Talk:Harry Potter

Harry doesn’t die Snape dies on page 658, his last words are “Look…at…me…” Dobby dies on page 476, his last words are “Harry…Potter…” Moody dies sometime before page 78, you hear of his death from Bill and Fleur Collin Creevy dies sometime before page 694, Harry finds Neville is carrying his dead body The sorting hat dies on page 732, Voldemort lights it on fire Fred dies Tonks dies Lupin dies Neville kills Nagini Snape was Dumbledore’s spy all along. Dumbledore plotted his own death so that the power of the Elder Wand would die with him rather than be transferred to his victor. He failed though and the power is transferred to Draco, then to Harry (of course). Voldemort dies on page 744 Harry’s scar goes away Harry Marries Ginny and has three kids named Lily, Albus Sirius, and James Ron Marries Hermione and has two kids, Hugo and Rose Neville becomes professor of Herbology Malfoy gets married and has a son named Scorpius”

Archives

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Archive 1 covers December 2001 – July 2003. Topics:

• Hogwarts is in Scotland
• Discussions of religious objections to witchcraft
• a link to generate parody clues

Archive 2 covers July 2003 - May 2005. Topics:

• Homosexuality
• Anti-Harry Potter
• Infobox discussion

Archive 3 covers June 2005 - October 2005. Archived 13 October, 2005. Topics:

• Slavery and homophobia
• Size of article, expansion request

Archive 4 covers October 2005 - 1 July 2006. Archived 27 July 2006. Topics:

• Religious beliefs of wizards
• Book seven release date
• Good Article status

Archive 5 covers 2 July 2006 - November 2006. Archived 18 November, 2006. Topics:

• Connections to Tolkien
• A few short discussions on specific details
• 7th book

Archive 6 covers January 2007 – March 2007. Archived 29 March, 2007. Topics:

• Feminist critique, controversy with the series
• English vs. British
• Parallel universe

Archive 7 covers March 2007 - May 2007. Archived May 31 2007. Topics:

• Vandalism
• failed FA drive
• Themes and motifs
• English vs. British

Archive 8 covers May 2007 to July 10, 2007

• Criticism
• Religious objections
• Themes and motifs deletion
• Muggles and Muggle-borns

WArning!

There are leaked copies, we shouldn't let people edit the plot section. Luckyz21 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) There are leaks

Is anyone interested...

in saving the nuclear test site that is the Characters list? Because if not, we should seriously think about bringing a character list back here. EDIT: OK. Just did a reversion of about ten edits to when the list made some kind of sense. Hope it stays that way. Serendipodous 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

In plot summary, how does Hagrid know that Harry's parents have been killed? It is a mystery that hasn't been explained in the book and doesn't make that much sense. How does Dumbledore know that Harry's parents were killed? Was he a witness to the murder?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bullsfan (talk • contribs)

I always sort of assumed that they found their bodies...=David^(talk)_(contribs) 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry kills himself to destroy Voldemort and then is reunited in the Deathly Hallows Ghost World with this parents, Ron, Hermoine, Sirius, and Dumbledore. This occurs after we learn that Dumbledore is alive, then Snape is forced to kill Dumbledore, Ron Weasley dies, and then Hermione dies.

~~a killjoy writes > Is anyone interested in any of this and if so why ? I understand there is soon to be a seventh of these great steaming piles of literary brilliance. I can't wait. If my son ever gets into this stuff, I'll disinherit him.

Book (sort of, allegedly) otherwise known as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Harry Potter and the Testicle of the Sage Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Harry Potter and the Mysterious Toilet Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Harry Potter and the Slave of Earlobe Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Harry Potter and the Bucket of Warm Sick Harry Potter and Order of the Phoenix Harry Potter and the the Dead Parrot Award Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Harry Potter and the Right Royal Bastard Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Harry Potter Good Fucking Riddance

~~ OK I've finsihed now ~~

"Feminist critique"

Yeah seriously, this shit needs to go. It doesn't satisfy "notability guidelines" or whatever - this Christine Schoefer person doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia, and she does seem to be the only one to put forward these views. Not to mention that they're ridiculous - why would J.K. Rowling (a woman) write something "patriarchal"? BigglesTh9 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms may or may not be notable, and may or may not make sense, but there's certainly no rule that says a thought can't be patriarchal just because it comes out of a woman's mouth! --Saforrest 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

British vs English

Will you please stop changing 'British' back to 'English'? Rawling lives in Scotland, writes in Scotland, and is an associated of Gordon Brown, Mr. Britishness. If that does not qualify her as British, then the adjective British ought never to be used.

I have posted my motivations online at: http://insatiableyucca.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/geeky-deed-of-the-day/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNullo (talk • contribs)

1. Welcome to Wikipedia.

2. New additions to talk pages should be properly titled and placed at the end

3. The designation "English" is preferred because that is the country of her birth and hence her nationality. Her current residence/associates have nothing to do with it. You're not the first editor to try and make this change but consensus has long been that English is the preferred choice. Please stop making this change - one of the editors is bound to undo it every time. Aula^TPN 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about posting it on top, I did not know where to do it, nor how to start a new thread.

I'm afraid what you say, and what you refer to as 'consensus', is false: there is no such thing as 'English' nationality. So Rawling's nationality cannot be a reason to use the term 'English'. Because Rawling is a British citizen. So the nationality argument supports my change, actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNullo (talk • contribs)

I figured that was the case, also you should sign your posts in talk pages by typing four tildes. Also it's Rowling not Rawling. When I refer to consensus I am talking about the considered majority opinion of the hundreds of Wikipedia editors who work on this project. You must remember that these pages are not created in vacuo, they are a colaboration between many people and as such have to conform to the many policies that exist. Edits in conflict with consensus and policy will always be reverted. As far as citizenship goes, that is certainly not the same thing as nationality so I am afraid you are wrong. It is also standard practice here when referring to a UK citizen to differentiate between the constituent countries when listing someone's nationality. That is how things are done on Wiki, I'm sorry you don't like it but the policies are decided by smarter people than I. Aula^TPN 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aula, it's not that I don't like it - It's that I disagree. I understand now that it is nationality that you are interested in, not citizenship. But because only citizenship has official value, then nationality is debatable. And what I am saying, here, is exactly that Rowling is not English.

The problem is that, with the policy you are defending, you don't leave any room for the 'adjective' British. That is very controversial, especially now that Gordon Brown is PM.

I am therefore still waiting for these hundreds of editors' argument for 'English'. So far all I could gather is that you think it is enough that she was born in England. First of all, there are plenty of counterexamples to that. Second, she was born in Britain too, for that matter.TheNullo 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably won't hear from them unless you violate a policy - they'll just quietly revert your edits in the background. I completely disagree with your argument however, Rowling is most certainly English as being born in England would imply. Ask a Scot if he's British or Scottish. Aula^TPN 10:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ask a Scot if he's British or Scottish" That analogy does not work, Aula, because I am disputing that Rowling is English. Your appeal to where she is born is very problematic: does that mean that people can never change their nationality? That they are forever bound to the place where they happened to be born? These days many people (growing numbers, in fact) are born in one place and grow up in another. Or settle in a new place and identify with it. And people can change citizenship. Should that not represent, at least sometimes, a change of nationality, as in a change of identity?

Anyway, it seems to me that you don't want to engage with the argument, but just refer back to the hundreds of silent editors. But then the fact that people will keep changing 'British' back to 'English' is an imposition not warranted by argument. And one that violates the 'free' nature of this project.

Finally, I seem to remember that on issues of this kind there should be a vote or something like that.TheNullo 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Firstly, Rowling was born and raised in England - only moving to Scotland later in life - she is English. Now whereas one can quite obviously change their citizenship that's not the same as nationality. Secondly Wikipedia is not a democracy and votes do not happen for things like this. I strongly suggest you read the policy documents I placed in your talk page. Aula^TPN 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to link the discussion about nationality from the archives to show a new user the discussion that has taken place. Recurring dreams 10:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, that would indeed be a good idea, because I guess it is on the ground of that discussion that this decision has been taken. My question is: the decision cannot be irreversible, can it? What is the procedure to challenge it? Aula, as I said, you are not really engaging with the argument (and if you look back at my comment you'll notice that I did not claim that nationality and citizenship were the same thing). If you think that engaging is unnecessary because such discussion has already taken place, then please refer to it, as suggested. About democracy: I don't know whether voting is a procedure that exists for this particular dispute, but I am sure that it exists as a tool in wikipedia, because it has happened to me in the past (maybe on whether to erase an entry?)TheNullo 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link I posted? Wikipedia does not do voting. Occasionally polls will be taken to get a feel for consensus but they don't provide the outcome. The things you have seen regarding page deletion are an opportunity to discuss the reasons for keeping/deleting a page but again they are not a binding vote. And of course I'm engaging with your discussion - I've stated why I believe she is English and why I feel your argument doesn't hold up. Aula^TPN 10:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If she was born in England, and currently resides in Scotland and does all of her business in Scotland (In fact, she has spent 15 whole years in Scotland, and hasn't resided at all in England since then), "Scottish" would certainly be a more acceptable term. It would make no sense to call her "English" if she worked and resided in America for 15 years, either. As it is, "British" is a sufficient enough blanket term to cover both nationalities, and if it's going to cause such a fuss it would make sense to use the blanket term instead of the unnecessarily selective adjective. I honestly think you may have some sort of English nationalist sentiments and are just trying to be fussy about things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.24.51 (talk • contribs)

Your comment makes absolutely no sense and you might want to think a little more before you post certain things - ad hominem attacks are not received well. I lived and worked for many years in the U.S. yet I could hardly call myself American. Had I been naturalised then that would be different. Or to put it another way, if a dog lives in a stable can you really call it a horse? Aula^TPN 07:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow Aula, that's a disturbing analogy. Comparing nationality to species is something I thought died out fifty years ago. It's the sort of thing white supremacists said about the first black people to enroll in college. Nationality is what you decide you are. If Rowling calls herself English, then she's English. If she wants to call herself Scottish, she can do so if she wants. My grandparents were Canadian, but my great uncle (my grandfather's brother) decided he was a Scot. He took his mother's Scottish name, became Secretary of her clan, wore the tartan and learned Gaelic. I don't think anyone would have accused him of not being Scottish, just as I don't see anyone describing Bob Hope or Jerry Springer as English. Serendipodous 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee I seem to have been replaced by my evil twin! I'm well aware that as justifications go, my comment is on the extreme side - in fact I believe it's actually a Bernard Manning quote - but that's kinda the point. I was attempting to highlight how ridiculous this discussion is, particularly the rampant inconsistencies, but certainly not to make any white-supremacist analogies or spark a race row, I thought people were above that sort of thing these days? Anyway I'll strike the comment as it seems to be far too open to interpretation.

Surely if you're born in Xland then you are Xish even if you live on the moon. Now if you become a naturalised citizen of Yland they you could probably call yourself Yish instead of Xish but if we look at the biggest example of such practices, i.e. the U.S., then that doesn't seem to be the case - you'd end up calling yourself an Xish-Ylander such as Irish-American. Now as far as the UK goes you are a British Citizen so even if you've spent 15 years in Scotland you cannot become a naturalised Scot - there's no such thing - so if you were born in England, you're still English. Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician but this just seems so obvious and logical to me I really can't understand how people can assert that she's Scottish? Aula^TPN 08:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Bernard Manning, a reasoned addition to any debate on nationality. Serendipodous 09:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd appreciate that. Aula^TPN 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)