Talk:Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Point of view
"This book contains only the second instance of narrative not delivered through Harry's point of view - the first chapter, in which the murder of Frank Bryce by Voldemort is described." This is excerpted from the first paragraph in the "Points of Interest" section.

My question is: isn't it somewhat counter-intuitive to include this information, seeing as how the would-be point-of-interest is that this book contains one of the rare instances in which the story proceeds outside of Harry's point-of-view of things, despite the fact the same paragraph later goes on to assert that this scene/instance DOES occur - to some extent, at least - within Harry's POV? Also the fact that the paragraph two instances of "narrative not delivered through Harry's point of view," with the actual instance in question of Frank Bryce's murder not being one of them (instead, citing Mr. Dursley's wizard encounter in the first book and the somewhat omniscient third-person perspective of Spinner's End in the sixth book)?


 * No, I think that it is fine. In that chapter itself the story is told from the perspective of Frank Bryce, and we only find out later that Harry has seen what we have, I think that it is fine.  Oh and some people even argue that this could be the third, because in the first book it is from Ron and Hermione's persective during the quidditch match where Harry is getting bewitched off his broom; but whatever. - Mbatman  72  16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, in PS, in the quidditch match, the point of view is from Ron and Hermione, so it's the third time. -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was thinking that perhaps the plot section could be merged into Harry Potter (plot) for the articles of the books. Some of the book articles have more lengthy plot summaries than the plot article, some less lengthy, and I'd like to try and make that more consistent. Any opinions? EvilPhoenix 03:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

i second that phoenix... gone ahead and made the change. it might be adviseable to simply link this page to the Plot, or to scrap the plot page and use the long summaries in the individual articles.... any thoughts?

--jonasaurus 01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the plot pages have been deleted, and we have a rag-bag of long and short summaries in the book articles. I have attempted to solve this by creating a significantly shorter summary than the one here, which was really too long for a quick scan, and added it in front of the longer one. Doing the summarisising, i could see the longer one needs more work. It is a little untidy, and probably now could have a few facts added... though also perhaps a few removed bearing in mind that they now get a mention in the short summary. Altogether, the whole lot is not unreasonably long for an article. Sandpiper 23:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Themes
I have always thought an overriding theme of the book was the indifference of race to the innocent, and the overriding concern of race to the guilty. Harry's love interest is Cho Chang, a girl of asian decent, and his date is Patil, a girl of middle eastern or Indian descent. Hermonine dates a Bulgarian native. Draco Malfoy only goes with another pure-blood member of his house. Voldemort's death eaters are also all white, pure-blood (or pretenders to such).

The theme is further explored via the minor characters. Neville Longbottom dates Ginny Weasly, but he wanted a date, and Ginny wanted to go to the dance. One of the Weasley twins asks Angelina, a black girl, to the dance, and she accepts. Neither considers it a big deal. Even Ron had a huge crush of Fleur, and even asked her to the Yule Ball. It didn't matter that she was 3 years older than him, a foreign girl, and, they barely spoke the same language. Jclinard 08:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but race, in the concrete, does not play an important role in Harry Potter. Blood purity becomes a metaphor for race.  While it is important that characters did or did not care about the blood purity of their dates, the actual races of their dates is relatively unimportant.  However, one theme of Goblet of Fire is nationalism, so it is siginificant when characters from different schools ask each other out.12.17.189.77 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats not the theme of the book the theme means its the meaning of the book also the message or lesson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.180.166 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Though Lee Jordan is, I think, somewhere described as black in the books (he certainly is black in the movies), I fail to remember where precisely we have it that Angelina is black. The name "Angelina Johnson", in any case, is not suggesting a non-British origin. Ron had, as you say, a crush, and noone ever really thought about a racial difference between the English and the French anyway. And, in-universe speaking, Lucius Malfoy himself would not have had the slightest problem with fraternising with pure-blood wizards of non-white descent, provided they are pure-blood; they are as little "racist" in the literal sense as they are male-chauvinist (for proof that they aren't, see the character of Bellatrix Lestrange). Just that the blood-status thing is an obvious analogy to racism doesn't make the books describe them as race-racist also. (And of course, Harry's real love interest is Ginny Weasley - and yes, that is also somewhat present in book 4.)--2001:A61:208C:C001:898D:E337:B7CB:7423 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Note to the Note: Angelina Johnson is described as black in Order of the Phoenix. Escaped me upon reading. The same: --84.154.25.224 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

Underwater rescue
Am I the only person on earth who wonders how the hell 3 major characters got kidnapped and were held hostage underwater in the middle of Hogwarts? I mean, what the hell? This lake full of grindylows has been sitting there nigh 4 years and they happen to pop up and go all insurgent at just the choice time when the novel needed some urgency? Somebody please explain this. The Crow 03:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "In the Second Task, Harry is sent into the Black Lake, on the Hogwarts Grounds to rescue..." Ever considered that they were put there by the Triwizard organizers (which they were)? Brian Jason Drake 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As you will surely recall, the "hostages" (or at least Ron and Hermione) were summoned to McGonagall's office, put under protective spells, and placed in the lake during the preparations for the second task. Recall the scene where Hermione and Ron were in the library with Harry, researching methods to enable breathing underwater for an hour.  Fred and George showed up with a summons for Ron and Hermione from Professor McGonagall.  This is all well explained in the book.  If you only saw the movie, without first reading the book, then you might have missed those details. --T-dot 11:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't recall as it's been 5 years since I read the book. This article itself refers to them as hostages, so no need for the scare quotes there.  You can correct the article if you think they weren't hostages (personally I do, and I think it's kind of sick that responsible guardians would do something like that).  At any rate, the backstory should probably go in the synopsis. The Crow
 * I haven't read the book for a while but I can't remember seeing any indication that these people were put there against their will (except for Ron's dramatic stories, which sound like they have nothing to do with the truth). Therefore that response is probably a bit extreme. What we can be fairly sure about is that this was a harsh trick on the contestants. Brian Jason Drake 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states that it is about the book and has a link to the movie article, which happens to have its own synopsis. Therefore, this isn't relevant here.
 * This event was also in the book, was it not? 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This event was also in the book, but the movie obviously has a different story, and it happens to have its own article here. Nevertheless, it could probably be a bit clearer - see my comment above about assumptions. Brian Jason Drake 06:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Images
Wouldn't it be appropriate to delete the French edition cover here and put it on the French Wikipedia equivalent of this page? (I'm saying this on all of the Harry Potter book discussion pages). -Phi*n!x 01:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Harry Potter. Brian Jason Drake 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

At The World Cup
Someone recently added text about the Death Eaters rampage at the World Cup. It described Harry as being knocked out and Barty Crouch, Jr. conjuring the Death Mark. However, it did not happen this way in the book. Harry was always conscious, and he, Ron, and Hermione were not separated--they hid in the woods. Also, it was actually Winky who conjured the Death Mark, using Harry's stolen wand. I changed the wording to reflect this. My understanding is that the Wikipedia articles should only reflect events as they occured in the books and not the movies. PNW Raven 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Winky did not conjure the Dark Mark, in case you don't recall, Barty Jr. was a Death Eater and it was a heavy, raspy male voice that said the spell. The only magic Winky used was her bond to Barty to try and stop him from running away. Barty actually confesses to conjuring the mark when he's under the influence of Veriteserum. Other than that you're right, we should use the events as they were portrayed in the book and not the movie. 68.40.190.172 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Points of interest: Cleanup Request
Problem: Information in this section appears to be difficult to comprehend by individuals who aren't knowledgable about the series. Much of the information supplied in this section could be more comprehendable with direct quotations from the novel.

I've worked on cleaning up the grammar, someone else take it from here. -Litanss 11:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gigantic Plot Hole
I tried to insert a bit about the book's gigantic plot hole(why go through the trouble of making the Triwizard Cup a portkey instead of just any ordinary object?) and it was quickly edited out. Fair enough. Instead of getting into an edit war, I thought we should have a discussion. Does anybody else think this should be addressed? This isn't an innocuous detail, it undermines the point of the entire novel. Has J.K ever made an official statement regarding it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).


 * It's not encyclopedic.John Reaves 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What's unencyclopedic about it? It's incontrovertible fact the plot hole exists.


 * It's fancruft and speculative. Besides, the idea of the maze was to get to the Cup.  Don't you think it would be odd if there was an old boot there instead of the Triwizard cup?  John Reaves 05:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a boot in the maze. Any old thing any old place.  Moody could have said "Here Harry, grab that quill for me" on the first day of school and had the same effect.


 * Unless Rowling confesses, "Oops, silly me, writing a story which could have finished in four pages if I'd thought," it is merely opinion that it is a plothole. Redhen, for one, has suggested very persuasively various possible motivations and explanations (pointing out Voldemort's notorious love of showing off - so he'd want to terrify everyone by killing Harry at the Tournament). But only Rowling can know, so in the absence of statements or explanations, we have to dismiss it as opinion and muse over it elsewhere (as in the case of PS, where one has to suspend disbelief as to why the kids didn't bother to go to any teachers sooner). Michaelsanders 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to suspend disbelief about the Cup being the portkey, but I don't think Voldemort was showing off since it transported Harry to some place where only he and Death Eaters were present. Well, I guess you can say that his disappearance is dramatic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.50.113.28 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


 * What I think Voldemort was logically thinking was that he could kill Harry, and send him back to Hogwarts, and make it look like an accident. This way his plan wouldn't get out, if Moody just sent Harry to Voldemort in the middle of the school year, don't you think that would be a little suspicious for Harry to randomly die in the middle of the school year? I think that Dumbledore or someone said something like that at some point...That's what I think anyway. - Mbatman  72  16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * you know, there's a lot about magic that rowling never explains, but much of it revolves around symbolism (like the number 7). perhaps voldemort's spell didn't just require the blood of any enemy, but (1) your chief enemy and (2) taken in his hour of triumph.  if that's the case, there's no plot hole at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.133.69.241 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Famous Harry Potter disappears from the safest place in Britain? That would terrify people. Not to mention that we don't know what would have happened to the body: any number of spectacular possibilities. Michaelsanders 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'That would terrify people'? And Voldemort doesn't want to scare people because...? For the little it's worth, I think that this IS a plothole. Because it seems fairly easy to clear up - given how it is not possible to bug or apparate or do anything like that in the Hogwarts grounds, Rowling could have put a little bit in about only in the triwizard tournament, or only using an alien enchanted tournament artefact (such as the cup), could crouch have created a portkey. Clearly, the same could not be done to normal Hogswarts artefacts. In other words, there is a plothole because Rowling does not explain why it was only at the tournament that this could be done. It is a lot to ask that readers believe that Voldemort would be prepared to accept the risk that Harry would not win the cup for no stated reason. Frogemporer 10:22, 08 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would terrify people. And far more if it happened in the middle of the Triwizard Tournament (especially if the other two champions had been killed/injured by 'famous Viktor Krum') - especially if he then dumped the body 'back' at Hogwarts. It's quite clear that Voldemort has a penchant for dramatics - that's why he doesn't simply kill Harry at the graveyard (or anywhere else). If we don't accept that Voldemort is a self-defeating, over-flashy, and slightly inept villain, the whole canon falls apart - he could have got Quirrell to murder him in Diagon Alley that first day. And yes, he probably could have swiped Harry at any time during the year. But it wouldn't have been so dramatic as swiping him from the middle of the task, when everyone is at feverpitch already. Michaelsanders 13:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a note, Fleur was the only champion injured by Viktor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.40.221 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
 * **Cough** Cedric **cough** cruciatus **cough** Michaelsanders 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a legitimate and interesting question, but probably not something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry. But for those who are bothered by it, the best explanation I've seen is this:
 * Perhaps portkeys were prevented from working within Hogwarts (like disapperation), or perhaps Crouch Jr. thought Dumbledore would readily detect one. So Crouch Jr. couldn't just create one and give it to Harry.  But, the Tri-Wizard Cup was presumably a portkey already (to transport the winner out of the maze), one which Dumbledore knew about and allowed to operate.  So Crouch simply redirected this existing portkey.

See, for instance, this discussion: -- Tim314 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it makes a certain degree of sense to include some mention in this article that GOF is the most-criticized of the Harry Potter novels in terms of continuity errors and plot holes, requiring Rowling and her publishers to revise the text and offer revisionist explanations for the various problems. In addition to the plot hole being discussed here, you also have the error in the order in which Harry's parents died; the error in failing to have Harry see the thestrals at the end of the book; the repeated failure of Harry to use the accio spell to solve simple problems after using it to resolve a major plot point; and so forth. These problems are well commented on in a variety of amateur, professional, and online publications. I think the encyclopedic way of handling this subject would be to discuss it in general terms rather than offering an exhaustive lists, but with specific and cited examples of the criticism. Unfortunately, it's 5 AM for me at the moment, so it's a project of larger scope than I could tackle right now. Justin Bacon 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just saying about the plot hole argued here: It is NOT a plot hole. According to the twins in the next book, nobody but the death eaters should have known that Voldemort returned. If Harry appeared death in the middle of the year, or just dissaparated, Dumbledore would have suspected that Voldemort would be back. So Voldemort's plan was to make people think that Harry was killed in the maze, that's why the portkey is in the maze, and Harry had to win the Tournament (he had to touch the cup). That's why he was put in the Tournament in the first place. Nobody had to know that Voldemort was back. -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this discussion is some four years old at this point, but I thought I'd chime in here - I think it's rather reasonable to assume that portkeys are not allowed or are even forcibly disabled on Hogwarts grounds, but those defenses can be shut off by Dumbledore when needed. In this case, because of the cup. Personally, I think the cup was originally a portkey, made to teleport the first to touch it back to the entrance of the maze. This is actually fairly obviously what it's made to do in the movie - since touching it a second time teleports Harry directly onto a stage in the middle of a large crowd of spectators, so they must have all been expecting him to teleport there. However, the Mad-Eye impostor edited the spell on the cup to make it teleport to where it did, first, then to the stage, which perfectly explains why A) it got around Hogwart's defenses, and B) why he used the cup instead of, say, Harry's pillow. 97.101.12.117 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for this observation not to be included in "Critical reception" as long as it is sourced with press reviews mentioning the plot hole. I suppose a couple of years ago when the marketing campaign of the series was at its peak wikiarticles were patrolled and cleaned by limited circle of editors.83.7.157.234 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference?
What is the differnce from the normal version and the 'adult' version? I don't really understand. Can someone explain? HPFan

The adult version has a more serious looking cover, so adults won't be embarrassed by reading a children's novel in public.

Yeah, I never understood why adults would be that embarassed... - TEM101

Plot Coverage
The polt outline quite literally says that harry had his Voldemort dream during the time he spent at the Weasly's. That happened in the movie. In the book, which this aritcle is about, Harry had his dream at the Dursley's. He then thought through all of his corrospondents, eg. Weasley's, Dumbledore. and then chose to send a letter to Sirius. I'm not experienced enough to change the article, so could someone change it please? Akid 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at editing the first two sections of the detailed plot outline. Does everyone agree that the "plot overview" needs to be considerably shortened to give a much briefer overview? If so, I'll have a bash at editing that more ruthlessly...  --Dave. 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Is there any reason why there are a long outline and a sectioned off outline. I have combined the two, if that is ok with everyone and added some quotes and other info.Eragon fan 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not agree at all. As current, the Goblet of fire plot section is shorter than any other book, which includes the first three books, which are much shorter than this one.  I think that the plot needs to be expanded a bit to get more detail in. Especially with the whole Barty Crouch backround, it just says that they find that it is Barty Crouch Jr., but does not go on to explain why this is significant. - Mbatman  72  17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You can shorten the plot but you need to keep the part about Barty Crouch Jr. being the only witness, after all if he lives there is no fifth book so it is a very crucial point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.204.111 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Working Title...
Wasn't the original title supposed to be "Harry Potter and the Doomsday Tournament" not "Doomspell?"

Also, if anyone has any posters with the original title it would be cool to see them in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.76.107 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * That was what Rowling was thinking when she finished the book. but she had not published it as she was thinking of a title. The title you mention is just one of the titles she considered. But this is not official so there won't be any posters with that title.

Ro bin 16:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Query from Chinese dragon
This section has been added to Chinese Dragon:
 * In the Harry Potter series, Chinese dragons are one of the few races of dragons, and are called "Chinese Fireballs". According Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chinese Fireballs can breathe fire, and according to their name, they must be the only dragons to breathe fireballs, and the other races breathe big dusts of fire.

Not having read Goblet of Fire, I would like an expert to assess whether the claims here - in particular, Thanks in advance. --Sumple (Talk) 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * that these are Chinese dragons, not "Western dragons" that live in China;
 * and secondly, that they are the only types that breathe fireballs;
 * and thirdly, what on earth is a "dust of fire"?

DADA
According to one of the secrets (plant in the ? room) pettigrew was when JK planed goblet of fire DADA teacher and taking the poly juice potion instead of barty crouch JR. where do I put this? Djf2014 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S Umbridge was going to be Oaklden Holoday.


 * Do you have proof, or a citation of it?- Mbatman 72  16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen that somewhere, I think is in her web page. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of interest correction
The chapter "The Riddle House" was the third time that JK Rowling has gone outside Harry's POV, if you count the sequence in PS's "Quidditch" when Harry is getting bucked off his broom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.236.154 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Thestrals?
Why couldn't Harry see the thestrals at the end of the book? Zain Ebrahim 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * JKR's reasoning is here. Daggoth S 12:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no longer present, but I think I remember something of its content: that he still needed time to work it over, and so on. This is - yes, I'm going to say it - not very convincing, so I'm offering the two alternative options that 1.: he did see them, but for understandable psychological reasons fails to, really, notice (and the author hence does not write down his noticing them), and 2. (yes I'm going to offer that) an authorial mistake.--2001:A61:208C:C001:898D:E337:B7CB:7423 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation / 1994 ref
An IP added this to the article: "Someone's going to have to edit this correctly because I don't know what part of 1994 you are referring to, but he could have gotten a Japanese Playstation for christmas since it came out December 3, 1994."

I have taken it out because even though it is potentially correct, I believe the possibility of a Japanese console existing in a PAL territory in this instance is exceedingly remote. (That, and it's not noted anywhere that Dudley can speak Japanese. Maybe we'll find out about that in DH?) Daggoth | Talk 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another date ref
That isn't the only problem with this being in 1994. The book specifically says that October 30th was a Friday, whereas in 1994 it was a Sunday. I think that 1998 is a more likely year for this book, but until we know the year for sure it shouldn't be in the article. Since we know that it cannot be 1994, I'm taking out that reference. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the dates attributed to the HP books are based on the "DeathDay" party in Chamber of Secrets. The timeline on the CoS DVD was apparently approved by JKR but there is a lack of consistency throughout the series regarding dates/numbers etc, and the only SPECIFIC reference to a year is that of the Death Day party.  We certainly can't say that GoF took place in 1998, since that specfically contradicts CoS. --Dave. 10:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am referencing the timeline given in The Deathly Hallows, in which it states that Harry was born in 1980 and his parents were murdered in 1981. This is the timeline Rowling has more recently approved and therefore the most up-to-date reference. Oh, and it was December 4, 1994, not December 3, 1994. --Sam. 9:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.90.38 (talk)

Cedric Diggory killed by who?
When Harry and Voldemort's wands joined, the "ghost" of Cedric re-appeared, but wasn't he in fact killed by Pettigrew? Demonofthefall 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Kill the spare..." Yes, he was. But isn't that what the article says? Gscshoyru 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just seeking clarification on this particular part of the book, because I think that this should go into "Points of Interest". Unless Voldemort took Pettigrew's wand (from my memory he had his own wand in his robes), then Cedric shouldn't have appeared from Voldemort's wand. Demonofthefall 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh... um... maybe. Yeah... plot hole? I'm currently re-reading book 4 (preparing for the release of 7...) so I'll see when I get there. Gscshoyru 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe Pettigrew was using Voldemort's wand. Smokizzy (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or.. As I understand, the souls that appeared, including his parents, we not there because they were killed by the wands. It was because those people loved him, and the love protected Harry. Ğavin  Ťing  14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... no. The effect was Priori Incantum, or something like that, and did the previous effects of the wands in reverse order. Gscshoyru 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Pettigrew uses Voldemort's wand to kill him, but it is seen by Harry as Voldemort's fault for the murder.  Speaking of plot holes, it says his eyes were shut tight as Diggory got killed, so why can he see thestrals and all?- Mbatman  72  00:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I seem to remember as Voldemort put on his robes, "He drew a wand from one of the pockets" (or something along those lines)... so did Pettigrew use this wand then put it back in the pockets? That seems a bit out of place to me. Demonofthefall 10:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Priori Incantatem causes shadows or echoes of each spell (or incantation) performed by that specific wand to be regurgitated or visibly recounted. Peter Pettigrew was using Voldemort's wand when he murdered Cedric Diggory, as he had no wand of his own for more than a decade. Furthermore, Voldemort specifically asked Pettigrew for his wand once he was resurrected. Therefore the shadows of Diggory, Bryce, Bertha Jorkins and the Potters appeared in the graveyard. 68.44.85.83 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be out of line but in the movie pettigrew can be seen with Voldemorts wand. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was Voldemort's wand. See here -- Glimmer721  talk  01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Phoenix
Somebody removed the following:
 * Dumbledore swiftly and urgently revives the Order of the Phoenix (organisation).

This is one of those funny things, really. We know, "in universe", that Dumbledore does in fact do this, because that's the primary subject of the next novel, which has been filmed and is now common knowledge.

On the other hand it probably doesn't bear any significance to this novel.

Nevertheless I've reverted this removal because I think that it could conceivably be useful to the discussion of the Harry Potter novels, as a cycle. I don't see any harm in having that here, as long as we add something like "but this is not revealed until the opening chapters of the next book in the series...".

Other comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well having it in is probably a small "spoiler", because before book5 came out, no one knew what it was. But I dont really see any real problem with having it there, I mean if you've dodged the spoilers for this long... Don't know how you could've. And it binds the books together, so keep it imo. Chandler talk 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Length issues
As we all know, Goblet of Fire was the first of the "jumbo" sized Potter novels, after the more modest trilogy that opened the series. On several occasions in the articles on those books, it is mentioned how Rowling was required to cut digressions, etc. Now we have Goblet of Fire, and its successors, each of which are almost James Clavell in length. What changed? I think a section should be added on how Rowling was able to upsize her books. Was there controversy over this? Did she have to fight her publisher? Was Goblet of Fire considered a gamble? After all, at the time this book was published, the general consensus was that the youth of the time didn't have the attention span for such a long book, and one of the biggest praises for GoF and Rowling is that she was getting kids reading books of substantial length and complexity (not implying the first 3 books weren't just as complex, but they were shorter by nearly half than GoF and the later books). Anyone want to tackle this? I'm fairly new into the HP fandom, so I don't have enough resources or knowledge to compose such a discussion myself. 23skidoo (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was 13 when GOF came out, so I might not remember correctly (I also wasn't a fan when it came out), but I don't recall hearing anything about the length. There probably was, I just don't recall any. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Realize . . . realise
An editor changed realise to realize. I checked the Oxford Dictionary at http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/orexxalize?view=uk and found that realize is indeed the preferred spelling. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While the Oxford Dictionary prefers -ize endings, it is not the definitive authority. The British government, the BBC, and most of the British population prefer -ise. Given that, as I understand it, the wikipedia policy is to use British spellings for articles on British cultural topics, I think 'realise' would be the preferable spelling in this article. 91.109.185.42 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hugo award
Is there a particular justification for putting the Hugo award in the first paragraph? It isn't a well-know award (particularly not in the UK, where the Worldcon thing doesn't exist). At the very least, the paragraph should explain what this award is. Perhaps it could be moved to a new 'Reception' section? Marthiemoo (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm guessing it was put there because no other Harry Potter book won the award. A reception section would be nice, though. Airplaneman  talk 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, "the Worldcon thing doesn't exist"? The people who attended the 1957 Worldcon in London, or the 1965 Worldcon in London, or the 1979 Worldcon in Brighton, or the 1987 Worldcon in Brighton, or the 1995 Worldcon in Glasgow, or the 2005 Worldcon in Glasgow, or the 2014 Worldcon in London would be very surprised to hear that. PatConolly (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed - 15th World Science Fiction Convention. JezGrove (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ludo Bagman
We mention the subplot of Rita Skeeter, but what about the Ludo Bagman/Fred and George subplot? --Glimmer721 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They mention it because this subplot is referenced in the next book.the Ludo Bagman was just a small detail but the Skeeter plot reveals how Rita managed to get such insider information when she was banned from the grounds. In HP5 she is affected by unemployment (because Hermione threatens to reveal that she is a unregistered animagus) and thus we don't see any articles written by her in that book.This is the only reason she conducts an interview with Harry for free.

Ro bin 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreshadowing section
This whole section reeks of original research. Is it really necessary? Ccrashh (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so...the article also needs critial reception; I'm planning on working on these later, it's just some reviews are hard to find. I'd say the section can go. Glimmer721  talk  00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary
the plot summary for this book is too long. I fell that an encyclopedia may contain a small section telling what happens in the book but in this particular article we are almost rewriting the whole book. I think that the summary must be shortened and be to the point rather than explaining what happens every single day in the book.

Ro bin 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does need considerable trimming. Glimmer721  talk  17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524201003/http://archive.hbook.com/magazine/reviews/group/harrypotter_revs.asp to http://archive.hbook.com/magazine/reviews/group/harrypotter_revs.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114005624/http://articles.cnn.com/2000-07-14/entertainment/review.potter.goblet_1_harry-potter-lord-voldemort-goblet?_s=PM%3Abooks to http://articles.cnn.com/2000-07-14/entertainment/review.potter.goblet_1_harry-potter-lord-voldemort-goblet?_s=PM%3Abooks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5yVVHiEzn?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2001-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2001-hugo-awards/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720051650/http://www.toyportfolio.com/SingleProduct.php?ProductID=1044 to http://www.toyportfolio.com/SingleProduct.php?ProductID=1044

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

US publication date
The information panel states "Publication date	8 July 2000 (UK) 25 May 2001 (US)". However the article contradicts this, stating "Goblet of Fire was the first book in the Harry Potter series to be released in the United States on the same date as the United Kingdom, on 8 July 2000". Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:D519:2A00:6852:885A:5149:A18A (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)