Talk:Controversy over the Harry Potter series

message: Well references, nicely presented.  Automated peer review suggestions are:
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
DoomsDay349 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: and reads like an essay. I think it needs to be radically shortened. Serendipodous 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Political conservative section contains a lot of OR

message: How notable is it, really? How many people could possibly consider her to be more than moderately leftwing? Outside of the rants of a few (mostly American) ultra-rightwing loonies, I don't see any evidence of criticism for her being leftwing. If anything, people seem to be criticising her for being a Madonna-esque "new toff". This woman is  a self-made millionaire, and has spent her money conspicuously. She has three million-pound houses. She only ever gives interviews for right-wing papers like the Telegraph and the Tatler. To describe her as a socialist seems somewhat ludicrous. Serendipodous 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three million pound houses is rather modest considering the price of property here and her being a self made $ billionair. Don't get much for a million in the UK. Sandpiper 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole "socialist values" thing

message: Anyone notice haw a lot of these people who are against the books for biblical reasons are using a lost of stuff government conspiricy theorists do? Like pulling up fake evidence, nonsensical arguments, and the ever-constant you can't tell that they're not" sort of thing? next, will it be anyone who doesn't believe the ooks are evil are spies/demonically posessed/some other faith trying to convert? --74.134.8.244 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nothing. Check out Nancy Stouffer's website Serendipodous 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea; but it would need backing up. Preferably, a genuinely Wiccan source could be located that shows the massive dissimilarities between the magic in Harry Potter and the magic of the Wiccan religion. Serendipodous 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: conpiricy theorists

message: Wicca isn't part of Christianity. So you can't really have a situation like this:
===Christian Opposition===
and then:
====Wicca and Harry Potter====
because it would give the wrong impression. 
Addhoc 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wicca and Harry Potter section isn't about Christianity, it's about Laura Mallory's claim. Her argument is that the books promote a state-sanctioned religion, Wicca, and thus violate the separation of church and state if kept in state-owned libraries. The point of that paragraph is to show that the books do not promote the Wiccan religion. Serendipodous 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so we're clear... 

message: and then:
====Wicca and Harry Potter====
because it would give the wrong impression. 
Addhoc 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wicca and Harry Potter section isn't about Christianity, it's about Laura Mallory's claim. Her argument is that the books promote a state-sanctioned religion, Wicca, and thus violate the separation of church and state if kept in state-owned libraries. The point of that paragraph is to show that the books do not promote the Wiccan religion. Serendipodous 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Opposition

message: because it would give the wrong impression. 
Addhoc 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wicca and Harry Potter section isn't about Christianity, it's about Laura Mallory's claim. Her argument is that the books promote a state-sanctioned religion, Wicca, and thus violate the separation of church and state if kept in state-owned libraries. The point of that paragraph is to show that the books do not promote the Wiccan religion. Serendipodous 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wicca and ''Harry Potter''

message: When I made the alterations to the layout I thought I was doing a necesssary tidyup. It never occurred to me people would object. May I ask why people have? Because the alternative seemed much less cumbersome to me. Serendipodous 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your userpage, you have been repeatedly blocked for vandalism, so forgive me if I failed to assume good faith on your part in this instance, especially as your edit was unexplained. Serendipodous 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had an edit-war with an aministrator and they misunderstood me and blocked me as a result. This war has since been resolved in my favour. I am sorry I did not explain my edit fully. I thought 'sectioning' would be suffecent. LizzieHarrison 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: sections

message: This article has two halves, and they are virtually unrelated to each other. It is also so section-dense that I've had to resort to the always controversial "definiton list" style. Rather than get into semantic debates about what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't, why don't we instead just create two independent articles Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series. That way, ambiguities are sorted and each section has room to breathe. This page could become a disambig for the two of them. Serendipodous 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After the peer review, I think the best thing to do is to split this article in half