Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 9

message: There are leaked copies, we shouldn't let people edit the plot section.
Luckyz21 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning! 

message: in saving the nuclear test site that is the Characters list? Because if not, we should seriously think about bringing a character list back here. EDIT: OK. Just did a reversion of about ten edits to when the list made some kind of sense. Hope it stays that way. Serendipodous 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is anyone interested...

message: In plot summary, how does Hagrid know that Harry's parents have been killed? It is a mystery that hasn't been explained in the book and doesn't make that much sense. How does Dumbledore know that Harry's parents were killed? Was he a witness to the murder?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bullsfan (talk • contribs) 
:I always sort of assumed that they found their bodies...=David(talk)(contribs) 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever Death Eaters conduct any sort of killing, you'll recall they send the Dark Mark above the house. I imagine Voldemort did the same, and it was reported to the authorities almost instantly. Considering the Potters' and Dumbledore felt their lives to be in such danger (correctly it turns out :P) that they had a Fidelius Charm on the house, I speculate Dumbledore would keep a close eye on the house.--Problematik 06:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Yeah seriously, this shit needs to go. It doesn't satisfy "notability guidelines" or whatever - this Christine Schoefer person doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia, and she does seem to be the only one to put forward these views. Not to mention that they're ridiculous - why would J.K. Rowling (a woman) write something "patriarchal"? BigglesTh9 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms may or may not be notable, and may or may not make sense, but there's certainly no rule that says a thought can't be patriarchal just because it comes out of a woman's mouth! --Saforrest 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It would help if her critiques were actually true, though. (In what way was Umbridge a fraud? She never pretended to be anything she wasn't.) --BranER
Umbridge pretended, mid book 7, that the Slytherin locket was in fact a locket celebrating the blood purity of her own line, the Selwyns, so this is, perhaps, the fraud situation as regards her. I also disagree with the feminist movement on this, and being female, that maybe counts for something. The powerful characters of Molly Weasley, Minerva McGonagall, Hermione Granger, Luna Lovegood, and especially Ginny Weasley, all add to the sense of this being a balanced story. Just because the hero is male, his leader was male, and the enemy is male doesn't really stand for anything. In the last number of books, it has been pointed out that frequently, the male contingent are the ones with problems, eg, Lupin, Snape, Sirius, Tom Riddle, Slughorn. Most people agree that JK Rowling has displayed the emotional characteristics of a woman very well. As for Dumbledore's far sightedness, the man was clever, but he also brought about his own downfall by greed. He certainly is not the perfection that he appears to be. Maybe this article section ought to be re thought. It seems frail at best, and at most, extremely refutable?Vampiricduckie 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Skimming over that essay above, it seems like you've all picked the wrong parts of my initial comment to give weight to. Basically, I'm saying that the opinion of one person, who doesn't seem to be commonly known, in response to something that's very well-known isn't really notable - or at least, not enough so to have its own sub-section. There would be all sorts of ways to criticise Harry Potter and obviously plenty of critcisms - which means that you have to be the more selective in which ones to include.BigglesTh9 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Feminist critique"

message: As it has just been released here, should this article be tagged with  or ...? Simply south 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypothetically it could, but this is better placed on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. No need to put it in two places for the same thing...unless of course there is breaking information about the series as a whole.  Joshdboz 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 

message: Would it be better to discuss the merger here or at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Merge of afterwards Simply south 00:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find it on that page, so I'll just vote here.  I vote NO on the merge, as the Harry Potter article is long enough as it is and the Afterwards is a somewhat long section to add to an already long article.  :p  Evening Scribe 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I couldn't find it on the page either. I vote against the merge as well, the section belongs on the page and it is pertaining to the book. I'm going to remove the merge suggestion template, seeing as it's only getting no support and no one opposed Evening Scribe's above message.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it common to close such discussions so quickly and so little debate?? Evening Scribe 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the merger (not much of one) see [[Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 21#Merge of afterwards.... Simply south 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (and query) 

message: I think the way the Anthony Holden quote has been combined with the description of US-based conservative reaction is a bit misleading. This might be due to different interpretations of "conservative".
When Holden uses this word, he probably just means "old-fashioned". This view is in common with other critics who feel that Hogwarts is closer in character to, say, the school in Tom Brown's Schooldays than a real-world modern British establishment. (Perhaps "culturally conservative" would be a better term.)
However "conservative" when referring to groups like The John Birch Society seems to imply "evangelical Christian", from which we get anti-magic and so on - quite a different concept. Mattmm 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Evangelical movement, though it shares certain thoughts in common with the John Birch Society, is not what they refer to. They are explicitly targeting Rowling's supposed liberal, socialist values. Serendipodous 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this info, I had misunderstood what John Birch is about - apologies. But my question still stands: does it make sense to have the Holden quote in the same section as the attack on JK's supposed liberal values? In my view, Holden's point is not a political one, he simply thinks the books are old-fashioned and backward-looking. Mattmm 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry_Potter#On_conservative_vs._liberal_values|"On conservative vs. liberal values"]] section 

message: What the hells? Why is the article blanked over? Of course I want the spoilers, that's why I came here! -- 4.239.216.79 19:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to remove this? Tesseran 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place for spoilers. Go to the Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Page. --Problematik 06:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanked over 

message: I think it should noted that Harry and Riddle are distant relatives. Both are descendants of House Peverell.
:All the pureblood families are distant relatives. Serendipodous 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but its good and informative to note which ones when we have that information. Evening Scribe 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well that's a good suggestion.  I agree with including it on Harry Potter the character's page. Evening Scribe 03:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry-Voldemort Relation 

message: As I am a relatively new and inactive user, I am barred from editing the article. However, I would like to add that the first volume of the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, has also been translated into Irish as Harry Potter agus an Órchloch. If you find this information notable enough, please add it to the article.Panu Petteri Höglund 10:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned in Harry Potter in translation. Serendipodous 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter in Irish

message: Hi,
I am looking for an article that will contain a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed. As for example, I remember reading in the part 1 or part 2 about Dudly throwing away a Playstation. If I know it correctly, the 'Deathly Hallows' is supposed to happen in 1996, so in 'Chamber of Secrets', we cannot expect Dudley to use a play station, which shipped first in 1994. I'm sure there are minor mistakes like this. Please give a link, or create the article,
my user id is Smcbuet, though I'm not logged in
:There is a point of view that this was not a mistake, or at least not a simple one, rather that the actual year in which the books were set changed as the writing progressed. So the playstation may have been correct as originally included? Sandpiper 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, Jo has admitted this as a mistake. Even if not, the dates have been steady from the beginning. We knew from Nearly Headless Nick's 500th Deathday party in the first book that it was 1991. As an aside, there was a mistake in GoF with the number of Quidditch World Cups; it was an impossibly high number from what we know about the history of the game. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, it's a fictional world, couldn't we suspend our disbelief and say that in harry potter's very familiar alter-reality, playstations were around long before they were in our world?  But there should a list of mistakes made in context to the world set in the book.  the playstation could be considered an anachronism and not intrinsically devoted to the chronological reality of our world if we take it that rowling was writing a fictional novel.  to wit, nobody noticed a hurricane hitting england very weirdly some years back, or a rash of unexplained deaths, so in the same light of having to parralel our real world, wouldn't noting the playstation mistake also have to correlate with all the strange events happening around the time of voldemort's second ascension?  Following that logic to its roots would require that we tear asunder the fictional reality of the book, and submit it to the reality of our world, and I think we would all say that that does a tidy number on the point of writing fiction in the first place.  rowling never said "based on a true story".
but how about a list of logical mistakes that make sense within the context of harry's reality, because there are liable to be some.  Considering the fact that an editor exists at scholastic to ensure the continuity of the books, there are liable to be some errors that have snuck past the censors.  Altdrsmoothop 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an article containing  a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series  

message: Wouldn't you say that all of this was a bit of a mislead on the contents of this last text?  Does anyone really care if Snape or Malfoy died or not?  This was a clear scheme to increase the intensity of worry and wonder as to the fate of the three main characters. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprieves and deaths 

message: Notice in "Reaction" it says "...Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was given unanimous praise by most of Britain's major newspapers..." For it to be unanimous wouldn't it need to be all of Britain's newspapers? Suggest possibly changing unanimous to overwhelming. Plaakum 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction - "Unanimous"?  

message: My previous comment re the use of unanimous pertained to the "Criticism and praise" section not "Reaction" as I described. Cheers. Plaakum 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism and praise" not "Reaction" 

message: Has anyone thought to do a section on the families in the series that name their children with themes?
* The Black family tree shows several families with astronomical, astrological and mythological names
**Narcissa, Bellatrix and Andromeda Black
**Sirius and Regulus Black
**Draco and Scorpius Malfoy
*Lily and Petunia Evans
*Several of the Weasley family members have Arthurian names (Arthur, Ginevra, Percy, Ron)
Other names have alliterations (this may be a stretch):
*Marvolo, Merope and Morfin Gaunt
*Albus, Aberforth and Ariana Dumbledore
*Amycus and Alecto Carrow
I don't know if I have anything here. -- Techtonic (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First name convention 

message: How about a brief (2-4 paragraph) overview of the whole series' plot, from Book 1 to epilogue? Omit all but the most important details, but give the reader an idea of what the story is about, instead of having to go through all seven individual book articles and read their summaries. Wikipedian06 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series plot summary 

message: I created a page for all subplots but an administrator deleted it. I think that it should be put back up. I was forced to move it to User:Rembrant12/Subplots instead of its original Harry Potter (subplots). If you agree that it should be put back up please say so on my page and on the page of the admin. User:Deskana. Rembrant12 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subplot Page

message: I've been reading the section on literary criticism, and I find it unfortunate that no one has found written sources to support the potential Christian allegory that is present throughout the novels.
Think about it: a fatherless child marked at birth as something special gathers a following, teaches them, proceeds through trials, and faces pure evil multiple times. All that is left is some final, ultimate redemption demanding the "blood" of "the chosen one." With all the surface connections, there's bound to be at least one published critic who's said something of them. Shouldn't that critical possibility be added to the site if we're willing to maintain the other criticisms?Mjratz 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, you can't add that becuase it sounds like original research to me. If someone states that it resembles the life of christ or if JKR comes out and tells that HP was inspired by the life of Christ, then we can add the allegory - else it remains out of it ... --Kalyan 07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Jesus allegory? 

message: is it jsut me or does the death eaters and voldemort strike a resemblance with the ss/gestapo and hitler?
voldemort, like hitler, wanted purity the mudbloods being the jews going into hiding to sotp them being imprisioned and murdered.
the fact that voldemort seemed to be winning all the time also bears a resemblamce to wwii as hitler conquered europe only to have it taken away from him
voldemort conquered the ministry only to loose when he seemd to be winning.   am i making any sense? Kempee 02:01, 26 July 2007
:you're making sense, and you're actually making more sense then you appear to know.  rowling has stated before that she wanted there to be a connection between the real world and the wizard world, and that the fact that grimwald was defeated in 1945 wasn't a coincidence - she definitely intended the first wizarding war to match with the 2nd world war.
:that said, the fact that your observation has a good chance of being correct is no reason to put it into this article.  the connections you're making are considered original research and have no place here until they're stated by a notable source; if you can find a link to an interview with Rowling where she explicitly talks about this connection being intentional, i believe we should add it.  as long as it's only your opinion, we shouldn't.212.123.24.90 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first wizarding war took place in the 70s and early 80s, not the 40s. It was when Voldemort was first "defeated" by the infant Harry, and has nothing to do with Grindlewald. Faithlessthewonderboy 12:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a recent interview, JKwas asked that question. It was more in relation to the "ethnic cleansing" of half bloods and mudbloods. Search "Voldemort's killing of Muggle-borns" to find the specific question on the transcript. i (said) (did) 04:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly no coincidence that Grindlewald was defeated in 1945, JKR has said as much. But when the phrase "first war" is used in the series, it doesn't refer to anything that was going on analogous to WWII, but rather to Voldemort's original rise around the 1970s. That's all I'm saying. faithless (speak) 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Nazi-Hitler theme in book 7? 

message: I realise that this is only a tiny section of the chronology of the Harry Potter books, but it ought to be added at the end that the last chapter of Deathly Hallows takes place in late 2017. It seems to be silly not to involve it when it is a huge part of the story.--Vampiricduckie 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: Look, I know a lot of people out there hate Harry Potter, and they're welcome to. The books are far from flawless. But the fact of the matter remains that the vast majority of reviews of the Harry Potter series have been positive. The critical response section is massively unbalanced, giving paragraphs to the views of two people, AS Byatt and Harold Bloom, while sidelining the seven or eight people listed as being in favour. This needs to be addressed. I would suggest trimming AS Byatt and Harold Bloom's comments. Serendipodous 07:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; trimmed it. Serendipodous 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: critical acclaim

message: I believe it should be put in the motif section even if you don't list all, she also used it in spells and potions. 
Babbling Beverage, Confusing Concoction, Deflating Draught, Shrinking Solution, Strengthening Solution, Swelling Solution are just some of the potions, I dont' see why it would be taken out of the motif section, it did take up some space so you could just take out the lists and just add some examples. Offcrcartman 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two problems with that section: one, it was in danger of becoming longer than the rest of the article combined, and two, it was essentially what the pedants on this site call "listcruft", a list of things purely for the sake of listing them, rather than for actually making a point. It might be worth doing a separate article on the literary motifs in the series, but that would require locating appropriate secondary sources. Anything less would be an essay. Serendipodous 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fine to give, say, half a dozen examples of the recurrent alliterations throughout the series, including a ref to the Alliteration page), but to list them all would be overkill.  -FeralDruid 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Serendipodous added the following:  It would still be OR; you'd need to include a secondary source or two, and later removed it with the comment, much of this page is OR, so it's kinda irrellevant to bring that up.  Here's an article discussing the wordplay in the Harry Potter books, including alliterative names such as Dudley Dursley and Poppy Pomfrey, puns such as Knockturn Alley (nocturnally), translations such as vol de mort, and borrowed names such as Mrs. Norris.  If there's a strong desire to discuss this aspect of Rowling's writing, this is one source on the topic.  There may be others.  Question is, would it still qualify as WP:OR or as non-encyclopedic content?  -FeralDruid 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring back the [[alliteration]] page!

message: On Hermione Granger's page the year 19 years later was specifically mentioned as 2017, though it was reverted back to simply "nineteen years later", on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the book (and would also confuse people). This point is valid and a reason for only saying nineteen years later but since we know Harry's birthday and age at the end of book 7, we could use the actual year. What do people think we should do? Algebra man 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should always be stated as 19 years later because that is what is in the book and undebateable.--88wolfmaster 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nineteen Years Later 

message: Ok i went to sparknotes (if its good enough to help pass a test, its good enough for a starting point) to get get an idea for some possible themes besides death.
*The Occasional Necessity of Rebellion - which would be a pro-its a communist alegory
*Tolerance - which ties into the whole of predjuice and tolerence present in the books
*The Preoccupations of Adolescence - cause the books are a coming of age story
*The Importance of Friendship - which ties into the whole harry can't do it alone
*The Power of Self-Sacrifice - from harry's mother to book end an ever present aspect along side death.
what does everyone think?--88wolfmaster 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God. Please do not use SparkNotes. Using such a source will make wikipedia look terrible. Such publications are conceived of as cheating guides, not real commentary on the literature. You need to read what scholars have published on these books, not pamphlets designed to circumvent the actual reading of a book. Please see WP:RS. A first resource would be google scholar (as I said above). 11:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "for a starting point" i have and never will use sparknotes as a source, only something to help point me in the right direction. and if you didn't notice i just asked what everyone's opinion was as to whether they believe these could be themes.--88wolfmaster 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just the point. SparkNotes, for many reasons, is a terrible starting point. Because it is a not a WP:RS, any information in it is suspect; one should begin with solid, reliable information, not unreliable information. Secondly, it doesn't matter what the editors believe are themes - it matters what published reviewers and literary critics think are the themes. If the article only includes themes that the editors believe are there, it is most certainly POV. Please read WP:NPOV - the article must reflect the published work on Harry Potter, not the opinions of the editors as to whether or not that published material is correct. Awadewit | talk 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: didn't mean for it to be taken like that - pro choice in words i guess, the only reason i metioned it at all is so that all the its pro-communist people might look into the parallels between that possible theme and the communist/Marxist idea of World revolution.--88wolfmaster 04:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one should let anyone tell them what the themes are.  The reader should determine that.  Scholars are more then welcome to publish what they believe about a theme, but their opinion is as valid as anyone else's.  J.K. Rowling is probably the only person who knows for sure what themes she intended to write about.150.228.40.142 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible themes 

message: Is it only me that would want all the Harry Potter pages(the ones about characters and objects etc.) here on wikipedia only to be with the info from the books, and in the films own article you can have "differences from the book" or something like that.  ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but as long as information from the films is noted as such, I see no problem with it. Faithlessthewonderboy 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Books vs. the Films 

message: Shouldn't something be added about how Harry Potter is very similar to a book called The Worst Witch?  If you have ever heard or seen the similarities between the two you will notice that it almost seems like Harry Potter is a plagirism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.233.111 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 July 2007
:1)The only similarity I see is that they are both series of books about a school for training children in magic that feature broomsticks. I read the Worst Witch books when I was young, and they are really quite different to the Harry Potter books. They certainly do not have the same themes.
:2)If we were to include such a thing, it would have to be in the form "Such and Such [notable critic] said 'The Harry Potter books are plagiarising The Worst Witch books'". We can't just add that they are similar, or that you think they are. We have to make sure such a claim is notable, which means finding reliable sources treating it as notable. 
:3)Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page :) Skittle 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it! I've been racking my brains for the last 10 years trying to remember the name of the children's books I read that were about students at a school for witches! We even have an article on that series of books: The Worst Witch. Thanks. :-) Carcharoth 11:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - this analogue (ie. a similarity noticed by others but not acknowledged or denied by Rowling) is already mentioned in the excellent article Harry Potter influences and analogues. Now if only there was an article like that for Tolkien! Carcharoth 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I don't think anyone's ever accused Tolkien of ripping anyone else off, although plenty of people have been accused of ripping off Tolkien. Pretty much everyone who's written fantasy since 1957, actually. Serendipodous 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he did 'rip off' folk tales and legends; does that count? Even some of his dwarfs' names come from myths. Shocking :O Skittle 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Worst Witch

message: 3407 for UK editions and 4100 for US editions? How could this possibly be correct? Faithlessthewonderboy 05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add up the numbers from each book's page, it's right.  V-train 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you're right. Do the American books use a larger font size than the British books? Sorry if this has been covered before, but it's news to me. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The American books have pictures in them. Pictures take up space. Skittle 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustrations at the beginning of each chapter are two inches long, at most. Considering that there is an average difference of about a hundred pages between the two editions, that would require roughly 100 full-page illustrations. Faithlessthewonderboy 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. My copy of Deathly Hallows (UK, children's cover) loses 4.5 cm (10 lines) on every page that starts a chapter, compared to other pages. What is the situation with US editions? Skittle 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Like what? Have you looked at the section on this in the Harry Potter Lexicon ? Skittle 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page numbers 

message: moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter because this concerns all HP-related articles, not just the article Harry Potter. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character colors 

message: Sorry for asking here, but what are the differences between all the book versions (adult/children/special)? I heard that it only differs on the cover page. If it's not true, and there are differences, would anyone mind adding a section describing the differences between the versions? 
Thanks in advance. (User:60.53.51.25) 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ripping good question, user60. As I typically don't read all the versions of a book, maybe someone else could chime in with some input. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My two cents: As far as I've ever heard, the only differences are in the covers, aside from some minor spelling, grammar, etc. differences.  I think they're covered in the individual articles on the books themselves. =David(talk)(contribs) 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would be very weird if there even was different spellings/grammar etc. because its one story, and shouldn't really be altered imo. But than again, there's the US version, which probably "re-writes" many thing. I have never read the US-version or two different UK version. But there surly can't be much differences so that some ppl would miss important informations etc. CHANDLERtalk 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know for a fact that some specific words (especially in the earlier books) were changed from the UK version to the US version, most notably "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorcerer's Stone".  Some British dialect was also changed, I'm thinking...and also, some people (Dean Thomas, for one) were introduced in the American version in a book before they were introduced in the UK version. =David(talk)(contribs) 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's not true re: Dean Thomas. I'm sure his first appearance was def Philosopher's Stone in the UK just as in the US? AulaTPN 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dean Thomas is not mentioned in the Sorting ceremony in Philosopher's Stone. He is introduced later in the book as one of Harry's roommates. Sorcerer's Stone has a sentence added to the Sorting, describing Dean as a Black boy who is taller than Ron who gets sorted into Gryffindor. I'm not sure if Dean is ever explicitly described as being Black in the Commonwealth versions of the books. This change actually introduces an error into Sorcerer's Stone. It says that there are three students left to be sorted, and then sorts four students.Don Sample 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book versions? 

message: *Lord Voldemort - as the key character of evil in the book, who leads the evil side, I have no problem listing people as allied to him.
*The Order of the Phoenix - as a group dedicated to fighting Voldemort, that is voluntary to join and which the members gain no personal benefit from, I feel it could be listed.
*Dumbledore's Army - same reasoning as above
:I agree, although I wonder whether we should add Death Eaters too? Is it important to draw the distinction between the two groups of allegiances? AulaTPN 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added Death Eaters to 'No' but suddenly thought on reading your comment that if we count those as allied to the Death Eaters as allied to Voldemort, then the same would go for those allied to the DA or the Order being allied to Dymbledore or Harry. This doesn't look like it will be a simple problem to solve. asyndeton 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: I have no strong feeligs about or am unsure of these and will 'go with the crowd.'
*The Ministry - if a character really believes in the ministry and its agendas then I suppose it's alright. However simply working there is not enough;  I don't feel Arthur Weasley should be listed; on the same note, characters who didn't work there could be listed, such as Filch who really seemed to like the Ministry's way of doing things in HP5.
*Harry - I originally didn't like the idea of listing Harry but since the books revolve around his fight with Voldemort, it could be argued that characters are allied to him.
:Again I agree but I wonder what you consider to be the correct approach regarding the Ministry? Do we consider information given by Rowling in interviews to be as high-canon as information in the published novels? If so can you consider the central roles she describes Harry, Ron and Hermione having in reforming the ministry post-novels as being a significant allegiance. Re: Harry, I think you could argue the case that a character such as Dobby has unswerving loyalty specifically to Harry. AulaTPN 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ministry question is one that requires more consensus than the two of us; personaly I would say no. I agree with what you say about Dobby. asyndeton 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe

message: There are bald assertions made in this "article" that are not backed up by facts, or only partially so, and no way to correct them.  For instance, the "Cultural Impact" section states that HP has made children more literate as if this were proven fact, then cites one study done by HP's own publisher, Scholastic.  Two major studies done by unbiased researchers in the U.S. and U.K. clearly refute this claim: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,710189,00.html and also http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/books/11potter.html?ex=1186459200&en=6726c27996f29a52&ei=5070 Please edit the entry to include these.
It was probably protected because a lot of fan-cruft was making its way onto the page by anonymous users. I think you bring up excellent points, and with your permission, i will incorporate them into the article (since, being a newer user, you are unable to do so in the semi-protected page). Let me know, and I willmake it happen. In the meantime, build up some edits, so you can get established. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this page was protected for a couple of reasons. Firstly, all the Harry Potter pages attract an unreasonably high level of vandalism - way out of proportion for the levels of controversy generated by the subject. Secondly, as the launch of Deathly Hallows approached, many of the HP pages were subjected to constant posting of complete plot spoilers by anonymous accounts. I personally had the book completely spoiled for me numerous times as I reverted these edits as did many other editors but c'est la vie, if it stopped some @$$ from ruining the book for Harry's younger fans then it was well worth it. AulaTPN 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Is This Page Protected?

message: I am noticing people are starting to add categories and populate them with HP characters by the year they were introduced. This doesn't seem cricket, as WP: is not a collection of trivia, and it doesn't get more listcrufty than this (well, yes, it does, but the poiunt is well-made). What do people say to the purging of these categories as non-notable list-cruft? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you on this. When I went to investigate though, I found that HP characters were not the only ones populating these lists (I checked out the '97 one, I think). Still, I'd support anyone else who wanted to get rid of this garbage. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we set out and cack this crufty crap. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crufty introduction categories

message: * Rowling regrets keeping Harry Potter a secret from mum - tells how originally Harry Potter's parents didn't figure much in the story, that their deaths were just plain side story
I'm not quite sure where to add this and how so if anyone can, please do. Berserkerz Crit 18:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for the development of the Harry Potter books

message: Much discussion has exposed JK Rowling as a Marxist, attempting to pollute the minds of our youth with Communist propaganda. The "pure-blood" Slytherins represent the aristocracy, who believe that "magic" (i.e. capital) should be in the hands of a privileged elite. The "clever" Ravenclaws represent the bourgeoisie, who collude with the aristocracy in the suppression of the petty-bourgeois Hufflepuffs and the proletarian house-elves. The brave Gryffindors (who wear red Quidditch robes) and Dumbledore's Army represent the Red Army, the true army of the proletariat. 
Dumbledore, with his voluminous white beard, obviously stands for Karl Marx, while Harry Potter's glasses and untidy black hair make him identical to Leon Trotsky. Harry's lightning-bolt scar is in reference to the fatal head wound inflicted on Trotsky by Ramón Mercader with an ice pick. Harry survives this attack, just as the Totskyist ideal has survived in Rowling's twisted Commie mind.     
75.2.220.24 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Paragraph 

message: (Fred and George's private enterprise goes unrewarded, Fred end's up dead and george loses an ear) Accio means of production!  71.156.39.75 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smacks of original research. Unless you can provide reliable sources for any of this, it doesn't belong in the article. --Darksun 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The analogy doesn't hold. Unless Rowling can be proven to be a communist, your claim is untrue. On the other hand, we can find numerous sources for humans dying of overheating and being burnt to death. =David(talk)(contribs) 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, this was brought up (using almost identical wording) several days ago.  It didn't last then: unless you can find a source, you're fighting a losing battle now, too. =David(talk)(contribs) 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is not the same. Here, a book is being interpreted by a person who has chosen to give its message a specific meaning, i.e. that communism is being promoted. Different people will see a different message - I think most would see somethign alon the lines of 'goo alos wins'. The human at 700 degrees is not original research, as it is a well known biological fact that enzymes are vital to a body's continued survival and, for humans, once the body's temperature exceeds about 37 degrees celsius, the enzymes denature, i.e. they no longer work properly and so the body dies. Also, the brain is surrounded by blood and the blood being at a temperature of 700 degrees would poach it. The One 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right.  Thus we say: if you can find a source, put it in.  Otherwise, it is original research and will be reverted. =David(talk)(contribs) 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: John is exactly right, but I'd amend that statement: find a respected source who has a real theory together, and we'll talk. =David(talk)(contribs) 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The paragraph was added again (identically), this time adding: 

message: This is not individual research.  It is discussed in depth in the book "JK Rowling: Before and After" by Earl Sinclair.  75.2.218.106 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Just, wow. There's some fairly heavy spin in that interpretation to say the least. I now have to go mop up the coffee that just came shooting out of my nose. AulaTPN 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue as been raised twice before.  I can't find the book you've mentioned using any web search, and the only reference to the author's name anywhere is in reference to the Dinosaurs (TV series) character.   I cannot find the author's name as a trusted critic anywhere.  Can you provide a link that would establish Earl Sinclair as a critic of any caliber, or the ISBN number of his book? =David(talk)(contribs) 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The paragraph was added to the talk page yet again, this time adding: 

message: House-Elves work happily for no pay, and attempts at establishing a free market result in a form of punishment (eg. Dobby dies, One of the Weasley Twins die
... The ISBN # is 0-553-56872-8 75.2.218.106 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, not again!! AulaTPN 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've gone over this three times.  It is original research, unless you can find a source.  Earl Sinclair is a character from Dinosaurs.  That book, by any search I can perform, does not exist.  The ISBN provided maps to "Star Wars: The Truce at Bakura" by Kathy Tyers, paperback edition.  By all measures, this seems to be original research.  Please provide a source, or stop posting this theory. =David(talk)(contribs) 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am almost to the point where we should summarize the prior discussions concerning these recurrent topics, put them at the top of the page, and every time it comes up we point them to the Discussion Page, where they can explore the fatuous offerings that have been discussed to death before. Unfortunately, these gentle folk seem to think that JKR is a suitable vehicle for their soapboxing. Kinda sad, as JKR is a good storyteller but nowhere near as good a writer as people are makingher out to be. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the contribs of 75.1.251.58. It's also giving Earl Sinclair as a source for: "True History of green tea Ice Cream, look it up in Colonial Inventions by Earl Sinclair)". In other words--time to assume that none of this is in good faith, and delete it from the talk page? Marieblasdell 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Volunteer to mow his lawn and bake some cookies. The cruft leaves, and leaves now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ISBNs are 13 digits and individually numbered based upon language, publisher, and specific item number.  The odds of your friend's book having the same ISBN as The Truce at Bakura by accident are 2,541,865,828,329-1 - two trillion, five hundred forty-one billion, eight hundred sixty-five million eight hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twenty-nine to one.  (Although, as that book is a Han Solo book, "Never tell me the odds!")  The odds of it accidentally even being an ISBN for an English-language book are eighty-one to one.  The point is, if the ISBN were accidentally mis-given, look at the odds that it would even be coherent!  I disagree with Arcayne - you shouldn't mow his lawn or bake him any cookies.  He's either lying to you or has delusions of grandeur; flatly, he doesn't exist on Google - he would, if he were "very respected" as you say.  Three different ISBN searches, as well as the article for The Truce at Bakura itself verify that ISBN.  I'm willing to assume that your comments are made in good faith, for now.  But I can no longer assume that your neighbor's are.  And if you persist, with no new information, I will be forced to assume that yours are not, either.  I think your neighbor Earl is yanking your chain. =David(talk)(contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, we do not endorse that you roast the aforementioned neighbor over a book-burning, as that ould be messy and likely spoil Christmas. Perhaps just a clear scowl will do the trick.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was added ''again'' (!) with yet another addition: 

message: This doesn't need a source because IT IS SELF EVIDENT.  ROWLING HAS CONFESSED TO HAVING LEFTIST LEANINGS.  NOTICE THAT HARRY NEVER GOES TO CHURCH.  12va34 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone here is getting slightly bored of being told that Rowling wrote HP with Nazi/Marxist/Communist undertones. I'll just say, to be polite, that if you can find a source for it, then we may be able to add it. It is not, as you claim, self evident - you have just read far too much into a children's book. Also, are you claiming that all Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc. are Marxists? asyndeton 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, you don't seem to get it (though I thank you for finally using an account).  This does need a source.  See Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines.  Leftist leanings are NOT communist leanings, and Harry's non-attendance to church is a red herring; there are millions of humans on the planet that do not go to church, and only a very small percentage of them are communists.  I'll say this again.  This needs a source, or it cannot be included. And the book you last posted by an un-reputable source with a bad ISBN is not helping your case.  You're sidling dangerously close to a block; please do not push this any further without a source. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll has been indef blocked on this name - I believe all of this was posted by the same person, under different IPs.  It was on JK's talk page too, and other nonsense all over the place.  Tvoz |talk 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And added again! 

message: Can someone please add information on all the different editions of the books?
I was in Canada recently and the books were not the same as in the US. Trialanode 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't ask for much, do you?  :-) Only joking.  Short answer: it's already been done.  Take a look at the individual pages for each of the books - For example, here.  The actual covers used to be on the page, but were deleted; I'm assuming because of fair-use violations.  Hope this helps! =David(talk)(contribs) 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions of the books? 

message: Some of these theories are off the wall, and Rowling has said people will see what they want.  None the less, should we start a (bound to be contentious) Potter Politics article using published articles?  Here's a start at subjects
Libertycookies 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Politics of Harry Potter]] 

message: Should the HP 1-7 redirect to the respective HP book, or a disambig page with the postal code area? The HP7 was made into a disambig page. I dont think that is neccesary. A 
This article is about the book for ..." notice should suffice. Thoughts? i said 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HP Redirects