User talk:Philcha/Archives/2010/October

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
As I see you are the other to deal with, I'll run this past you. As if you did not already see my point: the two titles are 'equal', and academically they should be listed side-by-side, original first followed if possible by chronologically correct a/k/a titles. This is because it is the same identical work in the same language. Or will you be as stubborn about this error as the other anti-Americans?75.21.151.236 (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The book was written in UK, by a author whose first language is UK English, and the book was first published in UK English. In all English countries except USA the book is published in UK English. The USA publisher thought that having "Philosopher" in the title would hurt sales and pushed Rowling into agree to the USA title "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", and of some changes to use USA vocabulary. Rowling later said she regretted that she had agreed to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". It seems that Rowling does not regard "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as equal. --Philcha (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may: what Rowling thinks, what anyone thinks, is actually moot. A correct academic/encyclopedic listing of a work that has two well known titles simultaneously in use is ALWAYS listed 'ORIGINAL TITLE a/k/a SECONDARY TITLE' and so forth.

This needless battle is about British-centric, arrogant people who would stupidly destroy what is a simple Q.E.D. title listing. Is this a Wikipedia entry, or your personal crusade on behalf of Rowling's dislike for the alias title? Think about it. I notice many people are confused and angered by the refusal to list the alias title side by side as it should be.76.195.86.50 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You say, "many people are confused and angered by the refusal to list the alias title side by side" - how may, and of their names?
 * Show me an academic source (per WP:V) that says "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is anything more than a marketing gimmick.
 * Keep insults like "British-centric, arrogant people" to yourself. --Philcha (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm writing as an American who has been known to criticize the UK when warranted. If, as Philcha claims, Rowling was compelled to change the actual wording of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, then Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is, at best, a separate edition, not the same identical work in the same language. If anybody was arrogant it was the US publisher, not those who criticized the name change.


 * As for a simple Q.E.D. title listing, the phrase Q.E.D. is used at the end of a chain of logical inferences starting from a set of assumptions; it is only relevant if the assumptions are accepted. In this case, the assumptions are in dispute.


 * BTW, you don't have to be British to be appalled at mangling the title. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA Report
RFA Report --Philcha (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V, academic sources
Hi Philcha, your post at the WP:V talk page touched a nerve with me :) -- this is actually a point that I care a lot about, and the nub of the matter to me! I've replied to you there. Best, -- JN 466  20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We never concluded our discussion at WP:V talk. I've totted up who supported what; at the moment I have you down among those opposing any change to the policy. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and check if this reflects your position accurately. Best, -- JN 466  01:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, User:Jayen466. I oppose any of the changes presented - because we need a more radical look at WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your response. -- JN 466  00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)