Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 6

confusing phrase
"The first Harry Potter book was published in the United Kingdom by Bloomsbury in July 1997 and in the United States by Scholastic in September of 1998, but not before Rowling had received a six-figure sum for the American rights – an unprecedented amount for a children's book." This sentence is confusing. Did she have to pay 6 figures to get american rights? does it imply that she got a check from american profits? It also seems to make a bit of a jump from the sentence before it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.92.132 (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Trivia
This may fit better on her page, but Rowling is known to be a big fan of Terry Gilliam (of Monty Python fame) and ironically in one Flying Circus sketch a policeman gets sick eating a Cockroach Cluster and in another one of the primary characters is Harold Potter. Coincidence? Probably, but it's interesting to note!

German Wording
Just wanted to pointed out a possible error with the translation of Voldemort's name. It sounds like you're making comparisons to the german word will. As I must point out, will is a conjugation of the verb willen, which means "to want", as similar as it sounds to the english will. Sorry for any problems. Cheers, Der Leiter Der Leiter 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Theory
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that in book 5, while cleaning sirius blacks house, HP and the Weasleys run across an unusually large locket that nobody can open? Can this possibly be Slytherins locket from book 7? RAB, Regulus Black, stole the locket and could have either hid it in Grmmauld Pl., or have been killed before he could destroy it. If so, wouldnt Harry have recognized it when he was delving into the pensieve with Dumbledore? And, assuming this is correct, could it be possible that it was stolen by Mundungus when he looted the house? Could it possibly have found its way back to Voldemort? Drew Willams Brock, Ocean Springs, MS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodzilla 17 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, the fact that there was an unopenable locket in the Black House is one of many theories. However, Wikipedia is not the place for this, since we have no idea if it is involved at all with the story. Disinclination 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange spoiler warnings?
G'day - just took a squiz in the article and there appears to be a few spoiler warnings looking a bit confused. Or, to be more specific, in the wrong spots!

I wasn't sure what template you were using - did you plan to just have one warning at the start of the "story" section (section 2?) Or one for each subsection? If that's the case, then there are a whole lot of "spoilers end here" tags missing I think...?

Regardless, I left it, but somebody who has been working on the article might want to fix it up. Cheers GreenGopher 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure that this article needs any spoiler warnings at all, actually. Brian Jason Drake 08:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin?

 * The six books have collectively ... and been translated into 47 languages, including Latin.[3]

A) Where in the reference does it say this? B) I was only aware of the translation of the first book into Latin and Ancient Greek, and possibly an upcoming second book in Latin. Can anyone verify that the others have been translated too? I don't find a reference. — Adhemar 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just bad syntax. Easily fixed. Serendipodous 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am no wikipedia expert and was unsure where to add my comment, but i would like to say that vol in french also means theif. This is could be added to the text and is probably a better breakdown of voldermorts name than flight.

Negima?
The small blip in the cultural impact section relating Harry Potter to the manga/anime Negima seems irrelevant and most likely a coincidence. The mythological themes expressed in the Harry Potter books have been long established and few should be accredited to J.K. Rowling's invention. Until an accreditable connection can be established between the two, I'm going to remove this section. --Yukito-san 02:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Characters
I think the character section is a tad too long, including descriptions of characters that most would see as secondary, and needs to be slimmed up. To add insult to injury, the Draco Malfoy entry contains some POV/fancruft, and definitely needs to be rewritten. I'll do it myself, later, if no one objects. PantherFoxie 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to it. I've been looking through some character articles, and some of them do mention fandom. What is an acceptable amount, anyways? Remus Lupin's article mentioned a bit (some has been cut out, there wasn't alot to begin with). I mean, its all POV, isn't it? Even using the terms generally accepted is hard, since the Harry Potter fanbase is large, and a survey of such would not work, simply because of its size and range of ages, country, etc. Just curious to know. I'll continue to scan the talk pages, and see if this has been addressed. Disinclination 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't worked on this article in a long time, but I would reccommend a return to the original structure— nine characters with significantly shorter descriptions as seen here. No matter what you edit down to, your changes will need to be vigilantly watched or else they'll be perverted by cruftiness. TonyJoe 06:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the Character section. Please go through it, make any minor changes that might be needed.  Revert, if you think my revisions are bad, or whatever.  Hope everyone likes it! PantherFoxie 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminist critique
As far as feminist criticism of Harry Potter is concerned, I don't think Ginny Weasley is an important enough character to note as being a bold heroine. The point of the criticism (and of the attached article "Girl Trouble in Harry Potter") is not that there aren't any bold, powerful women, as obvious examples include Bellatrix and Tonks. The point is that none of them are hugely important characters upon which the foundations of the story are based, unlike the male characters. Erase Bellatrix, Tonks or even Ginny and you still have the story intact, so the point of feminist criticism is that women aren't terribly important in the world of Harry Potter. Whether you agree with it or not, I think the section under "Criticism" should be reverted back to how it was and the comment about Ginny deleted, as even though she may have become a confident female, she's still not a crucial heroine to the story and doesn't relieve feminist concerns. 80.47.9.234 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that Ginny shouldn't be called a "bold heroine" in the article because of her fairly minor role, or that there are no real strong heroines at all? Because Bellatrix and Tonks are pretty critical to moving the story along, and you could argue their roles could be written off some other way, but...the author seems to be avoiding too many deus ex machina type situations in the series as it were. At least she's attempting to legitimize the magic in her world. 74.137.217.32 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is, Ginny being a "bold heroine" shouldn't be used at the end of that section on feminist criticism. Actually come to think of it it is a personal comment someone has added on and is not discussed in the attached feminist article at all, so it is a comment not cited and is worthy of deletion. But putting that aside for a moment, Ginny can't be used as an example to defuse the feminist argument against Harry Potter because she is such a minor role in comparison to the bold male characters. Like I said, the point isn't that there aren't any bold female characters in Harry Potter (I suggested Bellatrix and Tonks myself), the point is that if there are any they have menial roles in the story, which feminist critics view as patriarchal. Remember we are not meant to be debating this in the article, so whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant, but the feminist viewpoint should be represented accurately without uncited comments added on to reason against it (unless a source can be produced stating theorists have used Ginny as an example). So all I ask is that some altruistic registered user please remove it on my behalf, as the editing on the page has been disabled for non-registered users. On your point about Bellatrix and Tonks, I would say they are certainly not "critical" to moving the story along, certainly not as equally critical as the majority of male figures in the story (Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, Sirius (RIP), Lupin, Ron, Hagrid, Lucius and Draco Malfoy et al). To use a filmic metaphor, they are supporting actresses at best, certainly not leading ladies. 80.47.187.159 02:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ultra-conservative?
Describing Focus on the Family as an ultra-conservative Christian group is clearly not NPOV as the Focus on the Family page doesn't even describe it as anything other than plain old conservative. Frankly the whole introduction of the "Religious opposition to witchcraft themes" section is heavily biased i.e. "particularly from fundamentalist Christian groups who believe the series’ supposed pagan imagery is dangerous to their children." the harry potter books do indeed have various forms of "pagan" imagery due to the fact "pagainism" is a rather broad term.
 * "Pagan" is a term broadened to death. It can mean anything (I've seen fundies apply the term to Wiccans, Hindus, Muslims and even Catholics) and therefore means nothing. Since the term can be applied to virtually anybody, any image at all could conceivably be described as "pagan", which renders it useless, unless one is only interested in constructing straw men to attack. Serendipodous 08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, but there has been opposition from various religious groups over Harry Potter (begs the question - do you read your local paper, some public schools are just now getting around to stocking the Potter books). I don't see how stating that is really biased....74.137.217.32 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the "ultra-conservative" label fits, because only someone on the fringe would be concerned about the existence of actual witchcraft. I imagine regular old conservatives would be pretty insulted if it were implied they believed Harry Potter was harmful to children because of a real danger of sorcery. thx1138 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seventh Book Name Confirmed: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"
I am under the impression that the seventh book of harry potter is called Doomsday. i am not a wikiexpert but am a Harry Potter expert. i sugest you take my word for it. Adolph 172 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.182.50 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Um ... how about .... no? Disinclination 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pown3d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.214.81 (talk) 00:23, December 14, 2006
 * Yeees. You keep doing that. Disinclination 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking for a discussion speculating the title, but I am wondering this: When do you speculate that the HP7 title will be announced? Does anyone remember on what dates the titles for the other HP books were announced, in relation to their release dates? I would have guessed that the title for HP7 would have been announced already. I understand JKR has had a title finalized for a long time; it just hasn't been ready to be announced yet. Any thoughts? --QQQ (15-Dec.06)

Someone just put in the title as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...but I'm pretty sure no one knows what it is yet, right? Panserbjørn 13:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It just went up on JKR's website this morning. While it doesn't explicitly say that's the title, I can't imagine her putting up a fake title at this point.  So far it's been reported at leakynews.com, I assume within hours it will be a major news story.  I'm not sure where the confirmation of the date is, haven't seen it reported anywhere.  I'm going to go ahead and take it out until there's a source.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is right. It was announced in the J.K Rowling site, by completing a Hagman game in her misterious door. A link to that, is this one. 148.240.184.38 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was reported on CNN just now:  "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." Notoriousbhc 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

sorcerer or philosopher?
I've been reading up on Harry Potter and have noticed that the first story in the series is sometimes called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and at other times called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". Which is the true title?
 * It was changed to Sorcerer's Stone for the American release. They are both "true" titles in the sense that they are both real and used by the publisher(s). However, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the original title and the one that should be used on Wikipedia. Koweja 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Philosopher's Stone is be the correct title as it originated in Britain and that was the original title. If you see Sorcerer's Stone and not Philosopher's be sure to change it--although having both is fine if Philosopher's take precedence.  John Reaves 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

JK Rowling has said she hates the fact they changed the title of her book to Sorcerer's Stone for America, and regrets giving them permission to do so. I heard her say this in an interview. 80.47.187.159 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sauce? Simply south 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "source". And I wasn't suggesting this be put in the article - it's just a little interesting tidbit I wanted to share. And it couldn't be sourced as she said it in a TV interview, though she may have mentioned it elsewhere too. 80.43.37.9 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TV interviews can be sourced, you just need to provide the info (date, network/show etc) so people can verify that information. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This link (used in the J K Rowling article) takes you to the 'Dark Mark' website where they have the transcript of an online interview she gave to the BBC back in 2001. I'm sure she's said it on several occasions though - I'm positive she's been more forceful in her regret...but I can't source that yet...

http://www.darkmark.com/c.c?l=interview2&t=J.K.%20Rowling:%20BBC%20Online%20Chat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libatius (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Whoa, careful there with the shoulds and should nots, wikipedia is for facts, not ought to be's. Fact: Philosopher's Stone was the original title the book was published under, and the one it was published under everywhere excluding the US. Fact: the same book (and subseqent film) was released in America titled Sorcerer's Stone, whether any of us like it or not.  Both titles therefore need to be acknowledged, with the relevant information regarding the book and film having to separate titles.  For the sake of consistency, and so as not to clutter up the article with "Philospher's/Sorcerer's Stone", it is absolutely acceptable to refer to the book only as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone once the point has been made about the book having two titles.  I'm not sure whether I've contributed much with this post, but I just felt I needed to say it. Tinkstar1985 13:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That point is already made in the article for that individual book. No need to be redundant and say it again here.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for FA status
Has this been through peer review before? Seeing as its A-class and the most well known HP article, I think its worth a shot. RHB 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it has been said at the peer review that the article was way too long to succeed at becoming a FA. Gotta shorten it before trying again I guess. Cheers Raystorm 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The veil in harry potter
I've proposed for deletion an article called The veil in harry potter. I didn't do a lot of checking to see if the subject was notable since the content was WP:OR, but I thought I'd run it by the experts. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the original research, conjecture, and lack of possible sources. It's not notable enough to have a article. All we know is that it is mysterious and does something. It might be notable enough after the seventh book, but there is no need for a page on it now. Koweja 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably be best to bring this to WP:WPHP next time, as this is just the talk page of the "Harry Potter" article. Anyway, you were able to find us, so… I understand how the article's manner certainly makes it look like fancruft, but the veil is actually a crucial part of book 5, and, as the author so eloquently describes, a big mystery in the series, as the veil was the source of death of a major character. However, it doesn't deserve its own article, though possibly a subsection in a Magical items in HP or something. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly Normal? Eh...
"One of the principal themes in the novels is the juxtaposition of the magical and the mundane; the characters in the stories live utterly normal lives with utterly normal problems, despite their magical surroundings."

This is indeed a theme, but it seems like a big stretch to call the characters' lives and problems "utterly normal." Panserbjørn 13:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article is suggesting that the characters, aside from battling evil wizards, also experience normal stressors like mean teachers, bullies, and relationship problems that we've all had to deal with (or at least most of us). Hope that makes sense. Mikeliveshere 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Equivalent problems is more appropriate than "mundane". Though it is worth noting how the series is humanized by drawing clear equivalents between magical/"real world" things. For example the wizards in the book treat quidditch like soccer.Primalscreamtherapy 13:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Box office paragraph
That paragraph is a bit of a mess right now. The citation was recently changed to one that only compares movies based on books, instead of all movie series. The section also compares HP to the star wars trilogy, (and the LOTR trilogy) even though there are four HP movies out so far. Not really a valid comparison, obviously a series with more movies has the potential to make more money. Maybe compare totals of the entire series? Or average gross for each movie? See here:  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I wasn't entirely sure what to do when I saw the change. It's unfair to compare four movies (and growing) of HP to only three of LOTR. I'd go with average gross per movie, but is it even necessary to get into the specifics? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Motif" and "Theme"
Hello. The discussion of literary elements in the Story article needs work. A motif is a recurring element that symbolizes, illustrates, or develops a/the theme of a story--it isn’t simply any item that one sees repeatedly. The Hogwarts Express, School Houses, Owls, and Quidditch are not motifs. However elements such as comments regarding Harry’s uncanny resemblance to James--except for having Lily’s eyes--is a strong motif throughout the story. The reoccurring commentary on Harry’s appearance reinforces the various filial themes throughout the story, with a particular nod to the theme that the people we love never truly leave us, and that one’s family is forever, whether or not one loves them, likes them, or has even known them. The current list should be removed (particularly since there is a Themes and Motifs section just a bit further down), or renamed something along the lines of “Additional Elements of Hogwarts and the Wizarding World.”

Additionally, while the supporting information is correct (and quite good in large part, really), themes cannot be summed up in one word, as they are specific ideas. “Love” cannot be a theme because it’s far too broad a concept. “Sacrificial love can defeat even the most powerful evil” however, is a theme. “Choice” can't be a theme (though it might be a motif), however, as the author noted, the “choice between what is right and what is easy” is a significant theme in the books. And so on. Sorry if I didn't do this right. SHE 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)SHE
 * You're right about some objects, or just any repeated object not necessarily being a motif, however, objects can be motifs. "In literature, a motif or motive is a recurring element that has symbolic significance in the story. Motifs are recurring structures, contrasts, or literary devices that can help to develop and inform the text’s major themes. The motif can be an idea, an object, a place, or a statement." (Motif (literature). I can't at the minute think of any particular examples, and its after midnight so I'm not going to research any right now, but I'm sure there are a number of them in the HP series. Tinkstar1985 13:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

???
hey just wondering who wrote this article??? Victoria

Multiple people. Please sign your comments using four ~'s Disinclination 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to cite this article as a source, click on the "cite this article" link at the side of the article page. Wikipedia releases its content under the GNU Free Documentation License; see WP:C. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Rowling of copyright infringement without evidence is libel
Please stop adding personal interpretations of what constitutes copywright theft to articles on JK Rowling and Harry Potter. Just because you feel certain works may be similar to Harry Potter, that doesn't automatically imply copywright infringement. If you have issues with what you think Rowling may or may not have lifted from other sources, get a degree in copywright law and present your case in court. Don't make libellous claims without the knowledge or the evidence to back them up. If you want to discuss similarities between Rowling's work and others, Works analogous to Harry Potter is the place to do it. Serendipodous 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I definately remember some author claiming that parts of her work were 'stolen' by Rowling, however the case failed.

Yoda921 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda
 * Yes, it was Nancy Stouffer who made the claims. Koweja 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Laura Mallory
Relevant and verifiable figure relating to the controversy over Harry Potter - but I don't think she deserves her own article. Any thoughts? Madmedea 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should require too much discussion, Mallory is only notable for Harry Potter. I would strongly support the merge. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even merged it merits barely a paragraph as an example. --Dave. 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, keep the reference though. RHB 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another reference to her page. I think she might actually try and go to the supreme court on this one, she's planning on appealing the Georgia state ruling. Has she even read the damn books? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a negative. Disinclination 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to H@P: absolutely not. Anyway, yes, go ahead merge it but keep all relevant detail. Shaggy9872004 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this merge. I do not think Laura Mallory deserves her own page. I do think that it is worth considering if she deserves a link to or mention in pages on witchcraft and demons as I suspect (with the evidence of her behavior) that she is an excellent example of belief in witchcraft and demons existing in the US today. This is important because the history of the persecution of witches is so terrible and because it is so patently obvious to any rational person that demons and witches do not exist (despite what the bible says).Caltheous 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Witches exist out of the Bible, but that is neither here nor there. This woman never should have had her own article in the first place. Disinclination 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumours about release date for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
This has already been discussed at length at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Briefly, rumours don't belong in an encyclopedia. Thanks, Rosemary Amey 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I didn't know where to put this. I found out from www.mugglenet.com that Scholastic has revealed the number of pages to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Scholastic revealed on March 20, 2007 that the American Version will be 784 pages long and the British version will be about 700 pages. (The British number of pages were uncomfirmed.) Where should I put this? Is it significant enough to post on the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" section? Springerds 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

English/British
Hey. An anon changed the description of JK Rowling from an English writer to a British writer. Esanchez7587 then changed it back. Is there any particular reason? To me, British would sound clearer, since 'an English writer' is slightly ambiguous, possibly meaning only that she writes in English rather than that she is English. Since it is equally true to say she is British as English, is there a particular reason to avoid this additional clarity? Skittle 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's *not* equally true to say that she is British as she is English. It's not like in other countries where there are states, where it is equally true to say that someone is a Queenslander and that they are an Australian.  The UK is a group of countries welded together.  They have a thing about it - for more information than you really need, see British Isles (terminology). - Malkinann 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It *is* equally true to say she is English as that she is British. She is English and she is British. I am one of "them". It's not like she's Scottish and I was suggesting she was called English. Skittle 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just call her British: on the basis that it will avoid any chance of disputes over what to call her. Michaelsanders 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This was actually what I was suggesting, although for reasons of clarity, not to avoid disputes. I only asked because someone had reverted it after an anon made that very change. Skittle 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, being an Englishman myself, I would say that for someone who has ambiguous nationality (like Tilda Swinton, who comes from a Scottish family, yet lives in London and speaks with a typical English accent) the term British is best, because it is more vague and non-specific. But for someone like JK, who is undoubtedly an Englishwoman, I don't see the problem with calling her an English writer, and I think it would be quite clear that her nationality is being referred to as opposed to the language she speaks. 80.47.148.14 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a fairly trivial matter. And, as another Briton, I'd say that in her case British/English can be used fairly interchangably (but she could probably be described as Scottish *as well*. Her home is there, and she probably has the right to vote in the Scottish elections. That would be a case for describing her as Scottish - which is why I said that 'British' would avoid arguments). If I were to speak personally, I'd say that calling her 'English' was a case of over-excessive detail. She's a British citizen, and could not be not described as British - that is undeniable. It seems unnecessary to specify that she is an English writer - otherwise, you might as well describe her as a West Country author, or by her county, or hometown. All of which information is given in the article. All that needs to be referred to in the line in question is a basic description - British author who wrote set of bestsellers. Michaelsanders 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer to be a little more general in cases like this: it's often much safer to say "British". --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but as long as we're not doing it just so that Americans don't get confused between English the language and English the nationality. Also, I would just say that I'm sure many Scottish writers, actors, celebs, sportsmen etc have a preference for being referred to as Scottish over British, so doing the same for English people shouldn't be so controversial. 80.47.131.117 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not - I'm simply saying that calling her British should avoid squabbles about technicalities. However, if anyone objects, do as is done with Scottish/Welsh/N Irish writers/sportsmen etc - source her referring to herself as an English writer. If you can do that, then the sentence in question will describe her as an English writer, and be sourced. But until then, it's simpler to describe her as a British writer, because as a fact it can't be disputed. Michaelsanders 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When I think of "English" written in that context, I think of nationality. I suppose there could be some confusion about nationality versus language that could apply to a whole variety of different nationalities/languages. It's very rare in this context for it to refer to language, it almost always refers to nationality, because when written for people other than authors, they refer to nationality (for example, Japanese author, Russian actor, Spanish botanist, French soldier). When written in the context of language, it makes more sense to pair the language with the written work (for example, Korean author who writes Japanese poems). --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Parallel universe"
This is a much-abused term, and I think if Rowling used it to describe her world then she must have been speaking figuratively. A parallel universe is an alternate reality, a completely different realm with its own rules and utterly separate from our own. This is quite definitely not what is described in the HP universe; the Wizard world is our world, it's just that we can't see it. Yes, the wizarding world has its own rules, but those rules are very much a part of our universe- it's only that Muggles cannot grasp or utilise those rules. Serendipodous 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of 'his dark materials'? A parallel - or, more precisely, an alternate - universe is not a "completely different realm" - it is the same, only with differences. Now, first of all, the wizarding world is a 'parallel universe' to the muggle world - i.e. it co-exists, runs parallel to it, but they never officially intersect, leading to differences in development. I.e. wizards use magic instead of electricity. Secondly, according to RedHen: "Rowling herself, however claims that she sees the world of Harry Potter as taking place parallel to our own." Whether that is the case or not I do not know - I have never seen any statement of such from Rowling, but also know that the site is pretty serious, and does not tell lies. If Rowling did make such a statement, then that would pretty much trump the above rubbish about 'different realm with its own rules' (of course, your statement, 'with its own rules' - rules of magic, perhaps?) Michaelsanders 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your seeming inability to hold a conversation without dispensing some form of insult, I have read His Dark Materials, and nowhere in that trilogy is there any hint that Lyra's Oxford is the same Oxford as Will's Oxford, or that Cittigadze is down the road from our Benidorm. The Wizarding world isn't some alternate reality only accessible through portals. It is our reality. The rules of magic are our world's rules; it's just that we Muggles can't use them. I never accused that site of telling lies, and indeed everything you quote is true. The wizarding world does exist parallel to our own, but it is not a parallel universe, at least not in the strictest sense. Serendipodous 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition given in parallel universe (fiction) is "self-contained separate reality coexisting with our own". In this use of the term, Rowling's wizarding world does not apply. Rowling's wizarding world actually exists in our world, interacting with it, and is not self-contained (meaning you don't have to travel through an alternate dimension to reach it). I'm pretty sure there is a literary term associated with this kind of world, as this is a fairly common device used in fantasy literature, but I'll have to dig further to look for it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the HP books don't fit the definition of parallel universe. The "wizarding world" has parallels to our own, but that's not the same thing.  It exists in our universe and is just a part of it that muggles don't see.  If JKR has called it that (as implied by an edit summary), I'd certainly be more inclined to accept that term if there was a reference.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Covers montage
According to WP:IUP, photo montages may not be made of fair use images, which is what the covers are. The image seems to be a violation of that policy and its removal is justified. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I agree, assembling fair use images is clearly not allowed to use in Wikipedia. I am removing this image and IFDing it post-haste. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing The Harry Potter _Universe_
The two sentences about Harry Potter fan fiction have nothing to do directly with the Rowling books, and distract from where they are placed. Why not put them into the introductory section, as an indicator of the popularity of the book series?

02/02/07 (email removed) 128.147.38.10 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they should probably be put somewhere else, but I guess the Universe section was the best fitted: it deals win fan fiction in the HP universe specifcally, no matter where in the wizard world it is. I think it should remain, somewhere on the page, in any case: HP fan fiction is probably the largest in most fan fic sites (like fanfiction.net and the like), next to Lord of the Rings and what have you. Disinclination 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed your email address, anonymous user. Bots crawl these pages, so you can get a lot of spam if you put an unprotected address up like that. :-) Skittle 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Seems to me, this article is a classic candidate for semi-protect. Have any anon or new-user edits done anything other than vandalism or vandalism-reversion (which would be done quickly anyway by established editors who have this on their watchlist) in the last few months? Seems like this is a page likely to be viewed by a lot of inexperienced users, particularly children, making the high level of vandalism particularly problematic. Views? Skittle 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Deathly Hallows was just protected this morning, looks like this could use it too.  There was also some discussion at the talk page of that article about trying to get many (if not all) Potter articles semi protected this summer when the book and movie come out.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have requested semi-protect. Skittle 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (I wish I had seen this earlier.) There isn't a need for protection, there isn't really anything too malicious going on. John Reaves (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you like Harry Potter you might also like gay porn retards assholes" replaced a large part of the content not long before this very discussion. I've often considered semi-protects and protects of articles unnecessary, but I feel it is a real net-gain in this case. But I do, of course, welcome discussion. If a consensus develops that we should unprotect, we can request that too :-) Skittle 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also been worse than usual because of the press of the last couple days. The current protect is set to expire automatically after a week.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neighbors templates?


This discussion, which also refers to the template, has been moved to Template talk:Neighbors. Brian Jason Drake 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Highest Grossing Series?
''The Harry Potter movies have since gone on to even eclipse such giants as the Star Wars trilogy in worldwide box office gross receipts, finishing as the number one movie franchise in history with $3.5 billion. Lord of the Rings follows with $2.9 billion''

This is not true. At least one series has grossed more. The James Bond 007 series has grossed over $4,355,700,000 worldwide, almost a BILLION more than Harry Potter, and that's not adjusted for inflation (someone over on the 007 discussion page added up the inflated gross to about $10,454,565,311). Besides, the source given (By The Numbers: Top-Grossing Film Adaptations) does not state it is the highest grossing series worldwide, only in America. And that's only book-to-film adaptations, as far as I saw. Someone either find a more credible source or edit that statement to say it is the highest grossing film adaptation of all time (Which, if you want to get technical about, is another lie, as 007 originally was a book). Plasma Twa 2 06:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All true, this was mentioned before but didn't get fixed. Go ahead and adjust it to something that's a better reflection of the cited article.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)