Talk:Religious debates over Harry Potter/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Religious debates over Harry Potter

[edit] Harry Potter at AmericanCatholic.org

I found more info on Harry Potter from the November 2007 editorial of AmericanCatholic.org if you wish to add more about this: Harry Potter and the Communion of Saints. So what do you think? --Angeldeb82 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK. Is this real?

No offense to the real Laura Mallory, but that's a guy speaking with a falsletto Serendi^podous 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Podcast notes themselves on that page read: "A live interview with (someone claiming to be) Laura Mallory." Even the people who compiled the podcast don't know who it was and they obviously haven't even made a minimal effort to contact Mallory and confirm her identity. Add to that, it's a primary source, and this is obviously not even remotely reliable. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having listened to that broadcast, I have to say that it sounds just like Frank Oz playing Miss Piggy, except that Frank Oz has better comic timing and the Muppets have much, much better scripts. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Wrad (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on name change

This article had its name changed from Religious debates over the Harry Potter series back to Religious debates over Harry Potter. I have no opinion one way or the other about this, but thought it should be put to a vote. Serendi^podous 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia and sunni

I appreciate the effort, but is it meaningful to divide the responses into Shia and Sunni, when we can't even be sure of the denomination of some of the responses? There's a fair few Shi'a Muslims in Pakistan. Andjam (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Serendi^podous 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For those upset over POV

Please see here and here before editing. This won't exactly assuage your concerns, but it will give you an idea of where the debate currently stands.Serendi^podous 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allusions to Tolkien

I feel these are extremely questionable; Lord of the Rings is notable for its portrayal of magic as a 'slow' thing acting over centuries, rather than simple spells to be memorised and repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that questionable. Gandalf's magic is pretty fiery and fast. So is the phial of Galadriel, which seems to light up with a simple word. So is the door to Moria with the password "mellon." I could go on... Wrad (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Just read the article. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. In the US and parts of the Middle East (and to lesser extent elsewhere) there are people who think magic is real. They think that human beings really do have the ability to work with Satan and demons to influence events and people in the real world. Therefore, reading fictional stories about magic puts children at risk of becoming devil worshippers. In other words, there is a disturbingly large number of people whose minds are basically in the Middle Ages. It's pretty sad. thx1138 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the article should provide more context regarding this? Wrad (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That would go way beyond its scope. thx1138 (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hypocrisy here is

that being drown to 'magical crafts' is in itself theological. This is not a forum but the front page of wikipedia reads like religions are attacking Harry Potter like that is not an attack to religions in itself. --Leladax (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Who's drowning and who's attacking? Wrad (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter isn't a religion. It's not wicca, it doesn't resemble any form of actual religious practice. Therefore it has no reason to be protected from banning under freedom of religion. However, we DO have freedom of speech, which protects things like fictional books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why banning efforts have been so unsuccessful. Wrad (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think it should be pointed out

That at one point or another, all of us with conservative Christian parents know.. that they go through phases where ALL fantasy is banned. Harry Potter isn't usually challenged by itself, it's all forms of fantasy or imagination. Parents forget that fiction isn't real life, and worry that kids can't tell the difference, just like with violence and other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a common issue in America. We'd just need a reference to add that sort of thing. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore section

This section seems fairly heavily weighted towards one POV. Shouldn't there be a sentence or paragraph about the many positive reactions, perhaps from religious LGBT organisations? -Kez (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We really haven't been able to find any. If you can, please add. Wrad (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish response

I'm not sure, but isn't this article about religious debates over the Harry Potter series? If so, then how is anything in the Jewish Response section relevant to the article? The controversy over the selling of the 7th book on the Sabbath in Israel doesn't have anything to do with the content of the book, and thus has no place in the article. If they had been selling a book about dancing monkeys on the Sabbath, the response would have been the same, i.e. it is completely independent from the fact that it involved a Harry Potter book. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is a bit heavily biased. Still I would like to find some Jewish criticisms of the novels. Serendi^podous 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was a Harry Potter book makes all the difference in the world. They are the only book worth protesting in this way because they are so popular. Also, the Jewish section covers more than just that protest. Jewish criticisms would be good, but if they aren't there, they aren't there. Wrad (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Sabbath release controversy: The popularity of the books surely was a big reason why the controversy erupted (and indeed only something so popular would have even considered being sold on the Sabbath in the first place). However, the rest of this article deals with religious debates over the content of the books. This does not. If this was to be included, then perhaps a line saying how the controversy was not content related should be added. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are Jewish criticisms then they should be included, of course. I did a quick Google check: Here, This one has nothing, This one mentions a possible allegory between Voldemort being half-Muggle and the rumour that Hitler was part Jewish. I'm not sure if that last one is enough to warrant anything for this article, but it caught my interest. I also found a Jewish criticism of Christian criticisms of Harry Potter here, though I don't think that's relevant to this wiki article. If you can find anything better, go for it. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a controversy in a particular community, there just isn't a controversy. Maybe we could have an 'Other religions' section, with comment about Hindu, Buddhist opinions et., but maybe that's as far as we should go. Google trawling should only be taken so far.--Pharos (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

May I just congratulate this page's contributors on managing to work together to bring together numerous contentious points of view to create a well-rounded, well-sourced article. I am impressed. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to say it's a relief to see that. Usually we're being accused of pushing a POV, so I'm glad you can read it as unbiased. :) Serendi^podous 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sere! I know you've worked hard on this page! -munkee_madness talk 03:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos -- an excellent article. I particularly enjoyed the images selected for this page. —Burn Down Babylon 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on getting this topic to be the featured article. However, the very first part struck me as odd:

"This opposition crosses many religious lines, with some members of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians and Shia and Sunni Muslims faiths arguing against the series."

These religions all fall under the grouping of Abrahamic religions and no other major religions, such as Hinduism or Buddhism, are mentioned in the article. Wouldn't it make more sense to replace "crosses many religious lines" with "comes from branches of Abrahamic religions"?--Revth (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wrad (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "crosses many religious lines" implies - maybe this is just me - that there's some kind of unified movement, which I don't think is shown. But the phrase "Abrahamic religions" is unfortunately clunky. Oh well, the latter is an improvement. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed. I'm a bit unsure about using "branches", so if anyone with better knowledge of religions can replace this word, it will be great.--Revth (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An excellent article on a tough subject. My thanks to the authors. calr (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotic article to feature

Whoever keeps featuring all these idiotic articles really needs to step back and take a look at how this reflects on the Wikipedia community as a whole...for God's sake Wikipedia contains articles on a diverse range of topics and this is the best you people can do. It is absolutely pathetic that we cannot cover topics of greater interest or depth than this...Scott 110 (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You might get better attention bringing that up on the Main Page's Talk page. Wrad (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seems weird that, sitting there on the front page, is a ridiculous claim that "the government won't let public schools ban harry potter because witchcraft is a protected religion under the constitution"... when wicca has nothing to do with harry potter whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Then fix it. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not even what the Main Page says. It's your own summary with a heavy slant. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is the place to shoot down bad articles before they become Featured. We can use more help doing so over there in general. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit guides 'new age'?

I don't want to change it out of hand, because I don't have a ref right now, but the statement in Religious_debates_over_Harry_Potter#Definition_of_witchcraft.2FWicca saying that spirit guides are new age isn't a complete answer - they are also a strong part of First nations spirituality. Anchoress (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't really change that sentence since it is a direct quote. But if you can find something that would add meaning to the quote that would be good. Wrad (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with images

The images Image:Nervous Witch 20.gif and Image:Harrypottersatan.gif are not significant for this article and are merely used for decoration. Unless clear purpose of use descriptions (for the specific uses in this article) are added to their non-free use rationales, they should be removed per WP:NFCC policy (#1,) #3, #8, and #10. – Ilse @ 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Not significant for this article"!? You've got to be kidding. I'm shocked. "Merely used for decoration"!? As far as I've heard, they're nothing but informative. If they're for decoration only, they're pretty dang ugly. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad. These images are entirely relevant to the article, and provide much more than mere decoration. The article would lose a lot were these to be removed. Aleta (Sing) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The biggest misunderstanding is that the first amendment protects the separtion of church and state. This is not true. It is a great debate, but please remove the part that says the first amendment protects this. It was written by someone who is clearly not a lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.63.15 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though this has been fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ONE THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS

I find it interesting that nothing has been mentioned of the fact that Islam has had its share of magic in its history. After all, One Thousand and One Nights is chock full of such tales, and it has been very popular over the years. Indeed, it re-introduced magic as a plot tool in societies where Magic had basically been forgotten or fallen into disrepute. Harry Potter didn't start any of that. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Magic is present in many religions, whether they admit it or not.Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1001 nights actually is largely persian and sufi and not islamic. It was also much more popular in Europe than it ever was in Arabian nations. Wrad (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional issue needs citation

Sorry, I don't see that any of the references support this:

"In the United States, calls for the books to be banned from schools have led occasionally to widely publicised legal challenges, usually on the grounds that witchcraft is a government-recognised religion and that to allow the books to be held in public schools violates the separation of church and state."

It would be an enormous leap in logic for anyone to make this argument, it would have to come from a fringe right group and would be unlikely as such an argument would then preclude the Bible from public schools which not even the ACLU supports (provided it is use for academic reasons)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that is the argument being made by people with religious objections to the Harry Potter series. Specifically, that is the charge made by Laura Mallory who has been trying since September 2005 to have the books removed from the Gwinnett County public school libraries. Nevermind that the exact same argument can (and has) been made against Bibles, which sets these same people off about how the government persecutes Christians. Please read the article; Mallory's claims are cited. You are right in that the initial claim needs to be cited. TechBear (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have named some cites in the Mallory section and put them into the second paragraph. We might want to move some of the citations from latter in the article forward in a similar manner, to head off similar outrage from those who read only the introduction. TechBear (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever seems to have done this. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article, is this a joke?

I am laughing hard as I sit here and look at an article that “ … has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community ” So this is what we pour our time and efforts into? With so much on Wikipedia to showcase it is seems a almost ludicrous to waste more ink on this topic, let alone make it a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.248.73 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you complaining about the quality of the article, or the fact that the article exists? Serendi^podous 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does your computer use ink? :) This is the best article on Religious responses worldwide to the Harry Potter series that I have seen anywhere, not just wikipedia. I think it's a pretty awesome achievement, even if it does seem like an everday thing to regular wikiusers. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found a few issues with this article which made me a disappointed to find it under the featured status, not the least of which the opening paragraph all but saying Anyone who thinks there's witchcraft in this book is a 10th century religious nut (I've reworded it, but you can still find it on the main page). And wouldn't the article be better named as Controversy surrounding Harry Potter (it is important to note that it isn't only religious people who took issue with the novel or its developments, contrary to the thrust of the article). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like the way it's worded on the main page either, but I don't think it's that bad. Do you really think it's saying that? Others have complained in the opposite direction. "Controversy" is too general a term for a book which has copyright controversies, political and sexual controversies, and religious controversies. There are other articles for those. This one focuses on religious controversies only. It has both sides. I don't really see what the big problem is unless you just want to crush evangelicals into the dirt, completely snuff out what they've said, and replace the entire page with "These guys are idiots!" That's just not what wikipedia does. Wikipedia highlights all notable points of view, and in the US, especially, but also in other countries, this is a very notable and controversial point of view. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it April Fools already? Why would any religious person respond to a fictional series of books? My God - talk about people over reacting in this modern society. Someone always has to get offended! However, as the Featured Article is about writing style and not context, this article meets the criteria. 172.213.211.136 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's how I feel about it. It's a well written article about a controversial subject that gets people mad and frustrated but, nevertheless, exists. Wrad (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It certainly qualifies to be a featured article, although I must admit that the article relates to nothing important. End of. Josh Anderson (talk)

[edit] Why no mention of Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy?

At least that series has a serious theological debate aspect to it, rather than this Potter fancruft/controversy-exaggeration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.161.249 (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because this is an article about the Harry Potter series and His Dark Materials would be off-topic? TechBear (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start a Religious debates over His Dark Materials article, you're welcome, though oddly I think you'll find there has been less of a debate over those books than there has over Harry Potter, despite Pullman's all-but jumping up and down waving his hand and screaming "Pick me! Pick me! I wanna be censored!" As far as I'm aware, His Dark Materials has never been taken to court, no copy of His Dark Materials has ever been thrown onto a bonfire, and those books never been suspected as the motive in an attempted terrorist attack. The same cannot be said of Harry Potter.Serendi^podous 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

HDM has certainly been banned and burned, but that is off-topic unless a quote is found comparing Pullman's work with Rowling's.Mdiamante (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't fundamentalists admire Dumbledore?

He's gay, but, as far as we know, has had no lovers since his teenage years, and maybe not even then. He doesn't seem to mention his homosexuality either. Isn't being celibate and closeted (if indeed he is; the books don't say this outright) exactly what religious fundamentalists want gay people to be, since marrying somebody of a different gender would be a false witness? There must be some commentary somewhere to this effect, unless those who think gays are an abomination are truly incapable of adding all this up. Mdiamante (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting, if provocative, case, but this page isn't really for general discussion. Wikipedia isn't that kind of site. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming there is an internal consistency to what they get outraged about. thx1138 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)