Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 9

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 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Contents

The plot formulae thing is disturbing

The article mentions about a shallow plotline - the beginning at Dursleys, the journey to the Burrow or somewhere else, Hogwarts and then the end of the year. Although this is perfectly correct, but it sounds like criticism. I think a rephrasing is needed over here, and particular emphasis to be laid on saying that it does not take away any credit from the series.


Warning!

There are leaked copies, we shouldn't let people edit the plot section. Luckyz21 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) There are leaks

Can you people PLEASE put in spoiler alerts on anything regarding Deathly Hallows? I've had major surprises ruined just trying to read up on some minor character's background. It's just as bad as people walking around with a t-shirt on that says "Dumbledore dies on page xxx".

I would recommend simply reading the book and looking for your info later. The media gave plenty of time for people to avoid spoilers. If you want to prevent spoiling the book for yourself, wait until you've read the last page before delving into the wikipedia pages. Catmoongirl 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone interested...

in saving the nuclear test site that is the Characters list? Because if not, we should seriously think about bringing a character list back here. EDIT: OK. Just did a reversion of about ten edits to when the list made some kind of sense. Hope it stays that way. Serendipodous 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Plot summary

In plot summary, how does Hagrid know that Harry's parents have been killed? It is a mystery that hasn't been explained in the book and doesn't make that much sense. How does Dumbledore know that Harry's parents were killed? Was he a witness to the murder?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bullsfan (talk • contribs)

I always sort of assumed that they found their bodies...=David(talk)(contribs) 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Whenever Death Eaters conduct any sort of killing, you'll recall they send the Dark Mark above the house. I imagine Voldemort did the same, and it was reported to the authorities almost instantly. Considering the Potters' and Dumbledore felt their lives to be in such danger (correctly it turns out :P) that they had a Fidelius Charm on the house, I speculate Dumbledore would keep a close eye on the house.--Problematik 06:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How then do you think that everybody was celebrating? The day when Hagrid brings Harry to the dursley's everyone knows about their death by that morning, which is why Proffessor Mcgonagall was there and why there were the owls and the wizards not in muggle clothing. I do wonder why it took so long for them to get to the dursley's. I don't think it takes a day to get around anywhere in london does it? Thats something that would be nice if JK would clarify is what happened that day. Offcrcartman 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things had to happen that day. The general consensus is that Dumbledore was probably privy to the Secret of the Fidelius Charm even at that time, on the Potter's house. He must have been, to say he managed to get the Invisibility Cloak from James Potter, several days before his death. He also knew that Sirius Black was privy to the secret. Black went to the site shortly after the attack to discover his best friends dead, and there he met Hagrid, who, on Dumbledore's orders, was trying to get Harry out of the way before the house was surrounded by muggles. Sirius gave Hagrid the bike, realising what had happened, and went to hunt down Peter Pettigrew. Hagrid took the entire following day, it seems, to get to Dumbledore. We can only guess that this is because most of the death eaters were probably still on the prowl, and he had to be careful. It does seem to be a long time, however, I agree, and nobody is certain as regards these events. Vampiricduckie 09:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, it says dumbledore was the performer of the Fidelius charm, i believe. also he probably had fawkes on the lookout, as in the 5th book. Dappled Sage 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Feminist critique"

Yeah seriously, this shit needs to go. It doesn't satisfy "notability guidelines" or whatever - this Christine Schoefer person doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia, and she does seem to be the only one to put forward these views. Not to mention that they're ridiculous - why would J.K. Rowling (a woman) write something "patriarchal"? BigglesTh9 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms may or may not be notable, and may or may not make sense, but there's certainly no rule that says a thought can't be patriarchal just because it comes out of a woman's mouth! --Saforrest 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It would help if her critiques were actually true, though. (In what way was Umbridge a fraud? She never pretended to be anything she wasn't.) --BranER

Umbridge pretended, mid book 7, that the Slytherin locket was in fact a locket celebrating the blood purity of her own line, the Selwyns, so this is, perhaps, the fraud situation as regards her. I also disagree with the feminist movement on this, and being female, that maybe counts for something. The powerful characters of Molly Weasley, Minerva McGonagall, Hermione Granger, Luna Lovegood, and especially Ginny Weasley, all add to the sense of this being a balanced story. Just because the hero is male, his leader was male, and the enemy is male doesn't really stand for anything. In the last number of books, it has been pointed out that frequently, the male contingent are the ones with problems, eg, Lupin, Snape, Sirius, Tom Riddle, Slughorn. Most people agree that JK Rowling has displayed the emotional characteristics of a woman very well. As for Dumbledore's far sightedness, the man was clever, but he also brought about his own downfall by greed. He certainly is not the perfection that he appears to be. Maybe this article section ought to be re thought. It seems frail at best, and at most, extremely refutable?Vampiricduckie 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

what appears below is authored by altdrsmoothop, I just got my log-in now.

although i'm no authority figure, I am familiar with feminism. In reply to the first comment above, being a woman doesn't make you a feminist by birthright. Saying that a woman might write something that can be addressed by a feminist critique is not tantamount to an analogical jewish nazi. while the critique would seem antithetical, being that Rowling is a woman, it is not a given that someone who identifies as a woman automatically makes them a feminist, or makes it impossible for them to write something that may stir a feminist critique. Feminism refers to a general belief that women have been subject to a system of oppression that makes itself known through the representations seen throughout a culture. This includes a critique of what is traditionally described as the representation of women and their traditional roles in various media.

Umbridge is a fraud because she is presumably using the power of a governmental position to infiltrate and bend the curriculum at Hogwarts, not in an attempt to better the experience of the students with magic, but in a vain embrace of her underlying beliefs in maintaining power over people by keeping them misinformed and corsetted from making action or having power over their government because they do not have direct unhindered access to education. she's not at hogwarts to help the students, she's there to forward her own selfish ideologies. in such a light she is a fraud, because the veneer of her intent is not what she is actually forwarding at hogwarts. the bigotry of blood purity being one of her main goals as well. and as we know, hogwarts will give help to any who beseech it, not just the entitled. the strong woman as a duplicitous character is a common role for a woman in representation, a woman who, when in contact with real power and influence, twists it and uses it for a more devious purpose.

to the second comment. it would in fact matter that the main characters in the book who take the bulk of the plot attention are the pivotal characters, to a feminist. Luna is a strong character, but much like Trelawney she seems foolish at times, is portrayed as border-line crazy. Molly Weasley, while a strong character, is a veritable trope for a woman serving her place as support for her family, doing the cooking and housekeeping while at No. 12 Grimmauld Place, primarily concerned with the welfare of her family. Even in her strongest action against Bellatrix, she is doing so in order to protect her family. In contrast look at Mr. Weasley, valiantly operating within a corrupted government even though he is putting his life and his family's in danger by doing so, by working for what he believes is ethically right. In juxtaposition, Dumbledore and Harry are doing what they must do as actors in an event that is concerned with the welfare and justice of the wizarding community. What I just wrote would enter into a firm feminist criticism, as a lot of feminism is directed at separating the idea of woman from the necessity that her societal role need revolve around a support in the home (and of men in general) and the rearing and tending of children, doing the cooking, etc. You find Hermione doing a lot of these tasks while abroad with harry in book 7, which is something poignant to note, although she may act with indignation of being saddled with that role. While i personally agree that the book does produce women characters who are strong, they are far from immune to a feminist critique that they appear at a good many times in the book as support characters filling what would be termed traditional feminine roles. Agreeing with the critique or not, it is at least warranted. I would assume, that if an integral part of the wiki process is including criticism as part of the general format, then this criticism is as lucid as any by Harold Bloom. In fact, I think they hold up better then Harold Bloom's critiques, relinquishing the book to the critique that it has no literary worth or does not lead children to continue to read. The suspicion of criticism from a feminist perspective is just one form of criticism, it does not turn the book into a one-dimensional anti-feminist, men are the real heroes, story in light of the fact that it points out the secondary role of women in the book, it just brings a perspective that one could use to understand the themes of the book, and as such, is very much relevant. Hermione is a very salvageable feminine role model in the book though, so I don't think the criticism describes the whole of the book, just much of the woman characters in the book. I would turn the same criticism at Lily, in her proceedings with snape, but then again, ultimately her role is protection of her child. If these perspectives make sense, then they continue to be relevant, and it is not our job as such to remove them solely because the book is beloved, and criticisms besmirch that image. sorry if this is long-winded, but it is common for feminist critiques to be reduced to slander out of hand, and I would find it problematic to dismiss this criticism out of hand as well.

Skimming over that essay above, it seems like you've all picked the wrong parts of my initial comment to give weight to. Basically, I'm saying that the opinion of one person, who doesn't seem to be commonly known, in response to something that's very well-known isn't really notable - or at least, not enough so to have its own sub-section. There would be all sorts of ways to criticise Harry Potter and obviously plenty of critcisms - which means that you have to be the more selective in which ones to include.BigglesTh9 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

British vs English

Will you please stop changing 'British' back to 'English'? Rawling lives in Scotland, writes in Scotland, and is an associated of Gordon Brown, Mr. Britishness. If that does not qualify her as British, then the adjective British ought never to be used.

I have posted my motivations online at: http://insatiableyucca.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/geeky-deed-of-the-day/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNullo (talk • contribs)

1. Welcome to Wikipedia.
2. New additions to talk pages should be properly titled and placed at the end
3. The designation "English" is preferred because that is the country of her birth and hence her nationality. Her current residence/associates have nothing to do with it. You're not the first editor to try and make this change but consensus has long been that English is the preferred choice. Please stop making this change - one of the editors is bound to undo it every time. AulaTPN 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about posting it on top, I did not know where to do it, nor how to start a new thread.

I'm afraid what you say, and what you refer to as 'consensus', is false: there is no such thing as 'English' nationality. So Rawling's nationality cannot be a reason to use the term 'English'. Because Rawling is a British citizen. So the nationality argument supports my change, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNullo (talk • contribs)

I figured that was the case, also you should sign your posts in talk pages by typing four tildes. Also it's Rowling not Rawling. When I refer to consensus I am talking about the considered majority opinion of the hundreds of Wikipedia editors who work on this project. You must remember that these pages are not created in vacuo, they are a colaboration between many people and as such have to conform to the many policies that exist. Edits in conflict with consensus and policy will always be reverted. As far as citizenship goes, that is certainly not the sam e thing as nationality so I am afraid you are wrong. It is also standard practice here when referring to a UK citizen to differentiate between the constituent countries when listing someone's nationality. That is how things are done on Wiki, I'm sorry you don't like it but the policies are decided by smarter people than I. AulaTPN 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aula, it's not that I don't like it - It's that I disagree. I understand now that it is nationality that you are interested in, not citizenship. But because only citizenship has official value, then nationality is debatable. And what I am saying, here, is exactly that Rowling is not English.

The problem is that, with the policy you are defending, you don't leave any room for the 'adjective' British. That is very controversial, especially now that Gordon Brown is PM.

I am therefore still waiting for these hundreds of editors' argument for 'English'. So far all I could gather is that you think it is enough that she was born in England. First of all, there are plenty of counterexamples to that. Second, she was born in Britain too, for that matter.TheNullo 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably won't hear from them unless you violate a policy - they'll just quietly revert your edits in the background. I completely disagree with your argument however, Rowling is most certainly English as being born in England would imply. Ask a Scot if he's British or Scottish. AulaTPN 10:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ask a Scot if he's British or Scottish" That analogy does not work, Aula, because I am disputing that Rowling is English. Your appeal to where she is born is very problematic: does that mean that people can never change their nationality? That they are forever bound to the place where they happened to be born? These days many people (growing numbers, in fact) are born in one place and grow up in another. Or settle in a new place and identify with it. And people can change citizenship. Should that not represent, at least sometimes, a change of nationality, as in a change of identity?

Anyway, it seems to me that you don't want to engage with the argument, but just refer back to the hundreds of silent editors. But then the fact that people will keep changing 'British' back to 'English' is an imposition not warranted by argument. And one that violates the 'free' nature of this project.

Finally, I seem to remember that on issues of this kind there should be a vote or something like that.TheNullo 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Firstly, Rowling was born and raised in England - only moving to Scotland later in life - she is English. Now whereas one can quite obviously change their citizenship that's not the same as nationality. Secondly Wikipedia is not a democracy and votes do not happen for things like this. I strongly suggest you read the policy documents I placed in your talk page. AulaTPN 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to link the discussion about nationality from the archives to show a new user the discussion that has taken place. Recurring dreams 10:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, that would indeed be a good idea, because I guess it is on the ground of that discussion that this decision has been taken. My question is: the decision cannot be irreversible, can it? What is the procedure to challenge it? Aula, as I said, you are not really engaging with the argument (and if you look back at my comment you'll notice that I did not claim that nationality and citizenship were the same thing). If you think that engaging is unnecessary because such discussion has already taken place, then please refer to it, as suggested. About democracy: I don't know whether voting is a procedure that exists for this particular dispute, but I am sure that it exists as a tool in wikipedia, because it has happened to me in the past (maybe on whether to erase an entry?)TheNullo 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link I posted? Wikipedia does not do voting. Occasionally polls will be taken to get a feel for consensus but they don't provide the outcome. The things you have seen regarding page deletion are an opportunity to discuss the reasons for keeping/deleting a page but again they are not a binding vote. And of course I'm engaging with your discussion - I've stated why I believe she is English and why I feel your argument doesn't hold up. AulaTPN 10:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If she was born in England, and currently resides in Scotland and does all of her business in Scotland (In fact, she has spent 15 whole years in Scotland, and hasn't resided at all in England since then), "Scottish" would certainly be a more acceptable term. It would make no sense to call her "English" if she worked and resided in America for 15 years, either. As it is, "British" is a sufficient enough blanket term to cover both nationalities, and if it's going to cause such a fuss it would make sense to use the blanket term instead of the unnecessarily selective adjective. I honestly think you may have some sort of English nationalist sentiments and are just trying to be fussy about things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.24.51 (talk • contribs)

Your comment makes absolutely no sense and you might want to think a little more before you post certain things - ad hominem attacks are not received well. I lived and worked for many years in the U.S. yet I could hardly call myself American. Had I been naturalised then that would be different. Or to put it another way, if a dog lives in a stable can you really call it a horse? AulaTPN 07:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow Aula, that's a disturbing analogy. Comparing nationality to species is something I thought died out fifty years ago. It's the sort of thing white supremacists said about the first black people to enroll in college. Nationality is what you decide you are. If Rowling calls herself English, then she's English. If she wants to call herself Scottish, she can do so if she wants. My grandparents were Canadian, but my great uncle (my grandfather's brother) decided he was a Scot. He took his mother's Scottish name, became Secretary of her clan, wore the tartan and learned Gaelic. I don't think anyone would have accused him of not being Scottish, just as I don't see anyone describing Bob Hope or Jerry Springer as English. Serendipodous 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee I seem to have been replaced by my evil twin! I'm well aware that as justifications go, my comment is on the extreme side - in fact I believe it's actually a Bernard Manning quote - but that's kinda the point. I was attempting to highlight how ridiculous this discussion is, particularly the rampant inconsistencies, but certainly not to make any white-supremacist analogies or spark a race row, I thought people were above that sort of thing these days? Anyway I'll strike the comment as it seems to be far too open to interpretation.
Surely if you're born in Xland then you are Xish even if you live on the moon. Now if you become a naturalised citizen of Yland they you could probably call yourself Yish instead of Xish but if we look at the biggest example of such practices, i.e. the U.S., then that doesn't seem to be the case - you'd end up calling yourself an Xish-Ylander such as Irish-American. Now as far as the UK goes you are a British Citizen so even if you've spent 15 years in Scotland you cannot become a naturalised Scot - there's no such thing - so if you were born in England, you're still English. Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician but this just seems so obvious and logical to me I really can't understand how people can assert that she's Scottish? AulaTPN 08:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, Bernard Manning, a reasoned addition to any debate on nationality. Serendipodous 09:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought you'd appreciate that. AulaTPN 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I can help out here. Ethnically, Rowling is English. She was born and raised in the nation (though not the state, an important distinction) of England, and as far as I know her family were English as well. She is a member of the English ethnic group and therefore is, was and will always be English. Now, as England is no longer a sovereign state and hasn't been since 1707, her nationality is not English, but rather British, as she is a citizen of the UK. Therefore, referring to her as English is correct, so long as it is describing her ethnicity and not her nationality. However, any reference to her being Scottish is incorrect. Though I suppose if she considered herself Scottish, that would open up a whole new can of worms. But I don't think she does. Did any of that make any sense? Just trying to help. :] Faithlessthewonderboy 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on her page it desribes her as British. On the talk page there is actually a comment made by a user who claims that she does conisder herself to be partly Scottish. Have a look. Surely British is a good compromise? hedpeguyuk 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I had abandoned this discussion once I realized that Aula doesn't know what arguments and justifications are (this is not a personal attack, Aula, just a statement of fact ;-)). But since it's still alive, I'll make some clarifications: - my proposal was not scottish, but british. also, the question is not whether english is correct, which i never disputed. it is which description fits her best, english or british. since we are not going to put both on wikipedia, then we should choose the better one. and i proposed that british was the better one. my arguments are above (and linked). also, the last comment is crucial, but i couldn't find where rowling describes herself as british. finally, i want to point out that what i can't call anything other than the 'wikipedia establishment' is denying a change that now quite a few people seem to support on grounds that "if you are born in england, you will for ever be english". if someone provided some justification for this statement that would help. but, as i said, that is not the point. the point is which term is better. finally, the very existence of an 'establishment' within wikipedia is contradictory with its supposed 'free' nature. TheNullo 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ops, i just realized that it now says British... have we convinced someone? or is it just a matter of time again until it will get changed back? in the meantime, on grounds of consistency, ill go and change it in the j.k. rowling page too.TheNullo 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough (or maybe not) there's been quite a discussion about this over at the Village Pump policy article. While no official policy has fallen out of the discussion as yet, the consensus seems to be leaning towards accepting that this is a quirk of the way the UK works as a sovereign state and sticking with English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh rather than British. One of the justifications seems to be that the UK government itself recognises the nations as separate countries. AulaTPN 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that being called an "English nationalist" was an insult. It'd be best to inform those guys about the change in their status from "philosophy" to "vulgar insult". I also wasn't aware that my comments made no sense. If you would, define where you disagree with me, rather than labeling the whole thing as "making no sense". I would be inclined to say that you're avoiding the main subject. But that would be ad hominem, no? I do very well know what an ad hominem attack is, Aula, and I wouldn't make one. I'm just saying that you're being irrational about this. You're British, however, I guess you'd know more about it than me. Watermark0n 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet you've managed to make three ad hominem attacks in one fell swoop or am I just being irrational again? Either way I really don't appreciate your trolling. It is a sad fact of the times in which we live that the label "nationalist" is all too readily associated with right-wing, racist extremism and I was merely suggesting that you might have picked a less ambiguous word. If you would, please explain to me how me packing my bags and moving to, say, Germany for a few years would make me German? To even suggest that it would simply makes no sense. AulaTPN 13:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the labeling of "nationalist" as wrong (don't care whether or not it's "right wing") is all but appropriate. It's a sign of progress in our society that people are beginning to get out of their petty little nationalist feudings that have caused so much senseless seperation and heartbreak over the centuries over so little. But that's really irrelevant, I shouldn't get off subject. English is more appropriate than Scottish. Nevermind my above comments. Truce? Watermark0n 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC) HEHE. It's no big deal, Aula, I'm really sorry about it. I'm just an ignorant American on this issue. I really changed my mind about it - there isn't any sort of "British" nationality, really. I was just being, as you English people would call it, a cheeky little bloke. Watermark0n 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's acceptable to have inconsistencies between the j.k. rowling page and the harry potter page. therefore today, once again, having found that the j.k. rowling page referred to her as 'british', i changed from 'english' to 'british' on the harry potter page too. TheNullo 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly worked out for you has it? ;D 79.75.11.46 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

7

As it has just been released here, should this article be tagged with {{current event}} or {{current fiction}}...? Simply south 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically it could, but this is better placed on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. No need to put it in two places for the same thing...unless of course there is breaking information about the series as a whole. Joshdboz 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge (and query)

Would it be better to discuss the merger here or at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Merge of afterwards Simply south 00:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find it on that page, so I'll just vote here. I vote NO on the merge, as the Harry Potter article is long enough as it is and the Afterwards is a somewhat long section to add to an already long article.  :p Evening Scribe 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I couldn't find it on the page either. I vote against the merge as well, the section belongs on the page and it is pertaining to the book. I'm going to remove the merge suggestion template, seeing as it's only getting no support and no one opposed Evening Scribe's above message.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it common to close such discussions so quickly and so little debate?? Evening Scribe 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
For the merger (not much of one) see [[Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 21#Merge of afterwards.... Simply south 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Heptalogy

Couldn't we say that it's a Heptalogy instead of series.--71.164.131.199 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you must but I'm not sure many people will be familiar with that word. --Meridius 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

thats not our problem, not using words because people may not understand them - especially in an encyclopedia setting - is stupid Bold text

Alright then. I agree with that. --Meridius 08:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree. Using words which the average reader may not understand is a very stupid thing to do. We are trying to present information about a subject in a clear and easy to understand way. Making life hard for readers is a very bad thing to do. Sandpiper 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, we don't have to pander here, do we? If people don't know the word, can't we just include a link to wictionary as a comprimise?? Evening Scribe 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also an internet encyclopaedia, which allows us to link unfamiliar concepts, and allows readers to look up words in a matter of seconds. That's not to say we should use obscure words just for the sake of using them, but "heptalogy" strikes me as a word that wouldn't present too many challenges for the average reader. On the other hand, it is also a series, and "Harry Potter heptalogy" just sounds weird, so while I don't think it should be explicitly disallowed, I don't think it should be encouraged either. Exploding Boy 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You know... "duology", "heptalogy" et al have always seemed to me like clumsy words retconned into existance to keep "trilogy" company. I completely agree that obscure words shouldn't be avoided for the sake of avoiding them, after all we can just link to the definition, but I also agree that that doesn't give licence to use them willy-nilly. But apart from anything else I just think "heptalogy" is plain ugly and sounds weird - I'd be happier without it. JM2C AulaTPN 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. "Harry Potter heptalogy" sounds more like a bizzarely named liver disfunction. I guess if it can be used eloquently in the article then no problem but if it sounds clumsy and inelegant in any particular instance then it's best to just stick with series. --Meridius 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha ha!!! I very nearly snorted coffee out of my nose...! AulaTPN 10:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's really a reason no one uses the word "heptaology". It just sounds ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with labeling it a "series". I mean, the only real reason anyone uses the word "trilogy" is because it sounds snazzy, and Lord of the Rings did it (as pointed out above). Heptaology just doesn't do that for anyone. Watermark0n 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we avoid the William F. Buckley approach to authoring, and stick with common terms where possible. I consider myself a fairly well-read individual, yet had never even heard the word heptalogy until it appeared on this talk page. I've just reverted it out of the article. -FeralDruid 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the heptalogy should stay. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the average reader, but it's also for learning and education. If someone is unsure of what a word means, they can look it up. Shouldn't we be as acurate as possible? Dumbing down something is a bit narrow-minded. Catmoongirl 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumbing down? The article was written as a series of seven. Two weeks ago, someone came in and said it should be changed to heptalogy. How is it "dumbing down" to keep the original wording? -FeralDruid 17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
All I was concerned about was being as accurate as possible. I wasn't trying to criticize the current version and simply labeling it as a series. However, I support using the term heptalogy because, as wikipedia is about putting information out there, it would further the knowledge and education of people visiting the page. Catmoongirl 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

'Series' is a loss of information compared to 'heptalogy'. However, 'heptalogy' is a little clunky. Therefore: 'seven-part series'. No information loss; you even get sibilance. Jekteir 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'seven-part series' is better than 'heptalogy'. It's both simple and precise.

"On conservative vs. liberal values" section

I think the way the Anthony Holden quote has been combined with the description of US-based conservative reaction is a bit misleading. This might be due to different interpretations of "conservative".

When Holden uses this word, he probably just means "old-fashioned". This view is in common with other critics who feel that Hogwarts is closer in character to, say, the school in Tom Brown's Schooldays than a real-world modern British establishment. (Perhaps "culturally conservative" would be a better term.)

However "conservative" when referring to groups like The John Birch Society seems to imply "evangelical Christian", from which we get anti-magic and so on - quite a different concept. Mattmm 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the Evangelical movement, though it shares certain thoughts in common with the John Birch Society, is not what they refer to. They are explicitly targeting Rowling's supposed liberal, socialist values. Serendipodous 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this info, I had misunderstood what John Birch is about - apologies. But my question still stands: does it make sense to have the Holden quote in the same section as the attack on JK's supposed liberal values? In my view, Holden's point is not a political one, he simply thinks the books are old-fashioned and backward-looking. Mattmm 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While there no doubt exists debate, it seems irresponsible to assume that because Rowling admits being liberal that her books push for liberal values. I suppose the feminist debate section counters what basically seems to be a "what conservative groups don't like the HP books and why" section. That said, there are many themes, motifs, and actions in the book that reflect conservative values. If one looked hard enough, there would likely be critics or scholars, or someone, who points out how these books teach conservative values. I am not suggesting that this was Rowling's intent. 172.166.130.116 07:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)ryguypeeps

To follow on from the original point, I've only just spotted that Alexfiles sorted this out on 24th July. Much better now - thanks. Mattmm 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Both liberals and conservatives hate the idea of totalitarian governments. As a conservative, I can see the Ministry of Magic's bahavior in The Order of the Phoenix as comparable to that of the Democratic Party here in the United States. Voldemort and the Death Eaters represent terrorists, obviously, and the Ministry of Magic is denying that they're a problem and ignoring them in the hopes that it just goes away. Harry, and Dumbledore's Army, represent the Republicans who feel that action must be taken and that evil must be continually fought or it will eventually win. I'm sure that liberals see the Ministry's tactics in The Half-Blood Prince as being similar to what the U.S. Government is doing to fight terrorism. Both sides see the government overstepping their bounds. The fact is that was must fight evil and part of that evil is anyone who seeks to take our liberties.150.228.40.142 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanked over

What the hells? Why is the article blanked over? Of course I want the spoilers, that's why I came here! -- 4.239.216.79 19:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove this? Tesseran 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place for spoilers. Go to the Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Page. --Problematik 06:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry-Voldemort Relation

I think it should noted that Harry and Riddle are distant relatives. Both are descendants of House Peverell.

All the pureblood families are distant relatives. Serendipodous 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but its good and informative to note which ones when we have that information. Evening Scribe 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As stated above, all the pureblood families are interrelated, so it's unnecessary to bring it up. At least, this is the wrong page for it. If there is a page more specific to Harry-Voldemort, then it is relevant. But it's too trivial a fact for inclusion on the broadest of HP pages, IMO. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well that's a good suggestion. I agree with including it on Harry Potter the character's page. Evening Scribe 03:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


---the house of peverell relating voldemort and harry is very important. It indelibly links the two with the tail of the deathly hallows. in the deathly hallows the people who defy death are three brothers. sort of like original sin. it ties up the myth and the current permutation of that myth in the confrontation between evil and good with harry and voldemort. it also hints at the fact that the representatives of good and evil are actually blood relatives, giving depth to the nature of the characters, showing that even though voldemort and harry are polar opposites, they are directly related to the Peverell family, who are all interconnected because they were the first to recieve the deathly hallows. there is a little alpha and the omega in that idea as well, a common theme in mythical storiesAltdrsmoothop 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC). this is important because throughout the book rowling takes great effort to make complicated characters involved in a mythical storyline. The two were destined to face each other, but for much of the book, the real nature of this eventual encounter is not made clear, and it weaves together the theme of fate without making it too apparent to the reader, what the eventual outcome will be. it also provides important insight into some of the book's themes. merely saying that 'every pure blood family' is related is like saying humans share 99% of their genomes with chimps. The details are in the specific distinctions, and those distinctions are often important to make, because harry and voldemort aren't just any run of the mill wizards. also, you'll remember, harry and voldemort are not pureblood wizards, connecting back to the theme that only purebloods are allowed the power of being wizards, and also showing that having pureblood does not resign a person to being unimportant in the shaping of the events of the world. In sum, I'm not sure how making this distinction is unimportant. It would be like saying that Gollum was once a hobbit had no bearing on the stories of Bilbo and Frodo.

Yes they are VERY VERY distant relatives but JKR herself said that all pureblood families are related and this should not have been like "a big deal" the main point is that they were both descendants of peverells. If this were too be mentioned it should be also stated that all wizarding families can be traced back far enough to see that they are all connected.

Harry Potter in Irish

As I am a relatively new and inactive user, I am barred from editing the article. However, I would like to add that the first volume of the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, has also been translated into Irish as Harry Potter agus an Órchloch. If you find this information notable enough, please add it to the article.Panu Petteri Höglund 10:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Harry Potter in translation. Serendipodous 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

an article containing a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series

Hi, I am looking for an article that will contain a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed. As for example, I remember reading in the part 1 or part 2 about Dudly throwing away a Playstation. If I know it correctly, the 'Deathly Hallows' is supposed to happen in 1996, so in 'Chamber of Secrets', we cannot expect Dudley to use a play station, which shipped first in 1994. I'm sure there are minor mistakes like this. Please give a link, or create the article,

my user id is Smcbuet, though I'm not logged in

There is a point of view that this was not a mistake, or at least not a simple one, rather that the actual year in which the books were set changed as the writing progressed. So the playstation may have been correct as originally included? Sandpiper 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, Jo has admitted this as a mistake. Even if not, the dates have been steady from the beginning. We knew from Nearly Headless Nick's 500th Deathday party in the first book that it was 1991. As an aside, there was a mistake in GoF with the number of Quidditch World Cups; it was an impossibly high number from what we know about the history of the game. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


lol, it's a fictional world, couldn't we suspend our disbelief and say that in harry potter's very familiar alter-reality, playstations were around long before they were in our world? But there should a list of mistakes made in context to the world set in the book. the playstation could be considered an anachronism and not intrinsically devoted to the chronological reality of our world if we take it that rowling was writing a fictional novel. to wit, nobody noticed a hurricane hitting england very weirdly some years back, or a rash of unexplained deaths, so in the same light of having to parralel our real world, wouldn't noting the playstation mistake also have to correlate with all the strange events happening around the time of voldemort's second ascension? Following that logic to its roots would require that we tear asunder the fictional reality of the book, and submit it to the reality of our world, and I think we would all say that that does a tidy number on the point of writing fiction in the first place. rowling never said "based on a true story".

but how about a list of logical mistakes that make sense within the context of harry's reality, because there are liable to be some. Considering the fact that an editor exists at scholastic to ensure the continuity of the books, there are liable to be some errors that have snuck past the censors. Altdrsmoothop 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reprieves and deaths

Wouldn't you say that all of this was a bit of a mislead on the contents of this last text? Does anyone really care if Snape or Malfoy died or not? This was a clear scheme to increase the intensity of worry and wonder as to the fate of the three main characters. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Snape was a central character for 7 books, his overall fate was decided only in book 7. Like it ro not, Snape was one of the most important, complex and twisting characters in the entire series. His fate had nothing to do with the possibility of the famous trio dying. As for Malfoy, well, he didn't die. The only place in book 7 where the real survival tactics of the trio were questioned was during the fight in the room of requirement between the trio and the Slytherins, trying to get and destroy the diadem. Vampiricduckie 09:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reaction - "Unanimous"?

Notice in "Reaction" it says "...Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was given unanimous praise by most of Britain's major newspapers..." For it to be unanimous wouldn't it need to be all of Britain's newspapers? Suggest possibly changing unanimous to overwhelming. Plaakum 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism and praise" not "Reaction"

My previous comment re the use of unanimous pertained to the "Criticism and praise" section not "Reaction" as I described. Cheers. Plaakum 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First name convention

Has anyone thought to do a section on the families in the series that name their children with themes?

  • The Black family tree shows several families with astronomical, astrological and mythological names
    • Narcissa, Bellatrix and Andromeda Black
    • Sirius and Regulus Black
    • Draco and Scorpius Malfoy
  • Lily and Petunia Evans
  • Several of the Weasley family members have Arthurian names (Arthur, Ginevra, Percy, Ron)

Other names have alliterations (this may be a stretch):

  • Marvolo, Merope and Morfin Gaunt
  • Albus, Aberforth and Ariana Dumbledore
  • Amycus and Alecto Carrow

I don't know if I have anything here. -- Techtonic (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is an alliteration section on HP naming here, specifically commenting on the common firstname-lastname initials (Luna Lovegood, for example - LL). -FeralDruid 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First editions

How can you tell if you have a first edition copy of any of books? On the copyright page of the book, located in the pages at the beginning of the book before the story starts, there will be a row of numbers at the bottom of the page. The lowest number in the sequence tells you the edition number. The row of numbers in a first edition looks like this: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Or like this: 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 If it reads, for example, 20 19 18 17 then this is the 17th printing. UK first edition copies of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows only (hardback and special edition versions but not large print) have the words First Edition printed in place of the numbers.

All the hardback first editions except for the first edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone have dust jackets.

Which first edition books are worth the most money? The first editions of the original hardbacks (not the large print or special editions) have fetched the largest sums at auction. The special editions can also be worth a little more than the cover price. Speak to an auction house or antiquarian book dealer for more information or a valuation.

How many first edition copies were printed of the hardbacks? Hardback first editions: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 500 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 10,150 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 10,000 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 1 million

Bloomsbury no longer release first print run information.

Information from the Bloomsbury FAQ section on their website

Series plot summary

How about a brief (2-4 paragraph) overview of the whole series' plot, from Book 1 to epilogue? Omit all but the most important details, but give the reader an idea of what the story is about, instead of having to go through all seven individual book articles and read their summaries. Wikipedian06 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Subplot Page

I created a page for all subplots but an administrator deleted it. I think that it should be put back up. I was forced to move it to User:Rembrant12/Subplots instead of its original Harry Potter (subplots). If you agree that it should be put back up please say so on my page and on the page of the admin. User:Deskana. Rembrant12 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone beleive this to be a good idea? Because my page needs some work. Rembrant12 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People!!!!!!!!!!!!! The page needs work and I need help to make it better. Can people please help me with the page?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Rembrant12 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Jesus allegory?

I've been reading the section on literary criticism, and I find it unfortunate that no one has found written sources to support the potential Christian allegory that is present throughout the novels. Think about it: a fatherless child marked at birth as something special gathers a following, teaches them, proceeds through trials, and faces pure evil multiple times. All that is left is some final, ultimate redemption demanding the "blood" of "the chosen one." With all the surface connections, there's bound to be at least one published critic who's said something of them. Shouldn't that critical possibility be added to the site if we're willing to maintain the other criticisms?Mjratz 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)mjratz

no, you can't add that becuase it sounds like original research to me. If someone states that it resembles the life of christ or if JKR comes out and tells that HP was inspired by the life of Christ, then we can add the allegory - else it remains out of it ... --Kalyan 07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Nazi-Hitler theme in book 7?

is it jsut me or does the death eaters and voldemort strike a resemblance with the ss/gestapo and hitler?

voldemort, like hitler, wanted purity the mudbloods being the jews going into hiding to sotp them being imprisioned and murdered.

the fact that voldemort seemed to be winning all the time also bears a resemblamce to wwii as hitler conquered europe only to have it taken away from him

voldemort conquered the ministry only to loose when he seemd to be winning. am i making any sense? Kempee 02:01, 26 July 2007

you're making sense, and you're actually making more sense then you appear to know. rowling has stated before that she wanted there to be a connection between the real world and the wizard world, and that the fact that grimwald was defeated in 1945 wasn't a coincidence - she definitely intended the first wizarding war to match with the 2nd world war.
that said, the fact that your observation has a good chance of being correct is no reason to put it into this article. the connections you're making are considered original research and have no place here until they're stated by a notable source; if you can find a link to an interview with Rowling where she explicitly talks about this connection being intentional, i believe we should add it. as long as it's only your opinion, we shouldn't.212.123.24.90 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How can it be original research, there is fact-(history) to back it up! as well as Rowlings comments  ! addy g in da houseAddy-g-indahouse 11:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The first wizarding war took place in the 70s and early 80s, not the 40s. It was when Voldemort was first "defeated" by the infant Harry, and has nothing to do with Grindlewald. Faithlessthewonderboy 12:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In a recent interview, JKwas asked that question. It was more in relation to the "ethnic cleansing" of half bloods and mudbloods. Search "Voldemort's killing of Muggle-borns" to find the specific question on the transcript. i (said) (did) 04:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly no coincidence that Grindlewald was defeated in 1945, JKR has said as much. But when the phrase "first war" is used in the series, it doesn't refer to anything that was going on analogous to WWII, but rather to Voldemort's original rise around the 1970s. That's all I'm saying. faithless (speak) 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

I realise that this is only a tiny section of the chronology of the Harry Potter books, but it ought to be added at the end that the last chapter of Deathly Hallows takes place in late 2017. It seems to be silly not to involve it when it is a huge part of the story.--Vampiricduckie 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

critical acclaim

Look, I know a lot of people out there hate Harry Potter, and they're welcome to. The books are far from flawless. But the fact of the matter remains that the vast majority of reviews of the Harry Potter series have been positive. The critical response section is massively unbalanced, giving paragraphs to the views of two people, AS Byatt and Harold Bloom, while sidelining the seven or eight people listed as being in favour. This needs to be addressed. I would suggest trimming AS Byatt and Harold Bloom's comments. Serendipodous 07:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK; trimmed it. Serendipodous 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I love the books too. to start. however, do you really think that taking a personal interest in minimizing the criticisms will be useful for the people looking here. The books are far from flawless as you say, but it appears here that you would like to take criticisms to a meek whisper if at all possible. this is hardly an attempt to be encyclopedic. I would suggest you let commentary on the books flourish, if your true love for the books is to flourish as well. 68.37.14.90 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bring back the alliteration page!

I believe it should be put in the motif section even if you don't list all, she also used it in spells and potions. Babbling Beverage, Confusing Concoction, Deflating Draught, Shrinking Solution, Strengthening Solution, Swelling Solution are just some of the potions, I dont' see why it would be taken out of the motif section, it did take up some space so you could just take out the lists and just add some examples. Offcrcartman 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There were two problems with that section: one, it was in danger of becoming longer than the rest of the article combined, and two, it was essentially what the pedants on this site call "listcruft", a list of things purely for the sake of listing them, rather than for actually making a point. It might be worth doing a separate article on the literary motifs in the series, but that would require locating appropriate secondary sources. Anything less would be an essay. Serendipodous 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to give, say, half a dozen examples of the recurrent alliterations throughout the series, including a ref to the Alliteration page), but to list them all would be overkill. -FeralDruid 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Serendipodous added the following: It would still be OR; you'd need to include a secondary source or two, and later removed it with the comment, much of this page is OR, so it's kinda irrellevant to bring that up. Here's an article discussing the wordplay in the Harry Potter books, including alliterative names such as Dudley Dursley and Poppy Pomfrey, puns such as Knockturn Alley (nocturnally), translations such as vol de mort, and borrowed names such as Mrs. Norris. If there's a strong desire to discuss this aspect of Rowling's writing, this is one source on the topic. There may be others. Question is, would it still qualify as WP:OR or as non-encyclopedic content? -FeralDruid 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alliterations/play on words are a prominent part of the series, not to mention important literary devices. I believe the section should be returned; however, NO list should exist. The section should merely state a few examples, for the different types that exists (much like that wonderful article).--88wolfmaster 03:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was this section removed? I think it tells a great deal about Rowling's sense of style and humor. It might even prove to provide clues, as reasons for the use of alliteration in some instances versus others may be uncovered. When I started it, people modified it, and one person deleted it unilaterally. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nineteen Years Later

On Hermione Granger's page the year 19 years later was specifically mentioned as 2017, though it was reverted back to simply "nineteen years later", on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the book (and would also confuse people). This point is valid and a reason for only saying nineteen years later but since we know Harry's birthday and age at the end of book 7, we could use the actual year. What do people think we should do? Algebra man 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should always be stated as 19 years later because that is what is in the book and undebateable.--88wolfmaster 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Possible themes

Ok i went to sparknotes (if its good enough to help pass a test, its good enough for a starting point) to get get an idea for some possible themes besides death.

what does everyone think?--88wolfmaster 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God. Please do not use SparkNotes. Using such a source will make wikipedia look terrible. Such publications are conceived of as cheating guides, not real commentary on the literature. You need to read what scholars have published on these books, not pamphlets designed to circumvent the actual reading of a book. Please see WP:RS. A first resource would be google scholar (as I said above). 11:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"for a starting point" i have and never will use sparknotes as a source, only something to help point me in the right direction. and if you didn't notice i just asked what everyone's opinion was as to whether they believe these could be themes.--88wolfmaster 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
But that's just the point. SparkNotes, for many reasons, is a terrible starting point. Because it is a not a WP:RS, any information in it is suspect; one should begin with solid, reliable information, not unreliable information. Secondly, it doesn't matter what the editors believe are themes - it matters what published reviewers and literary critics think are the themes. If the article only includes themes that the editors believe are there, it is most certainly POV. Please read WP:NPOV - the article must reflect the published work on Harry Potter, not the opinions of the editors as to whether or not that published material is correct. Awadewit | talk 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that simply because the necessity of rebellion exists, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, automatically imply politically-leftist rebellion or action. For example, it may be necessary to rebel against a communist state, which iwould be anything but leftist proletarianism. It could merely rebel for the natural human right to liberty. 172.166.130.116 07:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)ryguypeeps

didn't mean for it to be taken like that - pro choice in words i guess, the only reason i metioned it at all is so that all the its pro-communist people might look into the parallels between that possible theme and the communist/Marxist idea of World revolution.--88wolfmaster 04:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
No one should let anyone tell them what the themes are. The reader should determine that. Scholars are more then welcome to publish what they believe about a theme, but their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. J.K. Rowling is probably the only person who knows for sure what themes she intended to write about.150.228.40.142 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)Actually, the scholars and reviewers' opinions are - as far as Wikipedia is concerned - far more valid than those who are non-citable or non-noteworthy sources. If a reliable source contradicts Rowling, we not that, but - as the source is reliable - we not the difference. Authors may be good writers (and let's face it, JKR isn't really all that complex a writer), but sometimes they miss things in their own writing that reliable, noteworthy sources pick up on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Books vs. the Films

Is it only me that would want all the Harry Potter pages(the ones about characters and objects etc.) here on wikipedia only to be with the info from the books, and in the films own article you can have "differences from the book" or something like that. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but as long as information from the films is noted as such, I see no problem with it. Faithlessthewonderboy 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Worst Witch

Shouldn't something be added about how Harry Potter is very similar to a book called The Worst Witch? If you have ever heard or seen the similarities between the two you will notice that it almost seems like Harry Potter is a plagirism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.233.111 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 July 2007

1)The only similarity I see is that they are both series of books about a school for training children in magic that feature broomsticks. I read the Worst Witch books when I was young, and they are really quite different to the Harry Potter books. They certainly do not have the same themes.
2)If we were to include such a thing, it would have to be in the form "Such and Such [notable critic] said 'The Harry Potter books are plagiarising The Worst Witch books'". We can't just add that they are similar, or that you think they are. We have to make sure such a claim is notable, which means finding reliable sources treating it as notable.
3)Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page :) Skittle 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's it! I've been racking my brains for the last 10 years trying to remember the name of the children's books I read that were about students at a school for witches! We even have an article on that series of books: The Worst Witch. Thanks. :-) Carcharoth 11:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Update - this analogue (ie. a similarity noticed by others but not acknowledged or denied by Rowling) is already mentioned in the excellent article Harry Potter influences and analogues. Now if only there was an article like that for Tolkien! Carcharoth 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I don't think anyone's ever accused Tolkien of ripping anyone else off, although plenty of people have been accused of ripping off Tolkien. Pretty much everyone who's written fantasy since 1957, actually. Serendipodous 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, he did 'rip off' folk tales and legends; does that count? Even some of his dwarfs' names come from myths. Shocking :O Skittle 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers

3407 for UK editions and 4100 for US editions? How could this possibly be correct? Faithlessthewonderboy 05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Add up the numbers from each book's page, it's right. V-train 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you're right. Do the American books use a larger font size than the British books? Sorry if this has been covered before, but it's news to me. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The American books have pictures in them. Pictures take up space. Skittle 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The illustrations at the beginning of each chapter are two inches long, at most. Considering that there is an average difference of about a hundred pages between the two editions, that would require roughly 100 full-page illustrations. Faithlessthewonderboy 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. My copy of Deathly Hallows (UK, children's cover) loses 4.5 cm (10 lines) on every page that starts a chapter, compared to other pages. What is the situation with US editions? Skittle 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How comes it seems like the US editions have extra material that the UK editions do not? Simply south 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Like what? Have you looked at the section on this in the Harry Potter Lexicon [1]? Skittle 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Character colors

Note: moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter because this concerns all HP-related articles, not just the article Harry Potter. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Is it merely a coincidence that JK Rowling intended Goblins to be long-nosed bankers? This is a blatant case of anti-semitism. How would most of you feel if Christians were made out to be horrid monsters? This aggregious offense should be addressed in the article. 75.1.243.70 04:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Christians are horrid monsters. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 04:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pissed too! Everyoine knows that goblins are all poly-theistic proto-anarchists who despise money as slave chains attaching the proletariat to The Man.
Seriously, dude , lighten up. Maybe you should be pissed that there aren't any Americans or Arabs in it. Should we be outraged that Muslims were not viewed in this movie? How about black folk? I think there have been maybe 6 non-whites in the entire series.
I say we burn the f***ers to the ground. Who's got a torch? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I was going to say, chandler. Seriously, this might be worse than the "Harry Potter is a communist" nonsense. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Harry's a commie?! Quick, Faithless - get me Ayn Rand on the batphone immediately! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne and Faithless - Please pay attention to WP:TPG, WP:ATTACK, and WP:CIV, as this could be construed as a personal attack. As for the anti-semitism, if you can find a respected source that puts forth an opinion on that, feel free to add it and source it! =David(talk)(contribs) 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The original post was a personal attack against Rowling by an unregistered user spouting bigoted nonsense. And how can saying "Christians are horrid monsters" possibly be construed as a personal attack when the user is unregistered and therefore anonymous?! Faithlessthewonderboy 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, using Ayn Rand as a comedic device was a pretty bad call on my part. In retrospect, I would have consulted George Burns, but then, he is both Jewish and dead, so perhaps that might not have been kosher.
Seriously, David - the person was ranting. We weren't calling his Mom a streetwalker or anything; we were addressing the utter absurdity of his presented arguments, although admittedly with a touch of evil joy (at least it was evil joy for me; for Faithless, it might have been a hearts and flowers attempt to heal User75's secret psychic wounds - he's a good guy that way, whereas I am a right bastard). Maybe we took it a bit too far to Crazytown, though. Point taken. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. It made me laugh anyway. :-) =David(talk)(contribs) 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
"The prejudice against bank-monopoly goblins is modeled more or less on anti-Semitism and the foul treatment of elves is meant to put us in mind of slavery, but the overall effect of this is somewhat thin and derivative, and subject to diminishing returns." Christopher Hitchens, New York Times[2] Libertycookies 20:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Book versions?

Sorry for asking here, but what are the differences between all the book versions (adult/children/special)? I heard that it only differs on the cover page. If it's not true, and there are differences, would anyone mind adding a section describing the differences between the versions?
Thanks in advance. (User:60.53.51.25) 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ripping good question, user60. As I typically don't read all the versions of a book, maybe someone else could chime in with some input. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. My two cents: As far as I've ever heard, the only differences are in the covers, aside from some minor spelling, grammar, etc. differences. I think they're covered in the individual articles on the books themselves. =David(talk)(contribs) 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would be very weird if there even was different spellings/grammar etc. because its one story, and shouldn't really be altered imo. But than again, there's the US version, which probably "re-writes" many thing. I have never read the US-version or two different UK version. But there surly can't be much differences so that some ppl would miss important informations etc. CHANDLERtalk 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact that some specific words (especially in the earlier books) were changed from the UK version to the US version, most notably "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorcerer's Stone". Some British dialect was also changed, I'm thinking...and also, some people (Dean Thomas, for one) were introduced in the American version in a book before they were introduced in the UK version. =David(talk)(contribs) 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's not true re: Dean Thomas. I'm sure his first appearance was def Philosopher's Stone in the UK just as in the US? AulaTPN 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Dean Thomas is not mentioned in the Sorting ceremony in Philosopher's Stone. He is introduced later in the book as one of Harry's roommates. Sorcerer's Stone has a sentence added to the Sorting, describing Dean as a Black boy who is taller than Ron who gets sorted into Gryffindor. I'm not sure if Dean is ever explicitly described as being Black in the Commonwealth versions of the books. This change actually introduces an error into Sorcerer's Stone. It says that there are three students left to be sorted, and then sorts four students.Don Sample 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that any such differences would have been noted by other reviewers. They would have to be the sources for any such inclusions, anyway. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Character allegiances

In theory, I think that listing the allegiance of a charcter is a good thing, as it helps distinguish between 'the goodies' and 'the badies,' however we need to sort out some limtis. Many characters are being allied to their employers - including, in Ginny Weasley's case, the Holyhead harpies - Hogwarts, the Weasley family etc. This is noting short of ridiculous - the only empolyer that may possibly deserve to be mentioned is the Ministry, and that is open to debate.

Unless we come to a sensible agreement on what to include and what to leave out, I suggest we remove 'Allegiance' from the infobox. asyndeton 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for example, Snape is now states under "Order of the Phoenix (Albus Dumbledore, Lily Evans)" unnecessary to have the names there. And many have "The ministry" just because they work/worked(probably nineteen years later) there. And its just gonna get ful, becuase for example Harry ofc, would have allegiance to the Order, the DA, the Ministry (now that he's Head Auror). CHANDLERtalk 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make some observations:

  1. Obviously we should limit the number of allegiances posted, unless they are particularly significant, to something like 3.
  2. I agree, qualifying organisations by listing individual characters is somewhat pointless. Particularly listing Hermione's personal allegiance to Harry.
  3. As the MOS states that fictional articles should be written in the present tense then it is entirely apropriate to list an allegiance which at some point changed, e.g. Regulus and the Death Eaters.
  4. Working for an organisation absolutely indicates that you are allied to that organisation, at the very least its goals, unless you are a 'double agent' á la Snape.
  5. I think the edits occuring to support this are massively premature, you need to wait at least a couple of days for other editors to get a chance to view this discussion first especially as you're discussing content removal. Edits can not proceed from a point of 'remove first, argue back later' that's bad practice IMHO.

Like I said, just some observations. AulaTPN 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I think I have acted a bit hastily, without waiting for the thoughts of others and I would like to apologise to anyone who feels offended by my doings; that was the last thing that my actions were intended to achieve. However I stand my ground that listing Fleur Delacour as allied to the Weasley family, as an example, is ridiculous, and there are many more such instances.
Arcayne made a very good point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hermione_Granger#Allegiance that all allegiances are subjective, i.e. our opinions. Who is to say who Peter Pettigrew is really allied to? He helped bring Voldemort back but wouldn't kill Harry - that may have been because he didn't believe in Voldemort any more or just because he was not a murderer.
Therefore I re-iterate my point about removing character allegiances from the infobox. asyndeton 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with the point about Fleur, as noted in my second point above. Listing a personal allegiance is OTT especially in that case. Allegiances, if they are listed at all, should be limited to recognised organisations within the novels. As for the whole issue of subjectivity... well that's the problem when you use a word as strong as allegiance. It might be entirely more appropriate to change it to affiliations which is frequently much looser in definition and meaning. I don't think people would argue that Snape was affiliated with the Death Eaters but I think you'd have a hard time proving that, at any point in the novels, he was allied to them. AulaTPN 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say only list them as allied to the Ministry if they strong supported the agenda of the Ministry - especially when the agenda of the Ministry conflicted with the Order - so Fudge, Percy, Umbridge, etc. However merely working for the Ministry shouldn't be enough; I wouldn't say Arthur was allied with the Ministry, for example. Koweja 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you consider the 'new ministry' as frequently described by JKR. AulaTPN 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, there are far too many allegiances listed in infoboxes, something should be done. But lets build a consensus. Also, Aula, I'd disagree with your fourth point. For example, Percy Weasley works for the Ministry, but clearly in DH he was no longer loyal to them. And when Kreacher first arrived at Hogwarts he worked there not out of loyalty, but because he was ordered to. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Percy, excellent point but at one point he was and as fiction articles are written in the present tense then it's still as valid as the others.
Re Kreacher, thanks for shooting a chevy-sized hole in points 2 and 4! Kreacher worked at Hogwarts because he was forcibly allied to Harry (breaks point 2) and Harry had ordered him to do so (breaks point 4). There's always one... AulaTPN 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If they must be kept then, as suggested above by Aula, they should be limited to a sensible number; Hermione had something like five allegiances, which is OTT and unnecessary.

Aula, you're right about Percy, of course, I have trouble remembering that rule. Though I imagine it's safe to say that by the end of DH Kreacher could be said to have a voluntary allegiance to Hogwarts. Personally, I feel like any more than two is over doing it about. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It bears repeating that most of this is interpretation, and trying to make anything other than tenuous connections is going to be a slippery slope that leads to tons of people edit-warring over [[WP:LAME}lame]] arguments over topics like whether Snape was allied to the Death Eaters or to the Order of the Phoenix or whatnot. It's all too ephemeral to be encyclopedic. I say, leave the the alliances/allegiances/loyalties out of the equation completely, and allow the reader to make up their own minds, and read the books to learn for themselves. A lot of it is too much of a spolier anyway (esp. with Snape's entry). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, some of the information in the infoboxes could really be done without, like Wands and Schools (there are only four, possibly five, different schools mentioned in the series, and all but, I think, four characters all go to Hogwarts). That's a terrible sentence, but I think it conveys my point. ;) Faithlessthewonderboy 05:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has decided to add stupid allegiances again, so I am going to make suggestions about what to what should be deemed aceptable and what shouldn't if we keep the infoboxes. These are only my suggestions; please feel free to add other or suggest alterations.

I know inline replies on talk pages aren't the norm but as each category is separated into subheadings it seemed more appropriate here. AulaTPN 18:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes

  • Lord Voldemort - as the key character of evil in the book, who leads the evil side, I have no problem listing people as allied to him.
  • The Order of the Phoenix - as a group dedicated to fighting Voldemort, that is voluntary to join and which the members gain no personal benefit from, I feel it could be listed.
  • Dumbledore's Army - same reasoning as above
I agree, although I wonder whether we should add Death Eaters too? Is it important to draw the distinction between the two groups of allegiances? AulaTPN 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I just added Death Eaters to 'No' but suddenly thought on reading your comment that if we count those as allied to the Death Eaters as allied to Voldemort, then the same would go for those allied to the DA or the Order being allied to Dymbledore or Harry. This doesn't look like it will be a simple problem to solve. asyndeton 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe

I have no strong feeligs about or am unsure of these and will 'go with the crowd.'

  • The Ministry - if a character really believes in the ministry and its agendas then I suppose it's alright. However simply working there is not enough; I don't feel Arthur Weasley should be listed; on the same note, characters who didn't work there could be listed, such as Filch who really seemed to like the Ministry's way of doing things in HP5.
  • Harry - I originally didn't like the idea of listing Harry but since the books revolve around his fight with Voldemort, it could be argued that characters are allied to him.
Again I agree but I wonder what you consider to be the correct approach regarding the Ministry? Do we consider information given by Rowling in interviews to be as high-canon as information in the published novels? If so can you consider the central roles she describes Harry, Ron and Hermione having in reforming the ministry post-novels as being a significant allegiance. Re: Harry, I think you could argue the case that a character such as Dobby has unswerving loyalty specifically to Harry. AulaTPN 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The Ministry question is one that requires more consensus than the two of us; personaly I would say no. I agree with what you say about Dobby. asyndeton 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No

  • Families - Draco shouldn't be allied to the Malfoys, Fleur to the Weasley's etc.
  • Hogwarts/Dumbledore - if a character is truly allied to one of these, that character probably has an allegiance that sums it up in a beter fashion, eg the DA or The Order.
  • Spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends - a slight love story between two characters doesn not ally them to each other, such as Cho and Cedric.
  • Places of employment - Numerous characters have been listed as allied to the ministry as they worked there, disregarding their feelings about it, Ginny to the Hollyhead Harpies, the Daily Prophet (Rita Skeeter also), Aberforth to the Hog's Head and so forth. Working somewhere does not constitute an allegiance to that place.
  • Death Eaters - I think it's safe to say if a chracter is truly allied to the Death Eaters - and not just an individual who happens to be a death eater - then that character is allied to Voldemort.
The only thing I'd disagree with here is Dumbledore in the case of Harry. Harry was absolutely loyal to Dumbledore as is evidenced by his ability to call Fawkes to him in a time of need. You can also argue that his personal loyalty to Dumbledore even superceded his loyalty to the Order as he faithfully obeyed Dumbledore's instructions to share his mission with no-one outside the trio. AulaTPN 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I say no to just about any allegiance infobox listing, for two significant reasons. First, these allegiances seem to shift (or is revealed) somewhat over the course of seven books; the infobox is supposed to be pretty encapsulating, and there is no real way to do that without either confusing or spoiling the endgame of the books.
Secondly, a lot of the allegiances are interpretive (as in, the reader or the editor has to interpret who is on whose side), and that simply isn't our job. We are not here to spoon-feed the reader with our grand interpretation of whose side Wormtail is on (when in fact, the pathetic creature is only looking out for his worthless skin); it should be left to the reader. If people want to hear from the Great Gamut of Potter Fandom, we have provided links for them to follow and immerse themselves in fan speculation. We aren't in that sort of business, and doing so isn't really all that encyclopedic.
With that, i recommend the removal of the lsting from the template. It isn't in our best interest, or the interest of an encyclopedia, to retain it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on that one; however at least this way we are beginning to trim down the amount that characters can be allied to and we are also beginning to see just how difficult it is to not only list allegiances but do it in a consistent format, without cluttering up the infobox. asyndeton 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that this is an evolution to eventual removal of the listing? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I originally intended it to work out a compromise, so that we coud decide what to include and what to not - despite personally wanting to get rid of allegiance altogether. However I think that the way this is going, just creating more questions, which in turn create more problems, it will eventaully, as you say, evolve to the removal of allegiance from the infobox, which is no bad thing in my mind. asyndeton 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say remove all allegiances and add a section affiliations which lists only the organisations to which each character officially belonged during the timeline. That's probably the only encyclopaedic way to do it. AulaTPN 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that might be a less-inappropriate alternative...- Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So are we going to do anything after all this discussion - even though we have yet to reach a decision? asyndeton 13:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Is This Page Protected?

There are bald assertions made in this "article" that are not backed up by facts, or only partially so, and no way to correct them. For instance, the "Cultural Impact" section states that HP has made children more literate as if this were proven fact, then cites one study done by HP's own publisher, Scholastic. Two major studies done by unbiased researchers in the U.S. and U.K. clearly refute this claim: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,710189,00.html and also http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/books/11potter.html?ex=1186459200&en=6726c27996f29a52&ei=5070 Please edit the entry to include these.

It was probably protected because a lot of fan-cruft was making its way onto the page by anonymous users. I think you bring up excellent points, and with your permission, i will incorporate them into the article (since, being a newer user, you are unable to do so in the semi-protected page). Let me know, and I willmake it happen. In the meantime, build up some edits, so you can get established. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this page was protected for a couple of reasons. Firstly, all the Harry Potter pages attract an unreasonably high level of vandalism - way out of proportion for the levels of controversy generated by the subject. Secondly, as the launch of Deathly Hallows approached, many of the HP pages were subjected to constant posting of complete plot spoilers by anonymous accounts. I personally had the book completely spoiled for me numerous times as I reverted these edits as did many other editors but c'est la vie, if it stopped some @$$ from ruining the book for Harry's younger fans then it was well worth it. AulaTPN 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Crufty introduction categories

I am noticing people are starting to add categories and populate them with HP characters by the year they were introduced. This doesn't seem cricket, as WP: is not a collection of trivia, and it doesn't get more listcrufty than this (well, yes, it does, but the poiunt is well-made). What do people say to the purging of these categories as non-notable list-cruft? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on this. When I went to investigate though, I found that HP characters were not the only ones populating these lists (I checked out the '97 one, I think). Still, I'd support anyone else who wanted to get rid of this garbage. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I say we set out and cack this crufty crap. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations for the development of the Harry Potter books

I'm not quite sure where to add this and how so if anyone can, please do. Berserkerz Crit 18:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Scar

The flag of the British Union of Fascists showing the "Flash and Circle" symbolic of "action within unity"
The flag of the British Union of Fascists showing the "Flash and Circle" symbolic of "action within unity"

Hitchens in the New York Times notes the Harry Potter scar's similarity to Oswald Mosley's Union of Fascists but fails to realize that Rowling's heroine, the anti-fascist Jessica Mitford, was Mosley's sister-in-law! Other writers have compared the aristocratic but politically divided Mitford family to the similar Black Family. Libertycookies 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the 2,000 or so people in the forecourt, perhaps one-third had taken the trouble to wear prefect gowns and other Hogwarts or quidditch impedimenta. Many wore a lightning-flash on their foreheads: Orwell would have recoiled at seeing the symbol of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists on otherwise unblemished brows, even if the emblem was tamed by its new white-magic associations. And this was a sideshow to the circus, all across the English-speaking and even non-English world, as the countdown to the witching hour began. [3]

Im pretty sure she's stated that its a lighting because of it being a cool form. Not because its a fascist-symbol. CHANDLERtalk 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...I think that enough fictional characters, groups, etc. have a lightning bolt featured prominently that it's just a coincidence. Take Lightning Lad, for instance. Or AC/DC. It's just a cool symbol, nothing more. Unless we can prove that Rowling is a fascist. (Poor JKR...communist, fascist, and anti-semetic, all in one talk page!) =David(talk)(contribs) 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am still waiting for someone to call her a baby-killer and a Consort o' deh Debbil. Poltroons... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hitchens writes a book (actually, a number of books) about the absence of God in today's world, and we are supposed to believe that his contrafactual commentary isn't meant to boost his own sales? Please. Lib, i could make an argument that Harry Potter is part of the Speed Force, citing the similarity of the Flash lightning symbol. Or maybe that he is actually part of the Shazam group of heroes (actually, there would be a bit more for comparison there, the long-bearded wizard gifting a young boy with advice, wisdom and the ability to use it, etc.). I woulc even make an argument that HP is actually the Chosen One of the Gatorade people - the logos are the same, right?
I am sorry, but the English see fascists and commies under every stone, and with good reason - they were nearlybombed out of existence by the former during WW2, and had their intelligence-gathering apparatus crippled by commie moles in the 50's-70's. That Hitchens (himself a Brit) sees these images is perhaps noteworthy. Can any of his tissue-thin suppositions be brought down with but a sneeze? I think I've just proven that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't remember the story, Voldemort, who left the scar on Harry, is considered by most people to be evil. If Hitler left a swastika on Harry, would you think it meant Rowling supports fascism, or that Harry is a Nazi?
Here's a link explaining SPEW's (Socialist Party of England and Wales) position against the Neo-Nazi and racist BNP. You might have a different perception of Socialism than they do, judging from the comments above.
...Unfortunately, some working people could vote for the BNP as a protest at New Labour's anti-working class policies nationally and locally. Temporarily, some mistakenly see the BNP as an alternative. The need is clearly becoming urgent to build a new mass workers' party to replace the now openly capitalist New Labour. This will be achieved by building maximum unity of all working-class people fighting to replace capitalism with a system of democratic planning run to meet everyone's needs, not just providing profits for a privileged few.
This is the only way to remove the poison of racism and fascism completely."

.

BTW, Rowling is English and could be writing from that perspective as well. Libertycookies 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if Hitler left a swastika on Harry's forehead, I am thinking that the story would have been a lot more silly than it was. Not really sure where you are going with this, aside from seeking a soapbox upon which to speak about the topic (and, in all fairness, I was going to say 'spout your useless garbage,' but that would not have been polite). Rowling is perhaps the second richest person in the UK, which translates as meaning she is one of the most written about people in the UK. For anyone living outside the UK, British tabloids (the only British press anymore is the BBC, imho) operate by 'nothing is sacred' rule. JKR has been accused of being an alien, a devil-worshipper, a tax-chear, a Royal and part of an Illuminati plot.
The long and the skinny of this is that when you become famous, you open yourself to manipulation by ass-clowns who's agenda have nothing to do with your own, and that these aforementioned ass-clowns will take bits from here and there to make it appear as if you agree with that agenda. That is what has happened here.
I am not putting you in the same hurly-burly of these folk, Lib (signing as an anonymous user - which is starting to annoy me, btw). However, trying to foist this nonsense on the discussion page essentially tell me that there is a basic lack of understanding that a Discussion page is not a talk forum. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Disguised Communism, Communist Undertones, Hidden Communists Messages, and Underlying Concept

Since the exact same argument was raised with identical wording three times, I've archived the entire exchange here.' =David(talk)(contribs) 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Paragraph

Much discussion has exposed JK Rowling as a Marxist, attempting to pollute the minds of our youth with Communist propaganda. The "pure-blood" Slytherins represent the aristocracy, who believe that "magic" (i.e. capital) should be in the hands of a privileged elite. The "clever" Ravenclaws represent the bourgeoisie, who collude with the aristocracy in the suppression of the petty-bourgeois Hufflepuffs and the proletarian house-elves. The brave Gryffindors (who wear red Quidditch robes) and Dumbledore's Army represent the Red Army, the true army of the proletariat.

Dumbledore, with his voluminous white beard, obviously stands for Karl Marx, while Harry Potter's glasses and untidy black hair make him identical to Leon Trotsky. Harry's lightning-bolt scar is in reference to the fatal head wound inflicted on Trotsky by Ramón Mercader with an ice pick. Harry survives this attack, just as the Totskyist ideal has survived in Rowling's twisted Commie mind. 75.2.220.24 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First reply

That's definitely an intriguing take on the idea. I happen to disagree, but I respect that point of view. And if you can find a reliable source for the statement, we can put it in the article. =David(talk)(contribs) 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably too much OR in the theory, but it is intriguing. I would have pegged Hagrid for the unkempt Karl Marx. Maybe Dumbledore is Engles who was the constant supporter of Marx? Libertycookies 09:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

perhaps we all look for and find our demonic antithesis when we look to the subversive. perhaps our own causes can allow, that we take a complicated story, and bend it upon the framework of our own ideologies. bones broken, and blood spilled to do so, put aside. but at least then it fits to what you believe, right? so might we add complications. that harry has a lot of money sitting under him when he comes to the wizarding world maybe? how about weasley's wizard wheezes, making fred and george quite a tidy profit for their own benefit, poverty being a goal worth avoiding. I think you're doing a lot of selecting here, and leaving the bloody complications aside. I doubt your view has any place in encyclopedic interest, and your politics are plainly visible to any who happen upon them. Their place is not here. I see a lot of socialist values in the books, but I would hardly call it, as you have implicitly done so here, a veiled attempt at subtle communistic conversion of the young.

172.166.130.116 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)new entry172.166.130.116 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I can see how one might think the books are socialist, especially with J. K. Rowling admitting she's liberal-leaning. Tht said, one could easily spin the books to be democratic (as in not totalitarian/communist) and even capitalist, as well. Yes, Harry gave his money from the Triwizard Tournament to Fred and George Weasley, but it was so they could enter the free market successfully. Harry could just have easily spread the money to his fellow Gryffindor students, or to whomever, but he didn't. What he did was charitable, at worst, so to speak. Plus, Harry didn't want to keep any winnings from the event that killed his friend Cedric. Also, to combat the thinking that the book pushes a socialist agenda, remember the adolescence of Albus Dumbledore; when he was in cahoots with Grindelwald, their motto was "for the greater good" -- and those were Albus's darkest days (and Grindelwald was evil, and he lost the battle the two wizards eventually had). So quite conversely, one could argue that the message was against the "greater good/need" mantra of socialism/communism, and actually for simply doing what is right and not wrong, based on one's own independent standards. Lastly, the house-elves may be servantile, but they are born that way and LOVE being that way; this issue is explored in books 4 and 5 in particular, and Rowling left it alone at that - that it isn't one-sided; and by and large, Hermione didn't meddle too much in the natural order of things. 172.166.130.116 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)ryguypeeps

This line of thinking is horribly flawed and myopic, not only with its take on the books but that of socialism. Suddenly all Christmas tails are Socialist with a fat guy with a beard. And the scar? She already stated she made the scar that shape because it was cool and a donut shape was stupid.

Interesting how Muggles are superior to wizards in almost every way, they solve problems that Wizard's avoid through labor and struggle. Ron Weasley for example could watch an episode of Star Wars and his question before 5 scenes would be "Do Muggles really travel in space?" and likely Mr Weasley would see a droid and think "Brilliant those Muggles, look how well they do without magic." A simple world history book would make Tom Riddle's activities look mundane, while most books completely ignore Pol Pot or Stalin much less Hitler. The use and possession of Nuclear weapons would blow the mind of the Ministry of Magic. Complete lack of scope of your analysis. Gabriel Millerd

"one could easily spin the books to be democratic (as in not totalitarian/communist) and even capitalist, as well." I think it is pretty clear that Rowling is not a proponent of totalitarianism, however I'm not convinced that she doesn't still promote socialist/communist values. Where Harry gives his money to Fred and George could be seen as "each giving according to their ability and receiving according to their needs." Harry does not even suggest the gift should be a loan, and only stipulates that F & G give a bit to Ron as well.
Of course the whole Christian allegory tends to support the theories of Socialism more that Capitalism. Rowling's characters are all flawed, and it could be argued that Fred and George as Capitalists profit handsomely from the war against Voldemort...going so far as to arm both sides with defensive (shield charms) and offensive magical items (instant darkness powder for Draco). Not the best face of capitalism to be sure.
Like life, the books aren't easily categorized into one ideal theme. But Rowling does reward the characters who act on their best consciences. I think calling her "twisted" is pretty undeserved merely because you don't agree with her values. Libertycookies 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph was added again (identically), this time adding:

(Fred and George's private enterprise goes unrewarded, Fred end's up dead and george loses an ear) Accio means of production! 71.156.39.75 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Smacks of original research. Unless you can provide reliable sources for any of this, it doesn't belong in the article. --Darksun 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a widely held beleif which is self evident. Would writing that a human would die if the temperature rose 700 degrees be unacceptable because its "original research"? 71.156.39.75 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those common sense issues. I thought everyone recognized harry potter as communism in disguise, everything fits perfectly, kinda like Animal Farm. Its quite shocking to realize some people never thought of this. 12va34 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't hold. Unless Rowling can be proven to be a communist, your claim is untrue. On the other hand, we can find numerous sources for humans dying of overheating and being burnt to death. =David(talk)(contribs) 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this was brought up (using almost identical wording) several days ago. It didn't last then: unless you can find a source, you're fighting a losing battle now, too. =David(talk)(contribs) 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not the same. Here, a book is being interpreted by a person who has chosen to give its message a specific meaning, i.e. that communism is being promoted. Different people will see a different message - I think most would see somethign alon the lines of 'goo alos wins'. The human at 700 degrees is not original research, as it is a well known biological fact that enzymes are vital to a body's continued survival and, for humans, once the body's temperature exceeds about 37 degrees celsius, the enzymes denature, i.e. they no longer work properly and so the body dies. Also, the brain is surrounded by blood and the blood being at a temperature of 700 degrees would poach it. The One 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no place for A communist/socialist bias in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is here to provide information, And I say that the more information people have access to, the better. 71.156.39.75 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Thus we say: if you can find a source, put it in. Otherwise, it is original research and will be reverted. =David(talk)(contribs) 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

She is the strangest example of a communist I have ever heard of. If she really were a communist, do you think she would deem it acceptable that she could earn hundreds of millions of dollars from books and movies? The Harry Potter books is the biggest example of capitalism (the selling of the product that it) in the childrens market today. Get a real theory together, then we will talk. --John geraghty 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

John is exactly right, but I'd amend that statement: find a respected source who has a real theory together, and we'll talk. =David(talk)(contribs) 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph was added to the talk page yet again, this time adding:

This is not individual research. It is discussed in depth in the book "JK Rowling: Before and After" by Earl Sinclair. 75.2.218.106 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. There's some fairly heavy spin in that interpretation to say the least. I now have to go mop up the coffee that just came shooting out of my nose. AulaTPN 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This issue as been raised twice before. I can't find the book you've mentioned using any web search, and the only reference to the author's name anywhere is in reference to the Dinosaurs (TV series) character. I cannot find the author's name as a trusted critic anywhere. Can you provide a link that would establish Earl Sinclair as a critic of any caliber, or the ISBN number of his book? =David(talk)(contribs) 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

....yeah....this is nonsense, boys and girls. I think I liked the conversation about goblin racism more. It was more amusing, at least.

It was added again (!) with yet another addition:

House-Elves work happily for no pay, and attempts at establishing a free market result in a form of punishment (eg. Dobby dies, One of the Weasley Twins die

... The ISBN # is 0-553-56872-8 75.2.218.106 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.251.58 (talk • contribs)

Oh no, not again!! AulaTPN 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
We've gone over this three times. It is original research, unless you can find a source. Earl Sinclair is a character from Dinosaurs. That book, by any search I can perform, does not exist. The ISBN provided maps to "Star Wars: The Truce at Bakura" by Kathy Tyers, paperback edition. By all measures, this seems to be original research. Please provide a source, or stop posting this theory. =David(talk)(contribs) 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I am almost to the point where we should summarize the prior discussions concerning these recurrent topics, put them at the top of the page, and every time it comes up we point them to the Discussion Page, where they can explore the fatuous offerings that have been discussed to death before. Unfortunately, these gentle folk seem to think that JKR is a suitable vehicle for their soapboxing. Kinda sad, as JKR is a good storyteller but nowhere near as good a writer as people are makingher out to be. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Check the contribs of 75.1.251.58. It's also giving Earl Sinclair as a source for: "True History of green tea Ice Cream, look it up in Colonial Inventions by Earl Sinclair)". In other words--time to assume that none of this is in good faith, and delete it from the talk page? Marieblasdell 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Earl Sinclair happens to be my neighbor and a very respected Author on subliminal messages, astronomy, and American History. It's not my fault that ISBN searches are defunct. 71.156.34.48 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer to mow his lawn and bake some cookies. The cruft leaves, and leaves now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
ISBNs are 13 digits and individually numbered based upon language, publisher, and specific item number. The odds of your friend's book having the same ISBN as The Truce at Bakura by accident are 2,541,865,828,329-1 - two trillion, five hundred forty-one billion, eight hundred sixty-five million eight hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twenty-nine to one. (Although, as that book is a Han Solo book, "Never tell me the odds!") The odds of it accidentally even being an ISBN for an English-language book are eighty-one to one. The point is, if the ISBN were accidentally mis-given, look at the odds that it would even be coherent! I disagree with Arcayne - you shouldn't mow his lawn or bake him any cookies. He's either lying to you or has delusions of grandeur; flatly, he doesn't exist on Google - he would, if he were "very respected" as you say. Three different ISBN searches, as well as the article for The Truce at Bakura itself verify that ISBN. I'm willing to assume that your comments are made in good faith, for now. But I can no longer assume that your neighbor's are. And if you persist, with no new information, I will be forced to assume that yours are not, either. I think your neighbor Earl is yanking your chain. =David(talk)(contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
However, we do not endorse that you roast the aforementioned neighbor over a book-burning, as that ould be messy and likely spoil Christmas. Perhaps just a clear scowl will do the trick.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a troll making trouble - nothing more. The Sinclair references are bogus. He has changed IP addresses a few times, but he'll be caught up with. I'd strike his comments from here, but that's up to you 'all. Tvoz |talk 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and just lumped it all together. It can disappear with the archiving of the page. =David(talk)(contribs) 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And added again!

This doesn't need a source because IT IS SELF EVIDENT. ROWLING HAS CONFESSED TO HAVING LEFTIST LEANINGS. NOTICE THAT HARRY NEVER GOES TO CHURCH. 12va34 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone here is getting slightly bored of being told that Rowling wrote HP with Nazi/Marxist/Communist undertones. I'll just say, to be polite, that if you can find a source for it, then we may be able to add it. It is not, as you claim, self evident - you have just read far too much into a children's book. Also, are you claiming that all Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc. are Marxists? asyndeton 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you don't seem to get it (though I thank you for finally using an account). This does need a source. See Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. Leftist leanings are NOT communist leanings, and Harry's non-attendance to church is a red herring; there are millions of humans on the planet that do not go to church, and only a very small percentage of them are communists. I'll say this again. This needs a source, or it cannot be included. And the book you last posted by an un-reputable source with a bad ISBN is not helping your case. You're sidling dangerously close to a block; please do not push this any further without a source. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Troll has been indef blocked on this name - I believe all of this was posted by the same person, under different IPs. It was on JK's talk page too, and other nonsense all over the place. Tvoz |talk 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Guess what I found after some research! The text was copied from the Uncyclopedia article on Harry Potter. Boy, Uncyclopedia should be a perfect Role Model for what to put in Wikipedia (Note Sarcasm) Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Editions of the books?

Can someone please add information on all the different editions of the books? I was in Canada recently and the books were not the same as in the US. Trialanode 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't ask for much, do you?  :-) Only joking. Short answer: it's already been done. Take a look at the individual pages for each of the books - For example, here. The actual covers used to be on the page, but were deleted; I'm assuming because of fair-use violations. Hope this helps! =David(talk)(contribs) 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Politics of Harry Potter

Some of these theories are off the wall, and Rowling has said people will see what they want. None the less, should we start a (bound to be contentious) Potter Politics article using published articles? Here's a start at subjects Libertycookies 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=509182007

  • Euthanasia
    • J. K. Rowling Condones Euthanasia in Latest Book - David Haddon - J. K. Rowling's latest book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows< contains a justification for euthanasia not by the Dark Lord Voldemort but by the venerable leader of the "good" witches and wizards, Hogwarts School Headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Aware that he has only a year to live as a result of a magical curse, he says to his trusted double-agent against Voldemort, Severus Snape, "You must kill me" (p. 682). When Snape raises the question of possible damage to his own soul from killing Dumbledore, he replies; "You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation.... I ask this one great favor of you, Severus, because death is coming for me" with great inevitability (Deathly Hallows, p. 683, emphasis added). These, of course, are standard arguments for euthanasia. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11874
  • Socialism
    • the whole Mitford thing.

Sure, go ahead and write up the article. Understand that there will be a lot of people watching over it and scrupulously checking the citations, so make sure they are reliable, notable and verifiable. Let us know if you need any help. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Classics Tranlation

The page incorrectly states only first volume has been translated into Ancient Greek and Latin. Whilst the former is correct- the latter is not, as the Chamber of Secrets has also been translated in Latin.


vandlism

i remember writing something on the didcussion page but then the next time i checked it was gone! somebody should watch out for thatSylvan wu 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your comment wasn't here but instead was placedhere, in the Discussion page for [[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]], I am not at all surprised it was removed. While I respect your right to believe whatever you wish, Wikipedia is not a fan forum, nor a Bible study group. Those comments were not germane to the editing of the article. As well, someone wasn't really polite to you there, and I apologize for that (I've also left a message there about that). Sometimes, us more experienced editors deal more with hit-and-run article vandals and people who are so socially stunted that they are hyper-aggressive in expressing their views, that new guys (or gals) such as yourself kinda get knocked around a bit. If you are having trouble editing here, or finding your way, just click on my name at the bottom, and we'll get you up to speed. For the most part, just asking questions of most of the editors here will get you a friendly response. Either way, I hope my link helps you out a bit. - Arcayne (cast a spell)

HP Redirects

Should the HP 1-7 redirect to the respective HP book, or a disambig page with the postal code area? The HP7 was made into a disambig page. I dont think that is neccesary. A This article is about the book for ..." notice should suffice. Thoughts? i said 22:20, 24 August 2007 (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.