Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series/Archive 2

A Charmed Life
I think it'd be appropriate that the book A Charmed Life: The Spirituality of Potterworld by Francis Bridger be included in this article. I've read the book, which was written by an Anglican scholar and theologian, and it basically states that the Harry Potter book series has moral themes which are consistent with those of Christianity. He also refutes some of the criticism directed towards the book series, and explains his defense of the book series as a basic good vs. evil story using magic as a literary device to convey that story. It was written in 2002, before Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix came out. Of course, I'm not sure where it could be included, so I've posted here. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The link to the book's page at Amazon: here. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft
I've removed this section as original synthesis.

Quoting a passage from the Bible, without any reliable source providing the connection between it and the article subject (Harry Potter) is original synthesis. The problem is that it is purely the opinion of the contributing editor that what is in the Biblical passage has any relevance to Harry Potter. You need a reliable resource to establish this before it can be used. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now provided three references correlating witchcraft in the Bible and Church teachings with Harry Potter, and referenced each of the three Bible quotes with secondary sources. If you have any objection to WP:RS, WP:NOR, or WP:SYNTH, please raise them here and do not edit war. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also read Bold/Revert/Discuss guidelines here. If you wish to add this content it is up to you to discuss it first.  It is not the case that you just keep re-adding it and demand that others don't touch it until you're satisfied.
 * Synthesis is "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is what you are doing.
 * A - It is claimed that Harry Potter contains witchcraft (cite)
 * B - The Bible says this of witchcraft (cite)
 * C - Therefore the Bible has this to say about the type of witchcraft in Harry Potter. (conclusion not in any cite provided)
 * You simply cannot use these passages unless you have a good source that uses them in reference to Harry Potter. The connection cannot be created here. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are now plenty of references provided, and many more available if you care to look. I have accepted the burden of adding citations for this section, after the original editor did not understand policy. But to assert that this is somehow unverifiable synthesis seems absurd to me, and calls into question the raison d'etre of this entire article. It is Evangelical Christianity which has brought these allegations against Harry Potter, a book which is set at "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" where such classes as "Divination" and "Charms". Evangelical Christianity objects to this portrayal on the grounds of Biblical teachings, the basis of their faith. To argue synthesis in bible verses seems to go against common sense, but I have complied with requests in an effort to keep the peace. I can also provide citations that prove the Bible is the basis for Christian faith, if that should also become necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you cited connect Harry Potter with those quotes! Unless you can provide a source connecting Harry Potter with those quotes, you can't use those quotes! You've provided sources connecting Harry Potter to witchcraft, and you've provided sources connecting witchcraft to those quotes, but you need sources connecting Harry Potter to those quotes, or you are committing synthesis. Do not revert the changes again without discussion or you will be reported for edit warring.  Serendi pod ous  07:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5064742.html "The Bible is clear about issues such as witchcraft, demons, devils and the occult," said Mrs Carol Rookwood of St Mary's Island Primary School in Chatham, Kent. "It says clearly and consistently from Genesis to Revelation that they are real, powerful and dangerous."
 * http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_HarryPotterSorceryAndFantasy.html Although Harry's friend, Hermione, later repeats a critical remark about astrology (which she heard from a professor and which she says to comfort Harry) as an "imprecise branch of magic," (260), it is still considered an occult art and Hermione is not saying that astrology is to be avoided. In contrast, God condemns astrology (Isaiah 47:13-15; Jeremiah 10:2; Amos 5:26-27; Acts 7:42-43) and all forms of divination (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 2 Kings 17:17; Acts 16:16 ) (astrology is divination).
 * http://journalchretien.net/883-Don-t-Be-Fooled-The-Final-Harry-Potter-Book-Still-Teaches-Witchcraft?lang=fr Also, the fact remains that, in the epilogue to the book, the remaining main characters are still taking their children to the Hogwarts school to learn about witchcraft, sorcery, divination, and other occult practices. Thus, at best, the HARRY POTTER series has a syncretistic, confused pagan worldview encouraging witchcraft and the occult. The God of the Christian Bible (and of the Hebrew Scriptures for that matter) is opposed to the use of witchcraft and occultism. Thus, in Deuteronomy 18:10-13, God says to the Hebrews, ...
 * http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_06.htm said Paul Hetrick, spokesman for Focus on the Family, a national Christian group based in Colorado Springs. "However, the positive messages are packaged in a medium -- witchcraft -- that is directly denounced in scripture."
 * http://www.refugeofrighteousness.com/articles/58/1/What-does-the-Bible-say-about-WITCHCRAFT-VOODOO-amp-BLACK-MAGIC/Page1.html This source in its entirety supports all three Biblical quotes.
 * http://www.bible-knowledge.com/harry-potter-and-witchcraft/ Supports Deut.
 * http://www.liontracks.org/roarlion/hpotter.htm Supports all three quotes and more
 * http://www.heavenlymanna.net/christianArticle.php?article_id=484 Supports Deut and Gal
 * Elizium23 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Elizium23 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Elizium23 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me from what you've listed that there's a whole bunch of quotes being cited. I don't think citing any one set of quotes really has any meaning. Suffice to say that Christians believe the Bible prohibits witchcraft.  Serendi pod ous  08:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Biblical citations are sources provided to support that statement, so what is the problem with having them in the article? Elizium23 (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There doesn't sem to be a particular reason to include those quotes and none of the others, and I don't really think a list of dozens of Bible quotes will make this article any more readable. Serendi pod ous  08:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So your answer is less like WP:SYNTH and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Elizium23 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's more about WP:POV. Why are those quotes in particular worth mentioning in this article, and none of the dozens of other quotes?  Serendi pod ous  08:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because, in the 10 hours since this flurry of reverts happened, I have not had a chance to do a complete survey of sources to find the most common references. Also, it happens to be the set of references provided by the original contributor of the content. I was unaware until just now that it is unacceptable by its very nature. Elizium23 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is no deadline is why reverted additions should be discussed here, at our leisure, so that consensus can be reached.
 * A counter example might help illustrate the problem with this synthesis. Say I was to add a few lines about the educational value of reading Harry Potter, and cite that.  It shouldn't be difficult getting some good cites on this, reading of any sort is educationally valuable to children.  Then, say, I was to quote a few passages from the Bible about the worthiness of teaching and education (again, I'm no expert, but there must be something in there along these lines).  Therefore, I imply, Harry Potter is endorsed by the Bible to all Christians as being educationally worthy.   Would that be ok?
 * Of course it wouldn't be, it would be blatant synthesis. The Bible says nothing about Harry Potter and it is only my opinion that these passages are relevant to it.  The separate cites do nothing to support my argument, they merely support the building blocks of my argument.  That is not to say that my argument is wrong, not valid or worthless.  It is saying that the argument cannot be constructed here on Wikipedia, it must be done elsewhere in a reliable source first.
 * What was being added was no different for the Bible's take on witchcraft in Harry Potter books.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If specific verses are cited by specific objectors, that's fine; include links in the section where we say a person objected and cited that verse; but otherwise, yes, you are engaged in synthesis and original research. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Elizium, even looking for the most common usages would still be original research, because it would be the most common of the sources you could find. There's no objective way to give "primacy" to any set of Bible quotes as regards the Harry Potter series. Such additions would be fine in an essay, but this is an encyclopedia article.  Serendi pod ous  17:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Serendipodous etc. - My apologies for not knowing everything Wiki, but the arguments you have presented have been rebutted, Elizium has gone the extra mile and jumped through your hoops, yet you continue to make new arguments. Somehow, you're trying to say that Harry Potter isn't a witch? And the bible doesn't mention witchcraft? The bible is a source, it is extremely clear and needs no interpretation (other sources, which are less authoritative). You're grasping at straws, and you can similarly be reported for abusing Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether Harry Potter is a witch or not (he isn't) is irrelevant. The Bible is not a valid source except in an article relating to the Bible. What the Bible says is open to interpretation, and there is no one agreed interpretation of any Biblical passage that is universally agreed on by all believers. So yes, we could provide sources that specific people cite specific passages in the Bible in relation to Harry Potter. The quotes by Richard Abanes, for instance, could be placed alongside the other Richard Abanes quotes in this article, along with his reference to a particular Biblical quote, if it is deemed relevant. What we cannot do is quote Biblical passages at random and then say that those are the passages that refer to Harry Potter. No matter how many people we cite to back that claim up, it is ultimately unprovable because you cannot cite everyone.  Serendi pod ous  20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reference your assertion that Harry Potter isn't a witch. Saying it is irrelevant doesn't dissuade me, and you "cannot" say that the quotes are random. To move this discussion forward, respond to my questions re: "the bible doesn't mention witchcraft?" and "what is the real problem?" Your responses betray your bias against the bible, there is a great deal of negativity in this article about the bible and Christians, and you should admit that are attempting to censor anything positive. Look, I'll admit that I am not perfect, and Christians have made mistakes too, but they also do a lot more positive than I think you will care to admit. Saying the bible is not a valid source is preposterous. It is the #1 bestseller of all time, and has been translated into more languages than any other book. In fact, it is the only book that I know of that has  Serendi pod ous  21:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)predicts the future (and furthermore, does it with perfect accuracy), indicating that it was written by a Higher Power that actually does know one universal Truth. Among humans, there is no universally agreed interpretation about anything, including everything written in Wikipedia, so your argument is also fallacious. By that standard, nothing can be written or said about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're simply going to cherry pick what I say for bits that annoy you and ignore the point I'm making, then we cannot have a discussion. The Bible is not a valid source for this article because it is a primary source. If this article was about the Bible, then you could quote it directly, but it is about Harry Potter, so you can't. You can only quote people quoting it. The problem with directly quoting Biblical passages in this context is that there is no way to establish those passages' notibility vis a vis Harry Potter. If we found a reliable source that said "the vast majority of Evangelical Christians who oppose Harry Potter cite these Biblical passages..." then that would be fine. But simply saying that person X and person Y cite those passages isn't really enough to include them on their own. Richard Abanes quoting the Bible can go next to the other Richard Abanes quotes already in the article, and other individuals could also be quoted, but the passages themselves, by themselves, no.

As to whether Harry is a witch, as I said, it's irrelevant. BUT, if you must know, in the Harry Potter universe, "wizard" means "male magic user" and "witch" means "female magic user". Harry isn't a witch because he is male. Incidentally, if Rowling hadn't decided to make that distinction and instead called both sexes "wizards," it's arguable no one would have ever complained about the witchcraft in the first place.  Serendi pod ous  21:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The King James version uses the words "witch", "witchcraft", and "witchcrafts" to translate the Masoretic כשף (kashaph or kesheph) and קסם (qesem); Unless you can show me where Harry Potter and his friends are referred to as kashaph or qesem, your assumptions are just that: your assumptions. Speak where the Bible speaks, but stand mute where the Bible is silent. This is a secular project, and your interpretations of Scripture have no authority here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So now you're saying that Harry Potter isn't a witch because he's a male? What about the female character(s) that Rowling makes out to be "good"? The whole series is about witchcraft. Nothing can comment on Harry Potter but Harry Potter? This is similarly ridiculous. You're simply trying to frustrate valid additions with your own concocted definitions. Look at the "primary source" policy, which doesn't eliminate the use of primary sources as you claim. Further, there are numerous secondary sources which you have deleted.

If I proved the kashaph or qesem argument, do you agree to compromise and allow this section to be posted, and defend it from further edits? Orangemike has similarly betrayed his bias against the bible by claiming that he interprets the bible to say that these words do not refer to witches. You are saying that the bible would have to mention "Harry Potter" by name?

If this is a secular project, why is the bible mentioned so much in Wikipedia? Why is there so much on this page about (your?) interpretations of religious thought? If you are saying the bible does not mention witches (male or female), then tell me how all of the scholars that wrote the many different bible translations got is wrong. How am I interpreting anything? Again, please answer my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. You are conflating "witchcraft" with "magic use" with the terms referred to in the actual Hebrew scriptures as kashaph or qesem (contrary to the delusions of certain poorly-educated pseudo-fundamentalists, there is no reason to deem the King James Version as divinely inspired; it's a work by human beings).
 * 2. I am a former lay preacher (Baptist) and a devout evangelical Christian (Quaker); do not presume to make false and slanderous accusations against me, because I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture.
 * 3. The Bible is probably the single most influential work in the history of this planet; it would be absurd if Wikipedia did not have (as it does have) many thousands of articles about Biblical topics. That said: we are a secular project. All our content must be sourced to reliable sources with a neutral point-of-view. Any given sectarian source can only be a reliable source for what that particular group of sectarians believes or claims to believe. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in talking to this guy. At this point I can safely assume that he is deliberately misinterpreting what we're saying. This discussion will never end.  Serendi pod ous  22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I will assume that we have reached compromise, and will replace the text which you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions are false; such an edit would not be backed by consensus, and would be reverted once again. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike - Then here is my response to your prior post. I am glad that you believe in God, but your credentials (or mine) do not matter here. Anyone has the right to post on Wikipedia, including those that believe the bible. However, I am certainly not a "poorly educated pseudo-fundamentalist". Are you a Hebrew scholar? I have no particular preference for the King James, other than it is widely respected (not just old). If you have other English translations that prove your point, please prove it. I assume (as you are not answering my questions, this is reasonable) you are not just taking exception with the King James though, but to the entire bible in whatever language.

1. Please tell me what the difference is between "witchcraft" and "magic use".

(Although this is a huge distraction that will likely cause confusion amongst non-Christians, I am glad that you mentioned that you don't believe that God wrote the bible, through men, because it is important for your faith (trust in God) to understand that it is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1). And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14). All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:(2 Timothy 3:16)." I am surprised that you don't know that, but I won't debate that point further because it is tangential.) 2. What's false and slanderous? The above demonstrates clearly that you don't believe that the bible is reliable, and that is a bias. I hope you will disagree though...

3. Again, your "neutral point of view" is simply one that you agree with. For example, media reports are not necessarily "Fair and Balanced". How is anything going to be considered neutral about anything? Are you claiming that the secondary sources that have been supplied aren't neutral? If that is the case, then most of the article needs heavy revision, because many of the sources aren't neutral. The point is to show balance. Why not let the primary source speak for itself? Somehow, you're trying to make the argument that a witch isn't a witch???

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Hebrew or Greek doesn't say witch, or any word that could possibly mean witchcraft. You continue to avoid answering my questions, which makes this discussion that much more frustrating for me and anyone else that ever sees this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually; the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate from reliable sources that these particular verses are relevant to a work of fiction written in the late 20th and early 21st centuries by a self-professed Christian. I won't try to educate you on the meanings and significance of various concepts of what constitutes "magic" and/or "witchcraft", since you clearly refuse to admit there might be such a thing. Your theology and Biblical exegesis, like mine, is irrelevant here; and I've given up trying to respond to your bogus attacks on my faith in our Savior and in Scripture (since it's irrelevant to the article). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, these have already been provided. There clearly is magic and witchcraft, or it wouldn't have been mentioned in the bible and Christians that defend it wouldn't be concerned about the promotion of witchcraft. Your arguments are circular and nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "There clearly is magic and witchcraft, or it wouldn't have been mentioned in the bible"???? That's not an argument which is acceptable in Wikipedia. You would apparently be more comfortable at Conservapedia, where such an argument would be acceptable. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If we have sources which talk about witches in the Bible and apply it to Potter, then it applies. Everything else, from editors finding passages in the Bible which they contend apply, to editors applying their personal contentions regarding the finer points of translation of ancient manuscripts, does not apply. I rather suspect those who read "witch" in the Bible, read "witch" in Potter, and then contend the wrath of God doth apply to Potter do not do so on the basis of finer points of translation. What am I missing here? P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "However, avoid pointless discussions. For people will become more and more ungodly, and what they say will spread everywhere like gangrene..." - 2 Timothy 2:16-17 ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we should either block this guy or lock the page.  Serendi pod ous  07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is my first foray into Wikipedia and I am glad that I have learned how it has become biased. Why should anybody trust people like you "uber-editors"? A witch is a witch already. You haven't demonstrated that the bible or any of the other sources we have provided are unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think that not uncritically accepting the bible as a 'reliable source' and likewise not believing in witchcraft is evidence of bias, you are clearly in the wrong place - or possibly in the wrong century. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At least one of the critics considers it reliable. Who says that I have never criticized it, never in fact used to think that it was "full of contradictions," don't know the criticisms, have never applied my graduate degree in science (from secular, public universities) and 20 years of experience in science (and editing numerous documents) to the bible, and yet have come to understand that it makes a lot more sense than anything as imperfect as Wikipedia? By the way, there is NO WAY that I could quote Wikipedia in one of my documents, therefore what gives others the right to claim that I am corrupting it Who doesn't consider the bible reliable? Do you understand parsimony?  Look at the facts.

If reliability is the whole problem, again, demonstrate to everyone that its unreliable. Ya'll have set a impossibly high bar for reliability, apparently universal acceptance. That appears to be the fantasy world ("wrong place") that you critics are living in. Far from this being a "secular project" (see above), this page actually says "Religious" at the very top. So now the page has been given a hidden code of being (Secular) Religious? Let's face it; the page makes a mockery of Christianity, and ya'll want to keep it that way. The edits that I have made are extremely neutral. It is just presenting the other side of the argument Wiki-quick. Do you expect readers to search for witch (or wizard, or divination, etc.) in a bible program instead of it just being presented so everyone can see? Editors that believe the bible should be allowed to contribute! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.123.70 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, somebody should let me know what the problem is. I've gotten very few answers for the universe of questions I have asked. It occurred to me over the weekend that most of you, probably including those that did the "undo"'s, have never even see the text I am proposing to include. It seems very on-topic to me. And please note that even if ya'll don't believe that Harry is a witch, there is plenty of other descriptive text that says essentially the same thing. Please let me know what you think. Here it is below:

Christians who are opposed to Harry Potter on religious grounds commonly cite the following passages from the Bible as evidence against it:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee." "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 
 * You don't seem to understand the concept of reliable sources as it is used here. For example, you footnoted the Belinda Elliott interview, which contains no citation to any chapter or verse; you footnote obscure private webpages; you leap almost randomly from citations to obscure websites, to text yanked out of the Roman catechism (not a very reliable source to many devout Protestants). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely WP:SYNTH to relate Bible verses to Harry Potter without a source that links them. Given WP:RS and WP:NPOV, the pattern has to be something like:
 * Notable Person (someone like Jack T. Chick will do, but a verifiable reference is needed) claims that the use of magic potions (or whatever else) in Harry Potter is condemned by the Bible in  (or whatever other verse) because of some reason. However Some Other Notable Person claims that the word φάρμακος in this verse refers instead to something else. (again a verifiable reference is needed). -- 202.124.72.216 (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with the above. There's been a lot of discussion here that isn't addressing the fundamental problem.  That is; you cannot quote the bible to support any argument about anything (Harry Potter, Sin, Heaven, Judaism, Cancer, Katie Perry, Pop Tarts, anything) unless you are reporting something that a recognised authority has already said about the same argument, and you can cite it.  Otherwise you are performing original research and contributing your opinion of what the bible says/means/references.  In this regard it doesn't matter one tiny bit what anyone on this page thinks about witchcraft, or what they think the bible says about witchcraft, or whether they think Harry Potter is a witch.  This is not a discussion forum.  No-one cares what we think.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What does Jack T. Chick have to do with the price of tea in China? Since this is apparently meant to be mockery, wouldn't I be setting myself up for failure if I were to jump through your hoops?  The page features a mocking photo from an article in the "The Onion", which lots of people wouldn't find reliable at all (and really offensive).  If its so easy to find a reliable reference, please make the changes yourself. If not, I will challenge the reliability of most of the cites in the article.  Isn't that fair?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.101.70 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring what we are trying to tell you. The burden is on you to provide properly formatted, or at least properly cited, references to reliable third-party sources. You are failing to do so, and instead raising quibbles irrelevant to this discussion. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential Bias in first section
This is my first Wikipedia post, so please bear with me if the formatting is off...

I just stumbled across this page, and it seems to me that the first section entitled "Christianity" is biased against the Christian perspective that all people who practice witchcraft are evil. I am specifically referring to the line "The Hebrew words translated in these passages are M'khashepah and M'khaseph, words that mean a sorcerer or sorceress who is evil — that is, one who uses spoken spells to harm others." This sentence should be removed. The Hebrew words quoted are not sourced and are incorrect, plus the addition of the last clause ("who is evil — that is, one who uses spoken spells to harm others") appears to be added to garner support for the Harry Potter characters who do not use magic to harm others, and insinuates that a Hebrew word exists for sorcerers who are good, which there is not, unless it is a Prophet, which the Bible contrasts with sorcerers.

That Christians and Jews (along with the author of Exodus and Deuteronomy) consider all magic to be grouped under one heading- occult practice- needs no real explanation. Nonetheless, I will quote from a few works stating that the statement currently on the page is incorrect, rather than using my own language.

Merril F. Unger, "Biblical Demonology." Scripture Press Foundation: 11th ed., 1973.

Pg 111: To the Hebrews, deities worshipped by other peoples were evil spirits or demons, with which magicians and diviners trafficked. To practice magic or divination, or to support them, was to them, at least to the God-fearing and orthodox among them, tantamount to an acknowledgment of idols. This is the reason that Hebrew names for heathen gods ( shedhim, seirim, 'elilim, gad), which really denoted the demons behind the visible idolatrous representations, have been so translated in the Septuagint.

In 2 Kings 9:22 magic seems actually to be identified with idolatry, where the "whoredoms" ("idolatries"), and "witchcrafts" ("keshaphim", "magical incantations") of Jezebel are mentioned.

pg 123: Little wonder, then, that "one that useth divination," or "one that practiceth augury," is placed in the same category with the sorcerer, the medium, the wizard, and the necromancer, as "an abomination unto Jehovah," and is unequivocally condemned (Deut. 18:10-14); while the prophet of Jehovah is contrasted with diviners of all kinds, as the only authentic and duly authorized agent of supernatural revelation.

The next source is C. Fred Dickason, "Angels: Elect and Evil." Moody Press: 1975.

Pg 196: Scholars divide the occult into three main categories: divination, magic, and spiritism.

Dickason divides Divination between astrology, cartomancy, palmistry, use of the divining rod and pendulum, psychometry, and dreams and visions. (pgs 196-197) and continues: The Bible sees divination as open to demon influence and producing spiritual degradation. So the Bible consistently condemns it (Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Is 44:24-25; Eze 21:21; Ho 4:12; Amos 5:25- 26; Zec 10:2; Ac 7:41-43; 16:16- 18; Gal 5:20).

Pg 198: 2. Magic. This refers to the ancient 'art of sorcery and magic mentioned in the Bible, the actual cult of demons perfomed in collaboration with the powers of darkness.'(Ed: footnote to Kurt Koch, "Occult Bondage and Deliverance," p. 21) Magic seeks accomplishment of results beyond human power by recourse to superhuman spirit agencies, such as Satan and demons.(Ed: footnote to Merrill F. Unger, "Demons in the World Today," p 76.) Divination taps secret knowledge, whereas magic taps secret power.

Magic may be impersonal or personal. Impersonal magic seeks superstitiously to control natural law or events by such means as incantations, spells, amulets, and charms, apart from demonic intervention. Personal magic calls upon real personal agents in the spirit world to accomplish the supernatural effect desired.(Ed: footnote to Unger, Ibid, p 79) Whether black, white, or neutral magic, it is demonic in character.

Magic includes the healing an inflicting of diseases, love and hate magic, curses, fertility charms, persecution and defense magic, banning and loosing, and death magic.(Ed: footnote to Koch, p 20)

I think these reputable sources conclude that the Bible denounces magic of all kinds as evil, and therefore disproves the disputed line.

There are also problems with the source #14 pertaining to reliability. The part of the webpage cited and directly used is "note 1" about halfway down the page. First it starts with an incorrect statement, it says "The Hebrew word "m'khashepah" has generally been translated as witch or sorceress in most Bible versions," which insinuates that this is the word used in the passage noted, Exodus 22:18. NASB Hebrew concordance (NASB Hebrew concordance) lists the use of "sorceress" as the Hebrew word 'anan (Strong's Concordance reference # H6049). Note 1 is also erroneous in its assumption that "16 kinds of witches exist," which may be true today, yet the article cites no references for this being true pertaining to the Hebrew cultural context of Ex 22:18. According to the concordance, a trusted scholarly reference, all witches and sorceresses are categorized under this one word. Similarly, the line ""Sorceress" by itself is a poor translation, because in modern day usage, some sorcerers or sorceresses restrict themselves to performing positive healing magic" has the same problems in that modern day usage does not dictate translation of an ancient word. The page lacks a scholarly reference backing this statement. I believe source #14 is therefore dubious in its credentials and should also be removed.

To sum, I think the entire line, "The Hebrew words translated in these passages are M'khashepah and M'khaseph, words that mean a sorcerer or sorceress who is evil — that is, one who uses spoken spells to harm others" should be removed because it insinuates that the Bible, or at least the Jews divided witches between those that are good and those that are evil, rather than the plain fact that the Bible sees all witches and sorcerers as evil, plus the fact that it is in error as to the specific Hebrew words used. The line should be removed and I don't believe any further additions or subtractions are necessary, although if agreed upon, I would be willing to write and footnote a more suitable substitution.

Msenders (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The translation of the Hebrew is sourced to the religioustolerance.org site. It may be possible to construct an alternate translation, but any sources used would have to also mention Harry Potter to avoid WP:SYN.  Serendi pod ous  17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there needs to be a new translation suggested; I simply think that the page cited is dubious and therefore the whole sentence should be removed. Simple posting of the Bible passages should really be sufficient, otherwise you get into the extremely large subject of biblical interpretation and critical commentary, which obviously has nothing to do with the subject. The larger problem, is that the religioustolerance.org site itself does not cite any reputable sources for its translation of the word or even any sources that state that the Hebrew word used is the correct one. The links I posted to Biblical concordances are as good as quoting dictionaries. Strong's Concordance is a source used by scholars in both conservative and critical works. The links I posted to the concordance's translation are of higher reputation than religioustolerance.org. Msenders (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply posting the Bible passages leads to complaints like this one here, disputing the validity of using one translation over another. Best to keep to the Hebrew originals. If your citations are more academic, then using them should be fine. But be sure not to go any farther than the text you are quoting. Serendi pod ous  17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're understanding me... the Hebrew used on religioustolerance.org is incorrect. Check the pages I cited. They give the actual Hebrew words used, written in Hebrew. The currently footnoted page is just flat-out wrong, and is not supported scholastically. If religioustolerance.org footnoted to another source such as a source-critical commentary or a Hebrew concordance that was in agreement with what religioustolerance.org says, then that would be another situation. Basically, without it citing a reputable source, it has no authority in its translation of a word and is nothing more than opinion. Msenders (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Well, I don't think WP:SYN really applies in this case, since we're dealing with something that is commonly accepted (and, while the religioustolerance.org site as a whole discusses Harry Potter, that specific page, as it happens, does not). I wouldn't mind a straight quote from one of your sources followed by a very terse translation, but I don't think going into the detail you did on the talk page would be a good idea.  Serendi pod ous  17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Made the change, hope its to your liking. A little busy now, but if it'd be preferable, when I get some more free time, I'll go back and add the Hebrew for the following verse, as well as the words used there as well, though I think it may be beyond what is necessary. Msenders (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you did; these things do get called up for citation, particularly on controversial pages like this.  Serendi pod ous  18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heavily christian subtext?
Just thinking, but the first paragraph says "...or to the works of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, both authors known for writing fantasy novels with heavily Christian subtext" But if you follow the link, the review doesn't really say that. Neither do i think their books have such. /Björn --213.64.66.134 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

More on John Granger
Shouldn't there be more here from John Granger, a conservative Christian who was at first wary of the books, but now evangelizes him in college courses and through his The Hidden Key to Harry Potter and Finding God in Harry Potter? I think it should be made clear in this article that some Christians can take the same elements that offend the anti-Potter Christians and say "There's nothing here that we as Christians should steer clear of." Granger makes that point elegantly, including, for example, noting the distinction between Invocational magic (calling spirits to do your will) and Incantational magic (saying words to create magical effects); the first is soundly condemned across many religions (not just Christianity and Judaism), while the other is a well-established literary device. Harry Potter never uses the invocational magic, unless maybe you're counting the summoning of the house elves.

So... please put up some counter-arguments on this article, using Granger's material. I think it would be useful here. Kilyle (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John Granger is mentioned many times in this article.  Serendi pod ous  11:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wicca and secularism
The only thing I disagree with so far is your move of the secularism paragraph away from the Wicca section. The opening sentence of the Wicca section, "Harry Potter does not present witchcraft in such religious terms" now makes no sense, and moving the secularism section to the end of the article, after both Rowling and critics have pointed out that the books contain unambiguous Christian symbolism, seems a bit incongruous.  Serendi pod ous  15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the sentence makes no sense and never made any sense. Whether the HP magic is like or unlike Wicca and how religion in general is included in the book are two totally different issues. Str1977 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the sentence is that Wiccan magic is invocational; their magic is derived from the power of deities. Harry Potter invokes no deities, therefore, the magic it depicts is mechanical, rather than invocational, and thus opposed to that of Wicca.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)2009 (UTC)
 * I leave it to you to decide whether the sentence makes sense or not. But the absence of religion (not just Wicca) from HP is a different subject. Str1977 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Secularism", as you call it, is not a response to criticism - how could it? - it is an item of criticism. Just look at the first source referenced in that section! Str1977 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a response to a specific criticism: that the books promote a religion, wicca, and are thus barred from being placed in American school libraries.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  16:08, 5 December
 * Where is it a response to criticism? Where does the pragraph argue against the (secularist, ACLU-type) argument that religious books should not be in a school library? No, the paragraph cites Mrs Beam "The spiritual fault of Harry Potter is not so much that Rowling is playing to dark supernatural powers, but that she doesn't acknowledge any supernatural powers at all. These stories are not fueled by witchcraft, but by secularism." and adds praise by atheist voices, thereby making it an item of criticism.
 * I see your point that Wiccans would argue against the identification of HP witchcraft with their brand by pointing out that HP witchcraft has no religious dimension - in contrast to Wicca. That's a valid point and one that might be included if it is not already in there. But the paragraph in question doesn't make that point but criticises (or praises ) the film of being "without God". That's a criticism that shouldn't be censored or hidden, especially if one HP critic like Mrs Beam says that this (and not witchcraft) that is the actual problem.
 * PS. I will post this discussion to the article talk page so that others can benefit too. Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point: I don't know exactly what Wiccans are contending but while they have a point in denying that HP promotes Wicca by saying that HP magic is not Wicca, the claim that HP doesn't promote witchcraft is a another shoe. One cannot argue that because HP doesn't promote Wicca it does not promote any kind of witchcraft. Note I am not making a positive statement here - I think the HP books pretty much harmless - but we cannot at the same time lump things together and criticise it. Str1977 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the religious types who are trying to keep the books out of school libraries, not the ACLU. See the book challenges section. The important issue here that must be made clear is that Wicca is a religion that calls upon deities. Since HP does not call upon deities, it does not promote religion. I don't really understand why this is so controversial for you.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  22:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the ACLU was doing these (though I object to the "religious type" language) - I said that it was an aCLU-type argument. In doing this, these "religious types" mimick what the ACLU does to Christianity and take it a bit further. I think both intolerant and intolerable.
 * I agree that we must note (and I think we do that already) that Wicca is a religion that calls upon deities - in contrast to HP magic. That is one issue.
 * Another issue is that since religion is almost entirely absent from the world the HP character inhabit (meaningless references to Christmas and Easter notwithstanding) - that is an item of criticism levelled against the HP book, whether you like it or not. I don't really understand why want to remove that argument or bury it in another section to which ist is only marginally related. Sure, Wiccans might issue that criticism too but that doesn't make it a mere response to "Christian allegations". There might also be a slight POV problem that only certain religions are responsible for criticism, while other groups are the defenders. Smacks of a bad guys vs. good guys scenario. Str1977 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I get your point. At least, I think I think I do. You're saying that, because there are no outside sources connecting the books' secularism with the religion of Wicca, then this paragraph violates WP:SYN. That's fair enough. But I wish you'd just out and told me that instead of moving the paragraph to an inappropriate location. Then I would have spent hours looking for appropriate sources instead of edit warring. Oh well. As edit wars go this one's been good-natured enough I suppose. I'm going to bed now. Good night.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod  ous  00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the point. The books' "secularism" (I avoid the term because it is ambiguous) might be linked to criticism by Wiccans but that is not necessarily so.
 * There is no lack of "outside sources connecting" the two - there actually ARE sources that criticise the books for that approach (and others that applaud that approach from an atheist perspective). These are not written by Wiccans, though I guess Wiccans could issue that criticism too.
 * My point is not to take anything away from Wiccans and their responses - my point is to ensure the proper coverage of items of ciriticism.
 * Str1977 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now, the article is crippled. There is no longer a direct refutation of the idea of religious vs non religious magic in the Wicca section, and the sudden appearance of the secularism issue right after the article has spent several paragraphs explaining how the author installed Christian allegory into her novels seems contradictory out of context. The article cannot stay as it is, but I have no idea how to improve it without sparking another war with you. So any ideas from you would be welcome.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If right now the article does not have "a direct refutation of the idea of religious vs non religious magic in the Wicca section", that is because it was never there. What used to be there is the somewhat related but not identifical discussion of the absence of any kind of religion from the books.
 * The placing of the "absence" section is intentional as the very next section starts "While many describe the books as secular ..." The preceding section however doesn't simply tell how the author installed Christian "allegory" - which is again something else from the criticism - but gives JKR's response to preceding criticism. A story can contain Christian allegory without depicting religion in it - consider Narnia: it is filled to the brink with Christian allegory but does not depict religion (at least not in the films). The difference is of course that it almost entirely is set in another world. HP however is set in England (though with a magical twist).
 * As for improving the article, I had a go at it. I reorganised the Wicca section to clearly state the "different magic" respond, using your words above and otherwise simply shifting around the sentence already in there. Please have a look and tell me what you think.
 * Two items I think a bit off: whether we really need the thing about the divination teacher (simply for matters of being concise) and the bit from religioustolerance: as you know that site is not the most reliable and I also see problems with what is stated here: the bit from Chick cited here does not actually say that the spirit guides - whatever that term means - were in the books (only that she sought them because she wanted HP's powers. Also, the identifictation of "The craft" with Wicca could be better cited, as that is what the connection to Wicca hinges upon. Unfortunately, I cannot find the cited assertion on the linked page. But that is only a minor quibble. Str1977 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the principal criticisms, by people such as Richard Abanes, is that HP practices are mimicable in the real world. Most of the mimicaable practices involve divination. So it's important to mention how the books present divination. Religioustolerance.org may not be the most reliable source, but they have a Wiccan on staff, which makes them an excellent source for Wiccan views on Harry Potter.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing: there is actually much info contained about HP magic vs. Wicca magic in the very next section, creating some redundancies - do we really two separate sections on this and if not, what yould a merged section be subsumed: "Wiccan response" or "the nature of the magic employed". Str1977 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is important to keep "Wicca" and "occult" separate, otherwise we are catering to the prejudices of the loony religious right.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from who is "loony", that is why I would prefer to make this section about the differentiation of different kinds of magic. Currently, the sections repeat the same stuff all over again. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Woah. I've just gone through your changes. Do you not see the contradiction? That the Christian right is criticising the books for promoting a religion and criticising the books for not promoting a religion at all? You have to address that contradiction, otherwise the article is saying two contradictory things at once. The way the article was organised originally, it made the point that some Christian commentators argued that the books promoted religion, while others argued that it did not. It had nothing to do with "criticism" in general but a specific criticism: that the books promoted witchcraft, which is a religion.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I detect a problem in your approach. You seem to view this all as a dichotomy of the "loony" religious right as critics vs. everyone else. Well, the critics, even the supposed religious right, are just as diverse and hence some people will criticize this and some will criticize that. Yes, if one person both criticized that HP promoted the religion of Wicca (and not merely witchcraft) and that the HP world was devoid of religious practice, he should be called on that (though not necessarily by WP) - but if a critic does not lump Wicca and witchcraft in general together, there is no such contradiction. Also note that the "promotes a religion" is a totally US-centric item, which should be noted but not blown out of propotion. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done a re-edit. I'm prepared to accept the article as it stands now. But this is as far as I'm willing to take it. Any farther and this article becomes apologetic for the Christian point of view, and I don't want that to happen. Before you raise your fists, remember that this article is featured. That means it has gone through extensive peer review and has been judged by dozens of editors as a good example of unbiased reporting. To so substantially alter a featured article is to go against consensus in favour of your own interpretation.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I never raised my fist here and IMHO, I never "substantially" altered the article.
 * But neither do I care about formalities like "featured article", which means that it has come by that label in some way and nothing more. That an item of criticism voiced by a Focus on Family member was subsumed under Wicca response is telling that the review was not as thorough as it should have been. I will not accept your denial of an item of criticism, apparently based on your views on secularism - an approach that you wrongly accuse me of. This is also as far as I will go.
 * Then we are at an impasse. If you will not compromise then this will never end unless we take it to arbitration. If that is what you want, then so be it. And the fact that you do not respect featured articles means you do not respect Wikipedia procedure. That tells me your operating assumption is "Everyone else is wrong because I'm right", which is not how you collaborate. How can you take an entire paragraph, which includes criticism of the books, praise of the books, and neutral opinions on the books, and call it "criticism"? What you're implying by doing so is that to merely suggest the books are secular in outlook is to criticise them, which is stating a fairly strong point of view.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When the FoF woman states that her problem with HP is its being devoid of religion, it is a criticism. It is certainly not a response to any promotes Wicca/witchcraft allegation. In your wording you yourself muddy the waters when you talk about "the religion of witchcraft" when the issue before is exactly to distinguish between the religion of Wicca and witchcraft in other contexts.
 * Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the source. That is exactly what it is. She is saying that the others of her ilk are wrong to claim that the books promote witchcraft. And aside from the insane "Gothic Satanism" of Christian conspiracy theories, what other kinds of witchcraft are there?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Laura Mallory
<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 debate of the merge proposal. 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 debate was merge. -- Addhoc 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought I can't find the exact discussion now, somebody brought this merge up at Talk:Harry Potter, where the general consensus was to merge. Of 12 !votes at the article's AfD, two are for delete, and both suggest mention to this article, three are for merge, and all suggest to this article, and seven are for keep, and one suggests a possible merge to this article. All believe she deserves mention somewhere; her article as it current appears (minus the infobox, headers, and TOC) can easily be condensed into one paragraph, two at the most. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Laura Mallory is a critic of the Harry Potter book series. A mother of four children in Loganville, Georgia, in 2006 she made several attempts to have the books banned from her children's school library. Mallory said the books carry "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this." Mallory also commented that she has not read the book series partially because "they're really very long and I have four kids. I've put a lot of work into what I've studied and read. I think it would be hypocritical for me to read all the books, honestly." Mallory presented her concerns to the Gwinnett County Board of Education, but the request was rejected. Board of Education attorney Victoria Sweeny said that if schools were to remove all books containing reference to witches, they would have to ban "Macbeth" and "Cinderella." Later, she lost an appeal with the Georgia State Board of Education. Mallory has said that she will try to appeal the Georgia state's decision to allow the books in schools. Mallory was named the Washington Post's 2006 "Idiot of the Year."
 * Support. It means less BLP grief, and emphasises that we're talking about opposition to Harry Potter, not about Mallory. Andjam 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - firstly the closing admin has already given his view, and secondly, WP:BLP would still apply. Addhoc 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The closing admin is not the be-all and end-all. They summarize the consensus of the AfD, not give a !vote which counts more than anybody else's. If you personally believe that Laura Mallory should be moved, the administrator's ruling of the AfD will not contradict that. Also, Andjam is not saying that BLP would not apply, but that it would be a harder target for vandalism, as the article is not primarily about Mallory, but only mentions her. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * um yes, I meant given her view of the consensus. Not sure how you read a "harder target to vandalism" into Andjam's comment, or for that matter, why it would be a harder target. Addhoc 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant was that AfD does not govern moves, simply whether the page should be deleted or not. If this new discussion generates a consensus to move, than it shall be moved. As for BLP grief, I was simply reinterpreting Andjam's comment for you, which I think you misinterpreted… eliminating articles on living people and moving them into articles where the subject is not people creates a harder target for vandals, as I was saying. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - She needs her own article Lizzie Harrison 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate why you feel this way? Let me show you the entire text of the article, without the infobox, headers and TOC:
 * Do you feel that text of this length merits an article of its own when it still most certainly belongs in this article? The merger is not trying to deem her nonnotable, but rather a subject whose information might be better suited as a paragraph of a larger article than the whole of her own. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 150 news stories and consequently the article could be expanded. Addhoc 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [i searched and got 771 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munkee madness (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * How many of those news stories are actually reporting different events, though? Perhaps searching for her name within just one publication would be a more accurate representation of the number of stories she appears in. I could not imagine more than 4 per publication, which discuss each of her many appeals. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly support. As the condensed version above shows, the Laura Mallory article isn't a biographical article about Laura Mallory but a resume of Laura Mallory's opposition to the Harry Potter books.  Apart from a brief contextual mention of her having four children and living in Loganville there is no other information about Mallory herself at all.  As such it's functioning purely as a subsection of Controversy over Harry Potter even if it's not here at the moment.  Tobelia 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose she may be a dumbass, but she is a notable dumbass and deserving of her own article. trying to improve the aricle in biographical content Munkee madness 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having followed the fan sites devotedly since long before the beginning of the whole Laura Mallory thing, I can tell you that there's not much more to it than what's in the article. If you want to go get a personal interview with her, go ahead, but as for information released in newspapers and online, that's about it. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Tobelia. She's only notable for one reason, and we appear to be unable to expand on her article any more than that. Daggoth | Talk 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Her page is small enough to make a single article here, and it makes sense. -Somebody?
 * Do not merge. Never heard of her, then reading the article I realised that I had. As a noteable person (whatever the reason) she ought to have her own entry, not merely a note inside another article. I agree it is rather short and could do with more content. I suspect it does not do justice to her arguments, and currently portrays her as a bit of an idiot, which might not be NPOV. I think the world of HP is robust enough to give her a good hearing in her own article. Sandpiper 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you yourself said, you had never heard of her, at least by name. Thus, her article is not doing much good without being in conjunction with this article here. And I am quite honestly telling you there is no more biographical information on her than what you see in the article as is stands. Consider that she is more of a reference needed for this article, than a biographical figure of note who happens to be mentioned in this article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant, is that i did not recognise the name. However, after reading the description I realised that I knew who they were talking about, because she is sufficiently noteable to have made it into the media. Logically, there does exist more biographical detail, it is just that we do not have it here. I imagine she has parents, a home, a job, significant others, whatever, just like anyone else. I guess, what you mean is that none of these details is particularly interesting. Well, that may well be true, but it is a bit like the nutter who shot arch duke ferdinand, and started world war 1. No doubt a total nobody of no interest to people, except for this one thing. Similarly, the people who flew a plane into a certain skyscraper, the guy who wore a coat on the tube and got shot for it? It is the incident which makes the person noteable, not the boring details of the rest of their life. So if by chance someone has come across the name and wants to find out what there is to know, something ought to pop up. A google on her name popped up nearly one million references (ok, 40,000 when i put it in quotes). The article on Gavrilo Princip (which I discover from wiki was the name of ferdinand's killer) contains such exciting information as Princip was born in the village of Obljaj, near Bosansko Grahovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina the son of a postman. His parents, Peter and Marija (née Mičić), had nine children, five sons and four daughters, six of whom died in infancy. His health was poor from an early age. He contracted tuberculosis when he was a teenager, which led to his death in 1918. That he was already dying from this disease may have added to his willingness to undergo such a brazen assassination attempt as his one on Archduke Ferdinand. His impoverished parents could not afford to feed him and sent him to live with an older brother in Sarajevo. Really exciting stuff, but actually what i would expect to find in a comprehensive article.
 * As you might imagine, i disagree with her point of view, but a quick look at some of these googles suggests that a lot of people are ridiculing her, without considering that she is attempting to make a seriously held point. If some of those were in wiki, they would deserve to be trashed for non-neutrality. Report what she does without spinning it. Now, if the reality is that lots of people have done exactly the same thing, then her noteability would come into question. Even then, if she uniquely got the publicity, then she would still be noteable. I think her actions are a comment on society as much as upon HP. The issue is not whether she is relevant to an Hp article, but whether her actions would justify her having an article anyway. Sandpiper 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if her actions did justify her having a decent biographical article, which I'm not entirely convinced about, we're apparently unable to provide one. At least the information quoted on Princip is biographical.  A biographical article surely requires some kind of biography.  So far there seems to be almost no information about Mallory that isn't highly specific to Controversy overy Harry Potter.  In any case, if the article's merged, anyone typing "Laura Mallory" into Wikipedia (or Google) will be directed to this page, which would provide all the information which is likely to interest anyone other than her friends and family.  Tobelia 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Besides her opposition to HP, there's nothing to expand her article on. It doesn't seem at all like a proper bio article, if the only bio elements we can find are her age, children, adress...As other have said, it's more like a subsection of Controversy over Harry Potter. If the only notable element is her opinion about HP, I really can't see the need for a biographic article, which doesn't even have enough material to look like a proper biography...Folken de Fanel 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: This woman's whole issue is non-notable. The "Harry Potter is Satanic" bandwagon left the tracks in about 2003. In order to prove her case, Mallory has to show that the books promote a religion, Wicca, and thus that placing them in a school library would violate the separation of church and state. They transparently do not; ergo her case has no merit and has been rightly shot down. Even if she takes this all the way to the Supreme Court, she cannot win, anymore than if she were attempting to legally prove the sky was green. Within six months no one will remember her or her fight, just as no one remembers the dozens of other people who've tried and failed to ban Harry Potter before her. Serendipodous 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that she is no longer in Google News. Serendipodous 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's six to four in favour with no responses in three days. I think this matter is closed. Unless someone objects, I'll perform the merge tomorrow. Serendipodous 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Connie Neal
Connie Neal is red-linked in this article, I thought those weren't allowed in featured articles?124.180.222.177 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but it doesn't really matter, so removed.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red links are fine so long as it is reasonable to assume they have the potential to become articles (blue links) in the future. Wrad (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, and I suppose as long as they aren't red links to what would be considered crucial to understanding the topic.124.180.222.177 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

False news
In the Islam section where it says it is banned in schools in United Arab mirates - this is a complete lie. Harry Potter books are available in my school libraries, all seven of them in the Junior and senior libraries of my school in Dubai UAE Your death 66% loaded █████___ please wait 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salh474 (talk • contribs)
 * It's sourced. If the rules have changed since then, another source would be welcome.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  16:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. 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 https://web.archive.org/20130403080104/http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/1002 to https://ldsmag.com/article/1/1002

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 01:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theonion.com/articles/harry-potter-books-spark-rise-in-satanism-among-ch,2413/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809113335/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_press-conf-new-age_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_press-conf-new-age_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091019113033/http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/21stcenturychallenged/2008/index.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/21stcenturychallenged/2008/index.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013134200/http://www.osv.com/Portals/0/images/pdf/TheLastChapter.pdf to http://www.osv.com/Portals/0/images/pdf/TheLastChapter.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130035205/http://media.www.easttennessean.com/media/storage/paper203/news/2007/10/22/Viewpoint/the-Life.And.Lies.Of.Albus.Dumbledore-3047947.shtml to http://media.www.easttennessean.com/media/storage/paper203/news/2007/10/22/Viewpoint/the-Life.And.Lies.Of.Albus.Dumbledore-3047947.shtml

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) 20:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theonion.com/articles/harry-potter-books-spark-rise-in-satanism-among-ch%2C2413/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_press-conf-new-age_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225145909/http://www.prbsklaw.com/documents/02-2155-mo-wp.pdf to http://www.prbsklaw.com/documents/02-2155-mo-wp.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230174440/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/oct/21/magical-experience-for-harry-potter-fans/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/oct/21/magical-experience-for-harry-potter-fans/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/184525%2Cjk-rowling-wants-to-see-a-democrat-in-the-white.html

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) 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. 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/20070404173415/http://www.familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=146 to http://www.familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=146
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515230243/http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandthesorcerersstone.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandthesorcerersstone.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515230257/http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandthechamberofsecrets.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandthechamberofsecrets.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515230301/http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandtheprisonerofazkaban.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandtheprisonerofazkaban.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515230313/http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandthegobletoffire.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandthegobletoffire.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515230424/http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandtheorderofthephoenix.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harrypotterandtheorderofthephoenix.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301230820/http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harry-potter-deathly-hallows.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/h/harry-potter-deathly-hallows.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515230447/http://old.usccb.org/movies/topten/topten2004.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/topten/topten2004.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113204459/http://old.usccb.org/movies/topten/topten2010.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/topten/topten2010.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726000920/http://www.britishcouncil.org/usa-education-harry-potter-filming-locations.htm to http://www.britishcouncil.org/usa-education-harry-potter-filming-locations.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520234454/http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/schedule/sermons/30 to http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/schedule/sermons/30
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022125325/http://kidspeakonline.org/fighthp_zeeland.html to http://www.kidspeakonline.org/fighthp_zeeland.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311193153/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2003/april2003/judgesmitesharry.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2003/april2003/judgesmitesharry.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606224253/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/september2005abc/fayetteback.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/september2005abc/fayetteback.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705003943/http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/13/potter/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/13/potter/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080818133101/http://thehogshead.org/2008/01/05/jk-rowling-documentary/ to http://thehogshead.org/2008/01/05/jk-rowling-documentary/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224111126/http://therambleronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=1 to http://therambleronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025042354/http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/10/23/dumbledore-is-not-gay-taking-stories-more-seriously-than-the-author/ to http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/10/23/dumbledore-is-not-gay-taking-stories-more-seriously-than-the-author/

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) 16:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theonion.com/articles/harry-potter-books-spark-rise-in-satanism-among-ch,2413/
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800250.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022224527/http://kamangir.net/2007/07/25/harry-potter-sealed-boxes-and-zionism/ to http://kamangir.net/2007/07/25/harry-potter-sealed-boxes-and-zionism/

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) 22:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. 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/20071230201312/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2000/january2000/harrypottertops.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2000/january2000/harrypottertops.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307161230/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/february2005a/challenged.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/february2005a/challenged.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828164332/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/1999/december1999/michiganschool.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/1999/december1999/michiganschool.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230201317/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2000/september2000/jacksonville.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2000/september2000/jacksonville.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810040115/http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/back-to-school-with-the-religious-right to https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/back-to-school-with-the-religious-right
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230201322/http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2003/january2003/russianprosecutor.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2003/january2003/russianprosecutor.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622010648/http://www.hisvoicetoday.org/hpappeal.htm to http://www.hisvoicetoday.org/hpappeal.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008101941/http://www.hisvoicetoday.org/harrysharshestcritic.htm to http://www.hisvoicetoday.org/harrysharshestcritic.htm

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) 02:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. 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/20070829205144/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/21/headlines/headlines_30041840.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/21/headlines/headlines_30041840.php
 * Added tag to http://childrensbooks.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1%2FXJ&sdn=childrensbooks&cdn=parenting&tm=35&f=20&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kidspeakonline.org%2F

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) 04:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. 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/20070611120908/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23399899-details/Christian+teacher+'bans+reading+of+Harry+Potter+witchcraft+in+class'/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23399899-details/Christian+teacher+'bans+reading+of+Harry+Potter+witchcraft+in+class'/article.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527123758/http://www.wickedlocal.com/wakefield/archive/x1086964294 to http://www.wickedlocal.com/wakefield/archive/x1086964294

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) 15:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)