! I've come to darken your door again, unfortunately. And I've had to fail your GA nomination, although the article is in considerably better shape than last time! I would be happy to pass it but for two major concerns. The first is that the "Content and writing styles" section mostly lacks secondary sources, so subsections 3.1 through 3.5 are all vulnerable to WP:OR. Moreover, it seems to have some POV issues (GA criterion 4). The following sentences are examples that leap off the page in this respect: "her masterful use of the red herring to subtly introduce planned characters" and "The series is lent further credibility in Rowling's portrayal of adolescence." Even if you can find sources for all of this, and you probably can!, it might be better to just move the subsections to a separate article (delete or comment-out if you can't find secondary sources), make the remaining, reduced text a subsection of "Overview." My second major concern is that the lack of any real information on the films clearly violates GA criterion 3. These warrant a proper section complete with directors, major cast, and (if you can find them) box-office figures, and (if relevant) brief discussions of how they differ from the source novels.

For GA-status, the last two aren't really necessary, and this putative section can be in list form, but for FA-status, all of it needs to be in prose, or the list has to be defensible. Keep up the good work! I'm sorry to ride you guys so hard! --Monocrat 03:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after two weeks of reworking the article to address these concerns, I think we're ready for another go.TonyJoe 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole feminist criticism thing

I've been studying the Harry Potter novels at a London university and I just wanted to use some of the points of literary criticism I found during my study to help benefit the article. I had to study the novels from various different critical approaches: Marxist literary criticism, post-structuralist criticism, psychoanalytical criticism and feminist criticism. Since there is a section of the Harry Potter article called "Criticism" I thought I'd mention the aspect of feminist criticism of Harry Potter I had read about. I was bearing in mind that this article may be used as a point of reference for other students and school kids who may want academic information that could help them create an insightful essay or project for school. I do think it can only be a help to hear different aspects and points of view on a subject, and I was not personally criticising the novels, only relating the academic literary criticism I had encountered during my university studies, which I thought was helpful and fascinating. Also, on the official J.K. Rowling website she herself stated that her books had been criticised for being "chauvinistic" as well as satanic, occultist etc. etc.

Academic literary criticism from various schools would be a stupendous contribution, but you can only quote other sources. As I recall, there were no citations in "Feminist criticsm", so it was open to deletion per WP:OR. If you can find articles discussing Potter from feminist or another perspective, please mention and cite them. --Monocrat 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cited the official sources I found in which JK Rowling acknowledges the different criticisms of her novels, chauvinism being on of them. If this is still not enough then I graciously throw in the towel. ;P

You've attempted to cite your sources, but we need to have a direct link to the actual transcript of the interview where J.K. Rowling acknowledges the feminist criticism. Without that, your edits are pretty much unsourced. Can you find a direct link to the transcripts? Thanks, Deathphoenix ? 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that a direct link is necessary per se, although if one exists, by all means it should be used. WP seems to favor the "hard" type of sources whenever possible, so provided it's fully cited, I don't see a problem.--Monocrat 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've honestly don't remember reading anything on Jo's site about the feminist criticism, though I distinctly remember the article on positive and negative perceptions of the female body... *goes to look some more* TonyJoe 17:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also check out the fascinating feminist critique article by Christine Schoeffer I have included. It's been very difficult finding that comment JK made in her interview about people accusing her of chauvinism, so I've given up for now lol. But the Schoeffer article is very good as a point for academic debate (either agreeing or disagreeing with her).

Main Image

I dont think having the American logo as the article's main image is a good idea, instead one of the book covers should be used (probably "Philosopher's Stone" as its the first one). Nothing agaisnt americans but the books ARE British. --Plough | talk to me 10:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


True, and on many occassions JK Rowling herself has expressed her distaste for her books being Americanised, stating clearly that they are "British books".

The intro

Now with the formatting by Monocrat, i am finding the introduction hard to read and a bit long. Does anyone else feel the same way? If so, can someone sort out the formatting? Simply south 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The lead is rather narrow. I think it results from floating the TOC to the left. Someone else had done that, and my change was meant to clean up the haphazard placement of the TOC, image, and portal link. I've removed one of the longer headings, which has slimmed the TOC. Perhaps that helps?--Monocrat 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I originally moved the TOC to the left. It seemed okay and for a while nobody changed it back. However, TonyJoe has performed a number of necessary edits to the content since then, so I can't revert it. In the meantime, I've just moved the portal so it's above the cover image: it looked a bit disjointed below it. Chris 42
I strongly disagree on the aesthetics: the sudden shift in size between the portal and image is really jarring at the top. Plus, it seems to mess up the text on my current settings. Anyway, it seems to be common practice to place the portal links towards the bottom of the article (per Anime, London, Portugal, Australia). You can unfloat the TOC simply by deleting {{TOC|left}}.--Monocrat 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Portal to above the quotes and media links in the external sec. It seems like the problem is, as stated above, the weirdness from floating the table to the left; maybe we should return it to just plain float or remove some article stuff to another article so that the table can be shortened and the big white space of death less massive?TonyJoe 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Now the portal has been moved to the bottom, I think it's an improvement. If you look at Lost (TV series), a similar layout has been in place for quite some time and seems to work. Of course, the fact that it has an infobox to the right offsets the text-wrapping to an extent. Is there any kind of infobox that would be suitable for the HP article that might do the same? Chris 42 10:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen info boxes used for articles on single books in a series, but I don't recall seeing one for an article on a series of books. TonyJoe 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Today someone deleted all of the content and writing style section and as a result when returning the TOC back to where it used to be its less offensive to the eye in its decrease of big white space. is this the solution we want. I'm a little sad about all the info lost in the article though...TonyJoe 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be good to restore a summary of "Content and writing style" and place it under "Overview" as "Themes." Giving just a broad-brush treatment would per se serve the article well and insulate it from charges of original research. I do sympathize about the loss of an large section, though. I've felt that pain once before. :) --Monocrat 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try rearanging it but I won't be good at summarizing what's there, long winded as I am. I was actually under the impression that the themes section was pretty susinct already :p TonyJoe 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
EDIT-In looking the "content and Writing style" section over, while I suppose "Rowling's main strength as a writer" and "why people feel so close to the character" are probably elements of original research, but the "satire" and "portrayal" paragraphs actually have quotes that support them. I think those might be worth saving in addition to the themes section...TonyJoe 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I tend to the long winded myself. :) I suppose the rule is "save whatever you can cite."--Monocrat 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Top, sorry, i wasn't meaning to make any accusations and i should look more than... Simply south 20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried saving those parts under "elements." There's an old Stephen King review (the one used in the criticims section) that talks about the "who dunnit aspect of the series;" I'll try and expand the section using that.TonyJoe 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact for the DVD

Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate place to mention this, but it's the only article with Harry Potter as a whole.

I thought it interesting to note that in the back cover for all the 2-disc DVDs, Harry is seen flying by one means or another:

-Philosopher's Stone: Chasing a Snitch on his Nimbus 2000 -Chamber of Secrets: With Ron on the flying Ford Anglia -Prisoner of Azkaban: Riding Buckbeak -Goblet of Fire: On the Firebolt, being chased by the dragon.

might add that to the Trivia section?

I'm not sure it warrants inclusion in the trivia section - surely they were just looking for exciting pictures...? Libatius 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Well it's interesting, and certainly trivial, so where better a place for it than in trivia?

I think that most of us want to see the article eventually reach Featured Article status but the problem is that they frown on trivia sections in applicants so that's probably why its a good idea to stay away from a trivia section. TonyJoe 20:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


J Rowling's latest comments

Could be taken to mean that Harry survives.

82.198.250.82 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

JK Rowling said something very interesting in her recent interview on British television. She said that she can greatly understand why authors kill off their main characters at the end of a series, so as to prevent other writers
Also I can confirm Rowling said that 2 more characters will die by the end of the 7th book, and they will be MAIN characters, not just sub-characters!
Some of this information could be used in the Harry Potter article, particularly in the "Future" section. Personally I think that when Voldemort tried to kill infant Harry, it split his soul again and the piece went into Harry, giving Harry his parsel tongue powers and his telepathic link to Voldemort etc, but also making Harry the 7th horcrux. Therefore, I think Harry will have to destroy himself in order to vanquish Voldemort once and for all! JJ

Tense and spoiler

Two things: 1. The subsection on security under the release section needs to be updated; it has been almost a year since the release of the sixth book. I'd do it myself, but I think that some of the numbers (release parties and pre-orders) should be double-checked post-release. 2. I added a spoiler warning around the future section after being annoyed at having details revealed to me that I didn' want to know.Btwied 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language cover images

Phi*n!x has just posted a comment on the talk pages of all of the first six books about this. If all six articles have a problem then surely it should be discussed here. Only on Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince#Images does he explain it properly and I agree with him, but I think we should form a consensus here. Brian Jason Drake 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea putting the discussion here. I would also like everyone to note my suggestions regarding the book template. Perhaps it would be best to discuss that here, also. -Phi*n!x 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect the editor's opinions as to what is considered "original research" BUT...

I can't see anything in that deleted paragraph that is speculation on my part. I wrote the paragraph explaining the wizard world mainly because this article mentions the word "muggles" several times without actually explaining what muggles are. It also doesn't give an overview of the world in any meaninful way. I particularly wanted this article to make the HP universe comphensible to someone who had never actually read the books. Serendipodous 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly looking back I think I might have slightly overreacted. I'm not so sure it was the entire thing that made me freak out so much as it was "Magic in the novels is not presented as an act of worship or as an art but as a functional tool akin to technology. The wizard world takes the use of magic for granted, as we do electricity or the internal combustion engine." I did believe this to be an "interpetation" of the books without a citation.TonyJoe 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to that sentance being removed; hoever it would need to be replaced with a connecting sentence that makes sense. Serendipodous 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that sentence quoted above gives too much of a personal judgment on the themes behind Harry Potter, which, unless you are JK Rowling yourself, can only be speculation. Would JK Rowling agree with that statement? JJ
I've reinstated the paragraph with that sentence changed. Serendipodous 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

==Harry Potter and JK Rowling==

There is a lot of information duplication between this article and JK Rowling article. Perhaps we could examine both articles to determine which information belongs here and which information belongs on her page. I was thinking that the beginning of the origins section, with the information about the girl at Bloomsbury, would be better at her page, while a lot of the information about the books and movies would be better here. Serendipodous 11:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.