Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 8

Disambig
Should we delete the disambig page and modify the disambig notice on this page - I don't think we need the book titles on any disambig notice/link? Brian Jason Drake 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that the disambig page has the author on it, we should keep it. I've just improved it. Brian Jason Drake 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Character list
There needs to be at least some mention of the characters in the character list; only a cursory once over is necessary.

* Harry Potter: the protagonist * Ron Weasley: his friend * Hermione Granger: his other friend * Lord Voldemort: the main villain * Albus Dumbledore: Headmaster of Hogwarts * Severus Snape: Potions master. Despises Harry * Rubeus Hagrid: Gamekeeper of Hogwarts. Adores Harry * Draco Malfoy: School bully and rival of Harry

That's all a cursory viewer needs. Why force people to read the characters' own articles? Serendipodous 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a single reason anyone would want such information, unless they were interested enough to read a plot summary which should contain most, if not all, of that information anyway. Brian Jason Drake 10:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you must include such a list, be careful:
 * I can't see Snape being significant enough for this list until book 6, so it could be considered a spoiler.
 * "His other friend"? Is that supposed to mean that he only has two friends?
 * Brian Jason Drake 10:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by the opposition. This has to be the only book article on Wikipedia without a character list. Serendipodous 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Ron Weasley: his best friend and Hermione Granger: his other best friend?  Jedi_feline | Talk  05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead, among other things
Um. Hi. I'm new. !

I've noticed that the lead (the beginning section of the article) seems a bit...improvable. I'm tinkering around on my word processor to see if I can conjure up a better one, but if you don't want me to, that's okay (I'm not doing a total overhaul, just a few tiny changes, such as the "Lord Voldemort, who uses the dark arts to kill Harry's parents and attempts to take over the world" bit). Sorry if I sound like a blithering idiot. Hm. Dread Pirate Felix 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And...I did it. And I now feel incredibly stupid. Argh. Revert if you wish; thanks for bearing with me. My only defense of my edits: "Highly" seemed more appropriate than "very", and I didn't see the point of mentioning Albus when Ron and Hermione aren't either. Oh, and I'm sorry about the Hogwarts thing. I think that looked better with the full name. *Changes back* And...now it looks redundant. ARGH! Dread Pirate Felix 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be semi-protected again
We have now reached the point where the entire first page of this article's edit history consists of fifty reverted edits. It's quite clear that this page, for whatever reason, is a vandal magnet. In my opinion it should be semi-protected for good. Serendipodous 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree. Semi-protection protects against newbies and non-registered...s...right? So, considering that this series will be in the spotlight for months to come...and the inevitable "haters" who will vandalize for whatever reason...I'd have to agree. Dread Pirate Felix 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - all these acts of vandalism are sickening and their histories/reversions are gumming up my watchlist! I'd vote for permanent semi-protection. AulaTPN 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - the page has been again vandalized immediately following reference 60, talking about a star wars - harry potter crossover. Please protect this page again.

Stamps in Infobox?
I uploaded a fair use image, Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg, intending to replace the title cover of the first book in this article with the stamps, which have the book covers on them. Nonetheless, after reading the template:Non-free stamp, I noticed one condition was "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". Does this mean using the stamps in the article would qualify as fair use or be a copyright violation? If so, then the image should be deleted. Your advice is appreciated. Brisv e  gas  03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC) This is what I mean:

Criticism section
The criticism section is overwhelmingly "anti" at the moment; we need to find a few of those early positive reviews to balance it out. Serendipodous 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree, despite not having read the section: despite it being called "Criticism and praise", each subheading has the word "criticism" in it. Brian Jason Drake 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It also gives a lot of weight to minority, fringe beliefs. The John Birch Society and the Constitution Party are way out there even by the standards of American conservatives. The objections based on witchcraft, while obviously ludicrous, are widespread enough I think they deserve some mention. The John Birch stuff, and opinions on who Rowley's heroine is, are too minor for inclusion. thx1138 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did something which might prove controversial, and if anyone has a better idea I'd be pleased to change it. Since finding a lot of those earliest reviews online has proven to be impossible, I have used the "blurb" page on my old copy of CoS, which contains quotes from some of the first ever Harry Potter reviews. Obviously it's hardly neutral, but these are major newspapers and their opinions count, and anyway, it would serve to balance the tone of the criticism section, which gives a lot of airtime to the books' detractors.Serendipodous 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FEMINIST AND LEFT-WING CRITICISM

According to an interview with Emma Watson, the French newspaper Liberation has stated that Harry potter is "right wing, sexist, neo-conservatist and gives a degrading idea of women". I think that this should be added in the criticisms section. Here's the source: http://www.gryffindorgazette.com/2007/04/30/interview-with-emma-watson

Movie release date
The release date for Order of the Phoenix in the states has been changed to July 11, 2007, ast stated on Mugglenet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.226.74 (talk • contribs)

Wait until it is officially confirmed. Serendipodous 06:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A theater operator in Chicago told me that the release date is Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

I think we should have a post page
Hi, I'm also new, but seeing as there are probably many fans that just typed in Harry Potter to see if there is a wiki site for it (like me) then we should also have a place for everyone to just talk, (since this is a talk page) and voice their opinion about Harry Potter. It can start right now:

histrylover: I really thought that the first books were good, but they kind of went down from the middle of the fourth book on... Histrylover 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * New comments go to the bottom. It is not Wiki policy to discuss issues that have no bearing on the article itself. There are plenty of forums out there for people to discuss Harry Potter-related issues. I belong to several. Serendipodous 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Serendipodous. Please keep the non-wiki related candor to a minimum. (MaytrixInk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.144.52 (talk • contribs)
 * Please make sure to sign your posts. A u l a T P N 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Number
What is the page number in book 6 where Harry is notified that he is the Gryffindor Quidditch captain? Badgerstripe 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In chapter 6 when he receives his OWLs. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But where? I can't find it! Badgerstripe 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please delete orphaned external link in References section
editprotected This is a minor issue, but I am trying to clean up after a series of misguided contributions from and the last one remaining is a misplaced link to a Variety review [s]he added to the Harry Potter section. Could someone remove it? Thanks. &mdash; 05:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Daggoth | Talk 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Feminist Criticism
Can someone please delete that extremely annoying sentence at the end of the Feminist Criticism section about Ginny being a redeeming "bold heroine", as it completely contradicts the point of the section, which is not the purpose of this article. Ginny is not a "bold heroine" that allays feminist concerns about the patriarchy of Harry Potter, quite simply because she's not given enough importance in the story. If you can find a critical essay that states otherwise then please cite it and we'll say no more; if not, it is a POV sentence and should be removed. 212.139.101.152 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold! You can make whatever edits you feel are necessary.  -FeralDruid 02:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The editing for this article has been restricted. That's why I've asked if someone else will kindly make the edit for me. 212.139.101.152
 * Ah, sorry, hadn't noticed that. You're right, that Ginny comment is out of place given her small part in the overall series.  I'm also considering adding some of Emma Watson's words from this interview, specifically her second answer where she addresses the comments made by French magazine Liberation.  -FeralDruid 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time we got rid of the "Themes and Motifs" section
Or at least radically shortened it. It contains a LOT of original research and will need to be either extensively verified or ditched before this article can even hope to gain a GA nod, let alone an FA nod. Serendipodous 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Split
I think splitting the story off would allow focus on stuff like themes and motifs for those interested, and bring the article size down. Thoughts? Walker9010 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No; I've never heard of a separate Wiki article for a plot summary. The story stays; the Themes and Motifs section should go. Serendipodous 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Wait a minute!
Why was the "Structure and Genre" subsection deleted, when the OR-fest that is themes and motifs survives? Serendipodous 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it. It was deleted a month ago by an anonymous user without explanation. Got lost in the waves of vandalism. Just one more reason to keep this page semi-protected. Serendipodous 11:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; trimmed down Themes section. It's probably also time to get the Themes and Motifs article deleted. Serendipodous 12:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Theme Unsupported by Quotation
There is a serious error in the Themes section, in that the supporting link states the opposite view to that of the Wiki contributor's. The current text reads, "Along the same lines is the ever-present theme of adolescence, in whose depiction Rowling has been purposeful in her refusal to acknowledge her characters' sexualities and leave Harry, as she put it, "stuck in a state of permanent pre-pubescence".[20]" But at the linked interview at [20], Rowling states the opposite intent, "She hints at unexpected twists ahead as Harry, the young wizard, grows up: "And he does grow up - in book four the hormones are going to kick in - I don't want him stuck in a state of permanent pre-pubescence like poor Julian in the Famous Five!"" - Sophie-David http&#58;//www.innerbeloved.com/ 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

templates/userboxes
hey could we get some like user boxes or template thingys for harry potter like "this User is a gryffindor" or whatever like have a death eater one too and stuff
 * Please see WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates. Further queries about general Harry Potter info on Wikipedia should be addressed to WT:Harry, not this discussion page, which is for the improvement of the article Harry Potter. Thank you. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Access to page?
I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books, and was reading this article. I noticed a few mistakes and some things that could perhaps be worded better. There might also be some overlookings, I haven't delved too far into that yet. When I tried to fix these small problems, though, I found that the article was protected. I thought making an account would let me edit, but evidently not. So, my question is this: how can I edit this page if it's protected? Any response would help. -- Solar Sunstorm 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Wikipedia protection policy, so you'll understand the different levels of protection. Harry Potter is semi-protected, so there's a four-day restriction on editing by newly registered accounts.  This page is vandalized daily, and semi-protection helps cut down on some of the clutter.  Since you've just registered your account, if you can just wait a few days you'll be able to make your edits.  -FeralDruid 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is frequently vandalised by brainless idiots, and as the media warm up for the seventh book, it's only going to get worse. Restricting it to created accounts cuts down the vandalism, but not completely (believe it or not, some people go to the trouble of creating an account just to vandalise a page), so the current protection program restricts editing to accounts that have been active for at least four days. You sound like a committed and interested contributor, and Wikipedia could use more of you :-). Have a look at some of the unprotected Harry Potter pages and see if there's anything you think needs your help. In four days you'll be able to come back and edit this one. Serendipodous 05:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate the explaination. I can see how this page would be a huge target for vandals. -- Solar Sunstorm  16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I archived the last thread
Things were getting a bit personal and I didn't like the way it was going. I thought this the best way to diffuse the situation before it exploded. And it's not like it was contributing anything useful to the article anyway. Serendipodous 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Over conservative/liberal
The "over" there seems extremely POV

What about the end?
Some hacker announced that [edited for possible spoilers]. Shouldn't this be noted?
 * There's no evidence he wasn't just making it up. Serendipodous 10:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some news of the probable hack, should they be added? http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2149245,00.asp Harry Potter and the Plot-Spoiling, Phishing Scam By Lisa Vaas
 * Experts doubt authenticity of 'Harry Potter hack'report Frank Washkuch Jr.
 * Bloomsbury has stated that 'there is so much information on the internet and anyone can put whatever they like', and that 'we are not confirming or denying these rumors'. The 'hacker' said that it was extremely easy to get into Bloomsbury's computers, and that a surprising amount of people inside the company had digital copies.
 * First of all, Bloomsbury is not confirming the hack, which they would if it was real, allowing them to bring legal action against the hacker. The hacker, if he was smart, would have posted excerpts to prove his point, instead of just 'key plot points'.  I read one of the points, and it screams of a lie.  Its quite ridiculous, actually.
 * Secondly, as the seventh HP book is, I'd say, quite valuble, Bloomsbury would most likely try and restrict it to as few people as possible having access to it. The hacker said a large number of people had digital copies.
 * Lastly, I would be extremely surprised if Bloomsbury did not have security features of their computers to prevent something like this from happening.
 * Now, I don't think that we should add what the hacker says to the article, but something like this could go in, maybe?-- Solar Sunstorm 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mis-statement
The article contains the following:


 * Blood purity: Wizards in general tend to view Muggles with a combination of condescension and suspicion; however, for a few, this attitude has evolved into bigotry. These characters tend to class those around them based on the number of magical ancestors they had, with "pure-blood" wizards (those with an entirely-magical bloodline) at the top of the hierarchy, "half-blood" wizards in the middle (those with both wizard and Muggle ancestry), and "Muggle-borns" (those with no magical ancestors) at the very bottom. Supporters of blood purity believe pure-bloods should control the wizarding world, and don't consider Muggle-borns real wizards.

At first, wizard mutts (for lack of a better term) are defined as "half-bloods," while "those with no magical ancestors" are defined as "muggle-borns." Does this refer to wizards who have no magical ancestry, or to non-wizards who have no magical ancestry? Can a wizard be born to two non-wizards who never had any magical ancestry? If not, then why does this article state that the bigots claim that "Muggle-borns should not be considered real wizards," as muggle-borns, by the definition above, are not wizards, let alone should they not be considered wizards.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A non-wizard with no magical ancestry is a Muggle. A wizard with no magical ancestry is a Muggle-born. A non-wizard with magical ancestry is a Squib, while a wizard with wizard ancestry is a pureblood. A half-blood is someone with one or more Muggle grandparents. Most wizards are half-blood, so, by definition, most wizards are not pure-blood fanatics, and only pureblood fanatics do not call Muggle-borns wizards. Serendipodous 06:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You say pureblood fanatics do not call Muggle-borns wizards, but if they can perform magic what else would they be called? Malfoy calls Hermione a Mudblood, in the sense that she is a witch with dirty, or Muggle, blood.  Muggle-borns are wizards, otherwise they would just be called Muggles.-- Solar Sunstorm  03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK...I was unaware that wizard ability was possible for someone without any magical ancestry. Serendipodous, isn't your statment that A half-blood is someone with one or more Muggle grandparents. a bit imprecise?  Wouldn't any bit of non-magical ancestry, such as a squib parent, make someone a half-blood?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A half blood is someone with one or more Muggle grandparents. A squib, by definition, has two wizard parents. A squib with a wizard and a Muggle parent would be a Muggle. Therefore, if a squib married a Muggle and had a wizard child, that child would he a half blood. If a squib married a Muggle and had a non-wizard child, that child would be a Muggle. Sunstorm, re: pureblood fanatics not calling Muggle-borns wizards. I don't even remember any of them using the term "Muggle-born"; that appears to be a term used exclusively by the more tolerant. Certianly in GoF, Malfoy makes no distinction between Hermione and the Muggles being tortured. ("If you think they can't spot a Mudblood..."). After Skeeter's article, Hermione recieves anonymous letters telling her to "Go back where you came from Muggle", so clearly she is not considerd a wizard by all. Serendipodous 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But in the letters Muggle is used derogatorily, as an insult to her Muggle parents. The Death Eaters would happily torture a Mudblood not because they weren't magical but because they were so closely connected with Muggles.  Purebloods would consider her a witch because she could do magic, but not consider her worthy of being part of the wizarding community because of her dirty blood.  If Muggle-borns aren't considered wizards, Half-bloods should only be half-a-wizard and only purebloods could really be called wizards.  So I've been led to believe, but maybe I'm just confused :P -- Solar Sunstorm  17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR FORK in AfD
See Articles for deletion/Themes and motifs in Harry Potter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ReWrite Please
"The wizarding world in which Harry finds himself is both utterly separate from and yet intimately connected to our own world."... that has got to be one of the most ill written lines in any well edited page on wikipedia. It reads like the crap someone in marketing spills out to fanbois, not like a well written addition to a page on a major literary work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.183.31 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure what criteria you're using but that sentence is grammatically spot-on. Perfect English usage I would say and a hell of a lot better written than some of the garbage I've seen. A u <font color="#67d">l <font color="#56c">a <font color="#45b">T <font color="#34a">P <font color="#239">N 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

POV
This article is outrageously pro-Harry Potter! In every section you can find some example of this. We need to do something about this, as this site shouldn't be an advertisement for the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk • contribs)
 * Explain yourself. Alientraveller 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The article provides a clear and concise (sometimes) summary of the novels and universe. <font color="#89f">A <font color="#78e">u <font color="#67d">l <font color="#56c">a <font color="#45b">T <font color="#34a">P <font color="#239">N 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny, because the Criticism section gives extensive voice to every single major anti-Harry Potter commentatro from AS Byatt to Harold Bloom. If people still think it's pro-Harry Potter, then I can only assume it must be fairly balanced. Serendipodous 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter vs. Bible translations
A common refrain on many news and other web sites (see Google hits) is that the Harry Potter books have been translated into more languages than any book except the Bible. This seems odd. Are there any sources out there that back this claim up with statistics?

EDIT: OK, I've found this source which places her third behind L Ron Hubbard and Anne Frank. There is a problem here though. The cite doesn't mention religous texts, such as the Bible and the Tao te Ching, both of which claim to be the most translated book in the world. It is also further complicated by the fact that one of Hubbard's works, Dianetics, is itself technically a religious text, since it is the foundation text for the Church of Scientology. I'm also not inclined to believe Scientology's own official figures on this.

Here's an even more puzzling source that puts the Bible at #22 and Harry Potter off the list!

Serendipodous 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That last source appears to be a list of the authors/books that have been translated the most times, rather than into the most languages. This is why prolific authors are so heavily represented (this is refered to in the text). So an author who has written 10 books, each of which was translated into 10 languages, outperforms an author who has written a single book that has been translated into 50 languages. So it's interesting, but it doesn't quite relate to the claim we're dealing with. Skittle 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

CONVERTING CHILDREN TO WITCH CRAFT!!! OH NO
i dont subscribe to this hilarius point of veiw i think it probly should be mentioned i hear enough about it that its a honest suprising it isnt here infact finding it is why i looked to begin with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.118.43 (talk • contribs)
 * See: Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series Serendipodous 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why this should be mentioned as there is no actual proof of these books converting people to witchcraft.--User:Solar Sunstorm 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was widely discussed, however. I see no problem with mentioning -- briefly -- the fact that it happened.  Exploding Boy 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Woah, woah woah! Be careful what you say there, that statement can be taken two ways. There has never been any documented evidence that the books converted anyone to anything. I suspect you're talking about mentioning the fact that there was a controversy over that issue, but as Serendipodous pointed out, this is already well covered in a dedicated article and does not /should not be repeated here. <font color="#89f">A <font color="#78e">u <font color="#67d">l <font color="#56c">a <font color="#45b">T <font color="#34a">P <font color="#239">N 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aula, I don't think that the issue is WHETHER it has converted people to witchcraft. I think all it's saying is that there is controversy. Don't have a panic attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.144.52 (talk • contribs)


 * 1. I never said that was the issued, just that the sentence should be phrased more carefully. 2. Panic attack? Right... <font color="#89f">A <font color="#78e">u <font color="#67d">l <font color="#56c">a <font color="#45b">T <font color="#34a">P <font color="#239">N 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The bible was written by those who refuse to believe a human being, so intellegent, can cease to exist. The fact that someone would even consider the idea of people converting to witchcraft because of a children's book is ludicrous.  These books are nothing more than adventures for the mind.  Enjoy them for what they were meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raelise (talk • contribs)