Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 11

message: The article describes the series as a "hepatology."  I beleive that the correct spelling of the word is "herpatology," meaning the study of reptiles.  This is very confusing to ameteur HP fans, as reptiles, such as Voldemort's snake, are in the book, but the book is not about the snake but the boy.  Harry can talk to snakes, but on the other hand the snakes can talk back to Harry.  The books really din't give much information about snakes, it just has them in them.  It's kind of like that movie, the Astronaut Farmer, which seems like its about space travel, which draws a large audience.  Then it turns out that its not about space, but about the Farmer and his family.  One of the actors in the movie is John Greis.  He was also Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite.  This brings me to my second point.  There should be an article about how books and movies parody each other, like Harry Potter, The Napoleon Dynamite, and The Red Badge of Courage. In essence, all of these books are about the same thing: a young man who grows up.  Of course, one can argue that John Cambell and George Lucas have also good examples for this article.  In any case, an article about similar thematic books and movies should be created.  In his memoirs, Richard Nixon describes cinema as the "predominant art and media of the emerging century"  This view embodies the changes of the times, just as does the death of the VHS tape. When Harry Potter the movie came out, it was released on Video and DVD.  Now, Harry Potter makes DVD's, which hhave certain benefits and flaws. someone should talk to the harry potter people and tell them to put harry Potter back on VHS, or in any case, on UHF.  Harry Potter parodies Sienfeld on anumber 0f levels.  Jerry's comedic jenius is evident in harry, and Rons whiney attitude is clearly drawn from George costanza.  Hermoine is like elaine because they are both girls, and Snape takes after Kramer in the sense that the burst through doors. 204.102.108.31 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is meant to signify that it consists of 7 books, but Google define gives three definitions, all involving liver disease. Someone screwed up. asyndeton 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, you cannot read. It says 'heptalogy' not 'hepatology'. This means seven books are in the series. asyndeton 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the anon user was yanking your chains. Of course he knows the proper word. He's taking the piss out of you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never underestimate the stupidity of Anon, Arcayne. :) faithless (speak) 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not being stupid, for God's sake, not even the brain-damaged would say "Snape takes after Kramer in the sense that the burst through doors". I mean, it's so obvious that Sirius is Kramer. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hepatology 

message: I would just like to point out that the "American English" translation is a mess.  It is inconsistent (Mrs. Weasley is "Mom" in the first book and "Mum" in the last); it is incomplete (what is a Head Boy?); and in one notorious case it ruined the writer's intention ("Philosopher's Stone" has a long pedigree; the American translation "Sorcerer's Stone" is meaningless).
The American publishers would have been better off publishing what Rowling wrote, maybe adding a glossary of British terms.
CharlesTheBold 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does that have to do with the article?  Read the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."  V-train 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: First, it's "Rowling," not "Rawling." Second...what the crap? You made absolutely no sense at all. Anakinjmt 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American English" translation 

message: It hes become clear to me that the article fails to mention the influence of the American Transendental tradition, which hearkens back to the days of Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson.  This is truly the case and, if not corrected disgraces the legacy's of these great writers. 204.102.108.31 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide the academic literature backing up your claim. Brisvegas 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A VERY Serious Error in the Article 

message: I added this under Themes: "Nonetheless, the books do not contain any sexual scenes, and the reader is left with the impression that both Harry and Ron remain virgins until after the Battle of Hogwarts."
This is very relevant since most 17-18-year-old teenagers in the UK have had sex. Please explain why this observation should not have a right. --Law Lord (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not everything is about sex. We shouldn't look at every book about adolescence through the prism of whether the protagonists have hit the sack by a certain age or not. The characters' sex lives in this series were really a sideshow to the main game, and that is what the article should focus on. And just because Rowling doesn't mention it in the books doesn't mean it didn't happen (e.g. Dumbledore's orientation). Ron could have very well gone further with Lavender than we saw. Not that we want to know. In any case, the books are about a deeper kind of love than that between one's loins. Brisvegas 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that aside, it is nothing but OR and speculation on your behalf Law Lord. Neither have a place on Wikipedia. Do not add it again. asyndeton (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no speculation on my part here. It is a matter of fact that both Ron and Harry remain virgins until after the Battle of Hogwarts, since the author has provided no scenes which would indicate the contrary. What is OR? As an aside, I have looked at your contributions Asyndeton, and I wonder: have you actually contributed anything? As far as I can tell, all you do is delete what others have written. --Law Lord (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remove an awful lot of OR, speculation, fancruft and rubbish, such as your additions. The books says nothing about it, JKR has said nothing about it, therefore we say nothing about it. asyndeton (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, your contributions are rubbish. Also, you are a very rude person. The books say plenty about Harry and Ron's sexual exploits (and lack of such) but obviously, you have not read them. --Law Lord (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Law Lord, please refrain from personal comments. What you wrote is OR. Who is left with that impression? Not me. We never see Arthur and Molly getting down, but they obviously copulate like jack rabbits. We never see Dean Thomas brush his teeth, or Cho Chang wash her hair...are we to assume those things didn't happen? Clearly not, they aren't there because they're not relevant, the same with the sexual exploits of every character in the series. We don't see it because it's not important, not because it didn't happen. You're saying that something didn't happen with absolutely no proof to back up your claim. That is original research. Also, it's a children's book!! Ew!! Who wants to see sex in a children's book?! *shivers in disgust* faithless (speak) 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone else has pretty much summed it up. There is zero mention of it or hinting of it in the books (very similar to Dumbledore's sexuality), so unless JKR says something, it would be OR. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faithlessthewonderboy: I think most people would agree that Harry Potter is much more than just a children's book. Since the later books deals with teenagers, only prude Americans would not want to see sex in the books. *shivers in disgust (especially at prudes from the US south states)* --Law Lord (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I'm going to assume good faith here and not take offense at what appears to be an attack. After all, I'm not prudish in the least, and while I currently live in the South, I am from San Francisco (well-known for the prudish behavior of its citizens), so you can insult the South to your heart's content. I am curious though; why would you attack me like you did? Did I do something to offend you? Or is my nationality enough to earn your ire? Did you honestly think that mocking me (*shivers in disgust (especially at prudes from the US south states)*) was really the best course of action? We can't all be European Übermenschen, after all, and some of us have to settle for being American. It's shameful, really. Regardless, Harry Potter is a children's series, there is absolutely no sex in the series. We can't put something in the article which isn't present in the novels. Find a scholarly paper discussing the insatiable libido of Ronald Weasley, maybe we'll talk. Cheers, faithless (speak) 07:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) With respect, it isn't just Faithless who thinks it's inappropriate to discuss the matter. Your comments are totally out of order, and you should probably back down. Your suggestion for inclusion is pretty clearly opposed. Maybe you could move on, instead of providing uncited and speculative information in the form of (I presume) an attempt at persuasive editing. Of course, if you feel the matter deserves further consideration, please feel free to consult an admin on the matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Faithlessthewonderboy: I have no clue as to why you would feel that I attacked you. That question is better answered between you and a therapist, so I regret that I am unable to help you with this. However, since you seem very interested in my opinion on your person, I can offer a bit of help on that. The mere fact that you would "shiver in disgust" as to something a fellow editor wrote makes you unsuitable for editing any part of Wikipedia. My many Americans friends have better manners than you and so I admit I was a bit chocked that an American (this you are?) would shiver in disgust merely because he/she was unable to offer clever counter argument. Such a lack of manners is completely unacceptable from any person, regardless of nationality. Going back to Ron Weasly, I would say the fact that he is hung, probably explains why he does not have the problems you seem to be having. Also, please sign with your user name since otherwise any hint of credibility is gone. --Law Lord (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, good question. Why do I think you were insulting me? Hmm...I guess it would have to do with the fact that you began your post with "Faithlessthewonderboy:" and you then proceeded to attack prudish Americans, especially those in the South. That must be it. faithless (speak) 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, what exactly spurred this?  The "shiver in disgust" was quoting YOUR post above, he was not making a statement about himself.  He signs his posts, so not sure what you're getting at there, either.  You clearly need to read WP:CIV and WP:NPA.  As for your comment about Ron... ugh.  V-train (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read all the posts you will find that Faithlessthewonderboy first "shivered in disgust" with regard to something I wrote. In my opinion, it is WP:NPA to "shiver in disgust" at other editors, which is what he did. --Law Lord (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  His comment was referring to the idea of sex in a children's book.  Regardless, even if he did attack you (which I don't think he did), it doesn't give you license to violate WP:NPA.  Things started going off the rails when you attacked Asyndeton.  Finally, the comment was made almost two weeks ago, get over it.  V-train (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been on vacation since – unlike others – Wikipedia is not my whole life. I have not been following all talk pages during that time. Your "get over it"-comment is rude, and that is not something I should get over but rather something you should try to change in the way you act towards your betters. Were you taught to be rude by your parents or later in life? It does not matter why, you should change it regardless. --Law Lord (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Prude Americans? I resent that, as that has negative connotations. I have morals and values that are different from yours, which is fine, but calling people that don't want to read about sex "prudes" is highly offensive. Please, watch what you say, or type, from now on. Anakinjmt 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it started when you wrote this: "As an aside, I have looked at your contributions Asyndeton, and I wonder: have you actually contributed anything? As far as I can tell, all you do is delete what others have written."  V-train 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are all arguing and making so-called attacks on eachother over wikipedia, well then you need to get a life. It's a book, people have their opinions and you may not agree with them, get over it. 206.229.18.66 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly, it has no place. J.K. Rowling hasn't said anything (thank goodness!), and since the books don't even hint at it, why should we add it in, considering it would be speculation, and therefore original research? Anakinjmt 14:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should start on a fresh and stay focused on the subject matter. There are several references to sex in the books. Since Harry Potter does feel very shy and scared towards kissing Chi in Order of the Phoenix it is not OR to conclude that he was a virgin at that point in time. --Law Lord 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A: Why would you say he's a virgin at least up until he kisses Cho? What's the point of that? I don't think that's notable to mention. B: There is not a reference to sex in the books, and to say there is is wrong. C: It is OR to conclude that someone is a virgin just because it's not mentioned that he ever had sex. Not stated in book, not mentioned in article. Case closed. Anakinjmt 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Who says he was a virgin when he kissed Cho? I'm in my mid-twenties and I still get a few butterflies in my stomach when I'm about to kiss a girl I like for the first time. As for Law Lord, you have a lot of nerve attacking several editors in the same post in which you chastise those same people for having no manners. It's laughable, not insulting, and you're making a fool of yourself. Continue if you must, but I think I speak for everyone else here when I say that I'm done trading childish barbs with you. Let's stick to improving the article. faithless (speak) 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you quite done with the personal attacks now? Perhaps if I let you have the last word, your insults will cease ... --Law Lord 10:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. Anyone reading this will see quite clearly that it is you who has been uncivil and insulting towards his fellow editors. My previous post made it quite clear that I had no interest or desire to continue this. Therefore, this will be my last post on this topic. faithless (speak) 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Law Lord has apologized, he deserves the apologies of those who have insulted him. At this point, the best thing to do is just forget it and move on. Therefore, I also apologize. Now, as for the article: I think we're all agreed that the text of the novels doesn't go into nearly enough detail to warrant any type of sexual themes section. All we could say is that there is an absence of sex in the book which, aside from not being noteworthy, any conclusions drawn from that would constitute original research. Therefore, I would suggest that the only possible way that such a section could be included would be if someone found some sort of scholarly paper (or book, article, whatever) which discusses the matter. Perhaps NAMBLA has written a piece on the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry? Yes, that was a completely tasteless joke. And no, it wasn't even funny. Just trying to lighten the mood. :-) faithless (speak) 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joke or not, I just fail to see any relationship between Harry Potter and pedophilia. Would it be acceptable to mention the (very) few romantic references there are in the book? I am now thinking of Dudley's homosexual reference in the beginning of Order of the Phoenix and the kiss with Cho in same book. --Law Lord 11:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean to imply there was any such relationship, but rather I was ridiculing the idea that there was such a relationship. Moving on...what would you propose such a mention would say? We have to be careful not to give these passing instances undue weight. Sure, Dudley says something about Harry's "boyfriend" Cedric, but it wasn't even a blatantly homophobic remark. Is it really deserving of a mention? I'd say the stuff with Cho is more likely to pan out, but again, there just isn't much in the novels concerning the physical relationships between characters. And obviously, we can't write about what isn't in the books. Honestly, I'm fairly certain that someone, somewhere has written about sex in the series. Amazon has about 2500 nonfiction books discussing HP; I'm sure one of them broaches the subject. I'd have to think finding sources among these types of books is probably the only way we could even begin to consider including something on the subject. Then it gets down to whether or not it's relevant to the article (again, WP:WEIGHT), but we can cross the bridge when we come to it. faithless (speak) 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with most of this. I will return with some material, once I have found it. --Law Lord 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We will be here, waiting. Thank you for apologizing, LL. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just skimmed this entire discussion and it is the most incredible thing I have ever read. --78.146.75.11 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  Thank goodness we have people like Law Lord to entertain us.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.111.228 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual theme in the book 

message: I am posting this again because only things at the bottom of the page ever get looked at.  Now, anyways, Please look at all my previous works on this page, not enough attention has been paid to them. 204.102.108.31 (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't post multiple sections for the same subject. No one responded because your previous post was extremely short and didn't make a lot of sense (no offense). Who says HP has anything to do with transcendentalism? Do you have sources to back up your claim, or is this just your personal opinion? If you explain what you mean a little more thoroughly, you will get more responses. faithless (speak) 02:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest you register an account.  I could be wrong, but I think don't anonymous posts get as much attention as those made by registered users.  Second, someone did reply to you, and you did not respond.  V-train (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Serious Error, or, I Should Say ERRORS, In the Article: REVISITED 

message: As I am unfamiliar with how to add an archive with the automatic archiving system in place (which was an utter mistake by the way), could I entreat someone to archive most of the above as stale-dated and/or resolved conversation? Pls let me know how  you did it, so i will know for the future. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I did. I see where you started to do it, by creating Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 10. So I cut and pasted the conversations that haven't been used for a while and stuck them there. The I had to update the template, so I went to Talk:Harry Potter/Archive box and did what needed to be done (nothing fancy involved), and there you have it. A little more complicated than how I do my talk page, since I don't use a template. Let me know if you need any more help with it, Arcayne. :) faithless (speak) 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please archive

message: There are several points in the article where it says in big bright red letters, "Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title"  I suppose they were put there for a reason, but I don't know how to change them to normal cite disclaimers.  Could someone with more know-how fix that problem?  Thanks! 71.75.103.239 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: From Daily Mail and the Rowling interview in Time magazine: http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=7087&count=0 Don't know if it qualifies for inclusion. You decide. —Eickenberg (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jo has said from the beginning: a 7 book series. The "8th book" isn't part of the main series, but an encyclopedia. It'd be part of the franchise in the same way Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages are, but not part of the main series; therefore a mention of an 8th book would be incorrect. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI: Possibility of an 8th Harry-Potter-book