Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 8

message: Should we delete the disambig page and modify the disambig notice on this page - I don't think we need the book titles on any disambig notice/link? Brian Jason Drake 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the disambig page has the author on it, we should keep it. I've just improved it. Brian Jason Drake 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: Um.  Hi.  I'm new.  !
I've noticed that the lead (the beginning section of the article) seems a bit...improvable.  I'm tinkering around on my word processor to see if I can conjure up a better one, but if you don't want me to, that's okay (I'm not doing a total overhaul, just a few tiny changes, such as the "Lord Voldemort, who uses the dark arts to kill Harry's parents and attempts to take over the world" bit).
Sorry if I sound like a blithering idiot.  Hm.  Dread Pirate Felix 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead, among other things

message: We have now reached the point where the entire first page of this article's edit history consists of fifty reverted edits. It's quite clear that this page, for whatever reason, is a vandal magnet. In my opinion it should be semi-protected for good. Serendipodous 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page needs to be semi-protected again

message: I uploaded a fair use image, :Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg, intending to replace the title cover of the first book in this article with the stamps, which have the book covers on them. Nonetheless, after reading the template:Non-free stamp, I noticed one condition was "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". Does this mean using the stamps in the article would qualify as fair use or be a copyright violation? If so, then the image should be deleted. Your advice is appreciated. Brisvegas 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stamps in Infobox?

message: The criticism section is overwhelmingly "anti" at the moment; we need to find a few of those early positive reviews to balance it out. Serendipodous 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, despite not having read the section: despite it being called "Criticism and praise", each subheading has the word "criticism" in it. Brian Jason Drake 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also gives a lot of weight to minority, fringe beliefs. The John Birch Society and the Constitution Party are way out there even by the standards of American conservatives. The objections based on witchcraft, while obviously ludicrous, are widespread enough I think they deserve some mention. The John Birch stuff, and opinions on who Rowley's heroine is, are too minor for inclusion. thx1138 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did something which might prove controversial, and if anyone has a better idea I'd be pleased to change it. Since finding a lot of those earliest reviews online has proven to be impossible, I have used the "blurb" page on my old copy of CoS, which contains quotes from some of the first ever Harry Potter reviews. Obviously it's hardly neutral, but these are major newspapers and their opinions count, and anyway, it would serve to balance the tone of the criticism section, which gives a lot of airtime to the books' detractors.Serendipodous 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: The release date for Order of the Phoenix in the states has been changed to July 11, 2007, ast stated on Mugglenet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.226.74 (talk • contribs) 
Wait until it is officially confirmed. Serendipodous 06:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie release date

message: What is the page number in book 6 where Harry is notified that he is the Gryffindor Quidditch captain? Badgerstripe 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In chapter 6 when he receives his OWLs. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Number

message: This is a minor issue, but I am trying to clean up after a series of misguided contributions from  and the last one remaining is a misplaced link to a Variety review [s]he added to the Harry Potter#References section.  Could someone remove it?  Thanks. —  05:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Daggoth | Talk 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete orphaned external link in References section 

message: Can someone please delete that extremely annoying sentence at the end of the Feminist Criticism section about Ginny being a redeeming "bold heroine", as it completely contradicts the point of the section, which is not the purpose of this article. Ginny is not a "bold heroine" that allays feminist concerns about the patriarchy of Harry Potter, quite simply because she's not given enough importance in the story. If you can find a critical essay that states otherwise then please cite it and we'll say no more; if not, it is a POV sentence and should be removed. 212.139.101.152 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  You can make whatever edits you feel are necessary.  -FeralDruid 02:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, sorry, hadn't noticed that.  You're right, that Ginny comment is out of place given her small part in the overall series.  I'm also considering adding some of Emma Watson's words from this interview, specifically her second answer where she addresses the comments made by French magazine Liberation.  -FeralDruid 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist Criticism

message: Or at least radically shortened it. It contains a LOT of original research and will need to be either extensively verified or ditched before this article can even hope to gain a GA nod, let alone an FA nod. Serendipodous 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; I've never heard of a separate Wiki article for a plot summary. The story stays; the Themes and Motifs section should go. Serendipodous 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think it's time we got rid of the "Themes and Motifs" section

message: I think splitting the story off would allow focus on stuff like themes and motifs for those interested, and bring the article size down. Thoughts?
Walker9010 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; I've never heard of a separate Wiki article for a plot summary. The story stays; the Themes and Motifs section should go. Serendipodous 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Why was the "Structure and Genre" subsection deleted, when the OR-fest that is themes and motifs survives? Serendipodous 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey! Wait a minute!

message: There is a serious error in the Themes section, in that the supporting link states the opposite view to that of the Wiki contributor's. The current text reads, "Along the same lines is the ever-present theme of adolescence, in whose depiction Rowling has been purposeful in her refusal to acknowledge her characters' sexualities and leave Harry, as she put it, "stuck in a state of permanent pre-pubescence".[20]" But at the linked interview at [20], Rowling states the opposite intent, "She hints at unexpected twists ahead as Harry, the young wizard, grows up: "And he does grow up - in book four the hormones are going to kick in - I don't want him stuck in a state of permanent pre-pubescence like poor Julian in the Famous Five!""
- Sophie-David http://www.innerbeloved.com/ 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theme Unsupported by Quotation

message: hey could we get some like user boxes or template thingys for harry potter like "this User is a gryffindor" or whatever like have a death eater one too and stuff
:Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates. Further queries about general Harry Potter info on Wikipedia should be addressed to WT:Harry, not this discussion page, which is for the improvement of the article Harry Potter. Thank you. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates/userboxes 

message: I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books, and was reading this article.  I noticed a few mistakes and some things that could perhaps be worded better.  There might also be some overlookings, I haven't delved too far into that yet.  When I tried to fix these small problems, though, I found that the article was protected.  I thought making an account would let me edit, but evidently not.  So, my question is this: how can I edit this page if it's protected?  Any response would help.  --Solar Sunstorm 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Wikipedia protection policy, so you'll understand the different levels of protection.  Harry Potter is semi-protected, so there's a four-day restriction on editing by newly registered accounts.  This page is vandalized daily, and semi-protection helps cut down on some of the clutter.  Since you've just registered your account, if you can just wait a few days you'll be able to make your edits.  -FeralDruid 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is frequently vandalised by brainless idiots, and as the media warm up for the seventh book, it's only going to get worse. Restricting it to created accounts cuts down the vandalism, but not completely (believe it or not, some people go to the trouble of creating an account just to vandalise a page), so the current protection program restricts editing to  accounts that have been active for at least four days. You sound like a committed and interested contributor, and Wikipedia could use more of you :-). Have a look at some of the unprotected Harry Potter pages and see if there's anything you think needs your help. In four days you'll be able to come back and edit this one. Serendipodous 05:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I really appreciate the explaination.  I can see how this page would be a huge target for vandals. --Solar Sunstorm 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access to page? 

message: Things were getting a bit personal and I didn't like the way it was going. I thought this the best way to diffuse the situation before it exploded. And it's not like it was contributing anything useful to the article anyway. Serendipodous 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I archived the last thread

message: Substituted at 11:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article contains the following:
:Blood purity: Wizards in general tend to view Muggles with a combination of condescension and suspicion; however, for a few, this attitude has evolved into bigotry. These characters tend to class those around them based on the number of magical ancestors they had, with "pure-blood" wizards (those with an entirely-magical bloodline) at the top of the hierarchy, "half-blood" wizards in the middle (those with both wizard and Muggle ancestry), and "Muggle-borns" (those with no magical ancestors) at the very bottom. Supporters of blood purity believe pure-bloods should control the wizarding world, and don't consider Muggle-borns real wizards.
At first, wizard mutts (for lack of a better term) are defined as "half-bloods," while "those with no magical ancestors" are defined as "muggle-borns."  Does this refer to wizards who have no magical ancestry, or to non-wizards who have no magical ancestry?  Can a wizard be born to two non-wizards who never had any magical ancestry?  If not, then why does this article state that the bigots claim that "Muggle-borns should not be considered real wizards," as muggle-borns, by the definition above, are not wizards, let alone should they not be considered wizards. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-wizard with no magical ancestry is a Muggle. A wizard with no magical ancestry is a Muggle-born. A non-wizard with magical ancestry is  a Squib, while a wizard with wizard ancestry is a pureblood. A half-blood is someone with one or more Muggle grandparents. Most wizards are half-blood, so, by definition, most wizards are not pure-blood fanatics, and only pureblood fanatics do not call Muggle-borns wizards. Serendipodous 06:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say pureblood fanatics do not call Muggle-borns wizards, but if they can perform magic what else would they be called?  Malfoy calls Hermione a Mudblood, in the sense that she is a witch with dirty, or Muggle, blood.  Muggle-borns are wizards, otherwise they would just be called Muggles.--Solar Sunstorm 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...I was unaware that wizard ability was possible for someone without any magical ancestry.  Serendipodous, isn't your statment that A half-blood is someone with one or more Muggle grandparents. a bit imprecise?  Wouldn't any bit of non-magical ancestry, such as a squib parent, make someone a half-blood? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A half blood is someone with one or more Muggle grandparents. A squib, by definition, has two wizard parents. A squib with a wizard and a Muggle parent would be a Muggle. Therefore, if a  squib married a Muggle and had a wizard child, that child would he a half blood. If a squib married a Muggle and had a non-wizard child, that child would be a Muggle. Sunstorm, re: pureblood fanatics not calling Muggle-borns wizards. I don't even remember any of them using the term "Muggle-born"; that appears to be a term used exclusively by the more tolerant. Certianly in GoF, Malfoy makes no distinction between Hermione and the Muggles being tortured. ("If you think they can't spot a Mudblood..."). After Skeeter's article, Hermione recieves anonymous letters telling her to "Go back where you came from Muggle", so clearly she is not considerd a wizard by all. Serendipodous 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in the letters Muggle is used derogatorily, as an insult to her Muggle parents.  The Death Eaters would happily torture a Mudblood not because they weren't magical but because they were so closely connected with Muggles.  Purebloods would consider her a witch because she could do magic, but not consider her worthy of being part of the wizarding community because of her dirty blood.  If Muggle-borns aren't considered wizards, Half-bloods should only be half-a-wizard and only purebloods could really be called wizards.  So I've been led to believe, but maybe I'm just confused :P --Solar Sunstorm 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-statement 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes and motifs in Harry Potter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OR FORK in AfD 

message: * Link to Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes. by Harold Bloom
* Link to Harry Potter And The Childish Adult by A. S. Byatt
These and more links can be found here. --80.129.99.152 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: "The wizarding world in which Harry finds himself is both utterly separate from and yet intimately connected to our own world."... that has got to be one of the most ill written lines in any well edited page on wikipedia. It reads like the crap someone in marketing spills out to fanbois, not like a well written addition to a page on a major literary work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.183.31 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not sure what criteria you're using but that sentence is grammatically spot-on. Perfect English usage I would say and a hell of a lot better written than some of the garbage I've seen. AulaTPN 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReWrite Please 

message: This article is outrageously pro-Harry Potter! In every section you can find some example of this. We need to do something about this, as this site shouldn't be an advertisement for the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk • contribs) 
:Explain yourself. Alientraveller 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. The article provides a clear and concise (sometimes) summary of the novels and universe. AulaTPN 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny, because the Criticism section gives extensive voice to every single major anti-Harry Potter commentatro from AS Byatt to Harold Bloom. If people still think it's pro-Harry Potter, then I can only assume it must be fairly balanced. Serendipodous 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: A common refrain on many news and other web sites (see Google hits) is that the Harry Potter books have been translated into more languages than any book except the Bible. This seems odd. Are there any sources out there that back this claim up with statistics? 
EDIT: OK, I've found this source which places her third behind L Ron Hubbard and Anne Frank. There is a problem here though. The cite doesn't mention religous texts, such as the Bible and the Tao te Ching, both of which claim to be the most translated book in the world. It is also further complicated by the fact that one of Hubbard's works, Dianetics, is itself technically a religious text, since it is the foundation text for the Church of Scientology. I'm also not inclined to believe Scientology's own official figures on this. 
Here's an even more puzzling source that puts the Bible at #22 and Harry Potter off the list!
Serendipodous 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That last source appears to be a list of the authors/books that have been translated the most times, rather than into the most languages. This is why prolific authors are so heavily represented (this is refered to in the text). So an author who has written 10 books, each of which was translated into 10 languages, outperforms an author who has written a single book that has been translated into 50 languages. So it's interesting, but it doesn't quite relate to the claim we're dealing with. Skittle 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter vs. Bible translations