Talk:Hermione Granger/Archive 2

Main Picture
We need to change it, one of Emma Watson at a premere is fine for her article, but thats like having a picture of Ralph fines out of costume or make up at a premere as the main image for the Voldemort article.
 * Seconded, the primary picture is hardly relevant to the article. Also, please sign your posts. 76.173.68.45 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the picture is inappropriate for this article, however it is sufficient for the Emma Watson article. 68.44.85.83 06:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree, why does it change to this picture in the first place? Pmuean 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, can someone with a bit more expertise bring back the old picture?Wakefencer 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you agree with me, and sorry i never really learned how to sign my posts. Bames17 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The main picture shouldnt be the actress who played the role of Hermione (Emma Watson), because Emma Watson and Hermione Granger were different. If we dont have picture of Emma Watson as Hermione then leave the article without the picture. Hedwig0407 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be a picture of an actress out of character. PRDH 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Layout
Does anyone else think that the layout of Hermione's page could be improved? I think that it would be clearer and better constructed if it followed the fashion of Harry Potter's character page. --KittyCollier 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think she should have something like a Skills section like the other main characters do. (69.119.114.20 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

And where, in the books, does it say her middle name is jane?Uptonogood 12:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure its in one of the books, can't remember which though.Wild ste 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The middle name 'Jane' was announced by J. K. Rowling at the World Book Day Chat, at 4th March 2004. The corresponding link is:

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm

You will have to scroll down almost until the end to see the reference. I hope it clarifies it. João Paulo Costa 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hermione's middle name is Jean as indicated in Book 7. JKR changed her mind after the announcement in 2004.

Factual Accuracy
As shown in several examples below, the factual accuracy of this article may not be the best.

True?
"(although that incident also shows her difficulties in thinking on her feet: it is Harry and Ron who tell her how to defeat the Snare)"

Is this true? It's differs from how I remember it happening. I don't have my books right now, or I'd check. I remember Hermione as the one who remained calm and got through Can anybody varify? John Reaves 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The film may have misrepresented it. In the book, however, she is able to identify it as Devils Snare (shrieking in horror at the same time). She then says responds to Rons's sarcastic "Oh, I'm so glad we know what it's called" with "Shut up, I'm trying to remember how to kill it!" She (of course) remembers Sprout's explanation of what it is ("it likes the dark and the damp") but fails to use that knowledge to good effect: Harry has to say, "So light a fire." She responds memorably: "Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" 'Hermione cried, wringing her hands'. Ron: "HAVE YOU GONE MAD? ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" It is Ron and Harry who use what they know (from her) constructively; she, by contrast, panicks. I do, however, think the film (as per usual) made a royal stuff up of the scene, so she might have been better there. Michaelsanders 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, the movies tend to screw up my memory, I not sure why I watch them. Plus, I haven't read the first couple books in a while.  John Reaves 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

how come hermiones dob is 1979 that wod make her like 20

The snare sums her up perfectly. She has a chance to evaluate the situation and respond accordingly. But Ron and Harry have to jolt her into the real world. Harry has always responded according to his instincts, which are usually right. Harry knows what he is doing when going against the dark arts - or guesses right. Hermoine is better suited to a desk job. It was shown at the Battle of the Ministry Hermoine is NOT a warrior or auror material; she was one of the first to fall. I was futher demonstrated in Half-Blood Prince when she lets Snape go and doesn't realize the injury to Flitwick was done by Snape.

Hermoine is a GREAT witch... but she's not suited to combat. 1 gets you 10 if you don't think a 7th Year Harry would be the Hogwart's companion over Hermoine in a triwizard tournament. Hermoine has huge talent if applied in controlled situations. She'd made a great healer. Harry on the other hand would make a great Auror.

I have a few problems with this article: First,We don't know what happened after Voldemort was defeated,except for the little it says in the Epilougue.I don't think she went all the way to Austrailia and undid the spell,if there was a way to undo the spell.She knew what was going to happen to her parents when she cast the spell,and i don't think she regrets it. Secondly,she did not destroy a Hocrux with a basalisk fang.The only Hocrux destroyed in the Room of Requirement was Ravenclaw's Diadem,and that was because of Crabbe's Feindfyre (Cursed Fire). And for the record,Hermione didn't go down in the Battle of Ministry.If memory serves correctly,she was there when the Prophecy was destroyed,when Sirius dies,and when almost every escaped Death eater in Britian came to Voldemort's aid. And would someone please explain to me how on earth she was supposed to stop Snape from leaving?First of all,that was Harry's battle.Second of all,she wouldn't be able to stop him if she tried.Snape may have turned out to be the good-guy-pretending-to-be-bad-guy,but he still would have sent her to the Hospital Wing,at least.-Allisa N.
 * She destroyed Hufflepuff's cup with a basilisk fang. Ariadne55 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

May someone please erase this?
Her dislike for Fleur has deepened from their encounter in book four, and she has been joined in this by both Mrs Weasley and Ginny, although the three dislike Fleur for different reasons (Mrs Weasley feels that Fleur and Bill are rushing into their marriage, Ginny views her as spoiled and narcissistic, Hermione dislikes her because of Ron's attraction to her).

For me it's just a lame interpretation. The books or even the author had never said so.

Adri K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.226.2 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, the statement is implied to be true during the books, but I can see why it could be removed and not hurt the article. --KittyCollier 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As part of Wikipedia which we considered neutral, the statement is too-shippy (i'm sure all of you know about shipping in Harry Potter). Shippers are also important that we cannot ignore them. And as you said, no problem about erasing them.

Adri K.

Otter detail
I removed the otter detail because it appears in the article twice. It is mentioned once as Rowling's favorite animal on top and again under Order of the Phoenix. I'm uncertain if it needs to be there two times but someone reverted it back. JayEsJay 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please add more information in Deathly Hallows? She is shown to be so meticulous, the planning that went into the journey to find the horcruxes etc. (Goldberg)

S.P.E.W.
Is Hermione not part of S.P.E.W.? In the INFO. BOX it does not mention so, I should like to see that addition. Gargoyle123 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One guideline for the HP infobox that will help keep it within a reasonable size limit is to limit the number of Allegiances to two. Since the DA and the Order of the Phoenix are more important in the general spectrum than S.P.E.W., we have omitted it there, but it can be found in the prose of the article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancies
in addition to the redundant mentioning of the otter info, there seem to be some links that are repeated within a section. Hippogriff, Buckbeak and DA are needlessly linked more than once within the section that they show up. I think they should be removed. JayEsJay 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What isn't mentioned is her habit of shooting off her mouth without thinking at times, and it's Harry who brings her back to reality by mostly looking at her and making her aware of the implications of her statements. Specifically, she wished she could see thestrals (without considering she'd have to witness death first) and implying Harry liked seeing what Voldemort was up to (without considering Harry usually saw visions of murder and torture).

Hermione Hair Colour?
Yes, this probably seems stupid, but I was just wondering: it's been stated on a few sites (once on hp-lexicon.org or whatever and on mugglenet) that Hermione's hair colour is DARK brown? I know it's really just an addition to "brown," but I thought that people are drifting off to Emma's portrayal as Hermione. Sorry, just a thought. Gargoyle123 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it not stated in the books that it's a "dirty blond"?

^ Hermione never had a dirty blond hair. She has a natural brown bushy hair. (Except when she's using Polyjuice to disguise as others) Hedwig0407 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PoA photo
Is there a reason why the third movie doesn't have a picture of her? It just seems odd that all the others do, even the one that isn't even out yet. Can someone add one for it? -- Ospinad 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * None should. We have this little policy called Non-free content. Minimal fair-use images. Fair use images are officially (by policy) icky, unloved, diseased, unwanted and have no friends, and are not to be encouraged - David Gerard 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
Oh my GOD!! Somebody has deleted some images under each of the titles, which were important in this article. --PJ Pete


 * Oh my GOD!! Non-free content is Wikimedia Foundation policy! - David Gerard 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If deleting important images is Wikimedia foundation policy that policy is definitely wrong. Where, for example, is the image of Hermione wearing that beautiful dress from the party from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire??? --Maxl 12:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not wrong it's called following the law as well. The policy is in place to protect copyright holders rights to not have images shown. There are allowances for images to be used but you must meet certain criteria. I suggest you read about it.
 * AngielaJ 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Other media
I deleted this section because it would be impossible to choose. Here are three examples, but we could also mention her cameo in New Excalibur, or the french parody which call her "Hormon". So it's useless. Barraki 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not! It's an important section which should not be deleted! --Maxl 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Name
I am new to wikipedia and I have not set up an account yet, so I havent edited the page, but I would to point out that the section about her surname being surname "Granger" may be derived from that of Joseph Louis Lagrange, or taken from fahrenheit 451 is pointless. Granger is a relatively common British surname originating from a person who looked after a "Grange" which is like a farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.65.12 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 June 2007

Could anybody tell me how I am supposed to pronounce "Hermione"? --213.47.233.100 06:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Rowling said somewhere(correct me if I'm wrong) that her name was derived form Joseph Louis Lagrange, which is true, and you pronounce "Hermione": Her My Oh Nee(say Her My Nee despite the Oh, which I think Rowling stated on her website(one of them)).Rubyandme 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Ruby
 * In Book 4, Hermione teaches Victor Krum how to say her name when he keeps messing it up.--WPaulB 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

relationship
it is commonly belived by many that hermione and harry will start dating in the final book and that ron kind of gets some new girlfriend so yeah im t5thinjing that oit should be added


 * No. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mill.  --Yamla 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also it's not commonly believed. Rowling has specifically confirmed it's Ron/Hermione and not Harry/Hermione. --Harlequin212121 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Commonly believed by whom? It doesn't matter now, book 7 is clear on that.--WPaulB 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

on the brink of dating. regeting hermione in favour of lavender
ok so now then hermione and ron never have been on the brink of dating becaquse they friends ron doesn't like hermione like that ron was jealous of ginny snogging dean and hermione snogging krum so he wanted to get a girlfriend to snog so he figured since lavender brown liked him he would be with her not that he regected hermione any isdesas about them two being close to dating is pure speculation which doesnot belong on wikipedia

Well, its not really speculation. JK pretty much confirms that Ron and Hermione will get together in the Mugglenet/Leakey Cauldron interveiw. Admittally its not 100% ganerantee, but its about 98%. Wild ste 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ron and hermione are together it is confirmed in the 7 book read it

Although it's almost irrelevant now, it's pretty strongly implied in Book 6 that they were close to dating, especially through Harry's observations of his friends. I think it takes an elaborate explanation deliberately avoiding the obvious answer to come up with any other reason for their behaviour towards each other. I don't think it's unfair to discuss this, especially now that it's been confirmed that Ron and Hermione ultimately end up together. Iakobus1 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference vandalism
on reference no 9 it says " Rowling supposedly confirmed that Ron and Hermione would hook up, although Hermione prefers to have sex with Harry instead of Ron" i went to the source and t says no such thing, somone shud fix it (added by 125.239.43.41)


 * Done. Ccrashh 01:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Name
Uh-oh. Page 125 of Deathly Hallows reads her name as "Hermione Jean Granger". THIS is why unsourced statements cause trouble...someone needs to go clean up all the foreign language pages marked "Jane". ~  PH  DrillSergeant ... §  14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows hasn't been released yet. Surely no copy taken off the internet can be treated as fact yet?


 * Not an internet copy. This is a long story, but the fact is that I do have a copy of this book. Page 125 has her name in the lower-right corner (may contain spoilers, beware). ~  PH  DrillSergeant ... §  23:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... Because according to July 17th's New York Times, either that indeed is an internet copy, or you are the one who leaked the photos of the book (nice "green and red-flecked looped carpet", by the way). Or there is some extremely unlikely coincidence here. I think it's obvious what is the most likely, though. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/books/17cnd-potter.html?hp 24.23.191.198 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the New York Times source is behind a login requirement, so some people can't see your reference without signing up.--WPaulB 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For your information, I downloaded that copy because I do not have a digital camera that I could take a picture of my copy with. I must kindly request that you not accuse me anything further. ~  PH  DrillSergeant ... §  03:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to be rude, but seeing as I've seen the cover of the book, your jacket/sleeve of the book doesn't look like that of the Deathly Hallows jacket/sleeve. On the inside of the cover, dipicted on the sleeve is a picture of Harrys' Patronus charm. Plus the jacket is a pale, almost lavender color. (http://www.linuxbazar.com/stores/vz1.3.7d/linuxbazarcom/images/lb_HarryPotterDeathlyHallows.jpg)Shinisan 08:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh. You're right. Clearly his book is fake. Or else maybe he's in another country perhaps? Perhaps America, where the book jacket and font look exactly like that in the picture he posted? Maybe? 24.218.218.9 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I live in "America", thank you. I never said it's fake, I just mentioned it looks different. Since I posted, I've seen the "Other" front cover & jacket. Never discredited his info, just said I seen a copy of the book on Friday and it looked nothing like his. 24.138.6.205 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you posted a link to the British cover. What you refer to the "other" cover is the one that you're most likely to see at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Waldenbooks, B Dalton's, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Bretano's, etc etc etc. 24.218.218.9 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've finished reading the American edition of Deathly Hollows which I bought this morning, and the middle name is indeed 'Jean' - the full name is given in Scrimgeour's recitation of part of Dumbledore's will. --Gwern (contribs) 09:41 21 July 2007 (GMT)

i dont think its anything to worry about, just a change of text. if im not mistaken jean is french for jane (feminised) so it could b a reference to actor emma watson being born in paris or maybe hermione is part french. There's a strong chance im wrong though so look it up

Hermione's Name Change?
Just a thought, but the epilogue of DH never refers to Hermione as "Hermione Weasley." For that matter, it never explicitly says Hermione and Ron are married (though it implies they have children together). It's probably reasonable to assume they are married, but is it reasonable to assume that she would take Ron's last name? Is the name change justified? Given that many women today do not take their husband's names (and Hermione's character has demonstrated her independent personality), is it necessary to change a name that was not explicitly done by JKR? Should we change Harry's name to "Harry Weasley Potter" or Ron to "Ron Granger Weasley" or even "Ron Weasley Granger"? The edits changing Hermione's and Ginny's names seem to assume some things and are somewhat sexist. 24.147.123.99 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would we change Harry or Ron's names? It's quite unusual for a man's name to change when he marries, whereas in the overwhelming majority of cases, women do. That's why we list a maiden name as if it were a middle name, "Hermione Jean Granger Weasley" is just the same as "Hermione Jean Wesley (née Granger)"... DBD 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, her name throughout the series of books is Hermione Granger, not Hermione Weasley. As such, it is inappropriate to add the Weasley name based purely on a five page epilogue - the character's listed name should be the one principally used.  Her presumed marriage to Ron is merely a footnote to the character and should be noted in the appropriate section, not by changing her name in the header section.  --Tailkinker 06:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A birth surname kept as a second middle name is not the same as a birth surname that's been completely dropped. In the former, the birth surname is still part of the person's legal name, though it is not used very often.  In the latter, it is not part of the person's legal name at all anymore, so it should be written as née (which means born), not as part of the name itself.  Née (or the masculine né) is not limited to names that were discarded after marriage, it can be used if the person changed his/her name for other reasons; Voldemort could be described as Voldemort, né Tom Riddle. Ariadne55 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the case of Ginny Weasley, of whom it is explicitly stated in the final book that her name has changed, in Hermione's case it isn't clear. While it's clear that she and Ron are married, it isn't clear whether or not she keeps her own name. So while Ginny's article needs to mention that her last name is now Potter, in this article it's enough to say she and Ron are married. Exploding Boy 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my previous comment wasn't clear. I was never suggesting that we should actually change Ron's or Harry's names -- I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the very thing that the respondent picked up on: we would never think of altering men's names (or, for that matter, changing the beginning of the header in some way to indicate their spouse).  And while it is clearly still the case that most women make such name changes, it is by no means universal anymore.  Regardless, Hermione is simply never referred to in the canon of Harry Potter as "Hermione Weasley", and it seems rather ridiculous to add something to her name unless JKR says it is part of her name.  (The case with Ginny is perhaps a bit clearer, though I'll put a further comment on that page explaining my thoughts in a second.) 24.147.123.99 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hermione is clearly a Weasley by marriage. Though in this article, we should include Hermione Jean Granger Weasley but the main title of her article will retain as Hermione Granger because she was very well known in her maiden name Hedwig0407 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your proof of Weasley being her last name? What is your proof of Granger being a second middle name?  Think about how much original research you're assuming in declaring Granger her second middle name: (1) you're deciding that she changed her last name to Weasley, (2) that she decided to retain Jane/Jean as a middle name, (3) that she decided to add Granger as a middle name, and (4) that she decided to put Jane/Jean before Granger when arranging her middle names.  If you find yourself deciding the order of a set of names (Jane/Jean and Granger) for a character, then you're not quoting canon, you're making it up.  Even if she's a Weasley, she could be Hermione Jane Weasley or Hermione Granger Weasley just as easily as she could be the four-name combo you prefer. Ariadne55 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

maybe she didnt change her maiden name?

It is never explicitly stated that Ron and Hermione marry. Even if it blindingly obvious, the inclusion of Weasley in her name counts as OR, and is against policy. chgallen 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's highly likely, but it's never made explicit, so it isn't canon.  Exploding Boy 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable if J.K. Rowling said it outside of the 7 canonical books? What standard of evidence is required. I feel like her name is extremely likely Hermione Weasley at the time of the epilogue, and am curious what standard of canon would need to be met to confirm it sufficiently for this august body. 198.185.18.207 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If JKR states it outside of the books, I feel that is reason enough to change it.--209.12.46.2 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. But she hasn't... yet. chgallen 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, she has now. She said it on the Today show television interview, "Ron's wife". Doesn't clear up the name debate, but it is now assured that they are 100 %married. lumaria

I agree if JKR states it, then it is just as good as canonical. Either way we can make a pretty good assumption, from the series, that Ron and Hermione are married and share the same name. 1) Out of wedlock children are not very typical in the Potter Universe. 2) Just because she is a strong minded woman, it does not mean that she does not take his name, to share with him and their children. 3) Wizarding names are important (especially old family names). And 4) There are no cited cases in the series of Husband and Wife with differing names. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that she is now Hermione Weasley. This assumption is stronger than to the contrary. I would still like to see something from JKR.--Cdman882 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you think happens, it's too "in-universe" to write about a character using the married name they supposedly have 19 years after the plot. Hermione Granger, the Hogwarts student, is a character that real people read and care about. Hermione Weasley, the 36-year-old magical lawyer, is a footnote. In all the ways that are relevant to the article, she is Hermione Granger, and the 7 books where she's called that aren't going to rewrite themselves to change her name. See the discussion at Talk:Ginny Weasley for more.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As stated above, she was Hermione Jean Granger for 7 books and may have been Hermione Weasley, or some variation of that, for 5 pages. Setting aside that we don't know her married name - and remembering how much original research it would entail to suggest a version of it - people know and recognise the lead female of the Harry Potter series as Hermione Granger. Algebra man 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tonks still goes by Tonks (her surname) in DH, even though she had married Lupin. Of course, only her parents ever called her by first name. --Mxg75 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jane/Jean?
Is Hermione's new middle name in book 7 a mistake, because here, Rowling states that her middle name is Jane, not Jean? If so, which should be used in the article? 80.6.6.193 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Jean' and 'Jane' sound reasonably similar, so it could just be a transcription error. Even if it were, I'd think we'd want to have a later, printed source take priority over an early verbal statement. --Gwern (contribs) 20:53 21 July 2007 (GMT)

Yes, I think it's defiantly a mistake that was made during the Birtish/American book edits. Obviously, Rowling has confirmed her middle name before. The whole Jean/Jane might soon come to Rowlings attention and we could see an answer straight from her.


 * It COULD be a mistake, but prior to DH, only Rowling's comments had it as "Hermione Jane". From "Jane" to "Jean" would require more than an inattentive typesetter or spellchecker; perhaps Rowling decided for whatever reason to change the name.  At any rate, the book says "Jean", therefore that is the canon name as of now.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was sure it was Jane in the book, maybe it depends on where the book was printed. PRDH 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's listed as Jean on page 125, the Dumbledore's Will chapter, of the American edition. Ariadne55 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also in my British edition. Pachoolao 20:00, 28 July (GMT)

Swap the picture back
That is a picture of Emma Watson, not Hermione. Serendipodous 11:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree Pmuean 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

wat pic?

whaaaaat?
look,you need to take the mention in the articles intro about her becoming ron's wife out.i came to this site in light of the whole jean/jane thing and guess what i figured out before i finished the book?it ruined that part(though it was obvious they would be married,i expected a plot twist,i mean, this is j.k. rowling we're talking about.)for me.
 * Why were you looking at Harry Potter pages if you're not done reading the last book? Why should the encyclopedia be bowdlerized for you? Ariadne55 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * there are plenty of other people out there not done with the last book.i dont come online and see the endings.i came here to see who else had noticed they have a misspelled middle name for hermione in #7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.225.128 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, but you see, it is a rather important piece of information in the series, and therefor it should stay, and furthermore, I would advise anyone not finished with the book to steer clear of the internet.Locke Non Omnis Moriar 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

dude just steamroll the book, finish the next day THEN get varification, thats wat i did :)

That's your fault. Those who read the book are bound to put all the information up when they finish, and you should stay away from Harry Potter Stuff. It's no one else's fault but yours.  Megan :)  21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A vote?
I propose a vote on the name change from Hermione Jean Granger to Hermione Jean Weasley (née Granger).
 * All in favor ~.

Locke Non Omnis Moriar 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only the author of a series can determine the name of a character. As the name, Hermione Jean Weasley, is never mentioned in the books, it cannot be assumed that the author's intentions are as such.  Therefore Hermione's canonical name is Hermione Jean Granger, the most recent version of her name in the series. DaSuHouse 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite personally thinking that it will end up being proven to be Weasley in the long run, some kind of vote seems artificial. This is not a democracy, its a Rowlingocracy of one. I am sure it will be posed to her and she will address it eventually, but until she does it just doesn't seem right to hamfist it into the wiki. 198.185.18.207 12:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, there is no reason to spoil the fact that Ron and Hermione get married by the end of Book 7.


 * We have to go by canon. Currently there is no indication in canon that Hermione's name has changed.  It's pretty clear that she married Ron, and all other married women in the series have their husbands' names, but Hermione could well be the exception; we don't know, because it's not stated.  This is unlike the situation with Ginny where it is made explicit that her name has been changed to Potter.


 * Until J.K. Rowling makes some statement about it, and no doubt she will at some point, we can only go by the canonical evidence, and we don't have any, so her name, and this article, should remain at Hermione Granger.


 * As for spoilers, while I agree that for the next week we shouldn't give things away without warning, after that we can safely assume that anyone who's going to read the book already has, and that anyone who cares already knows what happens. Exploding Boy 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A decision should be made on both Ginny and Hermione, as there is currently an edit war going on. From JKR's words Ginny is referred to as a Potter (one of 5), but Hermione is not referred to as a Weasley (even though this is likely conveyed through the ending; as I mention above). So, Ginny should be referred to as Potter (née Weasley) & Hermione as Granger (but mentioned as Ron's wife and he as Hermione's husband). JKR may eventually address this, or she may not (feeling it is conveyed), but this is unlikely until some time in the future when it is not such a spolier. --Cdman882 16:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Against a name change, unless/until Rowling says otherwise. The most recent book never referred to the character as anything other than Hermione Jean Granger.  We have to respect the canon (which is why I'll be voting the other way on the Ginny page, much as it pains me). Ariadne55 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DEMOCRACY, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:WAF. Hermione has never been referred to as "Hermione Weasley" in any third party source. It cannot be added to Wikipedia, no matter how likely it is. chgallen 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not about third-party sources, it's about literary canon.  Exploding Boy 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't nit-pick, I was agreeing with you. It can't be added until a third party source (either another book or an interview with JKR) confirms it as cannon.  Anyway, you won't have to wait long - she's just said she's probably going to write the encyclopedia after all.  chgallen 09:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree.. but we should wait until JKR approves that she's Hermione Weasley-Granger.. She will, obviously, because... well they had kids, usually if a couple have kids, u can assume that they're married (it's unlikely they're not married)  Megan :)  21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The ever popular Harry and Ron?
"However, her tendency towards awkwardness and pompousness seems to fade the longer she associates with the always popular Harry and Ron"

Harry and Ron are "ever popular"? There are several occasions in the books where one, other or both of these two characters are unpopular. Within the first 150 pages of the series there is at least one example. When Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville lose 200 points for Gryffindor they are said to be very unpopular, as just one example.

Birthday Misunderstanding
The article states that it was widely understood that Hermione was born in 1980 like Ron and Harry, however certainly in the UK, people are fully aware that children need to be 11 by 31st August in order to start secondary school on 1st September, and therefore that Hermione must be older than Ron and Harry and born in 1979. The misunderstanding that she was born in 1980 rather than 1979 is only something I've come across with American readers - so can it really be desribed as being "widely understood" that she was born in 1980?

Definitely Married
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

There you go, from JKR's mouth. However, I still wouldn't change the name to Weasley.

As posted by User:Rspeer on Ginny's page:

"The problem is that it doesn't describe this world, in that it doesn't describe a particularly relevant aspect of the character... and doesn't call her by a name people call her in the real world...

Here's a comparison. The article on Harry Potter (character) describes him as a "child" or a "young wizard" in many places. That's how he's relevant to people in the real world -- when they are enjoying reading about a young wizard. Would you change the lead of his article to describe him as a 36-year-old father... just because that's what he is in the epilogue? Of course not! So why does this article suddenly start out describing the 35-year-old Ginny Potter (if that is her name), instead of Ginny Weasley, a young witch who many have been reading about for years?"

But at least you have proof of the marriage now. chgallen 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at other example's of famous people. If Angelina Jolie were to marry Brad Pitt, and become Angelina Pitt, how would her entry appear? That's the issue.

The question of Ron/Hermione marriage is solved. It was 99% per this interview (for me) and is now 100%. It still doesn't give direction on what to do here, however. 198.185.18.207 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct the idea of marriage is solved, and should be added to the appropriate places in the articles [HP7, Harry, Ginny, Hermione, Ron] (ie the epilogue/nineteen years later sections). But we should leave the header names the same, per character policy.  --Cdman882 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither the book nor anything Rowling has said vis a vis Hermione's marriage to Ron clarifies her name. Many women do not change their names upon marriage -- Tonks appears not to have, and we have no confirmation that Hermione did. She's still Hermione Granger, for all intents and purposes. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Tonks: Since we know she really, really didn't like her given name, I don't think we can infer much from her continued use of "Tonks"; most likely she called herself (too briefly) "Tonks Lupin".
 * Which is not to say that the articles about Hermione, Ginny, Fleur, & Tonks should be moved to some version of their married names. I think the article names and the names given in the introductions should remain with their established identities.
 * —wwoods 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Secure in our stupidity?
All in all, I really like the articles related to the Harry Potter series. Contributors have done a great job documenting the wizarding world that Jo created.

Perhaps it is a personal bias, but I expected this article to place less emphasis on Hermione's short-comings and more on the concept that she is the greatest witch of her age. I see Hermione in the same league as Albus Dumbledore, and figure she's destined to be either Minister of Magic or Headmaster of Hogwarts someday. Obviously I'm not suggesting that the article document my fantasy, but I do wish it were more pro-Hermione.

How is it that scholarship is viewed as a weakness, while ignorance, stupidity, and laziness are funny? The fact that Ron and Harry barely ever crack open some of their textbooks is not amusing in the least. Indeed, it is pathetic and maddening. What a sad comentary on our modern sensibilities that scholarship is stupid and stupidity is smart. Cumbre 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * She is, specifically, the cleverest witch of her age at Hogwarts, not the greatest. She is portrayed in the books as a bit of a know-it-all and, as the article says, insensitive of how her brashness affects the feelings of others. The article seems like a fair representation of what we're given in the books, at least to me. It's not nearly as focussed on her shortcomings as a lot of members of the fandom are, and I don't get the sense that her academic achievement is being frowned upon or denigrated in any way. The idea of Hermione as the greatest witch of her age is unsupported by the books, and belongs in an essay expressing an opinion, not an encyclopedia article. Further, neither Ron nor Harry is particularly stupid or ignorant, and they repeatedly find themselves punished for their laziness, a dynamic which is kind of funny. You may be taking this all a little too much to heart; I grew up a nose-in-the-book geek, and find the glorification of mediocrity maddening, as well, but I just don't see it in this article, and I'm willing to admit that Hermione, despite her good grades, had shortcomings. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are different types of intelligence. Hermione reads a lot and has a great memory.  Ron and Harry are good with people, they find friends easily and are considered likable.  Both types of intelligence are useful in the workplace.  I had hoped to read that Hermione became Minister of Magic and Harry became Headmaster of Hogwards.  However, they are only 36 at the end of the books, and witches and wizards live a long time.  Perhaps they will rise to those positions when they're older.  I hope Rowling tells us in the encyclopedia. Ariadne55 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well considered answer. All I would ask by way of rejoinder is that you consider how many times Hermione saves everyone's keester because 1) she bothered to learn the stuff in the first place, 2) she bothered to plan well, and 3) she can keep her wits about her when her idiot companions' luck runs out - because luck (and perhaps instinct) is mostly what they run on.  Just what is saving their lives time-and-again worth?  Cumbre 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as important is Hermoine's personality, and her innate weaknesses. Her fundamental weakness is a total inability to believe in something without proof (which is actually pretty funny, as magic defies explanation at time, though it appears to work under certain laws akin to physics).  She also never was good at improvising, though she got better in Deathly Hallows (though flashes of her weakness showed through; if you are going to look like Bellatrix Lestrange, then you treat people like scum.  Harry did that when impersonating Runcorn in the ministry; Hermoine had problems with it).  She's very clever, but doesn't seem to have the sheer audacity Harry has when it comes to he sets off to steal something which is under huge protection (Philosopher's Stone, the locket, the cup, and the diadem).

Sexist entry?
Can we please get rid of the "Appearance" section altogether, or at least move it down in the entry? I think it's offensive that the entry for Hermione has her appearance right at the top. Harry and Ron's entries hardly talk about appearance at all (even though their appearances are covered in great detail in the books, as is Hermione's), and where Harry and Ron's appearances are mentioned, it is buried near the bottom of their respective entries. I just think that it's irresponsible to reinforce to young people (and young girls in particular) who read this that regardless of all of this character's other characteristics and accomplishments, as a girl, Hermione's appearance is the most important and literally comes first. Who's with me?Janep1024 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited so that only narrator comments about Hermione and incidents that affected her looks remain. What others think of her looks doesn't seem relevant to an encyclopedia article.  Hermione's appearance section is now about the same size as Ron's and is also about as far down in the article.  Btw, I hate to say this but when pointing out sexism it's usually best not to use the word sexism.  Most people like to believe that sexism doesn't exist anymore, so it makes them defensive and they start babbling about "tradition" and trying to justify whatever sexist nonsense is at issue.  Phrasing it as making something equal works better. Ariadne55 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. By the way, I think that you're right that people think that sexism doesn't exist anymore, but it does, and I think it's alright to shock and anger people every now and then by using the word "sexist" in context. I'm just glad the entry was changed!Janep1024 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore's Consideration
Is it worth mentioning in the summary of Hermione's participation in Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore left her the book of "The Tales of Beedle the Bard"? It was significant not only because it contributed to their Quest for the Deadly Hallows and contained the tale of the three brothers, but that it was Dumbledore's and given to her in his will. I'm certain the Deluminator is mentioned in Ron's profile, and while more passive of a gift as the Deluminator, it was just as important to the plot and quest. Dumbledore also notes his consideration of her role in their quest for the Hallows when speaking to Harry at King's Cross.Luminum 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiance
I removed them, and those of many other characters, as they are ridiculous and it's getting out of hand how many some chracters have; Hermione had somewhere in the region of 5. asyndeton 23:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you cannot simply declare them 'ridiculous' and then remove them without even attempting to seek consensus from other editors. Firstly J.K. Rowling has explicitly stated in numerous interviews that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Kingsley were all vital in reforming and 'de-corrupting' (sic) the Ministry. Secondly she has also stated that Hermione was central to reforming non-wizard and non-pureblood rights. If she not only works for the Ministry but is a key figure there, how is that not an even stronger allegiance than that to the Order of the Phoenix, an organisation of which she wasn't even a member? I am going to add it back in and I strongly suggest that there should at least be some kind of informed discussion before you remove them again.  A u l a T P N 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I brought it to the Harry Potter talk page earlier today - maybe I acted a bit soon, however I strongly feel that being employed by an institution, no matter what you do there, is not basis for a so-called allegicance. The DA, for example, is different as Hermione chose to become a part of that as she believed in its aims both unnecessarily and voluntarily - she got nothing back in return for her allegiance to the DA; the ministry is a job. asyndeton 23:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. By definition, if you are giving your services to an organisation then you are allied with, at the very least, that organisations goals and probably the organisation itself - unless of course you're pulling Snape-duty. I have to say, maybe I acted a bit strongly but I was somewhat annoyed by your labelling that content as 'ridiculous' - that's hardly an NPOV-friendly word. I'm not gonna argue the toss over this one but for the record I think your reasoning is flawed.  A u l a T P N 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this is non-encyclopedic, as allegiances are being subjectively determined by the editors. We might all recall that we are not citable; ergo, our speculations as to allegiances are not allowed. Asyndeton was not expansive enough in explaining why he was curtailing the appropriately-deemed 'ridiculous' connections made by editors, and was certainly a bit prickly in doing so. That doesn't make him wrong. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not but how is it unencyclopaedic if attention has been drawn to it explicitly by the author and on numerous occasions? Frankly if you're going to declare it so then you should remove all the allegiances as it's all borderline in-universe, no?  A u l a T P N 23:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not encyclopedic in that editors themselves are determining who the allegiances and loyalties of certain characters outside of what is specifically stated in the novels and films. Harry's allegiances are to Dumbledore, his friends and the DA. Period. Anything beyond what is specifically named in the book is fan speculation, and not permitted. Note that I did not name the Order of the Phoeniz because - as of Half-Blood Prince - harry was not a member but a protectee of them. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosopher's vs. Sorcerer's
Just as we observe British spelling and punctuation rules in articles on British subjects, so we should observe the original and proper name of the work as intended by the author and as recognized everywhere in the world save for the United States. Faithlessthewonderboy 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hair Colour and Eye Colour
What on Earth?! Eye colo(u)r and hair colo(u)r are missing from all HP characters; how, when and why?

Hopefully, you will check this page, since I am not going to reply on all of them. It was decided that they were inappropriate for the infobox, since there would be a discrepancy between the film, which provides the picture of the character, and the book, which is more official. If you're that interested, you can read up on the reasoning, in detail, as to why they, and other fields previously in the infobox, were removed. asyndeton 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don`t like the main picture
I think the main picture should be changed. It is from film poster and it is TOO blurry and photoshopped and looks ugly. There are some better alternatives, version from Russian article for example. ChingizKahn 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hermione's moral character
Recently Arcayne removed a portion about Hermione's treatment of Marietta Edgecombe:
 * "; as a result of this, Marietta is (apparently) permanently disfigured by a cluster of green pustules on her face spelling 'Sneak': since this is still the case at the beginning of the sixth year, it is clear that Hermione has not as yet repealed her hex, and that presumably nobody else can. The hex does eventually fade, though some scarring remains on Marietta's face. "

Leaving aside that we don't link to the list entry on Marietta, I think this should be included. It's only 1 1/2 sentences, and offers considerable insight into Hermione's moral character, that she feels this is the right thing to do (to a lesser extent it also is interesting that nobody else really objects to this). I mean, the article shouldn't leave out her blackmail of Skeeter on the grounds it ought only to be mentioned in Skeeter's article, nor would it move her attempted murder of Umbridge into her article - so why would we do it for Marietta? --Gwern (contribs) 19:37 11 August 2007 (GMT)


 * Nut see, that's just it - you are drawing the connection that this provides moral insight into Hermione's moral character. Without proper citation or specific connection to Hermione by either JKR or some reviewer, we cannot decide it give aforementioned insight. Sorry. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The text itself is neutral and allows the reader to draw what conclusion they will; my interpretation is certainly that it gives insight, but such an interpretation is not forced at all. And a number of people have said as much; eg and random fan essays or comments like  . --Gwern  (contribs) 23:10 11 August 2007 (GMT)


 * Fan essays being just the problem we want to avoid. We have had similar discussions and the general idea is that many people can interpret a text such as HP in their own way - several people suggested that there are underlying Communist, Nazi, Marxist themes in the series; it may be possible to draw parallels between them but this is just their interpretation and we cannot accommodate everyone's so we don't include theirs. The section you are arguing in favour of could suggest any number of things about Hermione, including but not limited to: she is prepared to protect the DA at any cost; she enjoys showing off her talents; she needs to feel she is well protected otherwise she will feel vulnerable. I could go on but I think you get the idea. There is nothing to say that the section you want included is any more correct than my suggestions. Therefore it should be left out. asyndeton 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You aren't making sense here: "There is nothing to say that the section you want included is any more correct than my suggestions." You seem to be equating a description of certain events in a particular novel with your list of interpretations of those events - I think it's a lot easier to argue that a description of events forming part of Hermione's history should be included than it is to include a list of possible interpretations of said events. And notice I didn't link solely to fan discussions, although I am unsure of the basis for such animus to fans; at base, all good critics and interpreters are fans. --Gwern (contribs) 02:52 12 August 2007 (GMT)
 * Allow me to clarify the matter for you, and I apologize ahead of time for any perceived brutality of the resulting clarification.
 * Fan edits are not reliable. We call it cruft, like fanfic whereing Hagrid, Trelawney and a centaur end up in a caravan for the night. It is not noteworthy and it just isn't encyclopedic.
 * Because it isn't encyclopedic, it cannot be cited. And since your statements relied upon those citations, they cannot remain, either. Fidn a cite directly from JKR or a reliable, noteworthy review who makes the connections you suggest, and they can stay. Don't do it, and they will get purged as OR every single time. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)