Talk:Controversy over the Harry Potter series

Passed GA

Well references, nicely presented. Automated peer review suggestions are:

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Dooms Day349 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Political conservative section contains a lot of OR

and reads like an essay. I think it needs to be radically shortened. Serendipodous 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganised and removed these lines:

The Marxist sentiments of Mitford are reflected in Hermione's formation of SPEW, the Society for Promotion of Elvish Welfare, which has a similar real world counterpart in SPEW, the Socialist Party of England and Wales. Both groups advocate for labor rights despite the apparant apathy of most workers and house-elves.

There is no reference to this in any of the sources. Serendipodous 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "socialist values" thing

How notable is it, really? How many people could possibly consider her to be more than moderately leftwing? Outside of the rants of a few (mostly American) ultra-rightwing loonies, I don't see any evidence of criticism for her being leftwing. If anything, people seem to be criticising her for being a Madonna-esque "new toff". This woman is a self-made millionaire, and has spent her money conspicuously. She has three million-pound houses. She only ever gives interviews for right-wing papers like the Telegraph and the Tatler. To describe her as a socialist seems somewhat ludicrous. Serendipodous 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three million pound houses is rather modest considering the price of property here and her being a self made $ billionair. Don't get much for a million in the UK. Sandpiper 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole socialist values thing is pretty notable, since Rowling says her heroine since she was 14 was a life-long Socialist. Check the Ayn Rand article in the Political Conservatives opposition section to see how her lack-of-conspicuous consumption made the Times. Seems she lives pretty modest and gives more money to charity than she spends on herself! Libertycookies 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conpiricy theorists

Anyone notice haw a lot of these people who are against the books for biblical reasons are using a lost of stuff government conspiricy theorists do? Like pulling up fake evidence, nonsensical arguments, and the ever-constant you can't tell that they're not" sort of thing? next, will it be anyone who doesn't believe the ooks are evil are spies/demonically posessed/some other faith trying to convert? --74.134.8.244 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing. Check out Nancy Stouffer's website Serendipodous 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns me also; I was wondering if anyone would object to me making the point that even if the books can be interpreted to be promoting paganism, this is not neccecarily negative and worthy of criticism. The article never directly condemns paganism, but it does show many christian viewpoints and does not counter them to provide a balanced argument. Monkeymox 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea; but it would need backing up. Preferably, a genuinely Wiccan source could be located that shows the massive dissimilarities between the magic in Harry Potter and the magic of the Wiccan religion. Serendipodous 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear...

Wicca isn't part of Christianity. So you can't really have a situation like this:

Christian Opposition

and then:

Wicca and Harry Potter

because it would give the wrong impression. Addhoc 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicca and Harry Potter section isn't about Christianity, it's about Laura Mallory's claim. Her argument is that the books promote a state-sanctioned religion, Wicca, and thus violate the separation of church and state if kept in state-owned libraries. The point of that paragraph is to show that the books do not promote the Wiccan religion. Serendipodous 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political conservatives

This section is more a criticism of the books than a controversy over them. No one has attempted to get the books banned for their purported political bias, no one has taken Rowling to court over it. This section belongs in the "Criticism and praise" section of the Harry Potter page, if it belongs any where. Serendipodous 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re restoration: Again, I fail to see a controversy here. A controversy is an argument; it implies some kind of response or conflict. All that's happened here is that a few people have griped about the books' supposedly socialist message (which is rather ironic since a lot of other people have labelled them socially conservative). No one has taken her to court, no one has attempted to get the books banned; no one has attempted to kill anyone over this. How is it a controversy? Serendipodous 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way the political conservative concerns have been incorporated into Harry Potter#Criticism_and_praise, and I think that should be sufficient. It might be wise to expand the lead of this article a bit to more clearly define what types of controversies the article is addressing, and then I'd remove the section in this article. We might also add a link in the See Also section to Harry Potter Criticisms and Praise. Karanacs 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I've yet to hear any political commentator (credible or otherwise) utter a single word about any particular political leanings within the HP novels. Every controversy of note has either surrounded potential copyright infringements, leaks & thefts or far-right religious actions against the supposed promotion of witchcraft. I appreciate that the editor has cited sources for this section but to assert that this has caused any controversy of real note (or an attempt to ban the books on these grounds) sounds to me like 100% original research and as such has no place on Wiki. AulaTPN 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this article an overhaul to emphasise the controversy angle, rather than just the opinions of various religious figures. Any other citations for book challenges on religious grounds would be appreciated. Serendipodous 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the overhaul -- this version is presented better and a little easier to follow. Good job! Karanacs 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the political conservatives controversy is more over Rowling's beliefs as they come out in her writing, so does not belong in the Harry Potter section which seems to be literary criticism. It is very relevant to the Controversy section because the Christian Groups refer to the politically conservative articles, and one of the conservative writers, Steve Bonta, changes his method of attacks from focusing on the liberal values of Rowling to saying that the books "promote evil" to line up with the Christian opponents.

There is no reason to stiffle the political right's criticism. They have every right to speak their mind, and we should respect that. Long established groups like the John Birch Society, Ayn Rand Society, and even duly-elected MP's from the Conservative Party have expressed their opinion on Rowling's beliefs. Those who haven't heard these political commentators should simply read the citations provided.

Special Note to all those who have been requested to fight an edit war by Serendipodous: the Political Conservative section has been up since April 22 and all the facts and links are good. Don't be played by Serendipodous. I am unsure why he/she has felt the need to delete this recently, and I take issue with his/her personal attacks of me as a "Right-Wing Libertarian". First off, Libertarians aren't on the right or the left, and I don't identify myself with either of those groups. I do feel that providing information is better than repressing information, and believe that an informed and educated public is the only way to have real democracy. That's my politics, if it matters. Libertycookies 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Rowling's beliefs as they manifest in her writing is still literary criticism. Take that from someone with a master's degree in literature. The section has not been deleted. It has been moved to another article. There has been no stifling of information, and no one, least of all me, has been engaged in an attempt to stifle liberties. The reason it took so long to come to the decision to shift it was not because of the section itself, but because of the article as a whole; it tended to focus on criticism by religious leaders, rather than controversy. I have now redrafted the article to draw out the controversy angle. It is my instinct to err on the side of inclusion, rather than deletion, and if there is a chance of avoiding an edit war I prefer to take it. My apologies if my assumption that you were a right-wing libertarian were taken as an insult; given that your only contributions to the Harry Potter section of this encyclopedia so far have been to draw attention to her supposed socialist views (she's no more socialist than most Europeans), I assume that this conservative, libertarian criticism means a lot to you. Serendipodous 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you accept Rowling having socialist values? Have you ever read Hons and Rebels? Understanding Rowling's heroine is the key to understanding Rowling.

Btw, I assumed you were a right-winger trying to bury the failed attempt by the conservatives to create a controversy over her values. When you solicited supporters it seemed to confirm that view. Apologies for responding to that harshly. The criticism section will be fine, but talk to me before deleting content please. I'll try to find more praise for her socialist views now that it's removed from controversy.

Also, even the British aren't homogenous, let alone most Europeans. Rowling however does support Gordon Brown who is from the Labour Party. The Conservative Party in Britian publicly objects to Rowling's heroine.

This article should probably be defined as a "media controversy over Harry Potter" because the numbers of actual book-burners is pretty small, almost as small as the conservative protesters. Probably a bonfire makes a better photo-op though. Peace Libertycookies 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sections

When I made the alterations to the layout I thought I was doing a necesssary tidyup. It never occurred to me people would object. May I ask why people have? Because the alternative seemed much less cumbersome to me. Serendipodous 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Actually, looking at the edit history of the individual concerned, I don't think reasoned argument is going to go far, so I'll just revert it back, if no one else minds. Serendipodous 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I think sections gives a useful overview. It is not cumbersome compared to the article size. what do you mean about my edit history? Lizzie Harrison 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your userpage, you have been repeatedly blocked for vandalism, so forgive me if I failed to assume good faith on your part in this instance, especially as your edit was unexplained. Serendipodous 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit-war with an aministrator and they misunderstood me and blocked me as a result. This war has since been resolved in my favour. I am sorry I did not explain my edit fully. I thought 'sectioning' would be suffecent. Lizzie Harrison 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipodous 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC): OK, that aside I think the best thing to do now would be to put this to a vote:[reply]

Do you support the current "summary style" for the subsections, or do you think they should be given their own section headings? Write Keep if you agree with the current headings, and Change if you'd prefer the other system.

SUPPORT easy to understand and read. suggestion: change support on the votes to keep or change instead of support or oppose. --HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the peer review, I think the best thing to do is to split this article in half

This article has two halves, and they are virtually unrelated to each other. It is also so section-dense that I've had to resort to the always controversial "definiton list" style. Rather than get into semantic debates about what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't, why don't we instead just create two independent articles Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series. That way, ambiguities are sorted and each section has room to breathe. This page could become a disambig for the two of them. Serendipodous 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]