Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Vandalism?

I think someone might want to take a closer look at this paragraph (from the links section of the article):

• Ethel Roberts: THE TRUTH BEHIND HARRY POTTER!! - A essay by the fictional Ethel Roberts, claiming that the Harry Potter books are promoting witchcraft. It has led to hate mail from astoundingly gullible Harry Potter fans ([1] [2]).

"Astoundingly gullible"? Whether true or not, It doesn't sound NPOV to me. 65.94.228.36

Um, somebody wrote this on the page: 'Despite J K Rowling's assertions that she did not have any particular age group in mind when she began to write the Harry Potter books, her publishers initially targeted them at gay niggers aged around 9 to 15.' -Anonymous

Rewrite

Well, I managed to get the article down from 35K to 31K and trimmed and rearranged some things. How's that look? Hermione1980 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adult covers unsuccessful?

The Harry Potter books are primarily aimed at older children (because they have progressively darker themes), but have fans of all ages, as demonstrated by the publication of editions of each book with cover artwork intended for adults. These adult publications, however, have not experienced successful sales to due the popularity attached to the original artwork by Mary GrandPré.

Removing this text (emphasis mine); it's unreferenced and not particularly credible or verifiable. And above all, the reason given is absurd: GrandPré's artwork appears only in the Scholastic (US) editions, whereas the adult covers are Bloomsbury (international) editions. If someone can find figures to back this up, please do so, but without the spurious explanations. -- Perey 02:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Young Sherlock Holmes

I'm not sure about this paragraph, especially as its in the section "Allegations of plagiarism":

"Recent viewers of the 1985 film Young Sherlock Holmes, scripted by Chris Columbus, director of the first two Harry Potter movies, have noticed similarities between its characters, setting, events and tone, and those of the Harry Potter series."

It's not really surprising that films with the same writer or director might share some stylistic similarities, but unless someone can give strong and specific examples of the similarities suggested, I would like to remove this section. JW 2 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. EvilPhoenix July 7, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

Me too. Thelb4 21:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

SPOILER warning necessary

in the overview, when the name "(Tom Marvolo Riddle)" appears after the name voldemort, that constitutes a significant spoiler...

i am still a beginner wikipedia editor, so i want somebody to second my request for removal.

thank you. --jonasaurus 7 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

I seem to remember that getting mentioned previously as well. Go ahead and remove it. EvilPhoenix July 7, 2005 14:05 (UTC)

I object. Have you read the disclaimer? Wikipedia may contain spoilers. That's what that big spoiler warning at the top of the page is for. A similar proposal on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince deadlocked with, I believe, two users for and two users against — see the talk page there. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

I agree with Hermione1980. As long as we don't write Lord Voldemort (Tom Marvolo Riddle) before the spoiler waring, I don't see a reason why we should refrain from wrtiting it. Jotomicron | talk 7 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Well, even though it comes after the spoiler, It's in the introductory part of the main article, so I guess it's just a question of how much you want to reveal. I'm not really sure how many people will really be coming to this article that don't actually know who Tom Riddle is, but I think that linking to the character's article is sufficient, as it will discuss his Muggle name in that article.EvilPhoenix July 8, 2005 01:39 (UTC)

So...

Vote on inclusion of (Tom Marvolo Riddle) after first mention of Lord Voldemort:

For:

1. Hermione1980
2. Jotomicron

Against:

1. jonasaurus
2. EvilPhoenix July 8, 2005 01:38 (UTC)
3. It adds nothing here, and can be clearly seen in Lord Voldemort. —Cryptic (talk) 8 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
4. Same as above --bjwebb 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
5. I think that plot summaries are best when incremental--that is, you can read up to the point where you are in a book without having what you're reading spoil anything further on. It's worth putting the revelation at the end, sure, but there's no need to have it up top. (Think of it as a sort of game walkthrough, where you just want to read the bit that you're stuck on, not see what happens at the end. Phil Bordelon 8 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
6. Tjss July 12, 2005 at 9:45, Seattle time
7. As Lord Voldamort has been linked to its own article which discusses Tom Riddle, the subject matter's completeness is preserved so I think we can remove this bit of fact and if a reader wants to further clarification on LV, then they can continue through on the link. --takagawa-kun 19:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Any others please add in.

Summation

It is a given that the inclusion of LVs real name is a spoiler to the plotlines of the 2nd and 4th books. (I am also worried about the spoiler warning not being prominent enough...)

There are two possible situations that could occur.
1. If a person who understands the plot, and knows LVs original name, sees it, there will be no harm done and they will not gain from the inclusion of the information. However,
2. If a person who does not know the plot, misses the spoiler warning, or hasn't gotten to that point in the book yet, sees it, part of the suspense will be ruined for them, and they will also gain nothing from the inclusion of the information.

As such, while the information is certainly relevant, there is nothing to be gained from its inclusion, while unsuspecting people can be harmed by it. Therfore, I move for the removal of said information.

--jonasaurus 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Update Vote tallied at 7-2 in favor of removal. Went ahead and removed the parenthetical name. --jonasaurus 21:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Book sales

I'm not positive, but I believe that the book sales figures are of U.S. sales only and should be labeled as such. Can someone confirm this? Brendan OShea 9 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

I believe that these book sales figures are out of date... they need to be fixed as she has actually sold over 250 million books.. --jonasaurus 21:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

J.K.'s Net Worth

The article is incorrect when it says, "Unsubstantiated rumours and magazine articles claim that sales from the books, as well as royalties from films and merchandise, have made Rowling richer than Queen Elizabeth II, though in a 2003 interview, Rowling denied having more than £280,000,000, which is Queen Elizabeth's supposed fortune."

J.K. is a billionaire [3]. She is the 552nd wealthiest person in the world, according to Forbes. [4] She is also richer than the queen[5].

Please, if you have the references and they are believable, feel more tha free to change the article. And please, sign your comments. Thank you --Jotomicron | talk 20:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I already did change it and I forgot to sign (as I frequently do elsewhere too). --Nyr14 22:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter Burgers

There's a Harry Potter Burgers food stand in Zhengzhou, PRC. 68.255.6.137 01:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hahahahhahahahahahhaha!!!! That's hilarious!!! Soilguy6 18:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Homophobia

I think the homophobia sentence should be removed. Dudley might have asked if Cedric was Harry's boyfriend, but this is not a homophobic remark at all. If I for example ask John if Tim is his boyfriend ( even if I ask it in a in a taunting way) does that make me a homophobe??? I hope not!

I second that. Even though the statements about prejudice within the books seem to cover all forms of prejudice, this was a simple taunt with no hidden meaning. There was also a line in one of the other books along the lines of "if you love her so much why don't you marry her," which is a taunt along the same lines. I went ahead and removed the reference. --jonasaurus 17:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Those taunts are all based on homophobia. The taunter is making fun of the tauntee because they have a (perceived) homosexual relationship. If that bothers the taunter, that indicates homophobia. Superm401 | Talk 20:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Superm401 is right. A person pretending that some one is gay in order to insult them is homophobic. -Tjss Aug 08, 23:09 (Seattle time)

Hmmm, I think that logic is dodgy. Surely, the point of taunting is to irritate and upset the tauntee. Therefore, all that matters is that the target of the taunt be upset by the criticism. That doesn't require the taunter to be upset by the same thing he is using to make the tauntee miserable. That being said, I'm not going to argue that a boarding school for teenagersis not a place where many people have issues with their sexuality. I'm just pointing out that the idea that you would only mock someone with something that personally bothers you is incorrect. Nandesuka 13:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what Dudley thinks of homosexuals, the fact that he or others consider it an insult to call someone gay is homophobic. -Tjss 7 Aug, 11:43 (Seattle time)

Suppose I'm a young teenage boy walking with a female friend, and somebody insults her and I stick up for her. And let's say that the bully says, "Oh, so SORRRRRY, is that your GIIIIRLFRIEND?" I seriously doubt that the individual is characterizing my defense as anything more than being overprotective of somebody or hypersensitive. And it's certailny not a form of "heterophobia." To leap to the conclusion that the "boyfriend" line is necessarily homophobia is excessive and reactionary, and a case of the fears, insecurities, and biases of our culture being projected upon a text that yields no evidence of the necessity of that judgment. Leave it

Oh, just don't try googling this one. 100,000 references of HP and gay? I was trying to find the passage, this is a tiny mention in the books. I thought there was some comment by Malfoy about a centaur, but maybe I am muddling it up. People only make taunting remarks about things which are insulting in some way. If there is no issue in the wizarding world about homosexuality, then no one would think to use it as a taunt. Only Dudley is not telling us anything about the wizarding world. The examples of taunting a male about their girlfriend or boyfriend are different. One is attacking the choice of girlfriend, the other the existence of a boyfriend. Given that this is at least nominally a childrens book, JKR probably took that as far as she felt safe. But I am sure the teenagers understood it, and younger ones would likely have recognised it from the playground even if they did not understand exactly what it meant. If she mentioned it all, then she did it on purpose to make a point. She intended it to be homophobic, and associate it with being not-nice. Sandpiper 11:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote

• Add homophobia reference to article
  • Tjss at 22:35 (Seattle time) on Aug 8
• Keep homophobia reference out of article
  • Sinistro 08:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Even if it indicates homophobia, it's just a single reference in thousands of pages.
• Keep ref out
  • DynSkeet 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I never read the section in the article that this is referring to, but if this argument is accurate it seems trivial to mention. Dudley is intentionally portrayed as a complete buffoon, and therefore it is hardly surprising if he stoops to ridiculous taunts well below what one would expect from a boy his age. In any case, one reference in six substantial books hardly constitutes a homophobic theme.
• Keep ref out
  • As stated below, I couldn't even figure out what the mention was referring to until I re-read this. Keep it out, it's not a "homophobe" remark.Devilbat
• Keep ref out unless we can find more and non-Dudley examples. Nandesuka 14:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the ref out. Dudley's childish taunting can only be counted as homophobia if you stretch it so far that it would wrap around the Earth twice. --Deathphoenix 21:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out. The text provides no evidence of a homophobic motivation. --I have no user name
• Keep Reference Out. It is too much to say that the statement was homophobic.
  For one, it was a single remark and the subect was never touched on again. I think the remark
  is stretched far too much. Fshy93 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Restore homophopia reference to overview. Rowlings meant what she wrote. I have not found any longer mention in the article, but simply as part of the list of bigotry touched upon, this should be mentioned. Sandpiper 12:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out I don't believe this is a remark to homophobes, until there is some word that Rowling had meant for this to be the case --takagawa-kun 14:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out - I didn't pick it up as a homophobic comment -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out - Though the comment is homophobic, I don't see it as important enough to deserve mention. Superm401 | Talk 03:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out, it's just taunting, not homophobic. Hermione1980 19:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out --βjweþþ (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it out, for Pete's sake
• Keep it out --clay_allison (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Breaking apart articles of characters

We have a number of articles that give brief outlines of minor characters. I'd like to propose that they be broken apart, a page for each individual, and then use categories to identify minor vs. major characters. The problem I see with having group pages is that the only way to find Madam Hooch for example, is to search on the text. Although this is successful, it feels to me like they are underrepresented and could have more visibility, making them easier to find for people using Wikipedia to get background information on characters, and also easier to reference.

My proposal:

• Break up the following pages into individual pages for each person:
  • Gryffindors_in_Harry's_Year
  • Hogwarts_ghosts
  • House-elf
  • Minor_Dark_wizards_in_Harry_Potter
  • Minor_Hogwarts_teachers
  • Minor_Hufflepuffs
  • Minor_Ministry_officials_in_the_Harry_Potter_books
  • Minor_Ravenclaws
  • Minor_Slytherins
  • Minor_characters_associated_with_Quidditch
  • Minor_members_of_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix
  • Portraits_in_Hogwarts
  • Relatives_of_Harry_Potter

Did I miss any?

• Take each of the above group pages and turn them into their own categories, represented as subcategories of Category:Harry Potter characters.
• Exceptions to this would be those characters that are "joined at the hip" and don't appear without each other. Specifically:
  • Fred and George Weasley
  • James and Lily Potter

Although those working on the List_of_characters_in_the_Harry_Potter_books page have done an excellent job, one of the limitations of this approach is that people have to know that the page exists and then add to the page. The use of categories to gather pages together appears quicker and less subject to editing problems. You just need to add the category entry.

Comments? I hope that this will make things more searchable and visible. --billlund 21:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think this would cause a lot of moves for deletion of such pages. how much information could be given for each of these characters? "minor" hufflepuffs, well.. they're minor for a reason. I feel like such a thing would create a lot of annoyance for people who aren't part of the Harry Potter fandom. after all, this is an encyclopedia, not a Harry Potter dictionary. glerf 23:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the great reference to the "Harry Potter Lexicon." What a great resource! Regarding your statement that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, I have to agree, in principle, but I think that the goal is provide a means for someone who is looking for information to find it. To a certain extent, the individual articles already exist. For example, searching on "Madam Hooch" directs you to a page by that name, that then redirects you to the "Minor Hogwarts teachers" page. On the other hand, there are many characters (well documented in the lexicon you mentioned) who only appear once or twice in the entire series and have no more role than to be background for the action.

May I suggest a definition for "minor"? What if we were to say that if a character has no speaking role and appears in a single book, then they are minor. Clearly, this can change. For example, Mrs. Figg by this definition would have been minor, until The Order of the Phoenix. By this definition, Madam Hooch is not minor and could have her own page, but various Quidditch players would continue to be represented on a group page.

I'd like to go one step further and say that we don't need to duplicate the work of the Harry Potter Lexicon, which seems to be attempting to be comprehensive. I think that Wikipedia has something to add beyond the lexicon, specifically permanence and summarization. Although I wish the lexicon well, I suspect (and hope) that Wikipedia has a better chance of being around in 20 years. The information documented here would need to be appropriate for someone wanting to look up that series of books that their mother or grandfather liked so much. --billlund 23:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed HPLexicon, it's a great place. however, when I said wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a dictionary, I meant that wikipedia is much broader than just Harry Potter, therefore I don't think it's necessary to have extreme detail on HP. I think wikipedia does have a chance of lasting longer, because it is a general encyclopedia, not simply for a very specific subject.

I do think that a definition of minor would be very handy. but how much can you say about Madam Hooch? she gives flying lessons to first years and refs Quidditch matches. I don't really see the necessity in giving her her own page. there are some characters that do need their own page after the 6th book, but I don't know that there really can be specific guidlines to follow. I think we need to use a little bit of caution when doling out individual pages. for example, a person searching for Alicia Spinnet might learn so much more by finding the group page than just the individual page. Alicia doesn't really get involved in anything but the Quidditch plot-line. in fact, through the first 4 books, the three chaser girls are kind of tied together.

perhaps we should go on search popularity on Google? that seems like the simplest solution. --glerf 19:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I find this attitude of deliberately restricting the scope of articles on a particular subject very strange. It is perfectly true that a conventional encyclopedia would restrict the size of articles on every subject, but this is for reasons of practicality. There are only so many pieces of paper people are willing to line up on a shelf. If the printed HP article grows, then some other article has to shrink to make space for it. If someone is being paid to write articles, then a long one costs more than a short one. None of that applies to wiki. People write about what they know. The particularly different thing about this encyclopedia is that its breadth is potentially unlimited. It may not be strictly necessary to have extra information about flying a broomstick, but it is not as if the potential editor is likely to write one about jet aircraft instead if they are refused permission to write about broomsticks Sandpiper 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I Agree, I believe we need to break up some of these chracters up away from 'minor characters' into their own individual pages. After book 6, some of these characters have taken up more important roles in the book. --takagawa-kun 07:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the Dursley Family treated separately from the Potter Family - since their only connexion is that Harry's mom and Dudley's mom are sisters. So the Relatives of Harry Potter article of 31 July 2005 could be 'moved' to Dursley Family, and then Relatives of Harry Potter could briefly explain the family relationships and then link to the 2 very different (night and day?) sides.

By the way, I'm re-reading Year Five right now. Uncle Ed 19:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this. Giving minor characters their own entries is, to me, the very definition of fancruft. Let's not do that. Nandesuka 21:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

どして? Uncle Ed 23:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The very fact that the proposal in question identifies the characters as minor is a sign that having a separate page for each of them probably isn't encyclopedic. Nandesuka 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

the 'wiki is not indiscriminate information' link talks about lists of things, like phone books, not about small articles on items related to a bigger whole. Minor is a relative term. A minor charcter in HP might have more lines than a major character in some famous book which is however not 3500 pages long. It really depends on whether there is something interesting to say about them. Sandpiper 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Question

I am interested in knowing how you know what years the books are actualy set?

I wondered about that at first, as well. Try reading Dates in Harry Potter, which will explain how they figured out the dates. It's really amazing how much they figured out based on one small piece of trivia. --Deathphoenix 13:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the first Harry Potter book starts in July 1991 (not including the first chapter), and each year it progresses further (book 7 presumed to end in July 1998 (not including last chapter)) This is because in the second book at Nearly Headless Nick's 500th deathday party, it says he died in 1492, therefore making the first half of the second book set in late 1992.

A recent (mid July) newspaper article commented about the lack of computer equipment generally/the internet etc (it is "surprising" though how many science fiction stories prior to the development of the internet failed to predict it).

It could also be argued that the real life section of the stories is actually set in a parallel universe which resembles that in which we now live.

Another question:

In the real world there are various campaigns for racial equality, societies for the protection of children, animals and others, and ecology/green movements. Why aren't there any in the magic domains -protecting/promoting the rights of the house elves and other magical creatures, arguing that magic people are to be respected for their abilities regardless of whether they are pure blood or not and so on? Some of the items required for the magical potions etc must be scarce: there could be the equivalent of the seed banks as well as the green movement? (This is not my fanfic area, so HP writers can develop the points as they wish.)

The ministry regulates trade of potion ingredients, magical beasts, and whatnot. Methinks there are, but the books are from Harry's POV, and we seldom see any of them. What we do see seems to be mainly government-sponsored (keeping the dragons in line, hiding and preserving magical beasts), so maybe the population is too small for any movements expect through the government. Where the rich pureblood elite takes it down. Oh, would you mind signing your posts? Four of these (~) in this order (~-~-~-~, minus the dashes)conveniently tell me who you are. --Narvi 16:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Kreacher

The entry for this house elf on this page needs to be updated in view of what happens in B6.

Christianity

It has been noted in many interviews that Rowling never finished the Narnia series because she did not enjoy them and isn't a fan of C.S. Lewis as this article purports. I have personally interviewed her in this and it was recently noted in the TIME Magazine interview. I have already attempted to edit out this line (or mere 5 words) but it has been switched back. She is a member of the Church of Scotland but admittedly doesn't practice. Let's get this right.

Slavery Removal

Why was this paragraph removed from the text? It's one of the most consistently obvious themes throughout the book. I replaced it until consensus is reached here. Nandesuka 17:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the follwing section from the themes of Harry Potter because I do not believe that it is relevant.

House elves, creatures that are bound to their masters and toil unpaid at their masters' whim, were introduced in the second Harry Potter book. Hermione starts S.P.E.W. (the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare), which is received less than warmly. The elves themselves are scandalised when Dobby, a house elf belonging to the Malfoy family, is accidentally freed by Lucius Malfoy due to a clever plan by Harry Potter and subsequently demands payment for his work, which is seen as mere madness; most people feel that a house-elf is no more than a slave.

The theme that the house elves present to Harry Potter are more aptly desribed in the Class Prejudice and Racism section. The treatment of the house elves is indicative of the role expectations that the elite of the wizarding class has placed upon them. The issue of slavery is not explored, while the elves are undoubtedly in bondage. In addition, Dobby being freed by the actions of Harry Potter is not an example of freedom from slavery, but an encouragement to move beyond his role expectations. Slavery is a redundant theme. --jonasaurus 17:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. While Harry (and Hermione) may feel that Dobby is just an individual who can break through his role expectations, Dobby himself (and the rest of the Wizarding world) does not. Specifically, house-elves are viewed as made for servitude, and the analogy to the American slave experience is unmistakable. I think this warrants its own section. Perhaps we could work on a rewrite, instead? Nandesuka 17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But there's the rather large difference that house elves aren't human. This is a British book, and it would be wrong to emphasise non-British analogies. There may be totally different "unmistakable" analogies from say a Bhutanese perspective, but we are unlikely to hear about them: an American analogy isn't more meaningful just because there are more American than Bhutanese contributors to Wikipedia. Calsicol 23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting, with their close ties to the slave trade and to their own hundred-years plus history of imperialism and colonialism, that this analogy isn't meaningful to British readers? You're exactly right that house-elves aren't human. Just as so many British colonialists viewed indigenous peoples around the world as "not human" for purposes of, say, ownership of the land they lived on. Nandesuka 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Second what Nandesuka said. Britain was involved in the slave trade many, many years ago, just as the U.S. was. This section is not U.S.-centric by any means. It is a meaningful analogy. And even if it were meaningful just to people from the U.S., there are a heck of a lot of people reading these books in the U.S., so it's meaningful to a lot of people. I believe this section should be reinstated. Hermione1980 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Every country in the world has a history of involvement in slavery; it is a traditional part of human society all over the globe. But slavery has a greater role in the modern American consciousness than in the modern British consciousness by a vast margin. Calsicol 17:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Nandesuka. It's pretty obvious that slavery, personified by the house elves, is a theme in the stories. After all, they're unpaid, and bound to their families. Harry even inherits one of them (Kreacher) when Sirius dies. It's hardly relevant that they're non-human; they're magical beings, and they're human enough. Exploding Boy 23:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Update I found an interview with Rowling where she points out that slavery is a theme of the works, specifically using the house-elves as an example:

"The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already."

from here. Nandesuka 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's just a "yeah, yeah" answer to a leading question. It doesn't make it a central theme as Americans might think. I still think that listing it as one of five major themes is grossly misleading. Calsicol 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What about S.P.E.W.? What about Kreacher being forced to serve a master he hates? What about Dobby being forced to work for the Malfoys and suffer severe abuse? The theme of slavery does not permeate the story quite as much as love, for instance, but it certainly permeates it just as much as prejudice. Hermione1980 23:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's simply not true. How many references are there to SPEW compared to the number of reference to blood purity. I'd be suprised if its 5%. Calsicol 17:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that Slavery is a theme in the book, and there should at least be a reference to it. Whether it's JKR making a statement, or just telling a story, there are clearly masters and slaves in the book (which have been acknowledged by the characters), so it's a theme. - 9cds 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is. I am not disputing that. But I could extend the list of themes to thirty and write paragraphs about all of them. This is the main Harry Potter article and should only contain the most vital material in proportion to its significance. A mention in the Class prejudice and racism section is entirely sufficient. Calsicol 08:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we do any further rewrites on the slavery section here, rather than on the live page. Calsicol, can I get you to agree to that? Philosophically, I understand what you're trying to do in terms of extinguishing a US-centric perspective on these articles. I support that. The problem is that I disagree with your belief that seeing slavery as a major theme in the work is somehow a particularly American perspective. Your belief is not supported by the evidence. More than one of the books has hinged -- has literally depended -- on the actions of a slave (Dobby or Kreacher). Pages and pages have been spent on the dilemma of the house elves. And, lastly, I've provided evidence of Rowling saying, in effect, "slavery is a major theme of the work." I understand that you would like to interpret her statement to that effect as meaning the exact opposite of what she said, but I assert that the burden to do so is on you. Hand-waving it off is not sufficient. Nandesuka 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Rowling doesn't say slavery is a major theme in that interview; that is what you want her to have said, but she doesn't use that word or put it into context relative to the other themes. You are merely conjecturing that she would put it on the top five themes (and her opinion wouldn't be conclusive anyway). Rowling's comment in the interview you linked to is the last sentence of a reply about racism: I am proposing that we be consistent with that by putting slavery in the same section as racism, but you want to lift her comment out of that context and give it greater prominence. I believe the interview backs up my position rather than yours. There can be more detail in the house elves article. Calsicol 18:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

RETRACTION I stand corrected regarding my previous statements and removal of the section. A combination of J.K. Rowlings comments in that interview and knowledge of her activities within Amnesty International leads me to believe that the House Elves do represent the theme of slavery. Most likely the slavery of women and children throughout the world.... I made the mistake of thinking of this from a solely American perspective (ie. African American Slavery), when I should have looked at it from Rowlings perspective, which is more global. Let the section stand, and perhaps we can try to improve it. --jonasaurus 18:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course they do, up to a point. This debate is about proportionality. Calsicol 08:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think some people are getting a bit excited here. The point is not to discuss whether slavery is a "major" theme of the books (though given the presence of the house elves in most of the books so far, it's arguable that it is), but whether or not it is a theme at all, which I'd argue there's plentiful evidence it is. Exploding Boy 20:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got that completely the wrong way round. Of course it's a theme. The point is precisely whether it is major enough to merit a separate section in the main Harry Potter article when the vast majority of Harry Potter information is relegated to other Harry Potter articles. I say clearly not and no new evidence to the contrary has been presented. SPEW didn't even feature in the last book. I am reverting again. Calsicol 08:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And I've reverted your specific change w.r.t. removing the slavery section. Again. Look, "consensus" doesn't mean "we all discuss the issue, and then when it is clear that no one agrees with you, you press forward and do whatever you want." Given that your belief that slavery is not a major theme runs against the majority belief here, and against Rowling's prima faciae statements, I don't think it's our responsibility to continually come up with new arguments on why we should maintain that section. Besides, at this point I'm not convinced that you're actually willing to listen to reason on this point (just one example: no, SPEW isn't mentioned at all in the last book. There's merely a subplot directly contrasting the behaviors of former slave Dobby and current slave Kreacher, and the attitudes engendered by their servitude.) If you want to change the article to indicate that slavery is not a major theme, then I'm going to require you to make positive arguments that are convincing to the editors here. Right now, as it is, your arguments are simply not convincing: you are standing alone. Nandesuka 14:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we need to post on the Wikiproject Harry Potter talk page and get some outside opinions? Hermione1980 14:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

While I believe there is rough consensus here (everyone but Calsicol seems to think the existing section placement is fine), getting some outside opinions certainly couldn't hurt. Nandesuka 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You are not offering any evidence for your point of view. The question is whether the presentation is right or wrong. I have made today made other additions of basic material to this article today which was, and to some extent still is, very badly proportioned in many ways: there is far too much on the controversies in relation to all other sections, there was nothing on the overall success of the series. I am reverting. Calsicol 15:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Calsicol, you are in the minority here. I, Nandesuka, Exploding Boy, Jonasaurus, and 9dcs all agree that that section needs to be there, albeit with a rewrite. That makes 83% in favour of keeping it, consensus by definition on Wikipedia:Consensus. I suggest you accept defeat and help us with the rewriting other than blindly reverting. I have asked on the Wikiproject talk page for outside opinions, but if it will please you, I can certainly file an RfC on this article. Hermione1980 15:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am the only one who is currently making improvements to the article. What we have here is a rather poor article which focuses on things people feel stongly about or have generated controversy rather than providing a clear exposition of the significance of the series. It is an intellectually weak article. The issue is not whether slavery is a theme, but whether it is one of the five most important themes. If you list it as one of five themes, that is misleading unless you beleive that it is both of similar importance to all of the other four named themes and significantly more important than all the themes in the series which are not mentioned. Do you believe that or not?

Is it of equal importance to all the other themes? I say patently not because they are all fundamental and slavery is merely inferred through a sub-plot which is centred on Hermione rather than the lead character of Harry and it is only promiment in one book, whereas the other themes are all fundamental to the whole series.

Is it more important than every theme which does not get its own subsection? That is, more important than romantic love; more important than pedagogism, more important than career choices; more important than friendship; more important than trust; more important than relations between the sexes; more important than politics; more important than public psychology; more important than terrorism? etc etc. If it isn't highlighting it is misrepresentation, unless sections are added about those too.

IMHO you are the one who is "blindly reverting" if anyone while I am providing a firm basis for my point of view and working on the improvement of the article in other ways. Calsicol 15:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is, that slavery is a major theme in Harry Potter. And evidence do point to this, as from the excerpt from JKR interview. Also, even if SPEW isn't mentioned in recent books such as HBP, slavery still is an ongoing theme which I believe will be an issue that has yet to be resolved.

I'm in agreement with the views of keeping slavery as one of the major themes discussed in HP, and deserving on its own.-takagawa-kun 16:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please do me the kindness of responding to my comments in detail? Why do you think it is one of the five most important themes? Do you think it is more important than every aspect of Harry Potter which is excluded from the main article, and if so why? Why do you think that Rowling's comments support your point of view, when her statement is just the last section of a reply on racism and makes no comparison with the significance of any other theme? Calsicol 17:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is one of the five most important themes because of its repeated theme throughout the books. I'm not generally a 'written' contributor, my improvements are generally in the form of layout and ordering, and also media such as article pictures. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Why do you think it is one of the five most important themes?

HPCoS First mention of the appearance of Dobby, and he's enslavement by the Malfoys and his wish to be free. This is obvious an enslavement topic. Dobby's reluctance to follow the Malfoy's orders, and been so conditioned such that he has to punish himself for doing something he believed was against Malfoy's orders.

HPGoF Dobby once again returns, and this time the issue of enslavement continues with Winky. Winky is considered more neutral. There is SPEW, and revealing the wizarding world's apathetic view towards house elvish rights.

HPOotF Kreacher discusses the other extreme of this viewpoint, his enslavement by the Black family twisted him, and Dumbledore mentions how he was treated had made him that way.

HPHPB Dobby and Kreacher now once again mentioned, and its comparative behaviour. House Elves are seen to be keen on 'serving' humans, but not enslaved. Dobby followed Harry's orders because he was his friend. Kreacher 'obeyed' said orders, having no 'real' choice about it. This may point towards the thought that enslavement, and servitude do not have to go hand in hand. Oh and another one was Slughorn's use of a house elf to test for poisons in his bottles of alcohol.

Do you think it is more important than every aspect of Harry Potter which is excluded from the main article, and if so why?

Well currently, the article has

   * 3.1 Choices
   * 3.2 Love
   * 3.3 Intolerance
   * 3.4 Humility
   * 3.5 Slavery

I believe all these make up the dominant themes in Harry Potter. However if you believe that there are other aspects that you believe should also be included, then by all means 'improve' the article as you wish. But I don't believe slavery is minor enough to be excluded at the very least.

Why do you think that Rowling's comments support your point of view, when her statement is just the last section of a reply on racism and makes no comparison with the significance of any other theme?

This requires more research, I may get back to you on that one. However, one that spring to mind is her discussion on the flawed character of Sirius Black. I can't find the interview, but I remember it went along the lines of, how Sirius talks about Barty Crouch and Winky, You judge a persons character by how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. And yet Sirius himself treats Kreacher rather poorly. Although this is not a direct response towards the enslavement of house elves, it still continues the wizarding view of the inferiority of House Elves. Keep in mind, it has been mentioned, and demonstrated earlier in the series, that house elves actually have powerful magic.

The full response she made from that bbc article: JK Rowling: do not think I am pessimistic but I think I am realistic about how much you can change deeply entrenched prejudice, so my feeling would be that if someone were a committed racist, possibly Harry Potter is not going to be to have effect.

I would hope that it has made people think, I mean I do not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what is my moral, that is not how I set out to write a book at all. I am not trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way, but at the same time, it would be great if the people thought about bullying behaviour or racism.

The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already.

This does suggest that Rowling had made this theme significant enough to encourage discussion. As such, this does suppose she intended it to be one of the major themes in the series. --takagawa-kun 18:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but I still see no reason to suppose that slavery is one of the five most important themes; I think you really have to strain the material to make it seem so, and this is perhaps based on a personal commitment tothis theme, which is much easier to pin down than more complex issues like Rowling's presentation of family life or of relationships between the sexes. Also bear in mind that I am not arguing that it should be excluded, only that in the present incomplete state of the article, it is more appropriate to include it as part of a broader issue, as Rowling did herself in that answer. However, I am now focussing on eliminating the overemphasis on slavery by trying to get the many things which are missing from the article added. See my expansion request detailed below, and please chip in where you can. Calsicol 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

We have a themes section, not a major themes one. Slavery is undoubtedly a theme of the book, as you have agreed. If at some point the themes section becomes overfilled, we can change the section to major themes and revisit this debate. However, it is appropriate in the current article, because it is a theme. As for your comments about the general superficiality of the article, they are also accurate. I'll try to help you get some information on the topics you referred to if I'm able. I'm about to be away from Wikipedia for a week, though, so you'll have to wait for that. Superm401 | Talk 20:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The average 12 year old will not appreciate the difference between a "themes" section and a "major themes" section. If five themes are listed without qualification there is a clear implication that they are the five most important themes, especially in an article which people might assume would be "finished" because it is about a very popular topic. It seems that some users thought that this article reached an appropriate level of quality and comprehensiveness some time ago, and I have come in to point out that it isn't remotely close to that level in comparison with the best Wikipedia articles, including the best on popular culture topics. I will add a tailor made disclaimer to the themes section. Calsicol 18:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is another similar item here discussing homophobia, which has also been deleted from the article. The relevant parts of the article are not talking about the story in the book, but about how the story has been used to express moral views. When you write a story, you can subtly influence it to make a point without spoiling the story, and without upsetting your readers. It must be reasonably subtle, however strongly you might feel about the issue personally. Being too heavy handed would simply alienate the people you want to persuade, and spoil the book. So it is not surprising if some things get small mention, but that does mean the author felt they were unimportant. Slavery is plainly a topic which JKR wanted to have a dig at. But she is against intolerence in general, and slavery is very much seen as the extreme end of this. House elves are so contemptible that it is perfectly fine to make them into slaves. She is plainly saying this is wrong. She makes quite a big plot item out of it, considering the difficulties of inserting your own views. Keep mention of slavery.Sandpiper 08:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A.S. Byatt on Harry Potter

I'd really like to work up a section on A. S. Byatt's critique of the Harry Potter books. She's one of my favorite authors, and although I absolutely love Harry Potter I thought that a number of her criticisms hit the mark. I don't, however, want to just open up a new section to effectively do a hatchet job on the series. So I'm looking for suggestions of equally credible literary figures who have offered positive criticism of the HP series (I know about Stephen King, but he's no Byatt.)

The other question I have is whether such a discussion would be more appropriate in a different article. Certainly, I think Byatt's criticism is fairer (and more interesting) than the evangelical christian point of view that we currently devote a substantial amount of time to.

Would this be a useful section to add? Thoughts? Nandesuka 15:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The quality and comprehensiveness of the article (or lack thereof)

With regard to the above topic, yes you are right that the space devoted to Christian criticism is disproportionate. I wrote the intro paragraph that puts it into context.

We both feel the same way about the space devoted to religious criticism as I do about the slavery section. This is a poor article, with too much on things that some people feel strongly about, and too little about some of the basic areas that should be covered. It is way short of the standard you would find in Britannica, if they had a major article on Harry Potter. It is also well short of the quality of many Wikipedia pop culture articles like The Beatles. I have just added another important thing that was missing - a basic discussion of Rowling's strengths and weaknesses. If the article expands to include all it should do, including pushing the number of themes covered into double figures, I will not then object to the inclusion of a separate slavery section. I am yet to see a hint that any one understands that my position is based on a desire for proportionality; you all seem to think I'm just trying to censor material I don't like, but that is utterly incorrect. I have said at least twice that slavery can be covered in more detail in the house elves article. Calsicol 15:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What are some of the points you feel are inadequately covered in this article? My Harry Potter expertise pretty much ends once we're past talking about the actual content of the books/movies and start talking about things like the social impact of the books, but maybe we can all work together. Hermione1980 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure you should be cutting particular sections in order to reduce them to the poor state of other sections. Rather, recognise areas which are lacking and maybe point them out, to encourage any interested party to add to them.Sandpiper 14:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request

Following on from the above I believe the following aspects of the article need to see major improvements or to be started from scratch. There are possibly others I haven't thought of yet:

1) Coverage of evaluation of the books by leading writers and academic heavyweights, with quotations, and a neutral assessment of the balance of opinion. Indication of the repute of the books in comparison to the established children's classics. This would be central to a Britannica article.

2) History of the series in terms of publication and publicity. I have added a little on this, but more precision is needed.

3) Relationship of the books to the orphan/quest narrative, which has been a fundamental theme of world literature for thousands of years.

4) Insight into the cultural background of the books, eg Rowling's views of suburbia, and of boarding schools, and of multiculturalism in Britain. (It's a boarding school narrative, but it's an atypical one.) The contrast between the stability of family life in the wizard world and contemporary reality is highly significant. I believe it goes against the grain of much current literature for young people; does this help explain its appeal?

5) More detailed discussion of the reasons for the appeal of the books in the non-English speaking world, especially the non-Western world.

6) Discussion of the many themes that are presently omitted - the quick list I wrote above (romantic love; pedagogism, career choices; friendship/loyalty; trust/forgiveness (Dumbledore and Snape); relations between the sexes; politics; terrorism and public psychology (that's not quite the right term, I mean how the wizarding world reponds to the threat from Voldemort and how the Ministry managees that)), and probably others I didn't think of at the time.

7} How the books relate to fictional genres. JK Rowling has said that she didn't set out to write fantasy.

8} A proper discussion of the appeal of the books to adults, and the presentation of this in the media. This should be tied in with the status accorded to other children's books like His Dark Materials. Has the critical standing of contemporary children's literature changed a little or a lot, and how far is HP responsible for this?

9) A discussion of the role of the series in encouraging children to read beyond the facile assumption that it must have done. What evidence is there to support the claim?

10) More detailed global sales figures. Some UK sales figures (they are British books) and some examples from outside the English speaking world, with context.

11) Rowling as a satirist (Gilderoy Lockhart, Rita Skeeter, Cornelius Fudge, Sibyll Trelawney).

12) How Rowling makes her parallel universe credible and consistent.

I could make a start on some of these, but I can't do any of them to the standard I would like to see in an encyclopedia. If the article covered all of those subjects, all written up to the highest encyclopedic standards, it would illuminate my own understanding of the significance of the series immensely. At the moment it does little more than tell me what I already know.

The way that people are seemingly so satisfied with an intellectually thin article such as this is seriously straining my belief that Wikipedia can consistently produce good quality articles on popular topics. At the moment it is a fairly superficial middlebrow article. There is a failure to take a global point of view, and little analytical rigour or evidence of research, yet this is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. It needs to be much, much better to prove Wikipedia's critics wrong in this instance. I have started to add material, and can add some more here and there, but I'm not a Harry Potter obsessive. Calsicol 16:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm totally for it. There's an interesting story that appeared in the the New Zeland Herald prior to release of HBP about a young girl whose the daughter of one of the heads of bloomsbury that saved harry potter by pestering him until he read harry potter, she basically saved Harry from the dungheap so to speak. That's an intersting thing that might go well in the article, the over all struggle to get harry published. And i know that Terry Prachett had some words recently about JKR's role in the fantasy genre and that would go well under your proposed "Coverage and Evaluation of the Books", i'm looking into both sections now. TonyJoe 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A very good list of literary themes. Some others that I can think of are censorship, politics/government, life/death, fear of the unknown, and childhood development.

A lot of content that you are mentioning could easily be written in a non-neutral POV. Would some of that really be considered encyclopaedic? A lot of those topics are excellent for developing in a manner proper for an encyclopedia. If it is analysis of the storyline, characters, etc. I turn you to the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter which plans for critical commentary. Wikipedia would for instance mention the possible relationships, but the discussion beyond factual reference (and even that is pushing it) would be at the Muggles' Guide. A lot of discussion has gone on in VFD about this sort of analysis and extensively detailed content. It'll get VFDed if it gets too deep, isn't NPOV, or talks about possibilities. Check out WP:WIN to make sure. -Matt 04:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing fancruft. I'm not really a fan. I'm proposing exactly the opposite. It is the current coverage of Harry Potter in Wikipedia that is written at the fan level, that is it is based almost entirely on the contents of the books themselves and superficial coverage in the general media. On the other hand the topics I have listed are ones that would be covered by a serious academic survey of the series, such as a full length article in Britannica, and it requires much wider knowledge to write about them well. I see no reason to anticipate that any of what I would like to see added will be nominated for deletion.Calsicol 18:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that wiki is written by people who want to write about what they are interested in. Tolkien was famously a university don whose subject was ancient literature, but most fans of the genre do not have such qualifications. It would therefore be difficult to obtain referenced opinion about such things. It is also the case that people here have been taking a very narrow line on anything related to the books which can not be precisely attributed. I think this is an unproductive approach as it rather stifles the article before it starts. Articles always get better when someone comes along who sees a start and knows they can add something. There is a big issue regarding a plan to move all comment and analysis to wikibooks. Wikibooks love the idea in principle, but hate what is there so far and have grave reservations about whether it would result in an acceptable book. i do not really see how all content, either of the nature you propose, or immediate analysis of the text can sensibly be transferred to wikibooks. They are extremely adamant about not hosting encyclopedias (which belong here). Sandpiper 12:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As said before, please stop trying to bring up settled debates about the placement of content. I thought Uncle G explained it thoroughly enough. Concensus has been achieved on both sides of the matter. I don't think you're qualified to state what Wikibooks "loves" and "hates," especially since you are contradicting what many (including admins) have said in discussions. What you have said above is not the concensus opinion at Wikibooks. I hope no one reading this is intimidated towards helping either project now. Also, the process of Transwiking some content is planned for long into the future and if and when it happens, the content moved will be moved by concensus and most likely conservatively (please read up on NPOV and how it is necessary at Wikipedia). The two groups work together. You seem more interested in enciting separatism between the two projects. The path you are following is becoming inappropriate. -Matt 12:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read carefully both the Vfd for the long plot content here, and subsequent Vfd for it when it was transferred to wikibooks. My considered view on the debate consensus has as much standing as any other, but both debates are on record and anyone can read them them for themselves to gain a view. I also do not want to go through all the issue again here, but there is a glaring problem in that wikibooks have a policy of neither supporting encyclopedias, nor books which are 'forks' of encyclopedia articles. Their policy page is quite short, but both these are listed as no-no's. The only editors listed as responsible for the wikibook muggles guide are you, me and one other. Sandpiper 09:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A critical analysis of Rowlings work will definately be in order, due to the massive popularity of her books. However, I do not see this as the time for the advancement of that agenda, as the series is still in progress. The majority of the critical analysis of her work is done not by scholars, but by people speculating on the future of the series. Perhaps we should hold off this project until the premeire of the seventh book? Or work on the project off this page until this time?

I think that we could have a true collaborative effort here, and that it would be a remarkable thing if we could complete the article that we want before we introduce it. Does anybody agree? --jonasaurus 20:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fraid not. The six books we have now need a fuller article just as much as the seven will when they are all complete. It will change somewhat after Book 7 is published, that is all. And the idea of a few people privately concocting an article on a popular topic without letting anyone who wants to get involved is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. Like any other article this one should be pushed forward every day if possible. Osomec 07:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking back on what I wrote - you are completely correct. I didn't properly articulate what I was thinking.... check the Harry Potter wikiproject and the changes will be coordinated through there. --jonasaurus 00:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Homophobia?

As far as I understand it, the books make no mention of homophobia in any way, shape, or form. If someone can provide evidence to the contrary, great, I'm removing it in the meantime.Devilbat

I can't remember it. Well done for removing it. Osomec 07:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

er, see discussion above. It is in the book, and I have absolutely no doubt there would not have been even a tiny mention if it had not been a deliberate choice to include it. Dudley makes an insult about another boy who was killed, suggesting he was Harry's boyfriend. order of the phoenix while they are all at home, bickering.Sandpiper 12:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no mention of homosexuality within any of the books. Dudley's insult was a childish phrase, similar to kids saying

if you love (him/her/it) so much why don't you marry (him/her/it)

people shouldn't read too much into the comment... it was just Dudley being a dick. not a profound statement of the evils of homophobia. --jonasaurus 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Even Dudley is not sufficiently thick that he does not understand the implications of saying someone is boyfriend of another male. Even if he was that thick, JKR is not and she had final say in which of Dudleys words were included. No author includes potentially controversial lines without careful thought. Don't you think the editors at Bloomsbury had a whole discussion about that one line and whether it should be in a childrens book?Sandpiper 09:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that Dudley was aware of the phrase's implications. However, I don't think a single insult is enough to warrant a mention of "homophobia" in the article. That's somewhat akin to labelling a character as kleptomaniac because he or she swiped one object during the entire series. As for whether it caused a long discussion among the publishers, it seems a rather mild line to worry about considering the much more explicit, hurtful things that an ignorant boy could say. -DynSkeet (talk) 12:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a less emotive comparison. But I still think that any book which contained one reference to a character stealing something would only include it after careful thought by the author, with the specific intention of bringing up the subject. It would not make that character a kleptomaniac, but it would raise a thought in the mind of the reader. There would almost certainly be some 'push' depending on the circumstances of the book as to whether it should be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing.Sandpiper 14:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

removed Crystal ball material

I just had to remove some material regarding the subject matter and release date of book 7. Please note that even though it is speculated that the release will be summer 2008, speculation should not be on an article, neither should speculation on what the next book will be about. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, all removals were in accordance to WP:NOT, specifically wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NoT says, 'Future events are usually unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular: 1) Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event; planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The schedule as a whole may also be appropriate. 2)......'

I would say that in this case planning and preparation for book 7 has most certainly begun and speculation about the contents is very well documented. So in this case the 'unless...' applies. According to JKR the whole detailed outline of the book exists and she has been working on it already for years as part of the whole project. If she died a ghost writer would undoubtedly be appointed to finish it. Publication of this book is just about as certain as that there will be another presidential election. Now, what was the deleted bit? Did it accord with JKRs statements of likely completion date?Sandpiper 11:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to add, Rowling said she is quite adamant about no one else taking over for her if she were to pass for some reason. She said so in an interview with Katie Couric after HBP came out. She sees the book as "hers." -Matt 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sure she does, but her publishers and Warner Brothers might see the book as 'theirs', and have a very different view on whether it should be finished without her. Some things, once started, are unstoppable. Sandpiper 08:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The book's article should be allowed - It has just recently survived a vfd. But it could be published at any time, and the actual date is not predictable. Just my two cents. Sonic Mew | talk to me 07:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Readers want to get some idea of likely wait for the next book. Best information is not unencyclopedic, only wrong information. Sandpiper 08:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Expansion Move Request

Should the expansion request tag be on the top of the article or the top of the talk page. Wikipolicy dictates that either is acceptable - though I'm not sure whether the fact that this is a heavily trafficed article makes it better suited for the article or for the talk. What do you think? --jonasaurus 00:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section/article?

Am I alone in thinking that this must have a separate Criticism section, or better a separate article with a summary here? The "Controversy" that we have is not the same, though the religious issues that now takes much of that may have a place in Criticism article too. However, there's a LOT of both ethical and stylistic criticisms to be covered, apart from "promoting witchcraft" and similar religious issues. Trapolator 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's worth considering, but I personally don't like seeing 'criticism' used to mean 'negative reactions' rather than 'critical opinions'. So a Criticism section, in my view, would need to mention both positive and negative appraisal by critics — which leads to a similar question of what is negative criticism, and what is negative controversy. (For instance, in contrast with Trapolator, I think the 'witchcraft' accusations are the clearest example of non-critical controversy in the article as it stands.) However, others might prefer that sense of 'criticism' to mine (which is more old-fashioned and formal, I suppose). -- Perey 05:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't care much how to call this article/section. I'm just worried that currently, one gets the impression that it's only some religious people who have issues with HP books. It's most certainly not the case. I and many other secular humanists/atheists I know have a lot of issues with HP as well. For example:

• Ethical considerations of taking children away without their parent/guardian permission. (Smells of a cult if you ask me.)
• Ethical considerations of the social structure at Hogwarts. Not only are children artificially and irreversibly "sorted" into adversary houses, but one of the houses is almost officially declared "bad" from the start.
• Ethical considerations of the education at Hogwarts. Total isolation from "muggle science", which is replaced by mind-numbing drilling and physical exercise.

Etc, etc. I'm sure these concerns have been voiced, but unfortunately I'm not too familiar with HP-related criticism so I can't find references to back it up. (And without solid references and quotations from established critics, such criticism will likely be short-lived on such a fan-sensitive Wikipedia page.) So I would welcome any help with this. Trapolator 19:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In responce to your criticisms:

• Many real schools sort into houses, and there's always rivelry. It's normal.

Of course. But at Hogwarts, houses are not just names. Each house has a well-known role and profile, so children at an early age are irreversibly cast into "moulds" that they may not entirely fit. What's worse, houses differ not only by their prevailing abilities, but also by the good/bad distinction (Slytherin is almost officially declared "bad"). Even in a totally fictional setting, casting a 11-year child as good or bad for life sounds like a ugly joke to me. This most definitely sends a bad message to young readers. Trapolator 23:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Came to this page from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_art_and_literature. The remark about deciding a child's future at 11-years-old caught my eye. This is in fact one of the major criticisms of the old 11+ examination system in the UK in which those who passed went to a grammar school and did academic subjects, and those who failed went to a different school and did a mix, but generally less academic subjects with scant chance of a university place. I am not sure whether J K Rowling would have experienced that herself, but the 11+ has left its legacy all over UK education (age at which you change schools still). I would never have thought of this had you not raised the issue of decisions at age 11, but it's an interesting point. Telsa 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Houses in schools normally serve the useful purpose of dividing the children into teams so that there are others to compete against, and are usually chosen fairly randomly. In this case you need to take the circumstances of the book into account. The four houses were created by the four founders of the school, who had different views on the purpose of education and what sort of people ought to be educated. The magical sorting hat selects which children have natural character most suitable for each house, and presumably would place all the students in one year into the same house, if it happened that they were all most suited for the same one. Well, thats story and it could have been written differently, but the complaint against the 11+ was that it was unreliable. Presumably magical sorting would get it right every time. Sandpiper 14:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, the issue is not sorting by itself, but the fact that one of the houses is almost officially declared bad and evil.Trapolator 18:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it has the reputation because that is what it is. It is a presumption of magical sorting that those kids sent to a particular house are exactly the kinds of kids who collectively would create a house which would then get the reputaion which it already has. It is an accurate system. However....JKR has rehabilitated Slytherin's reputation a little by showing us Slughorn, who while a bit venal does try to do well by his students. And we may yet get an interesting insight from RAB, should he turn out to be Slytherin-Regulus BlackSandpiper 01:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• They have 'Muggle studies' - Hermonie studied it for a year.

This is a recently-introduced, entirely facultative subject. In any case it's unlikely to go into "muggle science" to any depth. The only compulsory subjects are all magic, and from the many descriptions in the books, they do not involve teaching any kind of critical thinking, analysis or synthesis - just endless memorizing of spells/potions, practicing wand movements, and "inner concentration". Very cultish. Trapolator 23:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

9cds 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC) DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 2005 and August 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Further reading

The Harry Potter Further Reading article is really needed on its own ? Or it could be a section of some other article ? --Raistlin 16:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wherever you want to put it is fine with me. As its only author so far I will continue to expand it. DonBruce 15:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Being politically correct?

Rowling just has to be politically correct by including stereotypical instances of Chinese, East Indian, Russian, Bulgarian, and African people in the series right? Will that promote children's anti-racism stance? I wonder... why does Harry have a Chinese girlfriend anyways? So stereotypical too, that she's good in all her grades and all those other Chinese stereotypes like your name has to start with "-ch". Some Asian-Americans are outraged at this. Doesn't this further enforce unhealthy stereotypes on children's minds? Soilguy6 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but I think your own expectation of seeing these characters become stereotyped is colouring your perception.

• I don't recall Cho's grades ever being commented on. Nor do I recall her appearance being described as anything but 'pretty' anywhere in the books; thus, the only indication in canon that she's Asian in any way is her name (the 'ch' sounds of which simply reflect the same alliteration seen on half the characters in the book). So, some Asian-Americans are outraged because a book features a British girl of Asian descent?
• Britain has significant populations of South Asian descent, explaining the Patils, who are likely at least first-generation British. There are also various groups of ultimately African descent, but Dean Thomas is no more African than Michael Jackson. (Funnily enough, it's only the American edition that bothers to introduce him as 'a Black boy even taller than Ron'.)
• Durmstrang and Karkaroff do seem like throwbacks to the Cold War, but I'd say this is more topical than stereotypical. I don't see how Krum is a stereotype, except maybe — maybe — his accent.

So basically, we have several non-white students, all of whom are most likely British-born and thus portrayed almost no differently to any other student; and we have a rival school with a largely Eastern European population, it seems, which leads to topical comparisons between the Cold War and the war against Voldemort. What, exactly, is the problem? -- Perey 19:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)