Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Changes in Overview and Intro

I tried to tighten up the prose in the overview a bit. Anybody have any problems with the changes? I removed a lot of adjectives and commas. They weren't needed and made the overview difficult to read. The reference to Harry's defeat of Voldemort being met with "fear" confused me. I can't recall any mention of this off the top of my head. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, it seems strange following the description of the joyous wizards the next day. I also removed the reference to Harry's age on the night of Voldemort's defeat, as I feel "infant" is sufficient. Lastly, I didn't feel that the reference to Harry surviving where so many others had died was entirely necessary. That information is implied in the preceding sentences, and it makes that particular sentence long and awkward.

I also made some pretty obvious changes to the Intro, mostly dealing with the prose and punctuation. I'm trying to make it easier to read without removing critical information. What do you guys think about adding "toys" or "merchandise" to the list of items spawned by the series (in the first paragraph.) Are ther lists for those? I just couldn't find a way to keep the "age demographic" clause in there - it's just too awkward. I'm wondering about the Steve King quote in the intro. Is it needed, considering the space he has later in the article? The mystery aspect of the story can be slipped in elsewhere.--AlmenCrosse 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Why is Tolkien being singled out?

There used to be a whole collection of analogous works on this page, giving equal time to any number of works Rowling may or may not have "ripped off." Now there's only Tolkien. What's so special about Tolkien that singles his work out for protection above all other potential inspirations? I know for a fact that Tolkien isn't the only "inspiration" to make into the media; Ursula K Le Guin has personally complained about the similarities between Harry Potter and her Earthsea trilogy (translation: she wishes her works sold as well), and CS Lewis has been ever-present ever since Rowling let slip she read his books as a child. If you're going to compare her works to those of other authors, make sure there's a specific and historically valid case to be made (comparing Rowling's works to those of CS Lewis, whom Rowling openly acknowledges as a major inspiration, would be more valid than comparing her works to those of Tolkien, whom she doesn't); otherwise one comparison is as good as any other. Tolkien had magic mirrors, but so did Snow White. Tolkien had giant spiders, but then so did Tintin. Tolkien had black, robed figures of death, but then so did every mediaeval cathedral afflicted by the plague. You may claim that what singles Tolkien out among her potential inspirations is that the number of concordances between his works and Rowling's is too great to be coincidental. But back when the "analogous works" list was part of this article, I specifically included an American series by John Bellairs, (The "Lewis Barnaveldt" series) which I am absolutely certain Rowling has never heard of, but which contained far more commonalities with her works than anything by Tolkien. There's no point giving pride of place to one particular author just because he's "special." Serendipodous 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be carful of original research here as well. Stating a commonality of fairy tale and fantasy theams is one thing but if we go too deep in comparing to the point that it could be called litrary chriticism. Then we need to start providing sources. Dalf | Talk 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Tolkien references and shifted them over to a new page Works analogous to Harry Potter, which is still unfinished but is almost complete. Serendipodous 10:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I deleted the following text from the "Overview" section: Unlike the fantasy world of Narnia, It does contain a small similarity to Middle-earth, because of the use of wizards in a term of mythical beings, and that profeser Dumbledore showes striking resemblence to Gandalf, they are also both the most powerfull and wizest wizards of their novel . The word Dumbledore is also used in Middle Earth as a type of small moth that Gandalf talks to while being saved by the eagles in the book the hobbit.

This sounds like ramblings to me and definately doesn't belong in an overview of the books at hand. The Narnia idea isn't even completed. If any content of that snippet is necessary, Works analogous to Harry Potter would be the place to put it. -Phi*n!x 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing I despise more than people who obviously don't speak English as their first language who think they can edit an English language article. The original phrase was "Unlike the fantasy worlds of Narnia and Middle-Earth, the world of Harry Potter exists alongside ours." I think this point is valid (I would; I wrote it) and I've re-instated it. Serendipodous 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that JK Rowling said in an interview that she HAS read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and she has addressed the influences of Tolkien's books on her work. I distinctly remember it because she said something along the lines of "I read The Hobbit as a child. I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy years later when I was an adult", and then she said something about her humour in Harry Potter being funnier than Tolkien's. Also, check out any fan site of HP and you will find lists as long as your arm describing the uncanny similarities between HP and LOTR. JJ

Chick Publication

I'm not so sure that the Chick Publication image should have the privledge of being on this page. I do not think it accurately portrays the majority of fundamentalists Christians view of H.P. (at least I hope not). Chick publications has been criticized in the past for its overly simplistic view of things, and thus I do not think that this image is at all characteristic of the debate that has gone on over what effect H.P. has on children. Putting this image here is basically implying that any opposition to Harry Potter is as silly and childish as the Chick Publication. (Incidentally, I myself do enjoy the books, but I do not so flippantly disregard the debate over this issue). -- User:Sjmcfarland talk

I do not agree. I am the one who uploaded and placed that image on the database/page. The section makes particular mention of the Chick Publication strip. According to Wik policy, an image can be used to illustrate:
  • the scene depicted, or
  • an important aspect of the copyrighted character(s) or group(s), which is depicted on the excerpted scene in question.
Both uses apply here. The fact that it really does not "accurately portrays the majority of fundamentalists Christians view of H.P." is the whole point. The image is appropriate and I see no valid reason for it to be removed. -- Jason Palpatine 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

Sounds acceptable to me. Perhaps a little rewording in that section would be necessary then, because I would imagine that some if not most of people reading that particular section would come to the conclusion that the Chick publication demonstrates the "norm" for a Christian reaction to Harry Potter. -- User:Sjmcfarland talk

Speculative nature tag

The template {{future book}} was added to this page about a week ago; I've removed it now pending further discussion. Looking through the article, I think a good job has been done for the most part in keeping speculation and conjecture about book seven out of the article. If there's one or two sections that do contain information of this nature, we should probably tag those section(s) individually, rather than putting a big tag at the top of the article. Any thoughts? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Add the template to the "Future" section and keep it out of the rest of the article, along with keeping out any information about the future! Brian Jason Drake 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lifespans of Magical Folk

Is Dumbledore really 152 years old when he (supposedly) dies (if the Half-Blood Prince really happened in '96-'97)? Do they really get that old. So how could Dumbledore have "sweeping auburn hair" (as described in the Chamber of Secrets) in 1942 when he was 97 years-old? I dunno, maybe it's just like that in the magical world, but it leaves me puzzled.The Runescape Junkie 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate really belongs in Wizarding world. Serendipodous 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it was a question not a debate. The answer is yes they live to be around 150 I could dig up a link to JKRs offical site where she explaines it but its 2:45 am and I am going ot bed in a sec. Basically 150 is to the wizarding world as mid to late 90's is to us. So in those terms when DD was 97 it woudl be likes a muggle who was only 63 or 64 yeras old. Hope that helps. Dalf | Talk 09:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Dumbledore also partook of a little of his buddy Nicholas Flamel's Philosopher's stone brew from time to time, to avoid aging too rapidly ... --T-dot 09:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, that bit always confused me because DD seems to imply that it does not so much stop ageing as keep you alive (though stopping ageing is implied) but he does imply that Flamel will be dieing shortly. Perhaps as soon as he stops taking it, so my imprssion is that you either keep taking it at whatever the interval is or you get no effect at all and as soon as you stop taking it, it's as if you never had. Granted all of that is OR on my part but that is how I read it (though it seems kinda silly). Dalf | Talk 10:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


We might want to keep in mind that DD was The. Most. Powerful. wizard (why else would Voldemort fear him?) in at least the final ⅓ of his lifespan. And because all his powers were for "good" and "light" they did, in a way, "endorse" life. Although not into the 150's it is possible to keep yourself sharp mainly through being active and learning. There are known cases of people living up to 119 years of age. For argument's sake I suspect that, through purely natural means, i.e. no magic and no artificials it is possible to sustain oneself up to as much as 150 years of age, and there are allegations of people having lived to that age and more. DD has the help of his immense magical power, and he might have tapped into the Elixir of Life as well as Dalf suggests. Adding all this up, it doesn't seem at all implausible, IN the Harry Potter universe, that Dumbledore lived 152 years. 86.104.204.67 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Rotten

The elder Riddles

I already asked this 0n the "House of Gaunt" discussion site, but I want to repeat it here, since I think it's more likely someone sees it here. On Voldemort's family tree as well as on the Gaunt site, his muggle grandparents are called Thomas and Mary Riddle. My question: Is there anything other than the gravestone in the movie to confirm this as canon? Do we know anytthing about JKR giving them this information? Because I hesistate to see this as canon, just because it was in the movie. Neville Longbottom 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that there are a multitude of fan sites with this particular information. I guess I'm a nice guy, because I went and researched it.
J.K Rowling had indeed discussed this information with the producers of the film in question.Sod Aries 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that she has discussed a lot of information with them, but I haven't seen anything regarding this gravestone. I looked at both the Leaky Cauldron and mugglenet for it and didn't find anything, that's why I asked. The real problem I have with using this information as canon is, that their first was some false information on it. They made Thomas and Mary Riddle into Voldemort's parents and made Tom Riddle senior way too young. Then (after fans realized this and complained) they had to photoshop the inscription of the gravestone to make it fit with actual canon. Neville Longbottom 10:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Too American

I found some parts of this page quite annoying, in particular the 'midnight realease' of the books. Perhaps the books were released at midnight in the US but they were not released at midnight everywhere else. Could this error please be changed.1234

That's not strictly true - I know of several bookshops in London at least that started selling at midnight.--Libatius 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
They had night releases in Germany as well. Granted, it wasn't midnight but 1am, since we had to wait until it was midnight in Britain to get the book. But still. Neville Longbottom 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In the UK many bookshops opened at Midnight. I know that all Borders stores did for example and most cities have one. Mrjeff 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ottakar's and WH Smiths did too, in my town in the UK. Skittle 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Translated more than any other?

I have a problem with this claim in the lead: "...translated into 47 languages, more than any other single book except the Bible, Book of Mormon and the Koran". The only citation given appears to be a short newspaper article. I find it hard to believe that Potter has been translated into more languages than any historical literary classic. Rain74 00:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Michaelritchie200 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"The last word"

JK Rowling has said that this will be "scar".

It is jumping to conclusions that this will be in connection with HP himself. There might well be a new "conflict initiated." Jackiespeel 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

McGonagall?

Does Professor McGonagall count as a recurring character? Maybe the article's long enough already, but she seems like an important part of the series. Athena42 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say she is decently important, but she isn't necessarily a crucial part of the development of the series. Perhaps when the seventh book comes out we'll see how much she's really involved in it. In order to make that list, it should mean that the character has made significant contributions to the advancement of the series itself. While she does seem to be getting there, as apparent in the last book, I'm not quite sure it's appropriate to list her as one of the "main" characters. Would be glad to hear any other opinions... Sam Weber 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh nvm someone added her Athena42 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Better sourcing is available

The sourcing of a lot of things in this article (other than the news stuff) is based on fan sites. This is acceptable, I guess if nothing else is available, but over the past few years a lot of serious scholarly papers have been written about the cultural and literary impact of Harry Potter. For instance, this is a good compilation of scholarly articles on the Harry Potter phenomenon, and a Google Scholar search turns up many more. Hence, this article fails WP:RS, and thus Good Article criteria 2c. Borisblue 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Got a link to the review mate? Wiki-newbie 15:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... this is my first delisted GA, so I just follwed the instructions. It said to talk about the problem in the talk page? Borisblue 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, to remove a GA you need to put on the review page. Wiki-newbie 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Harry_Potter Borisblue 15:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!!!!! The harry potter wikepdia site has bn erase what happened?

GA Review

The review is a bit old, but I don't think enough people have commented on it to really show a consensus or even a really definitive majority. Anyone want to comment at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review? Homestarmy 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote...

"The Hogwarts Express: The scarlet old-fashioned steam locomotive that is the only means by which a wizard in training can reach Hogwarts. It departs from Platform 9¾ at King's Cross Station, London."

Technically its not the only way a wizard in training can reach Hogwarts because Ron and Harry did in fact reach hogwarts by a flying car... So maybe it should be reworded to say something a little bit better than that. Or maybe its okay the way it is. Just wondering what everyone else thinks. --LocalBandAid02 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Narnia *does* have a parallel real world

...and the wardrobe is the portal. It's been a while since I read the Narnia books, and I haven't read all of them, but this seems to be a glaring if minor error. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -Nargodath, 02:57 23 Oct. 2006

Narnia is a separate, entire magical land. You could draw a map of it. Of course there are portals, but they are portals to a separate world. Diagon Alley isn't just reached from Charing Cross Road, it is off Charing Cross Road. Platform 9¾ is in Kings Cross Station. Hogwarts is in Scotland. Narnia is not in the wardrobe. That's thte difference. Serendipodous 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Professor Snape

I would personally like to know who here thinks Snape is innocent or not. He may have killed Dumbledore, but there might be an explaination for that. Voldemort may have put him under the imperious curse and so he was forced to do the dark lord's bidding. Or maybe Dumbledore had previously told Snape that in the situation where they are surrounded by the deatheaters and their telling Snape to kill dumbledore, than he must do it to ward off suspicion. After all, Snape is an extremely skilled Occlumens and while Voldemort is known to be the most powerful legilimens, Snape may be able to use his occlumency bacause for all we know, he might just be the best Occlumens in the world! Therefore, he would be able to block off any memories of his dealings with Dumbledore when the Dark Lord is trying to peruse his mind.

But those are just a couple of theories I've thought up. No doubt there are other web sites that have also had the same ideas but I'm not trying to copy them or anything.

--NatalieZ 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

John Williams score

I think it can be successfully argued that the success of the Harry Potter films is due, in part, to the score John Williams wrote for the first three movies. How about a subsection in this article about the music?

I really doubt that. These movies were set to be hits pretty much from the outset. Whoever scored them would have made no difference at all. Serendipodous 08:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

incorrect reference to most frequently challenged of 1900-2000

The reference [44] to http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm makes reference to "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1900–2000" but when viewing the page, is is actually list for the period from nineteen *ninety*, not nineteen *hundred*.

--Julian 24.80.22.250 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I have now fixed this. If you registered as a user, you could fix this little things yourself :-) Skittle 12:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegorical Novel?

Few people (like me) may consider this as an allegorical novel. (Refers to Racism, Muggle Hatred) Half-Blood Auror

An interesting question. I think that just about any work of fantasy (from Tolkein to Buffy) ends up containing allegories: Authors looking for things to talk about always take real-life issues and "translate" them into their fictional-universe specific equivalents so as to be able to use these issues without breaking the fantasy atmosphere. This, in my opinion of course, is not in the same category as works such as Animal Farm, where allegory is used in order to make statements on the issues concerned. yandman 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

misspelling of "Dursleys"

Under Rubeus Hagrid's information, please change "Dusley's" to "Dursleys." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyaitch (talk • contribs)

I have done your request. London UK (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New Title Announcement

Someone should add the title for the final book...just announced, as per J.K. Rowlings and her publisher. Deathly Hallows... 38.117.157.141 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[1]

Someone already did, hours ago. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New book title is out. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.163.253 (talk • contribs)

Harry Potter, if he dies

If Harry dies and upset fans commit suicide by the hundreds, can Rowling be sued? It is interesting whether she could be held responsible, she did create the series after all. -Lapinmies 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum or a place for stupid questions such as this. This cannot help the article in any possible way. The only possible reason to even ask such an asinine question is to antagonize people and stir controversy. John Reaves

Geez, lighten up. Pull the wand out of your butt. Rowling has said that the last word of the last chapter will be "scar": "'I'm glad Harry is dead!', yelled Draco triumphantly. 'I always hated that bloke - especially his bloody scar!' THE END". Fantasy-obsessed children committing suicide by the hundreds, cats and dogs living together - mass hysteria!Primalscreamtherapy 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you two get a room - a chat room- and leave the fourthgrader speculation/discussion out of the article's talk page? John Reaves 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I happen to agree with you. This isn't a forum. This isn't a message board or a chat room. But your reaction was, in my opinion, an OVERreaction and you're being a royal arse about this whole thing. I was merely being facetious and not speculative. Sure, this whole discussion is irrelevant but I at least tried to make it entertaining. Good say, sir!Primalscreamtherapy 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an extremely important point, people have been sued for making violent computer games that have alledgedly affected the players and made them commit violent acts. Harry Potter is a hugely popular series that has been a part of the lives of many young fans for as long as they have been able to read. These passionate fans that have grown up with Harry might respond badly to their dear friend dying, I think that this point should be discussed in the article. There were similiar concerns raised when Snape killed Dumbledore, the reaction will be much more intense if the hero is killed. -Lapinmies 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently some famous people have discussed about this, I will add the chapters and sources about it as soon as they are available, you can discuss the changes here. -Lapinmies 08:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would be original research and not encyclopediac. I'd like to see a massive lawsuit before we include something like this in the article. Don't waste time pursuing this, Lapinmies! Reaves is right.Primalscreamtherapy 09:26, 30 December 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.