Talk:Religious debates over Harry Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Religious debates over Harry Potter. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

	Religious debates over Harry Potter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 27, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Harry Potter     (Rated FA-Class) Image:Dumbledore.jpg This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. FA This article has been rated as Class FA on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click Show → Merge articles that we have agreed to merge at Notability Work on pages in our improvement drive to bring them to GA or FA status Remove original research from every article that has it Check the to do list for the Harry Potter article to help get it to FA Improve plot sections in accordance with WP:WAF Perform some much-needed work on fair use images Help expand content at the Muggles' Guide Expand factual subsections of HP book pages (such as editions and translations) Help the article Horcrux Add critical reviews to all book pages edit tasks WikiProject Religion (Rated FA-Class)   Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Article name 2 Images 3 Introduction 4 "Dumbledore's Sexuality" section 5 Suffering Passages to Snipped Out of Wikipedia

[edit] Article name

Perhaps you've discussed this before, but wouldn't it make more sense if the article was titled "Harry Potter (religious debates)" ? With a link from the Harry Potter DAB? ^Avruchtalk 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article, by the way. ^Avruchtalk 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) As for the redirect, I think this article can stand on its own- it isn't really about Harry Potter per se, more a document of a peculiar moral panic. The template at the bottom of the page links to it, so there's no real need to disambig. Nice idea though. Serendi^podous 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Any thoughts on additional images? The article is looking a bit bare. Serendi^podous 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have one of Dumbledore or Rowling? Wrad (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We have one of Rowling, but it's not easy to contextualise for this article since it shows her getting a degree from the University of Aberdeen. An image of Dumbledore is possible, but it would have to be argued on fair use grounds. A picture of Laura Mallory would be cool. Serendi^podous 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Could somebody please copy the citations from the body of th e text into the introduction, too. As it is the introduction makes serveral claims which it does not back up, but which are covered by the main body. Both sections need these citations. - perfectblue (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very tedious but done. I have to say I don't see the point of sourcing an introduction. If someone is only willing to read the first three paragraphs of a 5000-word article, he or she is not really in a position to complain that its authors weren't thorough enough. Serendi^podous 12:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Dumbledore's Sexuality" section

I'm wondering whether or not the second paragraph inadvertently implies that all Christians object to gay people. I was trying to think of ways of rewording the first sentence ("Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and who were critical of Harry Potter responded ..." is so clunky. "Homophobic Christians who were critical of Harry ..." is better, but a little strident and likely to cause controversy).

It's a little tricky, but I don't think it's fair to assume that just because some people don't like Harry Potter, that they also hate gay people. Rangergordon (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps it can be reworded, but I think that Christians uncritical of gay people are also not likely to be critical of Harry Potter. I suppose "critical of both Harry Potter and homosexuality" would be better? Serendi^podous 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Much less clumsy than my wording! Looks like you captured the golden snitch on that one, Serendipodous; good job. Rangergordon (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suffering Passages to Snipped Out of Wikipedia

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18)

The desire to take this old testament passage seriously, and the imaginative use of occult or Satanic subtexts in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter fantasy novels has given rise to numerous debates within the Christian community. Those which take things literally generally condemn the books; those which allow for imagination, generally regard them as moral fiction.

There are a number of issues with your addition. First, there are no third-party sources connecting the quotation to Harry Potter; the connection is yours alone. Second, not only Christians have criticised Harry Potter; Muslims have too, and that passage means nothing to them. Third, the line "the imaginative use of occult or Satanic subtexts in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter fantasy novels has given rise to numerous debates within the Christian community" makes the implied judgment that the books are occult or Satanic, which is contradicted by later passages which argue that they are not. Serendi^podous 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK; I've revised your comments and added a third party citation. It should be relatively neutral now. Serendi^podous 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

hi serendipodous -- you know, i share your concerns that the criticisms are not just from the christians -- so i'm quite sure that what i've said could (should!) be reworded to be inclusive -- but by pre-emptively deleting it, you really seemed to miss the point. :( the axis is not christian/non-christian (or whatever) -- the point is calling attention to the axis of those who take things literally/fundamentally vs those who take things imaginatively -- this point (which could be presented inclusively of christian/muslim/what-have-you) has been excised along with the bathwater.

Religious debates over Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling stem largely from assertions that the Harry Potter novels contain occult or Satanic subtexts.

this is good -- but a reader with no religious background isn't really given any sort of 'why' these occult / religious subtexts should even bother the religious folk. the fundamentalist point of view (be in christian/muslim/what-have-you) takes the point of view that one should not suffer witches to live seriously -- which is (to me, at least) irrational. but irrational or not -- it is the CAUSE out of which they act. that's why the passage (interpret it as you will) does have some significance. the fact that they take it literally is the root of their folly.

the second point of view is generally those which have a bit more imagination -- they see the fantasy and wizards and magic as such. they are not such literallists as the fundamentalists generally are, and see the metaphor as a good moral tale.

so i was trying to enlarge it from presenting only one point of view -- to include a bit more in-depth understanding of why these groups might be doing what they're doing. -- but i don't see what deleting such things out helps. Johnrpenner (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Those which take things literally generally condemn the books; those which allow for imagination, generally regard them as moral fiction.

(deleted)

so thx a lot -- just try and improve an article, and get things deleted by the likes of you (three times -- at your discretion) i must conclude that my efforts to improve this article are a waste of time. ciao. Johnrpenner (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)