Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 10

Harry potter theme's description
I think more should be said about the themes, morals etc that harry potter presents to readers, as this page is generally about harry potter. Also the page should be edited not to include in such detail the events of the first book, as it refers to Harry potter and the philosophers stone, not harry potter in general. a general overview of the events should be given, as well as themes and morals, and how it relates to present society, -(good vs evil and "there is no such thing as evil, but power and those who seek it") regards anon124.168.115.172 03:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of what you're talking about is original research. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What is more important in analysing harry potter than the themes? Anyone can read the book and understand the storyline, however it is harder to understand the themes and morals presented by the book. Yes the themes in harry potter can be viewed differently, and is original research, but isnt there an element of fact behind those themes, as they relate to modern society. If a person reads an encyclopedia article they dont just want to look at the storyline of the book, they would also want to read the concepts and morals discussed in the book -anon124.168.115.172 08:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However as editors it is not up to us to write about what we think of the books. Now, if you can find, say, a magazine article from a reputable source that discusses moral themes etc, by all means include it. But again, an encyclopedia does not reflect the opinions of the editors, but rather is a collection of other (notable!) people's opinions. faithless   (speak)  08:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To add on to Faithless' comment, I would suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines and the policy on Original Research.  (You also might want to create an account) Cheers!  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to contribute to Politics of Harry Potter which looks at the way the media and academia has interpreted morals and themes in the books in a socio-political context. Libertycookies 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of this page i have added a section called themes and Motifs, centering on how to make the section better. BlazeOfGlory15 01:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They should talk more about Harry's history. Even though people know the story you should have it down for record. His scar itsn't even mentioned. Some person will read this and get confussled.
 * You want Harry Potter (character). faithless   (speak)  20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Symbols in harry potter
there are no para's or articles on the symbols in harry potter... (unsigned comment by User:Addy-g-indahouse)


 * omg! well, that's just wrong. I know for a fact that there are many signs in the movies: stop signs, wolf-crossing signs, bus lines. street identifier signs - they are everywhere. Do we really need to write an article about a stop sign? Where would it end? Pretty soon, we'd be writing about Merging Traffic Signs and Slippery When Wet (whch of course would prompt some chubby middle-aged fanboy to loudly chime in that he doesn't have fantasies about Emma Watson, no he really, really doesn't). Sounds like a tedious headache.
 * Seriously though, if you want to see articles about the usage of symbolism in Harry Potter, you really need to find reliable, noteworthy and verifiable cotations from reviewers, academics and the like who have written reviews and/or articles about the subject in relation to Harry Potter. Without it, you won't be able to add what you think any such symbolism means. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

K thnx, oh and by symbols i didnt mean cross signs =/. I meant objects that are of symbolic value within the harry potter texts. Such as hedwig, who is a symbol of harry potters clash between two worlds, and who is harry's one true connection to the magical world from within the muggle world. (this was noted in the 7th book, when hedwig dies) keep it swill addy g in da houseAddy-g-indahouse 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be wary of spoilers next time! I haven't read the seventh book yet! BAH!!! (bashes head against wall) STUPID STUPID STUPID BECCA!!!K I'm done here. Ian

Sort of read at your own risk m8 =). Why doesnt this article have spoilers?? too much friction hehe. addy g —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addy-g-indahouse (talk • contribs) 06:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GA fail
This article has a lot of good information in it, but it needs to be reorganized a bit, sourced better and copy edited. Here are my suggestions:

Lead:
 * The lead is not a standalone summary of the article; whole sections of the article are not alluded to while too much detail regarding publishing is given. See WP:LEAD (please read carefully).
 * Wasn't Voldemort trying to take over the entire world the first time around, not just the wizarding world? (Also, the phrase "take over the world" should probably be improved - it sounds cliched (think Pinky and the Brain).

Overview (kudos on the short plot summary!):
 * The beginning of the "Plot summary" is a bit odd - we begin with celebration followed by the murder to two people. The tone doesn't strike me as quite right there.
 * The emphasis on the neck sizes of the Dursleys seems out of place in such a broad plot summary.
 * The plot summary should probably indicate that there is a similar structure to each book (begin at Dursley's, escape from Dursley's, year at Hogwars, defeat of evil, return to Dursley's). (This can be taken from the "Structure" section).
 * The ending of the last novel should be included if this an encyclopedia page (enormous debate ensues).
 * Since one is either born a wizard or not, most wizards are unfamiliar with the Muggle world, which appears stranger to them than their world does to us. - This is a strong interpretative claim - it needs a source or needs to be reworded.
 * This juxtaposition of the magical and the mundane is one of the principal themes in the novels; the characters in the stories live normal lives with normal problems, for all their magical surroundings. - This is not a theme.
 * The "Chronology" section does not seem important enough to merit its own subsection on a page that has to cover so much material. How about a footnote?

Series:
 * Make clear to the reader that the dates listed next to the books are release dates. Also, you mention later in the article that the first book was released at different times in the US and Britain - that kind of detail should be reflected here.
 * The second agent she tried, Christopher Little, offered to represent her and sent the manuscript to Bloomsbury. After eight other publishers had rejected Philosopher's Stone, Bloomsbury offered Rowling a £3,000 advance for its publication. - Make the distinction between agents and publishers even clearer. You might even consider explaining what each does.
 * Instead of a "Completion of the series" section, I would suggest a "Writing" section - the page needs to briefly describe the writing of all of the books, not just the last one.
 * The "After Deathly Hallows" section is repetitive - cut it down.
 * The first translation was into American English, as many words and concepts used by the characters in the novels would have been incomprehensible or misleading to a young American audience. - This statement is too strong - "incomprehensible"? I highly doubt it. Let's not sell young readers short like the publishing company did.

Literary analysis:
 * Much of the "Criticism" section should be thoroughly integrated into this section. I'm not sure that it is necessary to tell the history of HP's reception amongst literary critics quite yet (not enough time has passed). I would, instead, rely on their works to explain the themes and allusions of the novel more clearly. Much of this is original research.
 * each book is constructed in the manner of a Sherlock Holmes-style mystery adventure - They are? Do you have a source for this?
 * Why third-person limited and not third-person omniscient?
 * The second paragraph of "Structure and genre" would fit better under plot summary.
 * The article needs more information on the topic of "genre".
 * "Themes" should come before "Motifs" since they are more important. I would also not call "blood purity" a motif - more of a theme, don't you think? (Example of why we need sources here.)
 * The "Themes" and "Motifs" sections need sources! Literary scholarship and reviews will be the best place to find this. (Why, for example, these four motifs and not others?)
 * The "Themes" section is tiny! Themes are the essence of a piece of prose fiction. This needs to be greatly expanded. (Do not rely exclusively Rowling's statements about the themes (see intentional fallacy) - use reviews and scholarship.) See, for example, this google scholar search for "Harry Potter". You can begin with what you find in these pages. Those texts should lead you to others. Much has been written by scholars in peer-reviewed books and articles, the ideal sources for wikipedia pages (WP:RS).
 * They appear at the start of the first novel, presaging what is to come - what do they presage? This is an interpretation and needs a source.

Achievements (think about renaming "Reception and cultural impact"):
 * I would cut out the table of the word count - it is not that interesting.
 * In 2005, doctors at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford reported that their research of the weekends of Saturday 21 June 2003 and Saturday 16 July 2005 (the dates of the two most recent book releases of the series) found that only 36 children needed emergency medical assistance for injuries sustained in accidents, as opposed to other weekends' average of 67. - This is trivia.
 * There is an accredited course at California State University, Bakersfield devoted to the literature of Harry Potter titled "The World of Harry Potter." - Why are you focusing on this one? There are other such courses.

Criticism, etc.
 * Literary scholars should be separated from reviewers here - they perform a very different function. Also, the section reads like a list of who said what. We need a better overview - are literary scholars generally negative and reviewers generally positive (I don't think that is true, but you get my drift)?
 * There has been so much good feminist scholarship on Harry Potter - don't quote from a salon article when you don't need to! Find the real stuff.
 * The "conservative vs. liberal values" section is simplistic and ill-conceived.
 * "Political commentary" obviously belongs in the "Themes" section.

Other media:
 * The film and video game sections would need to be expanded - lists don't cut it here. Summarize the "main articles" on these topics here.

Prose:
 * The article needs a thorough copy edit. The biggest problems are awkward syntax and wordy sentences.
 * Rowling's publishers were able to capitalise on this buzz by the rapid - what buzz? The "this" does not refer back to any buzz I can see.
 * Since the publishing of Philosopher's Stone a number of societal trends have been attributed to the series. - hint at what they are in this topic sentence
 * The most notable trend attributed to Harry Potter has been an increase in literacy among the young. - "literacy" is not the best word; it most often means "ability to read"
 * Indeed as the series progresses, each book gets progressively longer, developing along with the reader's literary abilities. - "reading abilities" perhaps?

Images:
 * Caption under "Hogwarts" picture should give the name of the first film.
 * As you mention that there are two different covers for adult and children, it might be nice to have a picture comparing them for one of the books.
 * The images kind of peter out at the end of the article - could we have more there?

Let me know if the editors have any questions regarding this review. Awadewit | talk  15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: 1. ending should not be included on the main page as its only a summary/overview (and way too much of a spoiler). 2. Criticism and literary analysis are two seperate things. 3. you are right about some things being too narrow for the article (the neck thing for instance), but Chronology i think merits a subsection on this page because it could never be a full article and a footnote is not enough.--88wolfmaster 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Might you explain what you see the difference between literary analysis and criticism being exactly? I see "criticism" as attacks on the book by religious readers, for example, while "literary analysis" is work published in peer-reviewed publications by scholars - you? Awadewit | talk  11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * criticism is is offering your opinions (whether negative or positive) about the work as a whole, while literary analysis is examining the work by taking it apart and analyzing it based on figure of speech or other literary devices.--88wolfmaster 03:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are there even two different sections for themes and motifs? last time I checked the meant pretty much the same thing. BlazeofGlory  09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Themes and Motifs are NOT the same. Themes are a "broad idea in a story, or a message or lesson conveyed by a work" (or big picture). Motif "is a recurring element that has symbolic significance in the story" (or a symbol that reoccurs throughout the work)--88wolfmaster 04:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why has it been over a month since this was posted and so few of the things it mentions have been done. It makes us all look lazy if you ask me and should be taken out of the talk page to make us look better. BlazeofGlory  09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Whoever is crossing out sections of this review, please desist. It is considered impolite to alter someone's posting in that way. Usually the reviewer herself crosses things out, when they have been addressed. Editors usually use ✅ or some other such mark. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Is anyone interested in taking on the GAN criticisms?
Because they're fairly sweeping, and I don't want to tackle them without consensus.

To start off, here's a list of every scholarly article on Google with the words "Harry Potter" and theme somewhere in them. Quite a few jump out the first page as possible sources. No one mind if I use them?  Serendi pod ous  15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, I just want to see this article stop being a 'B', it is quite terrible at the moment. BlazeOfGlory15 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of archive descriptions/summaries
I think this was a shame, since I found them useful for finding appropriate previous discussions, and they let people know things have previously been discussed. The Talk:Evolution page has something vaguely similar if precedent is required for something to be done. It makes it easier for people who wonder something about the article to see what people have said in the past, and to see why things are as they are. What do others think? Skittle 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There aren't that many archives, really. I understand it's helpful, but I just don't think it's needed on the main talk page.  The archives do have Tables of Contents...I think that's sufficient.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they made the page more cluttered and were misleading since they weren't comprehensive. -- John Reaves 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that they were interesting and useful--letting people know at a glance of topics that'd been covered before. The alternative--plodding through every link, seems much less attractive, to me. Marieblasdell 05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You could just use advanced search, and only search the Talk namespace for "Harry Potter Anti-Semitism." Then you get it all.  Assuming someone, at some point in the discussion, spelled the topic correctly... :-)  It strikes me as more accurate anyway.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 06:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good advice, but I see the issue as being not so much one of what people can do, but of what people will do. Marieblasdell 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * I originally posted this message the 24th of August, and it was archived. There were no comments, so I am going to un disambig it. i said 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * HP'?' will be typed in by people from all around the world; a tiny percentage of those will be looking for the postal codes. The rest will want the respective Harry Potter book. It should link straight to the book, where the notice at the top will send people looking for the postcode in the right direction. asyndeton 22:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Majority of people searching for HP will be looking for Harry Potter. The people that aren't searching for Harry Potter will be looking for the postal code area, or an abbrev. for 'hitpoints' (This doesn't really matter, very uncommon). Redirect HP to Harry Potter, and then put the redirect notice at the top of the page. No big deal. -- Isis 4563  01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather disagree. HP may refer to HP mostl commonly now, but unless one of you intends to stick around in a year or two and fix the redirect, lets set up a dab instead. It isn't an inconsequential number that think of HP as hit points, or the postal code. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that more people will ever search for HP trying to get the postal code instead of Harry Potter. If that time comes, then we can fix it then, but as of now, that is not the case. HP 1-7 should not be a dab, because if you were looking for the code, you would search HP, not HP3 etc. Ironically enough, the just HP dab page does not list Harry Potter. i said 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the point. If people are really too lazy to write in 'Harry Potter 7' then they deserve to be sent to a dab page. Our job isnt to make it easyer for idiotic boobs to use keywords but to make it easyer for all concerned, even if that means sending a bunch of loyal (if lazy) harry potter fans/researchers to a dam page so that a few people looking up postal codes find their way. I can tell you one thing, if I was looking up postal codes and I got redirected to harry potter instead of a dam page I would be kinda mad at wikipedia. Especially because I might not be able to find my way otherwise. by the way i added Harry Potter to the HP dab page BlazeOfGlory15 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

←I'm going to assume that you did not mean to remove my comment, which I have reposted:

You need to cool down. We aren't here to force people to be not lazy, either. Redirects are used when one search would reasonably result in something else. HP 1-7 in my mind fits this criteria. i said 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

About character names
Wouldn't it be interesting or at least informative, to add a paragraph about HP character names? Many of them have precise meanings in some language (like ancient french, for Voldemort ("fly of death") and Malfoy ("bad faith")). 201.50.252.129 17:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean "flight of death". I don't think Rowling intended Voldemort to be thought of as an anopheles mosquito. :) Most of the charaters' pages have info on their names.  Serendi pod ous  17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of hem shouldn't. Unless Rowling specifically states that these are the origins of the names, it is OR to hazard a guess and synthesis OR to point out how voldemort actually means 'smelly gym sock' in Ubbie Dubbie language. Clearly, these articles will have to be checked to annihilate such info if it appears there. Yay! CruftEaters™ to the rescue. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for the comments. (The anonymous above) 200.223.251.139 11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats really interesting, but is there any more names with french meanings than voldemort and malfoy. But the meaning of voldemort is very obvious. Does voldemort's name mean 'gym sock?' If it did then rowling would have called him lord chaussette or somthing. Rowling obviousy meant for lord voldemort's name to mean flight of death, as obviously it describes his persona and goals very literaly- he wants to defeat death. rowling actually has a very detailled knowledge of french, so she would not have called him voldemort just by coincidence. Furthermore bad faith also describes malfoy's personality very literally. -(dont read on if you havnt read the book!!). Malfoy swore allegience with voldemort in the 6th, and also in the 7th book. He and his family realised their faults in the 7th book when voldemort didnt care a hoot if draco died or not, and only cared about killing harry potter. This was also indicated in the battle scene, when it describes literally that draco's parents were shouting for draco, and didnt care about the battle between the death eaters and the others, even though they themselves were death eaters. Addy g in da houseAddy-g-indahouse 06:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is very obvious where some of the names come from. But unless JKR says herself that that is where she got them, who are we to say where they came from? Examples: Potter, surely that is someone who makes pottery? Except in this interview Rowling says she just "liked the surname." Hermione was a daughter of Helen of Troy, obviously the inspiration for her name. But no, Rowling took the name from a Shakespearean character. Dictionary.com defines Snape as "to be hard upon, rebuke, snub," c.1300, from O.N. sneypa "to outrage, dishonor, disgrace.". This could certainly pertain to ol' Snivellus, except that Rowling has said that the name comes from an English village. So not only is guessing at what their names mean in violation of Wikipedia policy, it's also impossible to be sure of anything, no matter how obvious it seems. faithless   (speak)  06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Themes and Motifs

 * First, the Themes Section of this article must be substantially expanded and edited as this is perhaps the most important part of the article, and also, sadly the most lacking part of it.
 * Second Owls are not a motif, in any sense of the word. and neither are houses or Quidditch. these need to be moved to another section of the article, perhaps a "notable things in the potter-verse" section or summat.
 * Third, I think the fallowing sections need to be added to the motifs section
 * LOVE (a VERY central point in the books, I cannot BELIEVE that something this BIG could be left out of a themes section!)
 * MORALS (light vs Dark)
 * PREDUDICE (under which a subheading needs to be added to put the blood purity section)
 * POLITICS (underscoring the use of corrupt politicians as simbolism)
 * and others that I'm sure other more talented and imaginative people will think of.
 * I would apreciate if this was made a TOP PRIORITY
 * by the way, I am supprised there isnt an article about the "Themes of the Potter-verse", it seems to me the sort of thing we should be working on.


 * Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but you might want to dial back the demand-y tone there, cowboy.
 * First of all, we don't put anything into the article that isn't cited. Period. If JKR or some reviewer (or some reliable academic or whatnot) doesn't point out all the symbols you demand be included, then they are not going to be added. That's the way Wikipedia works. And no, fansites are not considered reliable.
 * Secondly, we don't use 'cn' tags like band-aids to prop up crappily-cited info. They are put there to give folk a last chance to cite questionable statements before they are removed. We don't throw crap at the wall and pray that someone will apparate and magic the poop into plaster.
 * I'm going to cut you a big chunk of AGF and suggest that you read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Consider it homework to understanding how Wikipedia works. You might even learn tht what I just did right there was an example of not stomping the newbie for getting up into our editorial grill. Be polite, and people will be polite to you. Post again like you just did, and your editorial life here will probably become a series of tragic misunderstandings and blocks for uncivility. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, I admit I got a little gun ho, but only cause I want things to start getting done. the section is a discrace to wikipedia. by the way, most of the stuff is already there we dont need new sources because they are already cited. most of what needs to happen is the shuffleing of information, for christ's sake there are two separate sections for Themes and Motifs, last time I checked both those words meant pretty much the same thing. any arguments there? Does anyone object to any of this stuff? First, the Themes Section of this article must be substantially expanded and edited as this is perhaps the most important part of the article, and also, sadly the most lacking part of it. Second Owls are not a motif, in any sense of the word. and neither are houses or Quidditch. these need to be moved to another section of the article, perhaps a "notable things in the potter-verse" section or summat. Third, I think the fallowing sections need to be added to the motifs section * LOVE (a VERY central point in the books, I cannot BELIEVE that something this BIG could be left out of a themes section!) * MORALS (light vs Dark) * PREDUDICE (under which a subheading needs to be added to put the blood purity section) * POLITICS (underscoring the use of corrupt politicians as simbolism) and others that I'm sure other more talented and imaginative people will think of. I would apreciate if this was made a PRIORITY I recon it sould be set up compleatly different, with the themes and motifs sections combined under one heading 'Themes and Motifs' and the Owls, houses and Quidditch sections moved or removed. that is my two cents, thanks for listening... BlazeOfGlory15 10:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You will note that for the second time, i have re-formatted your post so as to not be all spread out like some sort of term paper. Please go the the edit window and see what I've done. I've endeavored to format your post to all of the others you might have noticed already here on the Discussion page. Please make the effort to follow this sort of format, okay? You have half the new guy problem already solved - most new users forget/don't know how to sign their posts. Congrats on that, btw. :)
 * Secondly, youmight have missed what I said before, about how everything needs to be cited here in Wikipedia. Statements about symbolism - a subjective application - need citation. The greater the claim made by the citation, the more impressive and noteworthy the citation needs to be. If you find a citation (and again, blogs, fancruft and logic games from fanistas do not count, as they are not reliable), add it in. Since you are new, youmight find it helpful to bring it to the Discussion area first, so that your fellow editors can help you learn if it is going to be a suitable citation to mention inthe article. A lot of the editors here have been at this for a while, and in articles outside the realm of HP, and will usually tender good advice.
 * Lastly, you might want to check out the Politics of Harry Potter sub article, as it seems to cover at least some of the points you appear to be interested in. Understand that the same levels of reliable, noteworthy citation apply throughout Wikipedia, so if you choose to edit on that article, realize that those editors will ask for the same level of citations as are asked here.
 * AS you are new, if you need help, just ask. I am usually the biggest bastard here, and if I can offer to help, I am sure many of them would lend a hand if you are trying to learn how things work around here. Good fortune to you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that, and I understand that everything needs citations, especially in this big of a part of the article. But as I already said, we dont need to find citations, they are already here, just spread out over a dozen different wikipedia articles on Harry potter. almost all of the stuff I want to add to the section section already has reputable sources in other articles, of which Politics of Harry Potter is only one. Do you object to my statement that the themes/motifs section is seriously F@#$%ed up and needs to be revamped? and would you be willing to help me fix it? BlazeOfGlory15 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Themes and Motifs are NOT the SAME. Themes are a "broad idea in a story, or a message or lesson conveyed by a work" (or big picture). Motif "is a recurring element that has symbolic significance in the story" (or a symbol that reoccurs throughout the work)--88wolfmaster 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a really fine line to me but the point is, that the section needs to be rewriten, (several of the other posts on this page say so as well so im not the only one thinking this). I really dont care how it's rewriten I just want it changed from the disgrace that it is now. For an article of this magnitude, the Harry potter article is of quite poor quality, (see GA fail above). BlazeofGlory 09:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to toss in my 2 cents, the Politics of Harry Potter could be expanded to Socio-political aspects of Harry Potter to capture the subjects you want. The college courses I used to justify that article are not limited to discussing Politics, and some that I didn't include *only* discuss themes and motifs. Libertycookies 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RE THEMES RESPONSE Thanx dude for responding to my themes argument, your inputs are appreciated. You covered all themes well however some of these themes are 'offshoots' of larger themes. The idea of love and power can be covered by the theme good vs evil, which is the central theme within harry potter and unfortunately the writer of this article left it out =(. The good vs evil theme is present throughout the texts, where harry potter is the clear protagonist, fighting a larger, more powerful villain voldemort. This theme is created -(PROVEN FACT!!!!!!, DONT ACCUSE ME OF ORIGIONAL RESEARCH AS IT IS A STANDARD WRITING TECHNIQUE!!!!!!) so the reader will feel sympathetic towards harry potter, the hardships he is facing and thus side with him. In doing so the reader will see voldemort as the villain, as he constantly threatens harry potter.

The second large theme which has many subcategories is death. This is very lightly touched upon in the article however it is the MAJOR MAJOR theme within harry potter. Voldemort is afraid of death, and thus is looked at as a villain. Harry isnt afraid of death and loves, meaning he feels remorse and sympathy, wheras voldemort does not. Since harry is not afraid of death he is looked at as the protagonist. He feels death is a part of the 'complete' life and life doesnt end with death. Voldemort fears death and thus is incomplete as a wizard. There is very little fact backing up themes, as they can be interpreted differently from person to person. There is an element of fact behind these themes as they are looked at by many as the main theme within the books. I would appreciate it if these themes are added and expanded upon within this article.

Keep it swill addy g in da houseAddy-g-indahouse 03:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i think i see the problem here, themes are difficult to state as fact because, as you said, they can be interpreted differently. therefore we need to find some sources of influential peoples views on the subject... although we have our own opinions (many of them) we cannot print them unless we find someone else who has written them down. 125.239.76.183 (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Animal Farm
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. 204.102.108.31 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all do you have a source for this? if so put it in the Politics of Harry Potter sub article.
 * Second, why are you telling us? wikipedia isn't about opinions ('poluting the minds of our youth') its about facts. i.e. some people might consider it a good thing to 'polute' the minds of our youth with communist propaganda.
 * and you might want to make yourself a screenname, people wont take you seriously otherwise. sign your name with four tildes (~) simbols BlazeOfGlory15 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been refuted over and over and over again. Unless you can provide linked sources, there is no need to continue this conversation. i said 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a vote for removing this section. Anyone else agree? It's simply vandalistic nonsense, as we can see by checking the archived talk histories--the same stuff, same words. Marieblasdell 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote BlazeOfGlory15 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot remove it. It isn't a pesonal attack and it isn't uncivil, and it isn't talking about something completely unrelated, like nail polish or Karl Rove. Since it is inthe Discussion page, it needs to be left alone. Someone might pipe up and send the person a message to their Discussion page, directing them towards the Politics of Harry Potter sub-article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was removed because this topic, those words verbatim, have been copied and copied and copied over and over. There was no need to keep the section, but restoring it is ok too. i said 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is too a personal attack! as well as unencyclopedic in nature. Rowling's twisted Commie mind. and exposed JK Rowling as a Marxist, attempting to pollute the minds of our youth with Communist propaganda. However, I understand that this is a talk page, not an article so it should be left alone, regardless of what I think BlazeofGlory  02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not again...wasn't this user blocked? =David ( talk )( contribs ) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which user? i said 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the guy who is talking about J K's twisted commie mind BlazeofGlory  02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. That user.  Though, looking at it, I notice that they aren't precisely the same IPs.  So a tricky one, then...Anyway, take a look at this.  It's come up way, way too many times.  AGF went out the window when this user lied about a book and person that doesn't exist.  Even still, I maintained good faith until they were insistent that I was wrong about the ISBN being bogus.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thats why I thought this section should have just been removed altogether. This thread has popped up on HP7 way too many times, with this exact wording. i said 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I'm not the only one who's frustrated by this. Should we report this to AIV as a block evade?  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not, as it reasonably could be different users. Just put up with it, and if it continues and gets really annoying, just get consensus to remove these posts on sight. i said 04:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I suggest someone request s a checkuser on both. If they are the same, I say we serve them up on toast with jam, and fling them from the community like a leper with a porn addiction. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't "Rowling's twisted Commie mind" an unsourced attack on a living person, and therefore inappropriate? Sure, calling someone a Communist, as such, isn't necessarily an insult, but the way this is phrased, it definitely is. Also, claiming that she's trying to 'pollute minds' is an unsourced attack on her. Marieblasdell 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. Technically, I suppose it has elements of it, but I think it's really just non-NPOV.  There are people who honestly believe that communism is a brain defect.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arcayne, throw them out like a used tampon BlazeofGlory  09:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * EWWW! :-)  I think more fire should be involved.  Or an explosion.  But in the spirit of good faith, I suppose a simple block would suffice.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny - when I read the first post in this section, I was convinced it was a joke, or a parody, or something. I kept looking for the point, which surely couldn't be to take this seriously... I guess BJAODN has gone; otherwise, it might go there.--Niels Ø (noe) 13:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK have we talked about this long enough yet? it's funny and al but shouldn't we just arcive it and be done with it now? BlazeofGlory  04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the above passage to Uncyclopedia a few months back ... looks like Anon above just carried out the sincerest form of flattery. A man of impeccable taste, I might add. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You would? Really? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia saboteurs of Harry Potter
Gosh, we have to include this somewhere! Libertycookies 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A computer at Samford University, a Christian college, was used to write obscenities and graphic sexual references into the entry for "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, whose books have been criticized by fundamentalists. New site exposes Wikipedia saboteurs See also: WikiScanner


 * That's funny, but it's really just irony...I don't see that it really relates to the article other than in a meta context... =David ( talk )( contribs ) 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am actually praying that Liberty was making a very, very dry and witty joke. I'm just waiting on the punch line, where he says, 'gotcha! - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's dry humor; Sorry to leave you shaken and not stirred. However, we could possibly add it to the religious controversy about Harry Potter section, but it has more meta than meaning, so probably not worth the bother. Libertycookies 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Last chapter
I'm intrigued by a the sentense in the article,
 * Rowling herself has stated that the last chapter of the seventh book was completed "in something like 1990".

There's a chapter 36, "The flaw in the Plan", 20.5 pages, and an epilogue, "Nineteen Years Later", 5 pages, with a whole page of its own as title page. So what constitutes "the last chapter"? I have consulted the cited reference - no answer there. Is it obvious (just not to me), or has it been discussed or disclosed somewhere?--Niels Ø (noe) 11:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I imagine this means the epilogue. JKR had said for years that the last word of the last book was scar, changing it just before the book was published, but saying that it was still one of the last words. And indeed, scar is one of the last words in the epilogue. faithless   (speak)  12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * She referred to the epilogue. See the last answer in this interview.--Svetovid 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Subplot page
I believe a subplot page should be created for plots others find irrelevant or, for want of a better term, under-plots, a plot within a plot. I have created one but I cannot make it an official Harry Potter page till further notice when I have support. Who believes this is a good idea? Rembrant12 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the current link for the page. It needs a lot of work and I would be glad of the help. User:Rembrant12/Subplots

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rembrant12" Rembrant12 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is an intriguing idea, but would be a huge undertaking. Plus the subplots would be difficult to interpret or even to identify without being OR.  For example, I've seen articles that interpret the books as Zionist (Iran's state newspaper), others as anti-semitic for the portrayal of Goblins, and a few that think the Goblins are a commentary of Swiss bankers during the holocaust!  I'm pretty sure at least one of those interpretations is wrong. Libertycookies 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you. It would be a large undertaking but I believe it would be worth the effort. Why don't you go onto the page and see what I have begun. It is so far incomplete and has only one entry, and once I have a large amount of info. I will talk to the admins and see if they will let me put the page up because the first time the destroyed it. And you may have interpreted it wrong, it is a page to put up smaller plots that exist in the book. Not about similarities or stuff like that. Rembrant12 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would it be called? Subplots in Harry Potter? hmm.....seeing as the in-universe style exists, it would be a good way to add in all the info, say about people like grindelwald and the flamels.....are we allowed to edit it? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink  *Get to the bunker*  00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

HP?
There was a discussion earlier as to whether or not Harry Potter belongs on the HP DAB page due to the fact that the anon eds who kept adding it in could not provide a book or media source citing that Harry Potter could be abbreviated "HP". We finally found a media source delegating HP as an abbreviation of Harry Potter. However, does this really need to be in the lead sentence? HP is meant to redirect to Hewlett-Packard and it is specified at the top of the Hewlett-Packard page that it is commonly known as HP. Now, this obviously has currency in common parlance attributed to the logo but what about Harry Potter? I honestly don't think that this belongs in the first sentence. I have never even heard Bloomsbury use this as an alternative or its usage adapted into the English lexicon. I seriously doubt that it needs that much emphasis. Reginmund 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obviously important enough to include, since some editors include you were preventing its inclusion on the HP (disambiguation) when it was absent from this page. If it's too prominent in the lead (which I don't feel it is), then please relocate it, but don't delete the cited material. -- JHunterJ 11:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to include that it is abbreviated HP. Hewlett Packard, mabye, but not here. &mdash; i said 22:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:HP (disambiguation) for the "much emphasis" that this issue has already received. I'd rather not have to see it again a few months down the road if this article doesn't mention the HP abbreviation. -- JHunterJ 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not prevelent enough to be in the lead sentence. I'll take it off for now until we can find another better place to put it on the article. Reginmund 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a better place, certainly, but do not delete the cited material that you requested to be found. -- JHunterJ 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the discussion before was to add it at HP (disambiguation) not at Harry Potter. If you want to discuss why it should be at the top of the page, that is a whole other story but don't substitute the previous discussion for this one. Reginmund 19:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Harry Potter entry from HP (disambiguation). If it's a valid abbreviation and should be listed there, please include a mention of it on this page. My previous effort included these citations:


 * Like others before me, I have removed the HP stuff from the lead, with the follwing edit summary: Remove minor detail from lead. If you insist on having it in the article, find a suitable place for it.
 * This provoked the follwing addition to my talk page:

Removing citations
Utterly agree about citaitons in the Lead, but you cannot just remove them. If you are going to remove a citaiton in the Lead, you have to put it where it belongs in the body of the text. It isn't as if you were removing cruft or vandalism, so please act with more care when relocating citations, please. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, I do not doubt that this material is well sourced; I just fail to see its importance or encyclopaedic relevance. It certainly does not belong in the lead. If an editor can find a suitable place for it, go ahead; if not, I won't miss it. - I will not remove it from the lead right now, but I do hope that somebody else will, or that someone here will explain why it belongs there.--Niels Ø (noe) 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Like "other" before you. See See Talk:HP (disambiguation) for the request for citation for the use of HP as an abbreviation from two other editors, including the "other" you refer to. -- JHunterJ 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was it removed from the HP disambig page? It should clearly not be here in the lede, but it should be on the disambig page. &mdash; i said 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the edit summary, I removed it when it appeared that I was the only one who felt it should be in this article. Feel free to return it to that page once consensus is reached here, if the HP reference survives. -- JHunterJ 01:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be mentioned here? There are things on the disambig page which don't mention that it is also legitimately called HP, much less a reputable source using it. &mdash; i said 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then those could be removed too, although I don't know which ones you're referring to. But that's a discussion for Talk:HP (disambiguation).  In general, an article that doesn't talk about X doesn't need to be disambiguated on the X dab page -- doing so can cause reader confusion when they go to the page and can't find the term they were looking for. -- JHunterJ 02:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do those belong on the that talk page, but this belongs here? i said 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion of which should be included on the dab page belongs on the dab talk, and typically boils down to: does the linked page refer to the dabbed term. Discussion of whether the linked page should mention the dabbed term belongs on the linked page's talk. -- JHunterJ 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

People seem uninclined to discuss the subject matter here: Is this spurious abbreviation at all relevant? Here are some Google results: For comparison: So, about 1 out of 30 "harry potter" pages use the abbreviation "HP". About 1 out of 6 "david copperfield" pages use "dc". Does this mean that these abbreviations, out of context, mean Harry Potter resp. David Copperfield? I think not. (Note that fandom is a realm where you are never out of such a context!)
 * hp: 361 000 000 (including the printer manufacturer, etc.)
 * harry potter: 72 700 000
 * hp harry potter: 2 460 000 (presumably this is roughly the number of hp hits than concern harry potter)
 * dc: 391 000 000 (including direct current, and other meanings)
 * david copperfield: 2 090 000 (a fairly well known fictional character)
 * dc david copperfield: 351 000.

As for the disambig page, a source that could motivate inclusion there would be EITHER a page where HP means Harry Potter, not just in a brief newspaper headline, and where any reader couldn't figure that out that meaning within 5 seconds - OR, better, a source where the abbreviation is actually subjected to discussion.--Niels Ø (noe) 06:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what do you believe is the criteria for inclusion on disambig pages? i said 06:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One criterion would be if users are likely to come across "hp" meaning "harry potter" in a context where the meaning isn't absolutely clear from context. Anyway, I don't really mind much if you insist on having Harry Potter at the HP page, but if you insist on having HP at the Harry Potter page, you should either document its relevance (which doesn't follow from it having been used in some newspaper headlines), or find a way of including it that doesn't give it undue weight.--Niels Ø (noe) 06:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And that criterion engenders more discussion than the dab pages need; the criterion "does the Harry Potter page use the term HP in relation to the article (or section) topic" is (normally) nicely clear-cut. What should have happened here is (a) Harry Potter should have been added to the HP dab page, and the end.  Since editors there (IMO unnecessarily) demanded citation for that abbreviation, (b) the abbreviation should have been cited on the Harry Potter page, and possibly the (new) end. Since editors disagreed with its placement in the intro, (c) a disagreeing editor should have moved it to a position they found agreeable. The only thing I'm insisting on is the retention of requested cited material. And one final point: the abbreviation is not spurious, as can be easily determined by the citations. -- JHunterJ 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's where we differ, i think. I don't think HP is a reasonable substitution for Harry Potter. I understand we use it as shorthand here in Talk, and someone carried it a bit too far to template it out int he article. That should never have been allowed out of slacker-hell. It doesn't really belong in the DAB page, either. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  12:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, most of the other entries on that page do not have citations saying HP is a legitimate shortening, much less it being used on a reputable source. Harry Potter belongs on the page more than some of the ones currently there. And actually the criteria for inclusion on a disambig page is if a reader would realistically expect their search to result in that page. HP satisfies that way more than most of the ones there. i said 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about most of the other hp's, but I have a hard time imagining a wikipedia user who'd search for hp if (s)he wanted the Harry Potter page - where as e.g. Hewlett-Packard is commonly known as just HP; many people may know "HP" (e.g. as a printer manufacturer), but not "Hewlett-Packard". By the way, if you search for "HP" (as opposed to "hp" or "Hp"), you get the Hewlett-Packard page, beginning with the message "HP" redirects here. For other uses, see HP (disambiguation).
 * But this whole issue is really a very minor one, and I won't contribute any more to it.--Niels Ø (noe) 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Noe, don't discount your opinion so much - it is valid, and you aren't calling people a pack of morons whilst doing it - pretty much a good sign that you are being genuine and calm. :) There is some debate taking place ont he HP disambiguation page, wherein someone is only citing two newspaper headlines to support the usage of HP. Maybe your comments would be just as useful there? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Only"? Not quite.  On the HP dab page, I am "citing" this page to support the inclusion of "Harry Potter" there.  On this page, I added two sources to support the inclusion of "HP" here.  I am unaware of the implied guidelines to the contrary for dab inclusion; nothing else is required by WP:D or WP:MOSDAB. See also My Chemical Romance and the MCR disambiguation page - only one source for MCR = My Chemical Romance, but there 'tis. But I agree with Noe about the severity of this issue. -- JHunterJ 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there needs to be consensus here for Harry Potter to be included on the dab page to merit inclusion on the dab page? i said 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there needs to be consensus here to keep the "HP" text here. There needs to be consensus there to keep the "Harry Potter" entry there. I was disagreeing with Arcayne's note that I was citing newspaper headlines there -- I was citing the Harry Potter article there, and the newspapers here.  I really need to write a WP essay on this... -- JHunterJ 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently we have had a bad miscommunication. I thought you were saying we had to have consensus here for Harry Potter to be at the dab page. Silly me. As I said above, I don't think the fact that Harry Potter is shortened HP is significant enough to mention here. i said 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is a fine conclusion, and would (or should, anyway) lead to the removal of the Harry Potter entry there -- or I'm okay with the alternative, keeping both; as long as the dab stays in step with the dabbed articles, I'm happy. And the miscommunication is why I need to write the essay -- I'm not doing a good job with my attempts at explanations spread across the two talk pages... -- JHunterJ 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to be removed there? Disambiguation pages exist because sometimes a user might type something in expecting to get one thing, but more than one thing have that name. Therefore, the basis for inclusion is whether or not a reader would expect to go to Harry Potter when they type in HP, which in my mind is very probable. And I can't help but wonder with the apparent inconsistency in this issue. Of the twenty entries on the dab page, (excluding Hewlett Packard) 2 specifically mention being called HP, 10 are in the name, are called that by something else (e.g. their stock ticker), and the others don't even have HP in the text. Why is this the only one being contested? Harry Potter even has reputable sources using HP as an abbreviation. i said 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last question is a good one for the Talk:HP (disambiguation) page. As to the first, without a mention in the linked page, it opens up a can of worms because someone objects to its (now arguably unwarranted) inclusion.  That's how we came to be here -- someone objected, and I obliged by researching some citations, and kaboom! -- JHunterJ 00:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that you should substitute one discussion for another. It doesn't belong in the lead. It is not nearly as common enough. Reginmund 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline
In the Chronology section it says that the Deadly Hallows take place in the year 1998. Since Harry started school at Hogwarts in 1991, and this was supposed to be is final year out of 7, shouldn't the date be 1997?


 * Harry is born summer 1980.
 * Harry's 1st year at Hogwarts is chronicled in the 1st book, which takes place from summer 1991 to summer 1992. Harry is 11 years old in most of the book. Put briefly:
 * 1st year/book 1991-1992, age 11.
 * 2nd year/book 1992-1993, age 12.
 * 3rd year/book 1993-1994, age 13.
 * 4th year/book 1994-1995, age 14.
 * 5th year/book 1995-1996, age 15.
 * 6th year/book 1996-1997, age 16.
 * 7th year/book 1997-1998, age 17.
 * I think the text as it stands agrees with this.--Niels Ø (noe) 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, why on earth are adding the cruftiness of dates to begin with? It bears no relevance to the story whatsoever. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the dates are in fact supported by Rowlings text (I haven't checked!), I think it derserves a brief mention. There are contemporary elements in the story from the muggler world, there are historical years from the wizardly world, and there are years on tombstones, so at least an approximate connection to our calendar is relevant.--Niels Ø (noe) 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why crufty (as your edit summary asked)? Because at no point in the story does it matter what is happening in the Muggle world. The Voldie is on a killing spree in the Wizarding world makes not even a blip in the real world, and nothing that happens in the real word affects the story even one iota. Seriously, it doesn't, and cleaving to the idea that the external dates are going to improvie the article are going to make it look dated as time goes on. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that w.r.t. connections to the muggler world, a dating to within a couple of decades would suffice. However, there are still a few references to years in the books - I think there were some fairly recent gravestones mentioned in the Hallows - that makes a more accurate dating relevant. I think the few lines on dating in the HP article are OK (but just half a line, stating e.g. the year where the series starts, would be OK too). The special article on chronology - well, it doesn't bother me that it's there - I've no intention of reading it, though. - Now, I see you write "the cruftiness of dates", and I must say the wikified dates (October 31 etc.) in the very brief section "Plot summary" do look odd.--Niels Ø (noe) 06:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Third-person point of view exceptions
Hello, Wikipedians. I was just seeing the page, and I think it is fantastic. However, I found something that I don't agree. It says that all the novels have third-point of view narration, with some exceptions in Philosopher's Stone, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. Well, I agree with saying that Philosopher's Stone contains first point of view narration ("Our story begins...") in some points, but I don't see that in Half-Blood Prince nor Deathly Hallows. Something that does appear in those stories are the point of view from something different than Harry, but it is still third-person. If the article really means this, it should be corrected and Goblet of Fire should be added. And if it really means about first person point of view, someone should write in which especific parts this ocurrs. With no more to say, I leave you this to think. Wanna Know My Name? Later 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The books are told in third person limited point of view. The exceptional chapters are told in omniscient point of view.  Serendi pod ous  13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but at least the editor was asking some of the right questions. We need more of that, and less of the 'H/HRship' sillyness. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting little titbit
Not sure where it should go, but it's interesting nonetheless  Serendi pod ous  08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a crime that those murderers get to read, let alone see the light of day. 75.1.240.198 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ,,,And thank you for swallowing the company line. Next, please. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter United States Cover Art
I think we should include the US cover art on the Harry Potter pages, or at least on a Harry Potter cover art page. Is there any way we could do this? Trekky0623 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies that rightly discourage "Americocentrism". Is there any particular reason why your request must be done? 79.75.85.159 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * America is not the only English speaking country and does not deserve any special treatment. This is an English book and as such we use the English covers. Yes, the American cover is different but so is the French cover, the Swedish, the German... We can't display all of those covers and the American one is nothing special. asyndeton 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I wouldn't be against putting all the covers on the suggested art page, but in the main articles about the books the english cover is the one and only option. asyndeton 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll try and make a Harry Potter cover art page with all the countries' cover art. Trekky0623 17:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we list just those covers released in English-speaking countries? I am pretty sure we'd run into Fair-use issues if we tried to add them all. For my own edification, how are the two images different? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They're made by different artists, depict different things and are formated differently US left, UK right for an example of the last book. Chandler talk 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)