Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Query about title usage

Perhaps a bit clumsy in my wording, I was criticizing the use of "Philosopher's Stone" because this book is known worldwide as "Sorcerer's Stone", and the film bears that in the title. Can someone explain the dirty maneuver of deleting my post?

No, the book was written in UK by a UK author and first published in UK. It's titled "Philosopher's Stone" every where except in USA, where it was titled "Sorcerer's Stone" specially for the US market. --Philcha (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Though I am an Anglophile (with good reason), do you think the tiresome "She's English! She's English!" warcry is justification enough to put things inaccurately?*sigh*

We know Rowling is British, we know the book is English, and it had the Philosopher's Stone title when 1st published. Can we not move along from thence? Who rocketed her to proper fame so quickly? AMERICA. Where is the later title invented? AMERICA. Film? AMERICA.

Now one last query: is it still Philosopher's Stone in England? If it is not, I suggest your case is even weaker. I have seen all Rowling's bibliographies and all list the same way: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, a/k/a Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Makes no matter if the biblios are English or American.

I'll concede to one thing: since I have no way of checking, and that is if the WHOLE WORLD knows the book as Philosopher's Stone, then I concede your point, and I'll concur with you.76.195.80.62 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It remains Philosopher's Stone in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, South Africa -- EVERYWHERE ELSE EXCEPT AMERICA. We will not change it for some American crying about it on Wikipedia. Grow up. 92.25.109.47 (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, and this specific discussion was resolved about a month and a half ago. No need to rehash it unless you're just looking to do some America bashing or something. --Onorem♠Dil 16:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And since my original query will never be answered, about who the hell took out my original posting here, may I ask: can we at least leave the very top of the heading as-is? Can you restrain your British selves from reverting my CORRECTION so that it reads "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (a.k.a. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, U.S.A)", please?

---

I know it's an English book, and your title heading is correct for the purpose, but it is simply rash and somewhat mean-spirited to delete the addition of the U.S.A. title, especially in light of my above argument. What is it with you and the Sorcerer's Stone, anyway? Do you have ANY justification for continuously eliminating my addition of the U.S. title? Any??75.21.155.143 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, had to jump back in to ask about THE FILM. Is that to be somehow retrofitted because of Rowling's original book title? I ask because I am wondering if your intention here is to have this article be only about the original British book and nothing else. In that case I'll let it alone. However, I'd like to see how that separation works out for you!75.21.155.143 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The US title is given in the very next paragraph. It doesn't need to be in the first line. Without knowing which posting was yours (since you have no account and your IP doesn't appear to remain the same for long), it's going to be difficult to answer your question. When did you make the post? Have you tried looking through the talk page history? --Onorem♠Dil 16:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You really should go and check on some of your claims. You are wrong on just about every point. Reading the article itself would clarify most of what you appear misinformed in. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"The US title is given in the very next paragraph. It doesn't need to be in the first line."--hmm!! Some fine sense of proper reference you have, there. The more popular alternate/newer title doesn't need to be in the first line? Did you sleep through your version of English 101? And I'm supposed to be the wrong one! Well I see the boneheadedness will persist on both sides of the pond, so as you good people might like to phrase it, 'Bugger Harry Potter.' As for my IP, you'll have to take that up with my provider, damn them, they scramble my IP address from time to time. Keeps creeps away....75.21.155.143 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not issue personal attacks on other editors. It is likely to get you blocked. You are wrong because, and this may surprise you, it does not take being famous in the US for a book to be 'properly' famous and notable. This is, and still is, the title of the book in the first place it was published (the UK, not England, but that's just another thing you have wrong about). It is equally the title preferred by the author herself. Wikipedia is not US-centric and just because the publishers chose to modify the title for the US market, does not mean that this article needs to give the US title top billing, or clutter the lead sentence with purely US concerns.

Please read Wikipedia guidelines on similar matters. You could also refer to Consensus policy.

If you refer to the other language links on the left had side of the article you will also see which is the more common title worldwide. You do have a way of checking this, isn't Wikipedia great?

You are wrong about the film in exactly the same ways, however that's immaterial as this article is about the book. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cts: Wikipedia is not US-centric. The book is known as "HP & the Philosopher's Stone" (or its translation - stone of the philosopher, stone of the wise man) in nearly every other language. Eve^NL 12:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...I am not attacking anyone in particular. It is the ignoring of common sense that I sometimes hot-headedly attack. So back off. The matter, I admit, is simply one of an a.k.a. title sharing space after the original title is listed. No wrongdoing there. And what is it about the word "bugger" you do not understand? Go lecture someone else about Wikipedia features, and the damned title. Lastly, care to spell out what it is about the stupid movie, that you're all having a go at me about that too?75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have suggestions on how this article may be improved then please discuss it in a manner that doesn't include references to others 'boneheadedness'. I think the current consensus has been explained to you. In return, you haven't explained why you think this is not adequate or appropriate, except for your personal viewpoint based on an inaccurate analysis of the book's publishing history. If that's all you have to base your position on I think we're done here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Right, understanding the frustration you obviously feel, "we're done here" when I get an acknowledgement that you do not know how to present titles in a proper scholastic way....

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has an alternate (or "a.k.a.") title by which it is known to hundreds of millions. That title is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. With me thus far? Nations play no part here, dates play no part, that it is ref: the original book plays no part.

The part that matters is the thing has two equal titles. They should be displayed side-by-side; your sole title at the top is confusing not to mention academically biased. That is the only point I have left that this talk page seems to allow me, so there you are. NOW we are done here.75.21.110.251 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The fact that it has a different title, in one country, is, even from an academic standard, irrelevent. Ccrashh (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to stop being so biased and just admit that you refuse to correctly title this book in full! Furthermore, the Philosopher's Stone as legend has it, is NOT what Rowling wrote about here. She writes of a solid stone of immortality--closer to the rings of immortality in the old quests such as the "Volsunga".

75.21.151.236 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rowling claimed that she regretted this change (the title for the USA market) and would have fought it if she had been in a stronger position at the time" --Philcha (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lovely, we know how she felt about it. IRRELEVANT! She herself knew little about what the Philosopher's Stone is, as we know it in our myths. Would you also add that?75.21.151.236 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your myths are irrelevant, as is your presumption that readers can't wait until the second paragraph to find that the book was mistitled in the USA. The current formulation works well, avoiding giving undue weight to the title chosen by the publishers of a translation in one country. . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The current "formulation" is WRONG and you all know it. The current formulation sucks. What I think is undue weight is the number of British-centric a-holes who say the American title simply does not matter and does not deserve notice.75.21.145.197 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, when someone claims that his opponents "know" that he is right, the smart money says that he is wrong. As an American who has freely criticized the UK when appropriate, I wish to state that the anonymous editor speaks only for himself, not for any other Americans. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Look whoever you are: this basic argument consists only of the following: a work bearing more than one simultaneous title in the same language must be listed using all alias titles after the original title, as equal titles. Thanks for your defence of the English mindset, but that is not the issue. The issue is these people want to act as if the American title is unimportant, undue weight and therefore not worthy of equal listing. That is childhish and wrong. Thanks also for the "opponents know he's right" argument. THAT will help!76.195.86.50 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continually insulting other editors why not hold a head count? In which case you shall find that Wikipedia works by way of general concensus and you will find that the majority of people are infact against you, regardless of whether they are British or not. It's about what's right.

2601andrew talk 18:07, 29th May 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's too bad that the American Publisher believes their audience is stupid and proved that they're even dumber. The book had a proper title. Amongst the properties the Philosopher's Stone was believed to have was the ability to extend live. The rest of the world shouldn't have to continue to suffer because Americans are idiots. The article has the proper title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.135.52 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's face it, the decision to call the thing "sorcerer's stone" in America was nonsense and remains nonsense. The author took a well-known concept from alchemy, period. Hence, yes, the American title in this specific case is unimportant, of undue weight and therefore not worthy of equal listing. Not because it's American, but because it's wrong.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:7C2F:DA18:C4C3:C612 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

She even agrees that the title is stupid and was avid about not changing the title, But given the fact that she was a women, and it was during a mostly male workforce for books, she had very little power, it’s in the book “a history of magic, a look into the Harry Potter universe, and what went into one of the most widely known names in the.” Aiden LaBonne (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Language

First of all, English (as the name suggests, for Pete's sake) does belong to England. Second of all, in the paragraph about word changes there is clear degradation of English in the UK and Ireland as ‘variants‘, yet NO tagging of the American usage. This is not just wrong, it's pure arrogance. It suggests that American English is the standard, whilst everything else is a variant.

US English, just like English spoken in Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, India, Singapore, etc. are all the variants, whilst the English in the UK is by definition the (standard) English language. Even if you disagree with this, you cannot label British and Irish usages as ‘variants‘ and NOT do this for American usage. This is pure hypocrisy and arrogance. That is, to be consistent, even if you hold that there be no country which can claim to be the source of standard English, you have to be consistent, and mark all US American usages as such (e.g. as ‘American’, ‘US American’, ‘American variant’, etc.). drusus null 22:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current wording, but even if it is the standard dialect, it's still called British English; the English language encompasses all its variants. But I don't know where all this anger and indignation is coming from, you should calm down. For the next time, you should know that, if you make a WP:BOLD edit and you are reverted, what comes after is discussing it here, not reinstating your edit; it's called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. —El Millo (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the 2nd and 3rd points, which are not contingent on whether you agree about England having the sole claim to being the standard authority on the English language. drusus null 18:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My answer was written before your amendments to your original comment, but that's not the issue that concerns me most. There's something we have here called assuming good faith and general civility, which consists mainly of not just assuming someone is doing something out of pure hypocrisy and arrogance. I've seen this from a few English-speakers outside of the United States, who've assumed that I'm American, which I'm not, and that there's an arrogance and ignorance to edits like this one. That's something you should never just assume and accuse other editors of. I'll advise you to avoid such accusations in the future, in order to have a civil conversation. —El Millo (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen this from a few English-speakers […] who've assumed that I'm American, which I'm not, and that there's an arrogance and ignorance to edits like this […] something you should never just assume and accuse other editors of. You're gravely mistaking, Millo. Unless you cannot comprehend, the comments in the commits were written in the passive voice—it was not targeted at you, it was targeted at the text: the text implicitly exults American as the standard and English (i.e. ‘British English’) as the deviant. This is the hypocrisy: Because even if the ‘all Englishes are equal’ claim were true (and it isn’t), the text should then not elevate US English to some higher status, but at most treat it equally as all other variants. But the original text of the article does not do that. That was the original point of all the changes. If you took a criticism about the text personally, well, that is your problem. drusus null 20:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, all solved. —El Millo (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have receded my previous comment because it has nothing to do with this, and have been noticed privately about that matter Aiden LaBonne (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that this it trolling, but I can't help and respond.

What is your opinion on the Model (person) article that makes explicit mention of American English, and Tire that makes explicit mention of British English? Or Biltong that uses the EngvarB template to insinuate South African English is used? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Drusus 0: Additional, can you sign your posts please with four tildes - ~~~~ - thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I think I forgot once or twice, but had corrected all occurrences thereafter. Be do let me know, if I forgot any. drusus null 23:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Duplication in 'Main characters' subsection

There is a lot of duplication of quoted extracts in the 'Main characters' subsection of the Synopsis, e.g. "scrawny, black-haired, [green eyed] and bespectacled boy who didn't know he was a wizard", ""always there when you need him", "a lot of insecurity and a great fear of failure beneath her swottiness", etc. JezGrove (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Criticized for withcraft"

There's several sentences in the lede regarding this. No source is provided, its not mentioned anywhere else in the article, I feel having these sentences are completely WP:UNDUE. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed, I've removed. — Manticore 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)