Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/Archive 1

Book covers
You do have permission to put these images of the covers in, right? (--User:67.171.166.178)

Before I uploaded any book covers (and I uploaded a *LOT* that week), I posted to the village pump to find out what the dela is from a legal perspective. You can find the discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. The summary is – as long as we use them in an article related to their content, we're covered by fair use. &rarr;Raul654 09:32, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the cover image shown here is of the US version (with the alternate title)? Surely the Bloomsbury ones are more relevant, since they were the first publishers to pick up the series. – Mark 09:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes – because it's what I had sitting on my shelf when I scanned them in :) &rarr;Raul654 09:24, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

The book cover for the UK version can be found on the UK's Amazon site:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0747532745.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


 * I finally got hold of a scanner, and scanned in all the Bloomsbury covers. Six months isn't much of a delay! ;-) – Mark 13:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grown-up covers
Can anyone get us the covers for the "grown-up" editions? (I hesitate to write "adult" for obvious reasons :-) --Phil | Talk 16:58, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know that there's a grown-up cover of the Philosophers Stone on the Leaky Cauldron website, but I don't know how to paste pictures into Wikipedia.

--Janet6

Controversy
Should this section be merged into the corresponding section in Harry Potter: we don't really need a "controversy" section for each book, do we? --Phil | Talk 13:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Plot
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 03:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Need synopsis of Gryffindor Hufflepuff Ravenclaw Slytherin?
I think this article lacks a synopsis of the different houses the sorting hat sorts students into. What do people think? Each "house" already has its own article (Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin) but there aren't even any links to them in this article, let alone a synopsis. zen master   T  17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree! Although I'd choose a very brief mention to them, like:
 *  ===The four Great Houses===  [or something, and even maybe under some already existing section]
 * Hogwarts rules imply each student to be sorted into one of the four existing Houses: Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. This sorting is done in their first arrival at the caste, during a sorting cerimony in which the Sorting Hat reads their minds and chooses appropriately the house.
 * ''This houses were founded by four wizard of the same name, during the creation of the school, a thousand years ago.
 * Then perhaps add a Main article: sentence referring to the links of the Houses.
 * Jotomicron | talk 20:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are chapter titles necessary?
I removed the chapter titles from this (and the other books) because the consensus at Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince indicated that Chapter titles were not necessary for an article that is supposed to be a brief summary of this piece. Just thought I'd explain my now-reverted edits and try to get a gauge on how the folks on this article feel. --Deathphoenix 13:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You removed them? Then they came back I see. I just removed them again in an effort to make all the book pages consistent. All that uses the non-standard look is HBP now since it has a lot of news stories attached. I definitely think the chapter titles are not necessary. -Matt 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Spanish cover
I think that the Spanish cover should be deleted, edited, or made smaller because it is very pixelated. What do you all think?



The Sorting Hat's preferences
In chapter seven the sorting hat sorts Harry Potter into Gryffindor; however, the synopsis of the article states that the hat wants to sort Harry into Slytherin. I would take out the phrase that states that the hat "reluctantly" sorts Harry into Gryffindor. I think that the hat is above a personal preference. It debates with Harry, who has his mind set on not being sorted into Slytherin. Perhaps Harry's being linked with Voldemort, from the Slytherin house, is a factor leaning the sorting of Harry into Slytherin. The hat is influenced by Harry's own will in his not wanting to be sorted into Slytherin. So my contentions are:
 * The hat does not have a personal preference, and from the text of the story it does not appear that the hat wanted to sort Harry into Slytherin, and
 * The hat does not reluctantly sort Harry into Gryffindor.

The first contention is not as strong as my second: the hat firmly sorts Harry into Gryffindor not reluctantly. IMHO, David Boisclair drboisclair 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot Overview
This section needs an overhaul. The writing style is very childish and opinionated. Wanka 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Go for it. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing text
" "Thomas, Dean," a black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table.  I read this in the American version and seem to remember a capital B for black. Rich  Farmbrough. 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And... – RHe  odt  12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I realized at once as soon as I saw this that it was a bad way to describe Dean. The British version does not have this line, and apperently when the editor for the enlish version re-wrote this into english, it came out as either this or it was accident. I hope that no one takes offense about it. To much mistakes i say. Humans. (Dumbnuts)

1991 or 1997?
Hey guys, I really think Harry was born on 31 July, 1986. . . can I change it, or should we all have an agreement? :-) --Janet6, 31 January 2006


 * The general accepted consensus is that The Philosophers Stone is set in 1991, therefore Harry would not have been born in 1986. The timeline in use is the most widely accepted and has been used across the whole of the Harry Potter articles, so to keep this article in line with the rest please don't change it. Thanks Death Eater Dan    [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How has it been determined that the fist book starts in '81 and takes place mostly in the year of 1991 and the early months of '92? I just want to know how people figured this out. --Thaddius 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * see Dates in Harry Potter for the explanation of that. It does seem a little silly to spend so much time and effort establishing specific "real time" event dates to fictional events that never actually happened.  But if you try to remove references to AD (or CE) years, then you get a riot from the fanatics, mostly from the younger crowd who seem to want to relate their ages and birthdates to various characters.  --T-dot 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nearly Headless Nick's birthday sets up the timline, it WAS 1991, and Harry was born on July 31st, 1980. Check the dates (Nearly headless Nick article)Purplerains06 22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Overview Revision
I'd like to start going through each of the HP books' pages and condensing the plot sections, but I was worried what opinion was on the matter. For instance, though Philosopher's Stone is considerably shorter than the other summaries, there are several instances of information mentioned here that is revealed over the course of other books, such as the details of what Voldemort did to the Potters, why Harry survived, and why he had to stay at the Dursleys all his life.

True, this is important for informing HP fans of important information, but why is it being revealed on the first book's page? If this issue has been settled, fine, but I wondered whether or not we were being strict with only events happening in the book are featured on the page. Cybertooth85 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that plot details revealed in further books should not be covered here. The spoiler notice doesn't cover the other books – I can well imagine a new reader having finished this book deciding to read the entire article and then having the other books spoiled.  There is a variant spoiler notice that would cover the other books, but I don't really see the value of that over simply doing as suggested above and removing the references.  In other words, I support this suggestion.  BTW, please sign your talk page posts with " --~ "   --Estarriol 10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've copied all the current plot overviews and will be combing through them on my PC, before seeing how they compare. One thing that really needs to be done is the removal of the "Long Summary" section on Goblet of Fire. That's just ridiculous. I'll look at the Long version for important details, but honestly, if a scene by scene synopsis is desired, go to the Wikibook or Sparknotes. Apologies for the lack of signature, usually I don't forget. Cybertooth85 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm solidly in the camp of having short plot summaries (I once condensed the plot summary for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince from about 600 words to abou 300, though now it's huge again), but there are also plenty of people on the other camp. I've become a little tired of being one of few voices arguing for shorter plot summaries, and it's actually hard work to shrink these down. If you want to do it, you have my full support. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First edit made. Not sure if it's necessarily shorter, but I think it makes efforts to only have the most important, book-centric information featured, with other minor features taken out. I think there are still minor sentences to be retooled or taken out, but it's good enough with the main plot to allow easy trimming. Definitely will need more trimming for the rest, though, as they give a real blow-by-blow of the novels. Cybertooth85 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we need the information about Harry's wand being a brother to Voldemort's. It's in the book, but makes more sense in the Goblet of Fire summary where it's more useful and simply say that Harry received his first present. Also, do we need information here about each School house as there is a separate page for that as well. I have taken it out, if it's all right with everybody else.Eragon fan 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Original UK book cover
The UK has two different versions of the back cover. The second version definitely depicts Dumbledore but I am not sure whether the original is Dumbledore or Cornelius Fudge. Could anyone help with this issue? Should it be added into thea article?


 * If I remember correctly, Cornelius Fudge doesn't appear until book 2 (although Hagrid mentions him in book 1 shortly after meeting Harry, implying that he is incompetent). That would suggest that the original cover in particular does not depict Fudge. Brian Jason Drake 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it to be Dumbledore; this also makes sense why he was later changed, to match the book's description. I have one of the old copies if you need a scan of this picture. User:ADR3988

I disagree, I belive it to be Hagrid, in now way did it depict Dumbledore, I ahve it here in front of me and it is a tall, brown haired man smoking a pipe, either Hagrid, possiblyanother teacher? Is there any official refernce to it on any websites? User:Deadferrets


 * I have it in front of me. It is a tall skinny man with a long nose and a beard and moustache. And eccentric clothes and a spell book. It doesn't look like Hagrid; it does look as one might depict Dumbledore with some of, but not all of, the facts, and rather too much imagination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there a pic online somewhere? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. If you go to the following website, you will see a picture of the original back of Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone. The picture was only changed after the movie came out and a child asked Rowlings who was on the back of the book. http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=34&pos=8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eragon fan (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Reference
Why is the reference commented out? What does 'Dead note "dumbledore"' mean? Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

French cover
Shouldn't the French cover be on the French equivalent of this page, not here? -Phi*n!x 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Harry Potter. Brian Jason Drake 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dean Thomas
Do the British books ever mention Dean Thomas is black? If not, the Dean Thomas line in the US version creates an even bigger gap between the two versions, because the British readers never get to know he's black. Anyone know more about this? MrTroy 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

207.69.137.21 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ISBN
Why doesn't this article contain the ISBN of the book? Isn't it one of the most important information that an article on book can have? --Acepectif 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorting Hat's owner

 * "The Sorting Hat, which was once the property of one of the school's founders, Godric Gryffindor"

Should this be mentioned in this article? It wasn't specifically mentioned until the next book, so this may be spoiling more than needed. The Sorting Hat is already wikilinked anyway. --Geopgeop 05:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; it really shouldn't be there. In the interest of being bold, I'm making the edit. Person132 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter Abandoned Plot Line
On JKRowling.com, if you punch 62552 into the cell phone and press send, you get a sheet of old plot.

On it, it mentions that Nicholas Flamel was already dead, the stone had been stole, and it was found in Harry's parent's vault. Should this be included in the article, or is it somewhat un-needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.9.14.58 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I don't think rejected plot ideas are relevant. We should just give a general outline, not information of interest only to HP fans. Person132 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They definitely aren't relevant.  Wikipedia would consider it fancruft.John Reaves 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good note, honestly, if someone is coming to read about PS, and looking for informtion, SHOULDNT it be detailed, not a slight overview. Purplerains06 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes Section
Is this really necessary? A general overview of the book's plot is needed, but not its subtle connections to other books in the series. I put spoiler tags around it (some of these are big spoilers for later books), but I think it may be necessary to remove it. Your thoughts? Person132 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted it.John Reaves 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation
Where is the citation for the amount of copies sold? le Dan 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy concerns
I am concerned that the current version of this article may be in violation of WP:NOT section seven, as the majority of it is currently a plot summary. It is very borderline right now, but adding another section or shortening the summary would be very helpful in preventing it from becoming a problem.

Reasons for name change?
Both the book and the motion picture were released in the United States with the revised title Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, citing the reason that the American and British uses of the word philosopher were slightly different, giving the book title a different meaning in the two countries, thus hurting sales.

Is there a source for this? I have not heard this explanation before, and it seems slightly... wacky, to say the least.

I suppose there are two separate issues here:

1) does the word "philosopher" really mean something different in American English than it does in British English?

2) does the phrase "philosopher's stone" mean different things to Americans and Brits? Is the philosopher's stone actually called the "sorcerer's stone" in the USA? (The philosopher's stone article does not suggest so.) 217.155.20.163 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Classical alchemy is not really part of American bedtime stories. I would guess that the term "philosopher's stone" means absolutely nothing to most Americans. Philosophers are boring dead white males that one must read about in college courses. I think that the publisher's choice was good for the American release. IMHO, it never would have caught on in the US with the original title. Schoop 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it sounds silly, but you think that Full Metal Alchemist had anything to do with the name change? Xwing 4:26, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

The term Philosopher has the same meaning on both sides of the Atlantic. But the "Philosopher" is "Philosopher's Stone" has a different meaning entirely. It might be more accurate to call it the "Alchemist's Stone", but Philosopher's Stone is to most common name for it. I think that the book would have done just as well in the US with the original title. Neither the terms Philosopher's Stone not Sorceror's Stone were particularly well known before this book came out, it just didn't feature in that many stories. I do know that some decades back, there was a children's author in the US who wrote a story about the Sorceror's Stone, and to the extent that this item was known in popular US culture, it was known as the Sorceror's Stone. But it is difficult to sort through a google search without getting Harry Potter references.--RLent 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "Philosopher's Stone" isn't completely unknown here in the States. In fact, the comic book villian Doctor Alchemy uses one and he's been around since 1958. Personally, I'd never heard the term "Sorceror's Stone" before reading this book and was a bit confused by it, until I realised it meant the same thing as the "Philosopher's Stone." Ttenchantr (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Americanization
''Scholastic, the book's US publisher, also "translated" the original book into American English. The spelling as well as many words and expressions were changed. This led to criticism by many readers.''

Is this treatment unusual in any way, or is it the norm for British books to be published in the USA with British spellings intact?

I know that books by American authors are often "anglicized" when they are published here in the UK, so I would have assumed that the reverse was also the case. 217.155.20.163 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally, only spelling is Americanized. In this case, the publisher did considerably more in the way of "cultural translation" of words and phrases than is the norm, apparently on the assumption that Americans were too clueless to understand that BritEnglish is different. They may not have been wrong; see the recent suggestion below that the article should be retitled to the American version because there are more Yanks than Brits and therefore should prevail, regardless of what the author titled the work! -- Orange Mike 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's the worst idea I've ever heard. It should of course be the original title. As of now, the article starts with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (published in the United States as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)...". I think the American translation is more or less wrong even here. The American translation shouldn't be more important than any other. Now, of course, this part of Wikipedia is for both American AND British English, so perhaps it should be there... --Erfa 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note that the book was published in English under a different name. I also think, because Rowling's two major publishers of the books are Bloomsbury and Scholastic that we should have the U.S. cover shown on each article (not in the infobox, that definitely should be the U.K. cover), but that's a different matter. Anakinjmt 18:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article says that the British English "muffin" was changed to the American English "crumpet." This is backwards. I'm American and we say "muffin." VladJ92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC).
 * It's really confusing: an American muffin is a cake, with filling such as blueberry; an English muffin is a type pf bread, usually slightly toasted; and a crumpet is another lightly sweet bread, also served toasted. I commented out that line in the table. --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think...
...the article should be reverted to the version on the left of this... I'm doing it  --Smokizzy Review Me! (Please!) 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this description on the page intended as a practical joke? "Severus Snape, the friendly Potions master and Head of the gay club, ..." Friendly? Gay? Stephenephelpsjr 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoofs/Trivia section
Should this article feature a spoof and/or trivia section? One spoof in particular may be the one surrounding Nicolas Flamel. It is said that he becomes immortal by the Elixer of Life from the Philosopher's Stone. However, at the ending of the book, Dumbledore states that he'll die as the stone is destroyed. This contradicts earlier statements. One is immortal, or one is not. You can't be semi immortal by using enough Elixer of Life, thus even though the stone might be destroyed, Flamel should still be immortal. Just one spoof I thought of. I didn't add it to the article yet, as I'm not sure wheter or not it has any notable importance. -Jort227 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard "spoof" used the way you are using it – Merriam-Webster defines a spoof as a "light, humorous parody." You seem to be talking more about "bloopers" or mistakes in continuity. I can't comment on whether or not they belong on the article, but I will tell you that WP does not encourage trivia sections. --whit rink 74.223.3.210 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just about the mistake you've noticed: Flamel is inmortal as long he drinks the Elixir Of Life. Now that the stone's distroyed, he will not drink anymore the elixir of life, making him mortal again. -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot: book or film?
I think some of the plot details listed here are from the film version, rather than the book. Specifically, it tells that Hagrid visits Harry, on his 11th birthday, on the island, and the next day they go to Diagon Alley. Which is how it goes down in the film. It's been a while since I read the book, but in that version isn't there a month between the scene on the island and Harry's departure for Hogwarts? PurpleChez 12:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All this extended naive retelling of the plot, enough to get my book report returned in fourth grade to redo, I can tell you, and no prominent mention of the publication dates of the book's two version. Perhaps someone will go over the Harry Potter books and add publication year in parentheses at the first mention. A formality. --Wetman 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they do go the next day to Diagon Alley; Harry takes his school supplies with him back to the Dursleys and stays with them for a month before proceeding to Hogwarts.--Gloriamarie 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There also seems to be a mistake in describing how they get past the three-headed dog. The article currently says that they played a harp, which happened in the movie, but in the book, they played the flute that Hagrid gave Harry for Christmas. Can someone make the change? 74.122.40.13 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Susan


 * Thanks, done! --Philcha (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Quirrel here
Quirrel has no notability outside of the book, and so his article is just a rewriting of this books plot. As there is really no article, his character should be redirected here. Judgesurreal777 06:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Quirrel probably should be merged, but to Minor Hogwarts teachers. faithless   (speak)  07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just re-read that, and I'm afraid I come off sounding like a dick. I apologize. :) faithless   (speak)  07:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's ok :) I was debating which it should be merged to, but I suppose that would be fine too. The point is, it shouldn't be its own article, and that would be an equally good merger. Judgesurreal777 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No I think it's OK the way it is  Ryan (talk/contribs) 15:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Judgesurreal777 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or if anything, merge it with Minor Hogwarts teachers like Faithlessthewonderboy suggested but it certainly shouldn't be merged to this article. Definitely not.  Ryan (talk/contribs) 16:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No Way, do not merge this article,individual articles like this are one of the main attraction of wikipedia, this article is well written and mashing everything in to one article togheter is counter productive. Give Prof. Quirrel a mention in different article naturally and link his name to this article for good measure, or then of course why not merge everything into one mega article called infinity?--Netwhizkid 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Minor Hogwarts teachers, not this article (which is already monstrously bloated)! -- Orange Mike 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with any merge of Quirrell. He was notable only in this books, yes, but his article provides good information and is long enough to exist. Lord Opeth 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Quidditch Cup is absent
I just finished reading again "Philosopher's Stone," and I noticed something: the Quidditch Cup is totally absent, and the points earned in the matches are given for the each house's points for the House Cup. If you're not sure about this, read the part of the book where McGonagall takes Gryffindor away 150 points because of Neville, Harry, and Hermione. It is stated that Harry thinks that all his points earned in the quidditch match were for nothing, since these are taken away now. But this is completely different in the rest of the books, since the Quidditch Cup and the House Cup have different points one from each other. So I think this should be added to the article. What do you think? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I remember Quidditch points counting towards House points in later books. Maybe I'll check through PoA and see if you're right. If you are right, it does seem like something that should be added in, somewhere. I just don't know where. Anakinjmt 00:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In later books, Quidditch points and house points are different, but in this book they're the same! Look in Harry Potter 6, when Harry kisses Ginny. They're celebrating that they won the Quidditch Cup, therefore those points are different than the house points because the year is not over yet! I also don't know where to put this in the article (I think in a "Trivia" section), but it's a revelant point. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I think that's a different matter. Quidditch points contribute to House points, but I think they make note of how many Quidditch points there are for each house. So, a house can win the Quidditch cup but lose the House cup, or lose the Quidditch cup and win the House cup. That's the impression I got. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But this isn't explained, and the fact that Quidditch points contribute to House points doesn't appear in the next books. So it's different. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it isn't clear, then any speculation we mught make is original research, and shouldn't go here. This article is about this book, not about what is different in later books. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Heading left) If it's made clear in the books, then it's not OR. And I believe it is made clear in the books. All someone has to do is check SS and PoA. I would, but I don't have my books with me at home (they're at school).Anakinjmt (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Heading 'lefter') I don't recall having seen in later books that the Quidditch points contribute to House Points. They are different. That's why Gryffindor wins the House Cup in PS, but looses the Quidditch cup in the same book. Even though this happens in PS, in this book it is told that the Gryffindor House Points are the same that Harry won in the Quidditch match! But in later books it isn't like this. I don't know, I think I just found an error in the books. -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While it may be true the quidditch cup isn't mentioned in book 1, I don't see any evidence that quidditch points don't count to house points in the other books. From memory, house points become somewhat irrelevant in the other books. Yes they're mentioned when taken away or given (particularly in book 5) but not in the way they were so core to book 1 where Harry et al helped to win the house cup at the end. So the points total was very significant in this book and therefore the fact that quidditch points contributed to house points was. But was the house cup even mentioned in any of the other books? Point being, this is probably an error but there is no conclusive evidence, and probably various ways around it. (Personally the biggest issue I remember from book 1 about the points was the way 100 points were such a big deal but from that book and later books they really seem to be given away willy nilly. Sure a sudden 100 points change is a big thing but considering the large amount they change it hardly seemed a big deal in the grand scheme. I believe JK said she was always bad at maths... Of course this is all OR) Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stale argument? Meh. I'm chiming in anyway. I am of the opinion that QP contribute to HP, partly because of what Percy said in (probably, I'm not too sure of which book) Phil.Stone: "good flying the other day, Harry, you earned us fifty points". Also there is information which says that Gryffindor has taken the lead for the house cup (thanks to Quidditch) somewhere in one of the books (again, probably Phil.Stone). Just my two cents on this. – THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  10:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple. There are two cups. The house cup is for everything, even quidditch. Quidditch is not a huge part of the house cup, but it helps. The Quidditch Cup is the real reward for Quidditch. The Quidditch Cup isn't mentioned in the first book because it wasn't important enough at the time. Rekija (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Characters
Is the main characters section necessary? I was thinking that maybe the article could list them but not go into detail about each character, as there are complete articles devoted to each character. I was just wondering what everyone else thought.

RPlunk2853 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. One brief sentence is enough. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (has been described as looking like Hagrid, if he wore all-orange)


 * Yes, I agree.-- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I think that the artical is not necessary. I mean, come on... there is so much about each character that if they r mentioned, then come on! Just make a list or something. If u want to know more about the character(s) then look them up. That is what Wiki. is here for!! Also, if u have not read all of the books yet, or were just looking into it, and happened to look in here then look what the person did!! They ruined the books and stuff!! Seriously, it would have been better if they had just typed the whole book here and put it down for us to read! Gosh, the people who write these things ruin everything... but really, if u didn't want to find out till u read the book(s) and/or movies then what are u reading this for?!! Go read the d*** book(s)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Arya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Links in the lead
Someone broke a few links in the lead. If anyone has time, feel free to correct them; I don't know what they were supposed to be before and I'm worried that there may be a lot more vandalism in the article that has been overlooked? Gary King ( talk ) 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've fixed the lead up at least – copied lead section from, so I hope no major changes were made from then til now! It was the first one I found that had no vandalism in that bit, though I admit I did pick almost at random... Quick scan revealed no other vandalism, but it is late and I am tired so I may have missed a bit of subtlety somewhere. – THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  10:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Section headings in the plot summary
The plot summary does not need section headings. Other plot summaries don't have them. If this plot summary becomes so long as to need headings, it should be shortened, not subdivided. --Doradus (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial Gains
It was recently beaten by 'The Dark Knight' and has been pushed back into fifth place, please edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isafos (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you have against doing it yourself?BodvarBjarki (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaps in summary
The summary has numerous gaps in the story logic that would make it very confusing to somebody who hasn't read the books. For example, in the "Troll" episode:

(QUOTE) On Halloween, a troll enters the castle and traps Hermione in one of the girls' lavatories. Harry and Ron rescue her, but are caught by Professor McGonagall. Hermione defends the boys and takes the blame, which results in the three becoming best friends.

Why were they "caught" and "blamed" for doing something heroic? Because the students were ordered to evacuate and the boys stayed behind to look for the missing Hermione. And there were numerous other gaps, like why Neville was given a reward with the other three at the final ceremony. Rule of thumb: summaries should reflect cause and effect in a story. CharlesTheBold (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Prominence of Opinion
The following opinion should be moved to the impact section:

Despite the novel's success, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, along with the rest of the Harry Potter series has received opposition from several religious groups because of assertions that the novels contain occult or Satanic references. The novel was originally published in the United Kingdom under the title "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," but was published as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the United States to help appeal to American audiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.202.89 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What opinion, and why should it be removed? faithless   (speak)  12:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the things suggested for addition are covered in other areas of the article. Malinaccier (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo in description of Argus Filch
The school's caretaker, Filch, knows the school's secret passages better anyone else except possibly the Weasley twins

should read

The school's caretaker, Filch, knows the school's secret passages better than anyone else except possibly the Weasley twins

--Pshoman (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Syntax error in plot summary
This line needs to be fixed:

"the dragon and is to the infirmary"

It is in the 13th paragraph.

It is missing the word "sent" after "is". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.74.62 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Fixed it. --Philcha (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Audiobooks?
Would be nice if they were mentioned with the different narrators in the UK vs. US. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The narrators would be a step too far – we don't give the lead actors in the films. If you can give WP:RS for the details (dates, publishers; sales & reviews if known), we could combine film, games and audiobooks in 1 section, "Adaptations". But audiobooks would be a 1- or 2-sentence para, that's all this aspect merits compared with the other forms in which the book was published or adapted. --Philcha (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Title
This book is actually called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
 * Get consensus for the change first. Algebraist 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First published in UK, by British author – UK title "... Philosopher's ..." is correct. --Philcha (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers
Scotland largely reads a different set of newspapers from England, and there is a strong feeling of there beig a different nation. Hence there are no "national" papers, there are Scottish and English ones. As you wrote elsewhere, "Cultural and social definitions are just as important". Per WP:BRD, you boldy edited, I reverted, the next move is that you come here and discuss this before changing this passage against. --Philcha (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why then are you reverting the change to The Herald? "Glasgow Herald" is neither the paper's name now, nor was its name at the time.
 * Wikipedia doesn't work to "strong feelings". Wikipedia works to facts.  The facts are the papers listed are distributed, sold and read throughout the UK. Their circulation is UK wide.  Whether there is a "strong feeling" that they are "English", or not, doesn't come into it.  It is inaccurate.
 * Your reference to a discussion on another article is interesting. I was arguing there that the definition there should be as is usually socially defined, and as cited on the subject's own website.  Similarly The Guardian, for instance, defines itself as a UK newspaper and reports home stories under 'UK'.  It is not Wikipedia's job to determine it is actually English by dint of unspecified "strong feeling".
 * However, can I suggest that rather than getting stuck on this, would a good compromise simply be to say "Other newspapers", as their nationality is really not the point. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where anything to do with Scotland is concerned, there's huge for confusion – which I'd be happy to avoid.
 * Sources say that: Rowling got a grant from Scottish Arts Council; Waterstone's Edinburgh branch did most of the promoting; the first reviews were by literature enthusiasts in the Edinburgh area; the first reviews by major newspapers were the The Scotsman (published in Edinburgh) and The Herald (in Glasgow).
 * The Guardian's claim to be a UK newspaper is just a claim by a company that happens to be in the newspaper business, and we normally give little weight to PR from companies. The Scotsman and The Herald far outsell the English-based "quality" papers in Scotland, and the Daily Record (Scotland) far outsells English-based tabloids in Scotland. Hence it is much more accurate to write of Scottish and English newspapers than of ""national" or "UK" newspapers. -Philcha (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You say this is confusing because it has to do with Scotland. I do not follow.  It has nothing to do with nationality.  The paragraph covers the spread of reviews from a few papers, to a wider number.   Naturally, it is not unusual that first reviews are in papers based in the same place the author lived and worked. But the perceived nationality of them is irrelevant.  It is clearly stated who did the first reviews and there is no confusion where the initial support for the book came from.
 * Counting and comparing circulation to establish some notional nationality is plain original research driven by opinion. Sales of other papers compared to The Herald or Scotsman are not relevant.  ; it is a UK paper.   You say that The Guardian's own assertion is not adequate to establish its nationality, yet you have nothing from any reliable source to support your definition of "English" or anything that refutes The Guardian's claim.  In the continuing lack of this, The Guardian's own assertion is perfectly adequate and far outweighs your own opinion and research.
 * Please revert back my change to "The Glasgow Herald". What is currently in the article is factually incorrect.
 * Please consider changing the "English" to "other". What people "feel" about their nationality is irrelevant and introducing it into this paragraph is not necessary.
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about The Herald, it changed it's name in 1992.
 * Books 2 to 7 were multinational media circuses. Book 1 was a grass-roots in Scotland, see e.g. Happy birthday Harry: 10 years of magic from the Potter generation from ''The Herald :-)
 * Your "It remains a fact that if a paper's circulation covers the UK ..." is debatable at best. For starters, try Scottish newspapers – language and identity, dated 2009, from an English university :-) Google for "scottish newspapers" will get you a ton of WP:RS on the topic, and that's before I dig into Google Books & Google Scholar. --Philcha (talk)
 * You are still completely off on an irrelevant fixation about nationality. It is irrelevant what nationality The Scotsman and The Herald are.  It is irrelevant what nationality papers like the The Guardian are.  The Scotsman & The Herald, being based close to the author's home and source of funding, reviewed the book first.  That much is fact and not disputed.  Later on, other papers picked up on it.  The relative nationality (either how you perceive them, how others perceive them, or how they perceive themselves) of all of them played no part in it.
 * And I don't follow what your link to Leeds Uni has any relevance to. I am not here to debate the existence of Scottish papers, or English papers come to that. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've dropped the claim that The Guardian is "a UK paper" and that "The Guardian's own assertion is perfectly adequate and far outweighs your own opinion and research" – just as well, as that piece of PR not survive examination at WP:RSN. Instead you've changed your ground to claim that "It is irrelevant what nationality The Scotsman and The Herald are" – and the Leeds Uni page was just the first thing I found to support that The Scotsman and The Herald are Scottish in a cultural sense, not just a geographical sense – I can find plenty more. I've also provided other sources for the fact that the take-off of book 1 was a Scottish phenomenon, not an English or Irish or Welsh one. The striking fact is that, while Bloomsbury is a London-based publisher, no London-based or other English-based publication paid any notice until the Scottish media had reviewed – stimulated by the grass-roots interest growing in central Scotland. --Philcha (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole point of my discussion here is to correct a factual inaccuracy. I have tried to compromise with you on this by pointing out that, actually, what you are insisting on including is largely irrelevant.  That way we can agree to differ on an irrelevant point, but agree on the contents of the article.  But you appear to be convinced that your personal perceived nationality of some newspapers is vitally important to the contents of this article.
 * To spell it out; I do not care what nationalities, cultural or otherwise, The Scotsman, Herald and Guardian are in regards to their reviews of the book, it is irrelevant. It makes no difference what links you want to quote me about this.  It has nothing to do with this article.
 * It is also not important whether The Guardian is a UK paper or not. However, I stand by my opinion that the paper's own assertion still outweighs your opinions backed up by nothing at all.
 * However, it is becoming clear that your fixation on nationality here is to advance an opinion not supported by any of the cites, or indeed even mentioned in the article. In regards to your last comments I would welcome supporting cites for the following that do not depend on you piecing together research of your own.
 * "the take-off of book 1 was a Scottish phenomenon, not an English or Irish or Welsh one".
 * "no London-based or other English-based publication paid any notice until the Scottish media had reviewed"
 * "stimulated by the grass-roots interest growing in central Scotland"
 * If these can shown to be true, and cited, they should indeed be included in the article. If they cannot, then I can only suspect that your insistence on emphasising your opinion of the nationality of the papers is an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion in line with your own unsupported opinions.
 * There is another way forward, as I have requested a number of times and from the start; please remove the inaccurate, and irrelevant, reference to "English" papers and replace it with "Other".
 * Thanks. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations for the points in my list, which are just a summary of previous comments, are at the paras of this discussion where each point was raised. You have the same ability as I can to find them – better, I hope, as my eyesight is lousy. --Philcha (talk)
 * I'm going to have to press you just a bit harder on this. You supplied one link in the above discussion (apart for irrelevant ones about Scottish newspapers).  This one says nothing that I can see about your claims.  Similarly you haven't produced anything to back up your definition of what makes a UK circulated paper "English". -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, heard all the way through the following:
 * "stimulated by the grass-roots interest growing in central Scotland"
 * Happy birthday Harry: 10 years of magic from the Potter generation
 * "no London-based or other English-based publication paid any notice until the Scottish media had reviewed"
 * "the take-off of book 1 was a Scottish phenomenon, not an English or Irish or Welsh one" is an elementary deduction from the previous 2 points, see WP:V.
 * The English-based papers have a very small market share in Scotland. If you do not understand why that is significant, see Scotland.
 * It's about time you started doing some real work, rather than complaining. --Philcha (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The English-based papers have a very small market share in Scotland. If you do not understand why that is significant, see Scotland.
 * It's about time you started doing some real work, rather than complaining. --Philcha (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the cites from "A guide to the Harry Potter novels", I have no way of verify it. If these is indeed said on the referenced book, then why not put it in the article? It would seem to be relevant and far better than hinting at it through arbitrarily allocating nationalities to newspaper reviews.
 * Re "I have no way of verify it", just click – works for all the cites used, except for the actual novels. --Philcha (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not believe the newspaper article supports what you say. It reads like a recollection of the reviewer's personal experience. Unless the reviewer is claiming that her actions single handedly brought about the "grass-roots" support that sparked the books success, I don't see how it can be taken as confirming that's how it all came about.
 * That's why I used 2 cites – the other is a book. --Philcha (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But your last point there presents a possible compromise. Rather that the disputed "English", how about "English-based"? This is undeniably factual and does not involve nationality. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you suggest that round 00:09, 10 November 2009, or even instead of your first edit? Done. --Philcha (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it didn't occur to me at the time. Why didn't you suggest it?  Happy we have some consensus now and the article is improved.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've changed it to "Larger UK newspapers", because frankly the rest of the world doesn't see it as anything but that. Besides, "english-based" just sounds odd, and readers outside of the UK could get the impression that earlier reviews were in non-English language publications. "Larger", on the other hand, seems to accurately reflect the fact that the later reviews were in significantly larger publications. Anyone who cares enough can click on the links to the two Scottish papers to see where the reviews were from. --Ckatz chat spy  17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you may have a point. I didn't consider how "English-based" may be confused as a reference to the written language.  I'm fine with calling them 'UK', (though Philcha has some problem with it that he can't explain without involving his opinions of what defines nationality).  But I'm not sure about the 'larger' though.  Does it mean physical size?  Length of reviews?  Circulation? Clout?  If it's to be included it may need to be more specific to explain the significance. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point in return. I'm speaking to circulation, as the later reviews seem to be in papers with much larger circulation than the two Scottish papers combined. --Ckatz chat spy  17:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. So how about "Larger circulation papers"?  It still leaves it clear that The Herald & Scotsman were on to it first, and larger papers based further afield picked up on it afterwards.  Which is pretty much how'd you'd expect a new author's growing popularity to progress. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the facts are that the buzz was all created in Scotland, see cites. Until you produce a bunch of good cites that this was such a typical means by which new authors' works are promoted, it is sigificant that the grass-roots promotion and the result first review by "quality" newspapers were in Scotland. --Philcha (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up. We are talking about the papers that we had already agreed to describe "English-based".  But still you're here going on about Scottish papers.  The Herald & The Scotsman are in Scotland.  They are Scottish.  We get that.  If you believe that it is so very significant that Scottish papers should publish the first reviews of a book by a author based in Scotland, then put it in.  Personally, I think that most readers can determine where The Scotsman is published without it being spelt out for them.  Nor will many readers be astonished to read that a newly published Scottish-based author received most attention in Scotland.  But what this all has to do with the description of the other papers that published reviews, well, in all honestly it continues to escape me.
 * I think Ckatz has come up with a fair compromise. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

has someone been mass-replacing "philosopher" with "sorcerer" in the article?
there are points where it looks a lot like this is the case, to the extent of not making sense, e.g.

"Scholastic Corporation bought the USA rights at the Bologna Book Fair in April 1997 for US$105,000, an unusually high sum for a children's book.[14] They thought that a child would not want to read a book with the word "Sorcerer" in the title and,[29] after some discussion, the American edition was published in October 1998 under the title Rowling suggested, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

I presume that the first "Sorcerer" is meant to be "philosopher". I also presume that the article is meant to open with "philosopher's stone", seeing as that is the book's original title. I shall edit to make these changes, someone should look over to double check 69.158.31.39 (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the only uses of "Sorcerer's" is in sections discussing the American version of things, since they use that term instead of "Philosopher's". DP 76764  (Talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss recent changes in phrasing
Hi, 96.32.29.173

I reverted as I think that, while some of your changes are good, IMO more are less good. I hope we can agree on the phrasing. I hope to see you soon. --Philcha (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IP user notified. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 01:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Titles do not matter, apparently
The fool is one who cannot tell "myth" from "truth they do not like".

The book was "mis-titled in the U.S.A."?? That is what we call mis-titling? The alias title is "undue weight"?

Where did you learn to write like this? Where did you learn the unbridled hatred you are showing here, British skinhead school?

And Ccrassh, it is NEVER irrelevant when a work bears two titles in the same tongue. I give up arguing because I know the stupidity here is impenetrable. Isn't that what you all want, insults so I can be barred from here?75.21.145.197 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, a nice quote: "Yeah, this conversation is ended.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" Thanks for your message, Escape Orbit. The irritating American rests its case.75.21.145.197 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious objections
I think it disrupts the neutrality of the article to mention "religious objections" in the title. It gives them undue legitimacy, they are an extreme fringe group. Would you mention Holocaust denial in the Holocaust articles opening paragraph, or the Flat Earth Society in the opening paragraph on our planet?

They have their own section, they don't need a mention in the opener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.129.108 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned in the lead per WP:MOS because it is a major section of the article. The article is neutral.  Compare the claims of fandom and record sales with religious objections.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot
Isn't the plot summary a little too long? Glimmer721 talk  21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/GA2 - we worked out criteria for the plot summary and stuck to them. --Philcha (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Reception Neutrality
The sections on UK and US reception seem a bit unbalanced to me. They almost read like they were written by a PR firm and only reference the awards and positive reviews for the book. I get that it was well received, but surely there must have been some dissenting opinion somewhere. As it is, these sections would have you believe that every major literary critic and award panel loved the book. Skiguy330 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A summary of reviews do not have to reflect a neutral opinion, they need to reflect the general opinion.  If 100 reviewers loved it, and 1 hated it, then we don't give that one guy undue representation. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But in America...! Just kidding, that makes sense.  Thanks for the explanation.  Skiguy330 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans: Hasbro?
Neither citation listed directly shows Hasbro as the manufacturer of Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans. The current manufacturer is Jelly Belly, which is not currently a subsidiary of Hasbro (yet), as shown at Jelly Belly's website. Citation 99 ("Hasbro Wins Wide Range of Rights for Harry Potter from Warner Bros. Consumer Products") from February 2000 lists Cap Candy (which was, admittedly, until 2007 a division of Hasbro) as the original manufacturer. Citation 92 costs US$31.50 to check, which I'm not willing to spend at present, especially as the money goes to Elsevier. If someone else has access to the relevant text from that publication, I'd appreciate it, but otherwise, I propose that the current manufacturer be listed as Jelly Belly, noting that the original manufacturer was Hasbro's Cap Candy. Boomshadow talk contribs 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jane Austen
In the lead there is the assertion that the writing has been compared to Jane Austen, Roald Dahl and Homer. Dahl I absolutely get, I have a hard time with Homer but can kind of see the whole journey with struggles (I guess), but Jane Austen? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I personally cannot think of a single simularity - thematically, stylisticly, narrative, characters, structure, syntax, etc. - between the writings of Jane Austen and the Harry Potter series. Seriously, can someone please tell me even one simularity other than both authors are English and female? I just find that claim to be completely baffling. Unless there is a source that actually makes some argument and truly compares the writing of Harry Potter with Jane Austen (again a very bizarre claim, but fine if a reputable source compared them then the assertion would be valid even if the comparison is inherently odd), the statement should be deleted. Afterall, who exactly made this comparison and what was the comparison? Frankly, I think Dahl is the only one in that sentence that should remain given that that particular comparison is the only one that truly makes sense, but the Jane Austen one is just too strange a statement to possibly remain without an actual source. Honestly, it caused my brain to come to a screeching hault. I feel like someone threw this in randomly for reasons unknown. So I'll go ahead and delete it, and I strongly feel that it should be re-included only if someone has a reputable source to support such a claim.Jdlund (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An interview with the author from The Guardian in 2000 is cited. Boomshadow talk contribs 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

One citation from a random person in the Guardian is not sufficient to merit the comparison to Homer in the article's introduction. It is not a widely held opinion. It is the opinion of only one person. This is a valid criticism of the article. I made the complaint before, but the comment was removed for being an opinion, but all comments in this forum are opinions that aim to improve the article. The person who deleted my comment provided no response to change my mind; he only deleted it in an Orwellian fashion. So only certain opinions are allowed in the forum? Homer wrote poetry in Ancient Greek; its language bares no resemblance to English prose, especially commercial prose. 2001:8003:D9A7:D901:D9E8:5079:6CAA:3278 (talk)

Novel the "primary topic"?
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, WP:SNOW -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher& → Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (novel) –

What defines the "primary topic"? How is it defined? Under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no way to actualize the real criterion of a "primary topic". Instead, "usage" and "long-term significance" are the two top discussed criteria for many move requests. Two criteria are not the only ones; there are other criteria. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Usage" for both the film and the novel have been passed because the novel and the film have the same numbers. However, I begin to think that the film is more desirable for reader. Even if the novel is more significant under "long-term significance" criterion and the original,Talk:Doctor Zhivago (novel) proves that not all originals are and must be primary topics. Nevertheless, the film is the derivative of the film, so it must not be primary. Since statistics are too vague to read, "usage" and "long-term" must not be the only criteria.

True, the novel is more educational than the film itself in and out of Wikipedia. However, both Wikipedia articles of the film and the novel are educational and well-written. The question is: which topic do readers want to read more about: the film or the novel? Examplified is the "interests" criterion, which in this case must be stronger than the first two criteria.

Educational or not, I wonder if people must learn more about the novel by reading this article itself than what they already have known about the novel. Films tend to be more popular than originals (i.e. Doctor Zhivago and My Sister's Keeper), but not all films are primary due to its derivative status. Singin' in the Rain is the primary topic due to its popularity, but the original song inspired the film.

Nevertheless, in this proposal, I am proposing a disambiguation to the novel and a creation of the disambiguation page under "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". By the way, there is a gay porn spoof: Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is already a hatnote on the article that directs readers to the related articles about the film and the video game, both of which are named after the book. A disambiguation page would simply be redundant.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when hatnotes prove readers' interests? And do numbers prove that readers read all the information within this article? --George Ho (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the book is the primary usage. Leave well alone. Pam  D  21:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The novel is the primary topic for every Harry Potter product in Wikipedia and there is a well established naming convention. Everything is based on the original novel. Why do you want to mess things around? Just for laughs? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you suggest that I'm joking? Have you read my original message? I said that the fact that the novel is original is irrelevant to a reader's interests. Why do currently popular novels have to be primary for anything else other than "originality"? --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should it be irrelevant which one is the original? The original in this case is the one that created a social and literary phenomenon, while the movie was seen as just a derivative product in the franchise. Diego (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just look at the opposition. You can't be serious! Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The cultural impact of the film is nowhere comparable to the novel, so the book is the one with historical significance and the one that will be remembered as originating the Harry Potter phenomena. Diego (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose.  The book is the primary topic by far, and the proposal is a really unconvincing argument for change.  Would need something far more compelling for an otherwise unnecessary change for change's sake on a listed GA.  Moving this would also necessitate a change on every other article in the series to keep things consistent. Best left as it is. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cover images
I think we need to limit our free use images of book covers and explain better on commentary why they need to be added to the article. Any other thoughts on this? Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Myths about improving literacy need revision
This article credulously repeats the widespread myth that Harry Potter books have increased literacy among children. While many experts have made that assumption, data have not borne that out. I've added this to List of common misconceptions and Harry Potter, but this article needs to brought up to date. In fact, the number of hours spent reading in the US continued to decline across all grade levels, as did the decline in book purchases in the US. The assumption that those kids who did read Harry Potter would later go on to be avid readers outside the mystery and fantasy genres has also proven false. Sources:

It's probably worthwhile to check and see how many other of the HP related articles repeat this myth. Also, I don't find any evidence so far that anyone in the UK or elsewhere outside the US assumed Harry Potter would increase literacy. The myth and the debunking are US-only, from what I've seen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, actually this blog post points to sources in the UK and Australia that suggest the myth exists there, based on inconclusive surveys of kids opinions of their own reading, or a single slice of time in which three out of four 11-13 year olds in Australia said they read one or more HP books -- lacking comparison with how much kids in that age group had read before Harry Potter. The links in the blog post are dead, though. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the debunked claims about increasing literacy. The paragraph here is mostly not about HP1 anyway; it's an editorial about one theory of children's literacy. Even if true or relevant, the NYT quoted the NEA as saying they found that children who did read a several hundred page HP book would stop reading while waiting for the next novel to be published. They were reading HP books at the expense of everything else they would have read, and overall reading continued to decline.<P>Aside from all that, this is more relevant to the article Harry Potter, and not just this article about book one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Novel?
Should "Novel" be added to the title of this page, since it has a film people could confuse it with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1607 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No need. There is a notice at the very top of the article linking to the film, game and soundtrack. Mezigue (talk)

Source
Hi! I just wanted to leave this source here in case anyone finds it useful: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11444349/Survey-reveals-50-books-that-every-child-should-read-by-16.html Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070529214251/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/feature/comingsoon.html to http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/comingsoon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the novel is the primary topic due to long term significance as well as being the foundation of the film series. (non admin closure)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone → Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (novel) – Nearly four years ago, the consensus unanimously opposed my proposal on disambiguating the outstanding, significant novel of the Harry Potter franchise, the very first novel. This year I believe consensus may change their minds. The long-term significance of the novel is undeniable because it is the very first and started the franchise and became popular at the time of the release. It also introduced fantasy settings, outstanding characters, and even superb storytelling. Nonetheless, the long-term significance of the film adaption shouldn't be denied as well. It brought child actors to fame, like Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, and Rupert Grint. It also featured veteran actors. It was directed by Chris Columbus, composed by John Williams, etc. It even became a worldwide box office hit; I didn't read the novel until after I watched the film. At the time of my previous proposal, the statistics of both pages were slightly different from each other but not very much. Somehow, they become equivalent to each other in the past sixty days this year. In other words, the novel and the film may be equally popular and significant. Meanwhile, the primary topic of "Harry Potter" is the franchise, while Harry Potter (character) is disambiguated. As for the hatnote, it is very long, but I'm unsure whether Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (disambiguation) should be created yet. George Ho (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but doing so on just a personal guess that the book and the movie will have equal and endearing long-term significance. Randy Kryn 19:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and also request clarification. You say that you're unsure if the disambiguation page should be created yet; do you mean for the current status (the answer: no), or for after a hypothetical move?  Because if the proposal is "don't create a disambig page, move the film to this location", then I'd strongly oppose that, your own stats show this article has more views than the film article.  Assuming that the proposal is to create a miniature disambiguation page as the landing point instead...  I don't really see the point.  For something like Jaws, where there are other topics than the novel / film / spinoffs, sure, but if the user enters "Harry Potter and...", they are surely interested in something HP related.  Why not at least attempt to land somewhere relevant in the novel, and link the other options in the hatnote?  People interested in the film / soundtrack / video game are going to have to make another click no matter what, and this way, those interested in the novel are right there, as they might well expect.  SnowFire (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @SnowFire: I meant anybody can create the dabpage, but I must refrain myself from doing so out of my uncertainty. As for the stats, they do not tell us accurately whether the readers intend for the film, or read just the introduction or the whole article about the novel. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The pillar for a major franchise can easily be considered the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – cryptic rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the rationale "cryptic", Dicklyon? I described that statistics is not fully accurate and that both the film and the novel are equally popular and significant. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that I don't understand it. And neither did SnowFire, it seems.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase, Dicklyon: if there is no primary topic, then disambiguation page can created right away. If the novel is the primary topic, then disambiguation page may or may not be necessary. There is a hatnote, but it seems... kinda long and bad-looking. On the other hand, a dabpage would force readers to look for a film within the page. Perhaps mention a film in the hatnote and a dabpage? George Ho (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Novel as primary topic is status quo. So what's the rationale for a change?  I think a disambig page is a good idea either way.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How does the film not surpass or on the same level of the novel's significance? The film is probably what people look for more than the other. Readers might not be interested in how the novel started the franchise as much as they want to see how child actors were casted and how Warner Bros. produced the movie and how people (I mean moviegoers) made the film a worldwide blockbuster. George Ho (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time seeing the movie being as significant as the book that started it all, even if currently as popular. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Utterly pointless change. Mezigue (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Primary topic. Baking Soda (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per long-term significance. Guess what the Metro 2033 article is about? SST flyer 09:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Novel or Novella
I think this article is excellent. It is it fair to call the book a novel when it is shorter than most Novella's such as the works of Stephen King and The War of the Worlds?


 * Um, do you know the difference between a novel and a novella? Assuming that you're not trolling, you might want to read the two linked terms and then get back to us.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly you don't know otherwise you would know that seventeen chapters would class it as a novella. I'm not a troll, are you? --Warner REBORN (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The question wasn't if I know the difference, but if you do. Philosophers Stone is not shorter than War of the Worlds.  It may have less chapters, but those it has are considerably longer than anything in War of the Worlds - meaning that the word count is correspondingly higher.  WotW=60,425 HPatPS=76,944 words.


 * The wiki article on Word count lists recognised break points between novel/novella, and again HPatPS is easily in the novel category:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Classification !! Word count
 * Novel || over 40,000 words
 * Novella || 17,500 to 40,000 words
 * Novelette || 7,500 to 17,500 words
 * Short story || under 7,500 words
 * }
 * Granted this is specifically for Nebula award entries, but it gives a good idea of the criteria.
 * Short story || under 7,500 words
 * }
 * Granted this is specifically for Nebula award entries, but it gives a good idea of the criteria.
 * Granted this is specifically for Nebula award entries, but it gives a good idea of the criteria.


 * In essence, the answer to your question is "yes". Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. 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://web.archive.org/web/20060429093544/http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/awards.asp to http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/awards.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/harry-potter-hides-fall-in-number-of-books-sold--a-downturn-in-book-sales-748142.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319041313/http://www15.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html to http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Harry+Potter+and+the+Sorcerer%27s+Stone
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=27945

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) 14:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Philosopher's Stone
Is there any correlation between this book and the Indiana Jones book (surrounding the Indiana Jones franchise)? Both describe the Philosopher's Stone having power of eternal life and to turn any metal to gold. Has any source remarked on the similarity or has their been a copyright infringement discussion in the media? 75.210.174.35 (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Highly doubtful as there can't possibly be a copyright holder on the idea of a philosopher's stone. DP 76764  (Talk) 02:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am one of the biggest advocates for talk page posting-rights, but does this conversation really belong here? Correlation or not, what has "Indiana Jones" to do with Harry Potter except they are blockbuster films?75.21.155.143 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, the Philosopher's Stone as a mythical device predates Harry Potter by several centuries. I am sure there is no "copyright issue". Ccrashh (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, It would make as much sense as a future video game with Zeus in being a copyright infrignment of god of War.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard an interesting theory recently that the Indiana Jones book was at least partially the reason for changing the title of this first Harry Potter book: it was published in April 1995, only three years previous, and I heard that the marketing types were worried about any kind of confusion or infringement. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ted Smart
I came here to find out why some copies of the book have Ted Smart written on the cover. I was disappointed to find this wasn't mentioned in the article. --JetBlast (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)