Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

HP again

As long as I had to go dig it up for Talk:HP (disambiguation), I figured I'd repeat it here: a search of major world newspapers and major world publications on hp and harry potter returns over 1000 hits. hp occurring within 5 words of harry potter returns 152 hits. hp and rowling, 496. hp and rowling and not harry potter turns up 46 news sources that use HP and Rowling but do not spell out that the "HP" referenced is Harry Potter. Most recent of those: The Observer (England), July 22, 2007, Observer Review Arts Pages; Pg. 30. -- JHunterJ 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What wasn't noted is that MOSDAB didn't really support the idea of using HP as a dab term for Harry Potter. As well, Google-bombing renders a great many 'hits' fairly useless as supporting arguments. The idea that stirring up interest in using HP here might support the inclusion of HP again in the DAB seems a tad too calculated to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using Google to search, but a professional fee-based news database which does not suffer from Google bombing -- I did say I searched "major world newspapers and major world publication", not the Internet. As far as your tad-too-calculated insinuation, the calculation is that the editors here who wanted to include the (HP) note that I had cited here but that Reginmund (and likely others) deleted might be interested. As I've stated several times, I'm interested in disambiguation accuracy, not Harry Potter in particular. Based on my checks, it looks like HP should be noted here and included there, and I am still mystified by the extent to which that conclusion has generated opposition from a few editors without any actual supporting guidelines, citations, etc. -- JHunterJ 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, your statements that "HP should be noted here and included there" would not appear to coincide with a claim of 'disinterest'. Its usage was (correctly) struck down on the dab page, and it would appear tot he casual user that this appears to be a canvassing for support to re-open the debate for usage here, which would necessitate a re-adding of the dab there, which is why you left it as invisible as opposed to removing it outright - you felt it would be returning at a later date. I am mystified as well by a single editor who seems to be overtly interested in highlighting a term that clearly doesn't belong in dab (or here). The guidelines don't support it, and while Google-bombing is a engine specific term, the practice is not exclusive to Google; it even occurs in fee-based search engines.

As it appears that your 'disinterested' argument seem to be specifically driven towards an HP-for-Harry-Potter inclusion as dab, perhaps your comments wuld be better served posting in that forum exclusively, instead of drumming for support elsewhere? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You complained enough about the citations I added in the first place, so I pulled more up. Since I took the trouble to do so, it seemed like a good idea to put them where they'd be useful. -- JHunterJ 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The complaints about the lack of evidence continues at Talk:HP (disambiguation), so here's another: "When I read to my son at bedtime, a young wizard's world awakens", Robin Johnston, The Charlotte Observer, p. 1E, July 15, 2007. "Harry" and "HP" are used, but the word "Potter" does not appear in the text (although she does reference "Potterhead"). Enjoy! -- JHunterJ 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but perhaps you missed the half-dozen other articles wherein Ms. Johnston referred to Harry Potter by name and not acronymic. That squishy thumping noise you are hearing is JHunter, beating a dead horse, trying to use it to drum up support for a dab page. It's transparent, its thinly-veiled [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing, and it should stop. Your issue is with the dab page. Please stay on target and reply there, pls. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did miss them, since I wasn't looking for them and they are irrelevant to someone reading just the article cited. Unless you, Arcayn, mean to tell me that no one is allowed to read it without reading the others. If I am asked to come up with further references for Harry Potter, I will certainly put them here. It has nothing to do with canvassing (this edit is closer to canvassing than my sharing citations here.) If you disagree with my plans to place citations here, please raise the issue on WP:RFC or WP:ANI, since your incorrect (and, above, uncivil) casting them as canvassing is unlikely to dissuade me. My issue is not with the dab page; it appears to me that this article should mention the use of the abbreviation HP, so I discuss it here. -- JHunterJ 00:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh and golly gee, I am not trying to dissuade you; I am simply illuminating the territory we appear to be inhabiting. Allow me to follow the train of thought here, if I may. In suggesting that "this article should mention the abbreviation HP" (rather odd in itself, as the abbreivation has no real noteworthy value in the article), you would then turn around and subsequently argue that because it is discussed at length here, that it should clearly have a dab term in the HP dab page. If you place citations here, I certainly hope you can indicate that they are noteworthy and vital to the article; therwise, they will in all likelihood be removed.

Frankly, i am apalled by your behavior. I was actually hoping that I had completely misinterpreted it, but the clear motivation for adding citations here when there is no clear need to seems a cynical attempt to manipulate WP to make a point. Perhaps your energies would be expended elsewhere. You have been voted down in the dab page - clearly shown that your edit doesn't follow MOSDAB and that the citations are not relevent enough tp warrant citation.

Answer me this, and prove me wrong: were you able to include some notation of how HP is used as an acronym (and I am still trying to figure out how that would be vital to the article), are you suggesting that you wouldn't then argue for inclusion in the DAB? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not suggesting that at all. That is exactly what I would argue. But I'd do it civilly. There is no canvassing, no manipulation to make a point, no appalling behavior (unless you count your incivility). Just discussion to try and find consensus, but you seem to be anxious to block any discussion that runs counter to your conclusion. Abbreviations are often included in articles even when they have no vital need to be there (My Chemical Romance has been mentioned before). And of course I am also expending my energies elsewhere. -- JHunterJ 01:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just tossing in my vote--I see HP as a fandom abbreviation, not needed on the disambiguation page, OR in the main article. Marieblasdell 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but I think, as Marieblasdell said, it's really on the fans that abbreviate Harry Potter to HP. I'd say there's weak support under that reason to include Harry Potter at the HP disambig page. It's a reason, but not a very good reason.Anakinjmt (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting is that HP1 redirects to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, despite the fact it's an abbreviation for a chemical, as it's stated at the top of the PS article. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

HP IS used to mean Harry Potter. Look at these: The italian cover of the seventh novel which it plainly says on the spine HP. Use in Merchandise 1Use in Merchandise 2And the HP logo (was more promident around when the first movie came out)Arry 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hepatology

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)

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)

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)

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)

Never underestimate the stupidity of Anon, Arcayne. :) faithless (^speak) 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

"American English" translation

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)

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)

It is quite evident that the American translation is not a full force conveyance of Rawling's message, but thus is the American Transendental tradition. It is not always to be expected that the secret freemason society will edit American literature, but it can happen, and usually it makes the litterature more rich in literary value. I will further illustrate my point with an Anecdote. Once I was in Griffith park for peace day, and Jane goodall spoke. She talked like harry potter, but the peace people still clapped for her. Then a man was selling Lebanese pine trees, and made many refrences to the bourne supremacy, a movie. However much american literature changes from state to state, its still OK. 204.102.108.31 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't beleive that you have a healthy appreciation for the gravity of what I'm saying. Just as in William Faulkner's Absalom! Absalom!, the Harry Potter has become an american Icon. When poeple in America hear the word "British", They think of Harry Potter. It is thus important that the message of the boy who lived be spread clearly to america and not be lost in translation. Let me explain with another Anecdote (an anecdote is another name for a "story"). Mitotic division is integral to the life of animals. After the Gap 2 phase, the cell begins mitosis. In interphase, the DNA is Duplicated. In phrophase, the nuclear membrane dissapears. In metaphase, the chromosomes line up along the equator and are pulled apart during anaphase by spindle fibers coming from the centrioles, and in telophase the cell undergoes cytokinesis, which splits it apart. Now, (if it isn't self evident) Harry potter represents the chromosomes and the spindle fibers are his readers. The centrioles are the almighty dollar, or in Harry's case, Galleon! However, the Ron Weasley and his fellow freedom fighters are not evident in this example. The message, however, rings clearer than the bell on Captain Crunches Ship: American Literature can vary in depth and in translation. 204.102.108.31 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A VERY Serious Error in the Article

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)

Please provide the academic literature backing up your claim. Brisvegas 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual theme in the book

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(outdent) Lawlord wrote: "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". Are we also to assume that in over the course of the seven books that none of the characters pooped, clipped their nails or changed their underwear, since 'the author has provided no scenes which would indicate the contrary'? As well, the suggestion that most 16-17 y.o.'s have had sex is purely OR. There isn't a leg to stand on regarding this matter, which I think I can safely say is pretty much done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict)

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)

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)

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)

By the way, the personal attacks here started when asyndeton wrote "I remove an awful lot of OR, speculation, fancruft and rubbish, such as your additions." Calling other peoples edits "rubbish" is very rude, and therefore I made Asyndeton aware of the fact that he is a rude person. Wikipedia has no use for rude people. Especially not for rude people who do not contribute but merely deletes the contributions of others. Such a person is Asyndeton, and I simply pointed that out. --Law Lord (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I've lost count of the number of attacks and attackers above, and I don't really care either. Mixed in between the incivilties are a number of valid points; could we please focus on those instead. So let's start over - below the double line, please add relevant views and arguments only. (Feel free to repeat relevant things below - it's hard to find among all the other stuff above.)--Niels Ø (noe) 13:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

---

---

In a book about teenagers, sexual themes are not uncommon or unnatural, but in actual fact, the HP series does not go beyond a bit of kissing and some crushes (well, in the 17 years long interval before the epilogue, more must have happened, but none the less...). Does the absense of more explicitly sexual themes deserve a mention in the article? I think not, but of course other opinions are possible, if valid arguments are supplied. If so, I think a text agreeable to all or most editors should be constructed here at the talk page before it's added to the article.--Niels Ø (noe) 13:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict)

---

---

When I have more time, I will post my suggestion for a text on the sexual themes. Right now, I do not have time for this. I think many (some more than others) have been engaging in personal attacks, for which I note, nobody has offered any apology. For any part in said personal attacks, I have had, I apologize. --Law Lord 11:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

A Serious Error, or, I Should Say ERRORS, In the Article: REVISITED

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)

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)

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)

Adding to section 5.1

I would propose adding the following text: ""Renowned fantasy author Ursula Le Guin has expressed a rather unfavourable opinion based on the first book, calling it "stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited". Reference: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,6000,1144428,00.html""

Since the article is protected. I can't do it. If a moderator adds this content for me it would be much appreciated. 201.141.226.245 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Mexican cinema fan

With respect, I am concerned that the quote you would like to add adds an opinion of how her opinion is "unfavorable". While authors kicking each other in the shins is considered unfavorable, we need someone to say it is unfavorable. Where would you like a crafted note to go? Where do you feel it best belongs?

You might want to start an account. It's easy to do, and you aren't sacrificing your privacy. It also has the benefit of of allowing your edits to accumulate under that created identity. After you have accumulated enough over time, you become more established, and are allowed to edit even in semi-protected articles. think about it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. It was not my intention to use weasel words to further a POV. Perhaps quoting more of the text from the link will be more acceptable. Le Guin's whole paragraph goes as follows: "I have no great opinion of it. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the "incredible originality" of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid's fantasy crossed with a "school novel", good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited." I hope this helps to justify the inclusion of the quote in the article, considering also that Le Guin is a respectable fantasy author. 200.94.69.93 20:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Mexican cinema fan.

Oh, I certainly agree that Leguin is in fact notable, indeed. What does everyone else think? I am thinking inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be included, but seeing as her opinion was solely about the first book, it belongs on the Philosopher's Stone page IMO. V-train 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I am not sure if the anon user watches this page, but the article discussion page for that article is where it should be brought up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please archive

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)

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)

Problem

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)

FYI: Possibility of an 8th Harry-Potter-book

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)

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)

Longest Book

In reference to "Indeed as the series progresses, each book gets progressively longer, developing along with the reader's literary abilities. A word-count comparison shows how each book, save the sixth, is longer than its predecessor, requiring greater concentration and longer attention spans to complete."
- the second sentence contradicts the first. Surely ti should read "the books generally get longer" or something.
- It's the fifth book - The Order of the Phoenix - that's longest. At least according to the Wikipedia article.
Perhaps a table of word counts would be more illustrative?