Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter)

message: As interesting and thorough as this article is, much of it seems to be original analysis and speculation by fans who come to their own conclusions based on evidence given by the books and JK Rowling. Although I have nothing personally against this, Wikipedia needs to be based off of reliable secondary (and not primary) sources. Which means, no original research.
In addition, I don't think that talk about genetics is approriate at all in this article, as it was demonstrated how, in the world defined by Rowling, the laws of genetics don't exactly work as they should. And we're bringing in terms that should be deemed irrelevant to the subject, and talk about genetics is obviously original research. However, if you ask me, magic ability could probably be linked to "magic energies" present in the cells themselves, or maybe mitochrondria, which have their own DNA and exist as part of the cell. 
Anyways.... alot of this stuff has got to go, i think... :(Blueaster 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong in basing articles on reporting primary sources, such as the books themselves. But there ought also to be references to the debate about this from reliable sources such as HP-lexicon, mugglenet, TLC etc. Sandpiper 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research (original analysis) 

message: This article has far too many examples. It goes into far more detail about the families than is necessary for an article about a plot device, especially as it seems most of the families have their own articles anyway.
I've pulled out a few random examples:
:Most of the men in the family are named after stars or constellations, the exceptions being Phineas and Marius. Only three of the fourteen known Black women were named for stars or constellations: Cassiopeia, Bellatrix, and Andromeda.
:Phineas Nigellus Black, the least popular headmaster in Hogwarts history, who has a portrait in the Headmaster's office as well as at 12 Grimmauld Place. He was in Slytherin House, and despised teaching as much as the students despised him.
:"Narcissa" is the feminine form of Narcissus, a character in Greek mythology who drowned after falling in love with his own reflection (Narcissa Malfoy is said to be quite beautiful). It also refers to the narcissus flower, commonly known as the daffodil.
:The Weasleys were also one of the poorest wizarding families in the series, though this has changed somewhat since Arthur Weasley got a promotion and all of their children except Ron and Ginny (who are still in school) have well-paying jobs and are able to support themselves financially.
:Mrs Longbottom is a proud and dignified lady who wears long robes (her favourite colour may be green), a fox-fur scarf, a distinctive hat topped with a stuffed vulture, and carries a large red handbag.
: Morfin Gaunt is buried in a grim graveyard beside the prison, where other inmates who died within the fortress are buried.
These are by no means all of the unnecessary examples. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented out the unnecessary examples I found (not just the ones above). If there are no objections, I will remove them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many examples

message: I didn't spot this in time to chime in on the AfD debate, but I do see a small problem with the title of this article.  When I first saw Blood purity my original assumption was that it was going to be an article on the concept of "Blood Quanta" Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Blood_Quanta which is a real application of the concept of "blood purity".
Because of the potential for confusion and misdirection, I would propose that this article be moved to a less ambiguous name such as Blood purity in Harry Potter or Blood purity (Harry Potter) or something similar, and this page be turned in to a disambiguation page pointing both to this content as well as the Native Americans article.
Because this just underwent a contentious AfD debate, I am refraining from making this move unilaterally and waiting to see what, if any, thoughts on the matter come up. Arkyan • (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I will wait  a few more days, if someone is against your idea, and if not, I will move the topic. It needs to be mentioned in the topic, that this is about Harry Potter, not Blood Purity in the real world. Neville Longbottom 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This article (and not the talk page) was moved by means of copy-and-paste. I've reverted that; since it needs to be moved by an admin, I've asked John Reaves to do so. Michael  Sanders 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article moving

message: Although this probably seems inappropriate, should it not be mentioned somewhere that mudblood is basically the equivalent of the term 'n-word' for African-Americans? 71.244.106.78
:No because it isn't. That term is used specifically as a form of abuse for an entire race of people. 'Mudblood' is much more selective than that, it's about immediate ancestry. AulaTPN 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intended or not, every time someone uses some of these names it sounds just like the n-bomb.  The use of mudblood, muggle or squib really sounds racist no matter who says it in the story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mudblood is meant to be <B>AS</B> offensive as the n-word without actually being the n-word; so in a sense, you're correct.  In the series, it's used the same way: as an inflamatory insult brought out by the hatred of someone's liniage.  But simply beacause you see mudblood and think "n-word" says more about your personal perceptions than it does the intended use of the word. 143.138.26.138 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Derogative of African Americans?

message: In the Lestrange Family section, it says that a M Lestrange is a ghost at the Ministry of Magic and owned one of the first stores at the Diagon Alley. Where did those pieces of information came from? 201.37.226.89 22:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lestrange Family 

message: I propose we just do what was done at the Weasley article and remove it from this one. Regardless of who is right about the Potters blood status, it's crufty as hell anyways, and hurts the aesthetics of an already ugly, crufty page. Thoughts? faithless (speak) 06:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Logic aside, the page is clusterf***y as all get out. I am purging all the house blood purity mentions now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure blood status stuff 

message: Whats with all the thousands of "citation neeeded" tags for things that are straight from the book. Is someone just trying to be POINTy?. No article would have that many references, if you need refs that badly, why not try .--Jac16888 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the Hell?