Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter)/Archive 1

message: Added a cleanup template to the page, as both its tone and grammar fall short of what I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll take care of it myself when I have more time, if nobody gets to it first. -Simon Crowley 10:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to drop in from time to time and smooth out the wording a little as well as make grammar, etc. corrections. By all means work on it yourself as well, though. -Matt 00:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've removed Merope from the list of known Squibs. Marvolo refers to her as such in HBP, but it's almost definitely just an insult referring to her (apparently) woeful magic. Merope displays definite magical abilities which are just stunted, as Dumbledore explains, by the oppressive personalities of her father and brother.
:I'm removing her again until someone gives a reason to put her back. Countmippipopolous 19:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some unobservant person (to put it nicely) who is, and I quote, "too lazy to sign in", added her as a Squib again. (Grinds teeth) Needless to say, I fixed it. Noneofyourbusiness 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well squibs can see dementors and enchanted buildings. Merope made a love potion, but it is unclear from the texts whether squibs can or cannot do this. It's not apparent if potion making requires any magical ability as Snape has said, "There will be no silly wand waving in this class." Dumbledore said that her magical ability may have been suppressed by abuse. Has it ever been verified by JKR that squibs cannot make potions? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She also performed a cleaning spell with her wand. And understood Parseltongue. Squibs cannot see Dementors, as Rowling has confirmed (see the Arabella Figg page}.
Didn't she also provoke her father's wrath by (mis)summoning a cauldron? Just because she did it badly doesn't make her a squib (it reflects either a lack of skill or confidence).Michaelsanders 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. Squibs are the same as Muggles, they can't even do spells badly. It's definitely a lack of confidence. Neville is bad at spells for the same reason. An untalented wizard is an untalented wizard, not a Squib.Noneofyourbusiness 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Rowling does make it clear that magical ability has nothing to do with blood purity than it does by the qualities a person has, confidence, bravery, intelligence, conscience. It explains a lot, like how Neville has untapped ability and Harry is powerful but has trouble with unforgiveable curses. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merope Gaunt and Squibs 

message: I don't listing pure-bloods by family is a good idea. Some members of the family are indeed not pure-bloods. Ted Tonks and Nymphadora Tonks, for example, are included under the Black family. Some random viewer will get the idea that they are pure-bloods, since they is listed there. --Mozart2005 15:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple of notes to the Black family's entry to clarify that Ted and Nymphadora aren't considered pure-blood even though they're (arguably) part of a pure-blood family.  I think this is a better approach than removing the listings-by-family.  --Icarus 05:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Pure-Blooded Families? 

message: Your biological theory has a big flaw.  When a wizard and a muggle have a child, the child is usually magic.  Under your theory this would only happen in the offside chance that the muggle parent had a recessive gene. Arctic.gnome 09:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it looks like the major flaw is having this section exist in the article at all.  Anyone else think it ought to go away?  Friday (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it has to go away at all. This kind of speculation keeps things interesting and this is essentially an informal wiki page. As for my take on it, alleles act in ways that are more than just Mendelian. Multiple/quantitative alleles might also factor in, considering the fact that some people possess greater magical potency over others and some wizards seem to have this almost inborn talent for magic (re: Dumbledore). Also we might consider the fact that many genes have partial and full expression thresholds. If magical ability is mendelian dominant it only requires a 50% expression threshold but maybe the threshold is even less, akin to 25%. This would explain why half-blood and muggleborn wizards/witches are equally as potent as purebloods - the gene requires a lower level of expression than your average mendelian gene to manifest in a phenotype.141.157.26.152 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's very true. Another example is Huntington's disease, which is dominant but often arises purely through spontaneous mutation (CAG repeats within the huntingtin gene - >40 repeats I think is enough to cause severe huntington's and between 30 and 40 is mild). I think that's probably the most plausible answer - there's something wrong with the magical gene and a squib arises. It's not so simple for the Muggleborn, since the magical gene is kind of hard to arise purely through spontaneity. I'm actually intrigued, I think that the magical gene might exist within the genome as a jumping gene or "transposon" and at certain places in the genome it can become active. This explains how that if an ancestor of who knows how long back had the gene, it can become deactivated - and then reactivate many generations later, causing a Muggleborn witch or wizard. However, I think the mutation theory seems to make sense for Squibs.141.157.26.152 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Explanation 

message: The article says that the idea of blood purity and superiority to muggles is in decline. What is the basis for this? I have seen it reported that pure-blood families are in decline (the characters discuss this somewhere, something about difficulty of pure bloods finding other pure bloods to marry?), but where does it say that bias in general is in decline? Many wizards (even the ones on the good side) seem to have strong views on who/what is superior to what else. Sandpiper 23:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in decline? 

message: I notice this was just removed by an anonymous editor:
The term Mudblood is comparable to the word "Nigger" used towards people of African descent in America.  It looks like it had been in there at least a little while, and I see no problem with it, so I put it back.  I know the n-word is offensive, but the comparison is IMO quite useful.  Friday (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody removed it again, so I put it back. That fact that the word "nigger" is offensive doesn't make the comparison less true. --¿WhyBeNormal? 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They might have a good reason to take it down, but if that's so, they should argue their case.  -Arctic.gnome 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't kept track of changes to this page for a while, but I decided to check previous changes and saw that the mudblood/nigger comparison is gone yet again. It's a valid comparison, so I put it back. If somebody has a good reason to take it down, as Arctic.gnome has said, they should argue their case here on the talk page. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of "Mudblood" to "Nigger" 

message: Shouldn't we make more explicit that the term half-breed isn't exactly a flattering one, and is only used as an insult? As it is, listing Flitwick and Hagrid on a list of "half-breeds" is rather odd. I should also point out that "half-breed" is an insulting name for someone of mixed white/black lineage, so one should be careful how one uses it in any case. Serendipodous 10:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It always seems insulting to me, too.  Is "mixed-breed" any better?  Sounds a little like a dog.  Or "Characters with Mixed Ancestry" and let the examples explain that it means human mixed with other Beings? Kam Tonnes 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or how about "part-humans"? --Mithcoriel 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Half-breeds

message: I went through the article to make the use of capitals and hyphens more consistent.  Rowling uses capitals for Muggles, Muggle-born, Squib, and Mudblood and hyphens for pure-blood and half-blood.  If it's good enough for her, it's good enough for me.  :)  Also, the explanation that Mudblood is insulting appeared in three different places, so I removed two of them. Kam Tonnes 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization and Hyphens

message: I removed the following as it is still only speculation.
:"Regulus, known as a Death Eater in first 5 books. But he destroyed one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, so he changed his way, but nobody knew that until that letter, which ends with: R.A.B.." 
And I believe this theory is covered on the page for Regulus anyway.   Kam Tonnes 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: R.A.B. speculation

message: Where is this from - she is not on the tree.
:Hi. JKR's hand-drawn Black family tree which she donated for a charity auction was put on display, so the information on it --such as the name of Sirius's mother-- has now been publicized.  See The Leaky Cauldron article here. --Mercury McKinnon 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does Mrs Black's Name come from 

message: This article has multiple spoiler tags but no spoiler end tags. Brian Jason Drake 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Someone removed all the categories other than the ones between both worlds. This makes no sense and I have reverted the article. Noneofyourbusiness 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the blood categories

message: To what extent is Voldemort actually trying to bring about a wizarding society based on Blood Purity, and how far is he solely pursuing 'ethnic cleansing' (which seems arather inappropriate term, since DE discrimination seems based not on ethnicity but magical heritage)? Voldemort seems to be as contemptuous of Purebloods as he is of Muggles and Muggleborns, and he seems to discriminate not between 'Wizards' and 'Muggles', but between 'those who serve Me' and 'Those who oppose Me' (remember that he went after the Pureblooded Prewetts and Longbottoms, as well as others who I think were Purebloods; and Severus Snape seems to be climbing quite high in the organisation). Michaelsanders 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voldemort's Motivations

message: I seem to reacall an interview with JKR where she mentions the (unintentional) and creepy similarity between the system of blood purity followed by the wizards in her books and the Nazi's.  SPecifically I remember he mentioning mixed bloods, which woudl be people like Harry who are the child of a half blood within some number of generations.  Am I just imagineing this?  If not can someon dig up the interview so we can add it to the article? Dalf | Talk 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She did state that. Noneofyourbusiness 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea where?  I think this article saying Harry is "Half-blood" is incorrect, and shoudl be changed but I wont change it without a reference.  Maybe I will dig through the archives of interviews later today. Dalf | Talk 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is:  http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58  --T-dot 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you I was worried that I may have been remembering incorrectly and it appears that I was.  Thanks for the reference. Dalf | Talk 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed blood 

message: Has the comparison between Wizards and Jews been brought up anywhere? Michaelsanders 09:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, assuming that it hasn't, anyone who cares can read my summation on my discussion page User_talk:Michaelsanders (it is there because it is over-long and rambling, and thus probably shouldn't clog up this page). If however, I am merely restating what can easily be found somewhere else, please tell me. Michaelsanders 17:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wizards and Judaism