Talk:Ginny Weasley/Archive 1

Fan view
Have edited the "Ginny in fandom" section, since at times it showed slightly too much bias and lack of a balanced perspective on all the issues, and certain arguments not completely compatible with canon. The idea that Ginny is a "bully", and her actions are comparible to those of people like Draco Malfoy, is particularly questionable, and the opposing view needs to be addressed more fully.

Let's get this straight
Am I the only one who noticed that Harry & Ginny didn't exactly break up at the end of HBP? Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic...Seven-point-Mystic 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not the only one. Though I think extensive discussions of the situation they are left in which exceed the actual conversation in length is probbly not good for the article. Dalf | Talk 23:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Harry broke up with because he got bored. He was really just finding out about his feelings for Hermione, so when he saw Ron (the prat) storking her hair he got pissed and decided to ask her out before she fell in love with a male version of Pandora, except, without the beauty, just an ugly, stupid, mindless, dependent, hunk of flesh. The Harmony sinks the, um, Harold!

^^^
 * Uum... what exactly are you going on about?Seven-point-Mystic 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And you just said "storking".XD Seven-point-Mystic 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC

!!!!!!
Did anyone notice that when harry breaks up with her, she say's Voldemort's name instead of "he-who-must-not-be-named"? That should perhaps be added to the HBP section if people think it's important. It's on page 647 in the American edition in case you want to refrence it. It's half-way down the page in the paragraph that starts out "But you've been too busy saving the Wizarding world..."


 * WP:BOLD. =) --AceMyth 18:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers
Shouldn't the section about Ginny's appearance in the books be marked spoilers? Especially for CoS, where she plays a key role. 62.178.0.135 16:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ginny's first name
Ginny's first name is Ginevra according to JKR's website. --Phil | Talk 10:54, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Categorize article
Erm, not sure how categories work, but Ginny is apparently a member of 'quiditch players', 'dumbledores army', 'gryphindores', but not, interestingly ' Harry Potter characters... Can someone fix this? Sir Trollsalot 23:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 'The Weasle Family' is still not useful - how about mentioning that its a fictional character from a book! Sir Trollsalot 23:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The "Harry Potter characters" category is "catch all" category for people who don't fit anywhere else. If we listed all the characters on that page, it would be really convoluted, and you could never find who were looking for.
 * I agree with Sir Trollsalot. I don't really got this last comment's sense: I believe that any HP character should be inside the Category:Harry Potter characters, and then under the other appropriate categories. And as this last comment was not signed, I believe I will categorize the page... Sorry! --Jotomicron | talk 12:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The way it works is Harry Potter characters is the parent category, and others ('quiditch players', 'dumbledores army', 'gryphindores' etc) are subcategories, so as she is in these subcategories, she is in the Harry Potter characters one. If we put everyone in there that was in all the subcategories it would get way too full, which is one reason why the subcategories were made. --drak2 13:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry then, I didn't realise this. Thanks for correcting --Jotomicron | talk 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rowling's view
Do we really need a section on the author's view of the charcter? Surely it is the job of the reader to come to such conclusions without being told them.


 * You are making the assumption that everyone who looks at this article has read the books.... not so, some may have only seen the films or played the games. I think JKR's views are more relevent than anyone's being the author. Death Eater Dan 14:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The medium the character was experienced in is fairly irrelevant to the point that we should not be telling people how to interpret Ginny or indeed any other character. Rowling offers an interpretation of Ginny, yet the fact that she is the author does not make it binding or intrinsically correct. In stating Rowling's view it gives the impression to think otherwise of Ginny makes one automatically incorrect, particularly as this is suppose to be an objective encyclopaedia, which is nonsense as one's view of a character is a subjective area. I still stand by the fact that everyone should be allowed to come to their own conclusion. If Rowling has done her job well then we shouldn't need to be told.


 * So giving the credit due to authorial intent as an inherent element of the character's essence is PoV but choosing not to lest we remind the deconstructionists that an author indeed exists and hurt their feelings is objective? You do realise that by this logic the current article about Albert Einstein is PoV because it assumes that he ever intended to say anything negative about Quantum Mechanics by declaring that "[God] does not throw dice", and stating this view gives the impression that to think otherwise of this quote makes one automatically incorrect?... -AceMyth 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason your analogy does not hold is that Einstein was not the sole architect of quantum mechanics and thus his quote about dice merely offers his own perspective of an issue he had engaged. Einstein's quote is in fact, therefore, more analogous to a reader's PoV about this character rather than the authors. The point is that the issues commented on by Rowling i.e. whether Ginny is the ideal man for Harry, that they are equals and she is funny and compassionate lack any sort of objectivism; they are value judgements, judgements which should be left to the reader (or, so as not to offend Death Eater Dan, viewer or player). To state the author's view gives the impression that it is inherently correct, which by definition it cannot be. The section should be removed.


 * The analogy did not concern Einstein's authority over quantum mechanics but rather his authority over his own statements, including the fact that they deal with quantum mechanics at all rather than, say, Dungeons & Dragons. To illustrate the point I choose to interpret your statement as being in utter agreement with what I've said earlier, my view of what you said and countless possible others thus rendering your own a value judgment, not inherently correct by definition and something that should be left to the reader. --AceMyth 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again your amusing analogy falls short. How is an interpretation of my last comment a value judgement? Agreed, Einstein's expertise lends weight to statements about physics more so than they would Dungeons and Dragons, but that does not mean in the article about quantum mechanics you would devote a section to Einstein's view with the blatant underlying sub text that as Einstein is an exceptionally well known physicist his view is clearly correct. Yet in the case of this article to consider Rowling’s feelings, particularly when it comes after the fandom views section, is to suggest ‘here is what others have said now here is what Rowling has said and as she is the author she must be right.’


 * Yes, an analogy equating Rowling's opinion of Ginny with Einstein's of quantum mechanics would be false. Except that's exactly analoguous to what YOU'RE suggesting is the case, as if Ginny were some objective entity and Rowling's opinion of her has no more bearing on her essence than yours. What I was trying to say is that Rowling's opinion of Ginny is analoguous to Einstein's opinion about his own opinion about quantum mechanics, but let's not take this analogy further because methinks you've just killed it with overanalysis. Suffice to say, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be informative, and just about any valid concept of what defines a character I can think of considers authorial intent as a central pillar - and rightfully so, because the same rationale that claims that authorial intent has no importance to interpretation of characters, taken to its logical conclusion, also applies to communication as a whole (as in, I have as much a say in what you said means as you do). Yes, the section does suggest `here is what others have said now here is what Rowling has said and as she is the author she must be right`. She is the freaking AUTHOR. Sure, add a paragraph under "fandom view" that states that some fans' opinions on Ginny disagree with Rowling's if the glorification of this regrettable contrast means that much to you (I would advise moving on), but outright ignoring the author's own authority over the meaning of their creation is something that blatantly defies the brand of logic I'm used to (and so, I suspect, are many others). --AceMyth 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the whole I think including an authors statements about intent and even interpretation is encyclopedic when available. The reader who had read the piece of literature in question or will in the future is free to decide how well the author achieved their goal.  The main point being that the goal of the author when they wrote something if properly sourced is worthy of inclusion (even if there is a general literary consensus that they author failed in that goal ... in which case that consensus would be appropriate along side it).  In this case the article is filled with so much "the fans think" garbage that the idea of excluding the authors opinion borders on absurd.  In any even if as a policy you were going to exclude authorial comment from all articles about literature on wikipedia you would probably have to start a new wikiproject to rewrite the articles. Dalf | Talk 02:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with the manner in which Rowling's view is used to 'trump' all others, but I seem to stand fairly alone on the issue so I will, in Acemyth's words, move on. I have to say I am impressed by the quality and passion of his arguments; it was a most enjoyable duel.


 * You make a good point aobut the trumping. But, I think its a good comprimise trumping all the stuff that has no bussness in the article anyway.  For the most part the Harry Potter articles suffer from the fans of the characters and the books.  WIkipedias consensus format prevents cleanning them up so we have to make do.  Plus the content in question is worth of inclusion I think (as I said above) even if you are right aobut the context that it is included in. Dalf | Talk 10:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow I seem to have missed quite a debate since my last post on here. My comment about JKR's view taking priority over anyone else's was not with the intention of "trumping", I merely think that the only view on the characters that should be heard are the ones by the author/creator of said character, that in my view is valid encyclopedic entry. Anyway hope I'm still logged on for the next very civilized articulate debate. :) Death Eater Dan 12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to drag up old issues, but I found this quote and automatically thought of our little discussion; "The democracy of reading means that as soon as a book is published you lose control of how it's interpreted anyhow, and so you should. To tell someone else how to read your book is to fall into the temptation of fundamentalism." ~Philip Pullman


 * Which is all well and true, if the writer has done thier job then there is no need, but that does not make the writers intent irrelvent, it simply means that we can decide how well the writer achieved teir goals (and in some cases even discuss what the writers goals were. That is the basis of discussing symbolism in litrature. Dalf | Talk 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. People can debate whether or not she succeeded - that's a matter of opinion (and even she herself only says "I hope I succeeded," she doesn't actually try to claim success). Her intent itself cannot be debated, however. When she says, "here's what I tried to do," that is a statement of fact. We can't challenge her and say, "no, you were actually trying to write it that way." That would just be silly; only she knows what she was planning as she wrote it. I fundamentally disagree, however, with the notion that author intent is irrelevant to understanding. On the contrary, for an unfinished series like this one especially, knowing the author's intent is crucial to any attempts to understand what direction she is going in future books, and not drift off down the wrong path. That's where some (not all, but some) H/H people by their own admissions miscalculated - when they rejected the author's obvious intent, namely the R/Hr and H/G clues that were right there on the page, in favor of looking for hidden layers and deeper meanings that turned out to be all in their own heads and nowhere in Jo's. That's an example of disregard for author intent leading to an unprofitable outcome. I also find it rather ironic that someone would use a Pullman quote to try to undermine Jo's authority on her work, considering that Pullman has been one of the most vocal critics of Jo and her writing for a long time. And I suspect that may be partly because the straightforwardness of her writing annoys him, given his deconstructionist tendencies (not to mention that despite his criticism she still outsells him 50-1). But I'm just guessing at that; I don't know.--Zequist 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ginny characteristics
To avoid further confussion, let me make a note that Ginny's first name is Ginevra, since it says so here. It was beileved by fans that her name was Virginia for several years, because Ginny is a common nickname for Virginia.

Ginny's eyes are light brown, because it said so in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets towards the end of Chapter Three: The Burrow. Confussion probably arises because Ginny's eyes are clearly green in the film.

But it is said in the American version of Harry Potter and the Chambers of Secrets, near the end of chapter III that Ginny's eyes are green.
 * I see "bright brown eyes" in my (American) copy. -- Perey 10:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My american edition has brown eyes as well.

Peer review
Ok. The article is now requested for a peer review. As an editor/user, what can I do? --Jotomicron | talk 11:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You could see if you can find any decent quallity pictures of Ginny from PoA if you want. I can't find any :( Also, I'm not sure if I put the images I added in the right place, as I put a movie pic in the area about the books...but I felt it needed some more colour, so put it there. Feel free to change it people. --drak2 11:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Date of birth
I think you will find that JKR has not included years on any of the birthdates (infact I think you will find there are no years included in any of the books. The dates that people give are derived assuming that the first Harry potter book happened the year it was published.  This however is never stated in the books or in any interviews.  In the most recent book, the Prime Minister of the UK makes an apperance but is never physically described or called by name.  This lends evidence to the idea that the books are not set in a specific time. Dalf | Talk 02:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read Dates in Harry Potter. There is one year mentioned in the books (CoS: 1492 is given as the year of Nick's death, on the occasion of his 500th deathday). There is also a wealth of ancillary evidence, much of it contradicting this date. JKR has not otherwise committed to an explicit timeframe, although Warner Bros has for the purposes of the movies. -- Perey 08:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea I saw that at the last minute before removing the year ... there is still the problem that Nick says in chapter 7 of book 1 that he has been dead for "nearly 400 years", though the presence of radios and such ... well lets assume that was a mistake. Regardless I think its clear that JKR wants the books not placed in a specific timeline.
 * Yeah, she doesnt, but they're still useful. --drak2 14:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True enough, especially in comparing ages. I am still trying to figure out how old TOnks is (and if Remus is 13,14, or 15 years older than her). Dalf | Talk 02:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

JKR Interview.
JK Rowling gave an interview recently that contains some interesting information about Ginny. She also said that there was not a bond created when Harry saved her life in book 2.

"MA: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two?

JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would." (From part 3)

Here's the interview: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

I wish you put spoiler tags on that... JONJONAUG 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

7th daughter
Hi. Shouldn't there be a specific mention about how Ginny is the seventh daughter of the Weasly's, and how number 7 is a powerful number in the magical world, as Voldemort says in book 6? Yeah, it's written in the article how Ginny is the youngest of the seven Weasly's, but I think we should underline how important the number 7 is. This is just an opinion, but it does look like the number 7 might be important in book 7 (heh, sorry about that). :) Comments about this? I don't wanna change the article just to have it changed back, so I'm asking here. Raystorm 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * She's their 7th child, not their 7th daughter. Unless you know something about her older siblings that the rest of us do not.

Steggall 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And also, the special properties were said to reside with the "seventh son of a seventh son" or "seventh daughter of a seventh daughter," of which Ginny is neither (nor do we have any canon evidence that either of her parents is a seventh son or daughter either). That's why you used to have so many theories about a "missing" Weasley son accounting for the gap between Charlie and Percy and Ron therefore being a seventh son and possibly a seer. Rowling shot all that down, though, and it wouldn't even apply in Ginny's case because she's not their seventh daughter, she's their first and only daughter.--Zequist 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * However JKR has shown a tendency for taking bits of folklore and traditions and changing them for her usses. She has made a big deal in the books (And a bigger deal on her website) about the number 7 and its magical significance then even though she does quote the tradtion as you put it she also states that it was with that tradtion in mind when she made Ginny the 7th and that she ment it as a clue that she was powerful.  The exact quote is:


 * That is from this link (and I added the bold obviously) Dalf | Talk 08:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so 7th child. You know what I mean.  What I'm aiming for is, the magical properties of the number seven that would be involved in this case.  And about 'the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter' (or son of son), as far as I know only Scott Card said that that would be the most magical thing of all, but being a seventh child would also be very powerful too.  Should we make a mention about it in the article or not? Raystorm 14:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should but we shoudl be carful to note the diffrence with the "old tradition", and that it is simply a JKR artistic licence ment to show that (in her own words) "she is a gifted witch". We shoudl include the quotes and the link. Dalf | Talk 09:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mimic
One of Ginny's most distinctive traits is left out of the article: she's a very good mimic. Off the top of my head, I can remember her imitating Umbridge's "hem hem" so well at the Hog's Head in OP that she scared several people, imitating Hermione jumping up and down in her seat, imitating Ron missing a goal when Keeping, and I'm sure there are other examples in the later books. User:Angr 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are indeed a number of instances of this in the books. Perhaps 2 or 3, but I would not say it raises to the level of being a major part of her personality, further its not related at all to why or how her character is important to the plot (unless you can find a source that says it is).  These sorts of details while interesting or satisfying to hardcore fans do not actually help the article from an encyclopedic point of view.  In fact in some cases they clutter up the prose of the article As people tinker around with all of these cute little facts trying to make it not read like a list of cute little facts.  We should be careful that we are only including information that is relevant to an encyclopedia. Dalf | Talk 00:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps it's a question of taste, but it seems to me her skill as a mimic is a more important feature of her personality than her allegedly "bright brown eyes" and her talent with the Bat-Bogey Hex, both of which are prominently mentioned--but unsourced--in the opening paragraph. As for including only information that is relevant to an encyclopedia, I agree in principle, except that in the case of articles on fictional characters like this, strict adherence to that policy will require complete deletion of the article. There is, after all, nothing at all in this article that is relevant to an encyclopedia. User:Angr 08:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a long discussion on this topic exactly just winding up on the one of the wikipedia mailing lists Wiki-EN I think. There are a number of different points that are being argued and I wont mention them all, but one of them is about using a work of fiction as a primary source for an article on itself.  Without covering any new territory what it boils down to is that you can only do that if you are extracting exact facts from the work.  The moment you jump the gap to literary criticism then you are mis-using it as a source.  What does that mean in this case?  The brown eyes, and the multiple associations of Ginny with the Bat-Bogey Hex are both items that can be (though you are probably right in pointing out that they are not) referenced to page numbers and are totally verifiable in the source.  The implications of the less frequent and less defined "mimicry" as to what they mean for her character are not explicitly stated in the source.  You may be right that it is more significant, I happen to disagree that is exactly why wikipedia has the policy on original research.  We are not in anyway allowed to create literary critique or literary analysis, the sections of a good article on a fictional work or fictional character that must consist of these have to be summaries of other peoples literary criticism.
 * So that is the good policy reason not to include such things unless you can find someone published talking about her character who spends some time on the issue. But, that is quite beside my original point (and the one you may still disagree with) that I do not think this "aspect of her personality", if about 20-30 words spread over 4 or 5 instances in 6 books can be counted as evidence of her personality, is sufficiently significant to the role she has play and may play in the major plot lines of the book to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dalf | Talk 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that we shouldn't be doing original literary criticism here, but since this entire article already is original literary criticism, I didn't think a little bit more would be so bad. There's definitely more mention in the books of her as a mimic than of her eye color: I just finished re-reading the last 3 books and couldn't have told you her eye color to save my life. It may have been mentioned once in passing when she was first introduced in book 1, but I can't believe it was ever mentioned again. And I don't think the Bat-Bogey Hex got any more attention than 20-30 words spread over 4 or 5 instances in 6 books either, nor is it significant to the role she has played to date; whether either the Bat-Bogey Hex or her mimicry will play a role in book 7 remains to be seen. User:Angr 10:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, by the points:
 * 1) Stuff in articles that should not be there should be removed rather than "adding a bit more to it".  The reason I mentioned the discussion on the mailing list is that there is increasing momentum to clean these sorts of things up.  There has been a huge drive latley merging hundreds of small articles on minor topics in fiction that can never grow past a few sentences into larger articles.  Fixing the tone and style of these articles etc.  We shoud be doing that here.
 * 2) There are more instances of what you have called mimic behavior than the single or possible dual mentions of her eye color (which was by the way incorrectly listed as green not brown in the first print of the US edition, and had to be corrected), however eye color is totally objective.  It is among the types of facts that you can use the work for as a primary source.  Discussion of her humor in general, of which the mimicry is only a minor display and not central, would necessarily involve a higher level of abstract criticism.  That is to say you and I as fans could reasonably disagree (and I think we do disagree on some level), normal readers could reasonably disagree, the position you are making is the very essence of an opinion about her character derived from your reading of the stories.  Since wikipedia does not recognize expertise in any of its editors your opinion is not better than mine and neither of them therefor can be included unless they are verifiable.  In fact we could never simply say that the mimicry was an important part of her character, we would have to attribute it to a source.  We would have to say "this is what such ands such a book review or literary critic said" so that the reader can take the source into account in assessing their own acceptance of the fact.
 * 3) Ginny is actually mentioned in association with the Bat-Bogey Hex far more often than she is with mimicry, her mimicry is generally limited to the single character of Umbrage and further limited to 'hem-hem"-ing.  The instances with the Bat-Bogey hex are usually milti-sentence events with other characters reacting with opinions about it.  It also impacted the plot of the books in at least two locations when the impressiveness of it, caused her to be noticed by Slughorn and get her invited to the Slug Club, and when she used it on Malfoy to escape so they whole group could go to the ministry in OOTP.   Additionally (and importantly) JKR has stated in at least one interview that the hex and its association with Ginny was an intentional literary device on her part to help show her power.  That is a usable verifiable and reliable source to include the fact in the article.  Your ideas about the mimicry are speculation, we do not know that JKR intended it as a device for her character or if she was just using it to inject generic humor.  She has not said and a published book critic has not suggested that it was so it that it was significant.  Dalf | Talk 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To respond to your points briefly: (1) I'm all in favor of reducing the amount of fancruft on minor topics in fiction, but it doesn't look to me like this article has made any progress in that direction. If it does happen, you won't hear any complaints from me. It just seems rather silly to me to talk loftily about including only encyclopedic information in this article, when at present there is none to be found in it. (2) There is already mention of her humor in general in the article, which claims she has "a sense of humour similar to her twin brothers", yet another unsourced claim and one I find absurd as Ginny's humor doesn't run towards practical jokes in the least. (3) I haven't done a count, but I think instances of mimicry must have been pretty common for me to notice the pattern. I'm normally quite dense when it comes to things like that. The Bat-Bogey hex, on the other hand, I only remember because Slughorn made a big deal out of it. User:Angr 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok so we can agree on some things. As to your comment that its so bad who cares if it gets worse (Im sorry but that is what it sounds like you are saying to me) have a look at this diff:  it is between the version from Revision as of 14:43, 29 June 2006 and the current.  I did not rip out all of the un-sourced claims but I did try and get all the instances of claims about characters motives or emotional states.  I might actually go through and count the mimicry tonight I really do think it is perhaps 30 words total, and in no case actually interacting with the plot and also not mentioned as a literary device by JKR.  I propose that we clean up this article and perhaps hop over to the WikiProject Harry Potter and propose a sort of article clean up drive where the tone and content of the articles can be standardized and cleaned up.  I know for a fact that a huge number people are doing this now on their own initiative.  I have been watching this page as well as Horcrux, Harry Potter book 7 and Hermione Granger for some time and have seena number of people doing the same.  I have mostly been trying to keep them from getting worse, and when something (like the speculating in an authoritative voice about character motives) becomes too much cleaning it up.  Perhaps its time for more general clean up? Dalf | Talk 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hair color
I have removed twice the phrase describing Ginny's hair as "a mane of vivid red hair" I have removed it for the followign reasons: Tone is a big problem with a lot of articles on fictional works and I think we should strive to keep this article in an encyclopedic tone. Dalf | Talk 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It does not clearly describe her hair in a way most readers will understand accuratly.  There are lots of diffrent kinds of red hair and which ones I think are "manes of vivid red"ness are probbly diffrent form teh ones someone else does.
 * 2) Its not how the books describe Weasley hair most often.
 * 3) It is POV, in this case even if you can find a refrence from the book, it is still Harry's POV and not an objective statment.  Some other character may not describe it just so.
 * 4) It reads like purple prose and this is an encyclopedia.
 * 5) Oh yea and sice it was deviating from standard phrasing into the land of creative prose I think it needs to be refrenced even if all the other reasons to keep it out failed.




 * 1) It is the way it is described in the book and, therefore, should be described likewise here.
 * 2) I'm almost completely certain that the Weasley's hair is always described as "red," and never as "ginger."
 * 3) A reference for "long mane" is from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter Four: Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place: "The door opened and a long mane of red hair appeared." - pg. 66, U.K. edition. A reference for "vivid" is from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter Eight: The Deathday Party: "The steam pouring out from under her vivid hair gave the impression that her whole head was on fire." - pg. 94, U.K. edition. If we discounted everything because it was from "Harry's POV", we'd have to remove most of the information from all the Harry Potter articles. The books are from his point of view. Hermione's hair is described as bushy in her article and Cho's is described as long and black in hers. Those are from Harry's POV but are still valid.
 * 4) Again, the author describes it as vivid red and a long mane. You can't replace it with other words because then it's no longer accurate.
 * 5) See number 3.

If you still have a problem with this sentence, perhaps we should get a few more people to weigh in. :) 70.48.165.92 02:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of encyclopedic style, the POV thing still stands in cases where there is a objective fact from the books, then it being harry's POV does not matter. If for example he were making an subjective assessment "carrots taste bad" then we could not use that as proof that in the Harry Potter univers carrots taste bad. I am afraid that vivd and lookign liek fire etc are not objective. But, you can have red over ginger. Can you find more instances of her having a mane? This is largly that the diffrence between simply having long red hair and haveing a vivid mane of red hair is not one of strict definition. In an encyclopedia you don't add flowery words that do not actualy convey any more information simply because you like them. In a case where they will add somethign to the article you put them in quotations and include a refrence. Dalf | Talk 04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I re-read those quotes from the books, I've come to realize that they're not directly from Harry's POV. They're just stated. And, lol, I'm not adding these words "simply because I like them." They're from the books and that's where the information for this article should come from. 65.92.205.115 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole series with the exception of TWO chapters (the one in GOF was still observed by Harry) are told form Harry's perspective. Simply because it does not say "Harry thought" does not change this.  Things which are simply stated are the things that he observes but does not consciously think about.  Please see third person limited omniscient for more details on how this works.  But, none of this changes the fact that for thousands of readers from hundreds of places "a vivid mane" is less descriptive, more ambiguous, and significantly more subjective than simply "long red". Dalf | Talk 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! It reads like purple prose, because it is purple prose!

Weasel words tag
I added the weasel words tag to the "Ginny in the Harry Potter fandom" section, due to the frequent use of the weasel words "many" and "some." 70.52.230.152 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But what could you substitute for them? In this case we cannot name more specific, who has those opinion about Ginny. I mean we could. We could for example add to the article that Wikipedia User Neville Longbottom doesn't like her very much as a character and thinks JK Rowling tries too hard to sell her to the readers as Harry's ideal girl, instead of simply let her character develop naturally like she did with most others. But who among the Wikipedia Users cares about my opinion? About noone, I guess. What this section does, and in my opinion very well, is too show that fandom is a bit divided about Ginny's characterisation and that some fans like her and others don't, and the respective reasonings. I don't see how it could be more specific. Neville Longbottom 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Guidelines includes examples on avoiding weasel words, and converting weasel wording to a more encyclopedic format - see WP:AWW. For example, if a prominent and reliable source, such as Time magazine, published some statistics on how readers and fans of various age groups "felt" about the Ginny Weasley character, and perhaps included some quotes from various fans, then that would satisfy WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR all at once.  Verifiability trumps "the truth" and "common sense" every time in the Wikipedia.  It would probably be best to just clean out all references to "how some people feel" about various fictional characters, because it is really unencyclopedic to go there - it becomes more of an editorial than a news report, again unless some reliable source has conducted a survey or opinion poll on the subject, and notable results from that could be mentioned, with citations.  --T-dot 23:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure whoever first wrote that paragraph is basing this on the posts about her on livejournal, several message boards etc. I did not write that part, but I think it gives a correct and balanced overview on how Ginny is seen in fandom. Neville Longbottom 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For those who are interested in the old section before it was deleted, it is here: .--2001:A61:260D:6E01:19AF:F2F1:CFC2:AA9A (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)