Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 1

Created: 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Changes

Some prankster made some rude changes to the HP text. I have corrected what I've seen so far, although the quote Harry makes about why Voldemort lost his powers will have to be fixed by someone who knows what it said originaly. The HP pages should be watched.PNW Raven 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and this is a very good observation. The sad fact is that most of the Harry Potter-related articles suffer from regular vandalism, and there is a considerable task force of users and administrators keeping watch over the articles for recent changes and vandalism. Unfortunately most of "us" need to sleep, eat, work, and play, so the vandals will always be a step or two ahead of the cleanup crew. Thank you for helping out, and please feel free to join us in monitoring for recent changes and vandalism, reverting or repairing the articles when appropriate.

The excessive vandalism is mostly due to the fact that the subject matter is of considerable interest to the younger crowd, and there are very strong feelings and passions associated with fans and non-fans on both sides of the Harry Potter phenomenon. Some "vandals" are simply very young folks who are experimenting with the Wikipedia, and are drawn to a subject they can relate to - love it or hate it. Usually it is meant as a joke, as a way of impressing friends and others with one's online audacity. Most vandalism is done anonymously from an IP address, and is difficult to trace and "punish" effectively without also punishing the innocent who happen to use the same IP address.

Two additional suggestions. First - when you leave a new note on the "discussion" tab, use the "+" tab to add a new note, and it will automatically go to the bottom of the page as a new note. Avoid using the "edit this page" tab and then placing it into the top of the page as a new note. If a new note is posted at the top of the page, then it might get archived away prematurely at the next archiving event. Secondly, when you post a note on a discussion page like this, please add four ~ (tildas) at the end of your message, and the system will append your user ID and time stamp - it will automatically get applied like this: T-dot 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore that last suggestion - you post-added your signature while I was typing... T-dot 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help patrol the HP pages. I hate to see vandalism like this, but on an open editing system, it's inevitable. Thanks for the tip on how to add a new note. I'm still figuring things out how things work here. PNW Raven 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

ahhhhh

Which picture do you think would be best for Potter? [1] or [2]. I dont want to change for the sake of it, but the first shows the scar off better than the other, but the other far less dark, which is always good. Any preferences? Drak2 19:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the copyright status, and both of those seem to be in the "not so good for us" category. --Phil | Talk 09:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Both are usable under the fair-use policy. WB seem to be okay with fan & info sites with using stills from the HP films--Drak2 21:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section about HBP needs serious editing and cleaning up.

Under Possesions, I think that Harry's House was destroyed (Hagrid says in the first book that Voldemort's curse destroyed the house).

Order of the Phoenix?

Why does it jump from talking about Harry in Goblet of Fire to Harry in Half Blood Prince? What happened to The Order of the Phoenix? I mean, it seems to be fairly important in character develpoment and character actions.

Age?

Where is the documentation that Harry was born in 1980? The link only states that he was born on July 31st. I'm not sure that it was 1980, but I would like to see some documentation or something.--Offkilter 08:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

See Dates in Harry Potter. Hope it clears things up a bit. Mairene 10:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually Dates in Harry Potter says his year of birth is 1986. The same problem exists for Hermione. The wiki page for her says 1979, whereas the Dates in Harry Potter page says 1985. So which is it, and if we don't really know shouldn't it say so?

*sigh* Dates in Harry Potter used to say 1980 for Harry's birth, but then one person changed it without establishing a consensus anywhere. I've reverted it back. Consensus has indicated that we should use 1991 as the starting year for Philosopher's Stone, so until that gets changed, that's what we're going to use. Hermione1980 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Parentage

Lily and James were both magic-users, so wouldn't that make Harry pure-blood? bob rulz 02:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nope - all grandparents have to be magical, IIRC. 9cds 03:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to be pure-blood, ALL your ancestors have to be magical (or at least all those who can be traced, which is a LOT for the character in the continuity). Everyone else is half-blood, unless both their parents were muggles, in which case they're muggleborn. Put simply- muggle+muggle=muggleborn. Pureblood+Pureblood=Pureblood. ANY other combination results in a half-blood (yes, muggleborn+muggle=half blood, just to make you sure on that).

Oh, and of course there's "squib" for anybody with at least one magical parent and they aren't magic, and "muggle" if both parents were non-magic and so are they (it's unsure how long squib families have to be non-magic before their children are just considered magic, or if anything seperates squib and muggle nature at all- perhaps 'squib' is simply a term for a muggle who's part of the wizard community, JK hasn't said yet). --195.92.168.165 00:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (temp ip, don't bother trying to contact!)

In book six it sounds like harry is considered Pure-blooded when he says "they sure like me if they would stop trying to kill me"

I think Hermione had just told him that most Death Eaters are Half-Blood pretending to be Pure.

Harry isn't considered a pure blood (check out this article for more information on what I'm saying) because his mother (Lily) was Muggle-born. To be a -real- pure blood, all of your ancestors in your direct lineage have to be witches/wizards. In actuality, by this time in the Harry Potter universe, this would be highly unlikely (I believe Hagrid says this is what happened, anyways, in the first novel). So now the term goes by if your grandparents were wizards/witches then you are a pure blood. Anything else is half-blood or Muggle-born. Which seems whacky, but hey, its not my novel series. Disinclination 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Different Pictures?

I've noticed that all the pictures on this page are depictions of Harry Potter as Daniel Radcliff. Considering there are a LOT of them, couldn't some be pruned out in favour of a different kind of depiction (not neccisarily japanese-style fanart, but a book cover or some of JK's old drawings of the character?) --195.92.168.165 00:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it better to change all the Dan's picture to the drawings else from the book

There are several reasons:

• 1. Daniel Radcliffe is not equal to Harry Potter. readers might mix up easily.
• 2. The look of Dan as Harry have a gap difference between Year1/2 and Year3/4.
• 3. Harry Potter is a character from a fiction book. No reason to post a real image to show us "it is Harry Potter."

Please agree with me and post your comments on this . ^^

--Mmlcs36 14:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I absolutely agree. --AceMyth 19:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Cautious support, I don't think that all the pictures should be changed, even if for no other reason than the book art isn't very good (imho, of course!). But some changes should be made - the film pics shoudln't dominate. Peeper 12:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG support I agree strongly. Gary Kirk 11:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand the point of view that you are comming from, however It is clearly stated in the photo's captions that it is "Dan as Harry Potter" not just "Harry Potter." Also on your third point, Yes there is a reason to post real images. Dan, Rupert, and Emma are now forever a part of the Harry Potter series because they are the ones who have portrayed the characters and brought them to the big screen. Also I agree with Peeper on the fact that some of the book art (US version, I believe there is a different illustrator for the UK versions) is not that great. One final point, it's a bit rude to end your comments with, "Please agree with me..." Let people decide for theselves without trying to influence or persude their opioins even by the smallest amount. -Hoekenheef 11:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• There's no illustartor in the UK editions, excpt for the cover, which is done by varying artists and could be better sometimes, I suppose. Paidgenius 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Surely we can have both. While I'm not a huge fan of them, the movies are an important part of the Harry Potter fandom, and I think it's important to show ther actors who play various characters in the series. There's nothing wrong with having drawings from the book as well, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of pictures of the actors. Besides, most of the pictures from the books/merchandise look crap anyway. Cyclone49 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose there is no reason why the pictures of the actors cannot coexist with the book illustrations. The book illustrations whilst being in some of the books shouldn't be considered as canon, as they are the artists interpretation of the character and therefore be shouldn't be forced on everyone as the correct representation any more than the actors image should, so encorporating both would be the sensible solution, incidently the British editions (Bloomsbury) do not carry the illustrations. As long as the photo's are tagged correctly, i.e. "Emma Watson playing/portraying Hermione Granger" then they should stay as they are. Plus lets face it, there are so many photo's now in all the HP articles (well over 100 articles) that removing them would be a huge task and would spark some monumental edit wars. If it aint broke dont fix it. Death Eater Dan 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I also believe we can have pictures of the actors featuring captions, "_____ as _____ in _____" There's room for both illustrations AND actors portrayals. Cybertooth85 07:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support I think JK Rowling's drawings are a much better representation of Harry Potter than Daniel Radcliffe. At the very least, putting in some drawings would bring balance to the page. ---Remember the dot 05:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• semi support - I'd favor using a mix of both photos and illustrations. He's a character in both a book and a movie, so the article should reflect that. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Anything other than official (i.e. from the books) illustrations have no place in the character and book articles. This should inculde fan art and images from the films. John Reaves 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose- the actor is irreversibly equated with harry Potter, particularly when he is shown in costume with the glasses/hair. Using film clips adds authority to the article, whether people believe it ought to, or not. There is also a small issue of copyright since the original book drawings could not reasonably be considered 'fair use' Sandpiper 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How would the book illustrations be any less "fair use" than using photos or screenshots from the movies, all of which are also copyrighted? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Locket nobody can open?

{{spoiler}} I don't remember this part... What page is it on? The only locked I'm aware of is the fake horcrux left by RAB, which did open to reveal the note identifying it as such. --Icarus 17:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Order of the Pheonix, Bloomsbury edition, pg 108, (towards the end of chapter 6,) one of the things found while cleaning the house:

a heavy locket that none of them could open

Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't canon that is was that locket, though. Knowing JKR, it probably is, but I'm going to remove the speculation. If it has been confirmed, please provide a source and you can put it back in. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for the reference! I'd been trying to remember something from HBP, and couldn't. Now I know why :-) Very perceptive! I agree that it shouldn't be included (except possibly with a note that it's speculation, if it's a particularly notable and widely-accepted theory) until it's confirmed, but I'll bet you're right and that it will be confirmed in the next book! --Icarus 05:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Family Tree

I think that the tree is not correct. Mrs. Wesley should be the half sister of Lily because there is no other explanation why she is a muggle and not a wizard.

What?? Molly's a pure-blood, and Lily's muggle-born. And Molly's maiden name was Prewett and Lily's was Evans. --WhyBeNormal 19:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Molly is a pure-blood Because Ron says so in a couple books.

I think they were referring to Mrs. Dursley. Lily is Muggleborn, she has no more wizardly ancestry than her sister. Muggleborns are anomalies in previously all-Muggle families. Lily and Petunia are full sisters. Noneofyourbusiness 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter's Birth

The page on MuggleNet linked to as a citation for his birth date and place does not seem to have this information. Brian Jason Drake 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition

I've added a section in the biography concerning events in the Chamber of Secrets. Seemed very odd that this was ommitted as all other books were covered. 84.69.65.9 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Weaknesses

If we're going to have a section on his strengths, one on his weaknesses would be appropiate. Harry isn't perfect nor infallible and we should balance the article. 84.69.65.9 10:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.SoothingR 14:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started one. Will need expanding. Additions welcomed. I'm a bit worried that some 'Harry is the bestest wizard and has no weaknesses' type will come along and remove them though. 84.68.49.223 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Harry does have this quality, that if it is possible to misinterpret a situation, he does. Sandpiper 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets section

Isn't "In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry faced more challenges, from merely annoying (such as Gilderoy Lockhart's attempt to exploit his fame and Colin Creevey's hero worshipping), to the hardly bearable ostracism by most of the school after being revealed as a parselmouth), to deadly in the form of a Basilisk released by the spirit of Tom Riddle from the aforementioned chamber while controlling Ginny Weasley by means of diary containing part of his soul (see Horcrux)" (the entire first paragraph) a very long, run-on sentence? Emily 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and efforts should be made to re-write it, not to lengthen it out, but make it easier to digest for any reader wanting a bit of understanding of Harry's problems in Book 2, but not so much detail that can easily be found in the main article for Book 2. Cybertooth85 07:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that this is relatively short, compared to Hermione and Ron's sections in their respective articles about their roles in each book. I won't lengthen it, but I'll try to rewrite it. I just didn't have time the other day... Emily 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

This article is extremely lacking in sources. It's a very long original research piece. Espeicially notorious is the "Strengths/Weaknesses" sections. Some HP die hard fans should be able to find some credible sources. Find a critic that's done a character study, and/or include some quotes from Rowling from an interview where she talks about the character. This article has horribly gone the route of fancruft! The aforementioned sections should be deleted outright unless they can be sourced. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reads like a character sheet

The Strengths, Weaknesses, and Notable Possessions sections of this article read like an RPG character sheet. It would require some major editing to change these bullet points into moderate prose (as opposed to brilliant prose), but I'd like to get some feedback before embarking on this endeavor. My complaint is related to the above complaint about the Strengths/Weaknesses section. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Strengths (rewrite):

• +3 on will and reflex saving throws
• high WIS, CHA and DEX.
• +2 luck bonus on all checks below DC-30

...

--AceMyth 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great to rewrite those sections into "moderate" prose. I also believe that someone should try to take up the task of, at the very least, shortening the sections of Harry's rolde in books 5 and 6. They're much too long- who wants to read that! We already have summaries of the books! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this Still make sence?

Romantic attachments Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow. it seems we alread know this. Thanks

Harry's Fortune

Several HP fans have actively posted details - all speculation - about how Harry's fortune in gold and other coins in the bank vault at Gringott's would have grown - doubled or even tripled - since the death of Harry's parents. This is all speculation, and not neccesary for the story line. Keep in mind that interest earned in real bank accounts comes from shared loan revenues, and there is no mention in the books or movies of loans going on at Gringott's, and there is no mention of any "sharing" of any finance charges from such loans going back to the deposit accounts. The wizard gold and other deposited wealth is simply stored in vaults - that is all we know. I removed the excessive speculation about how Harry's fortune may have grown due to interest - unless someone can provide specific mention of such revenue sharing in the canon. The business model at Gringott's appears to be more in resemblence of the ubiquitous "Swiss Bank Account" - where deposits are not generally awarded interest, but are in fact charged "maintenance fees" - exactly the opposite of the speculation described above. --T-dot 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK -- whoever you are. This was posted:

"A substantial amount of wizarding gold in a vault in Gringotts inherited from his parents and later Sirius Black (the exact amount is unknown, but as Harry has inherited the money of the both the Potters and (since the death of his godfather) the Blacks, both prominently wealthy wizarding families, it is assumed that he has a substantial fortune) If Gringotts has the capacity for an increase in the amount in a vault due to annual interest, as with other real world banks, both fortunes, which are said to be a sizable amount to begin with, likely grew during the time in which both vaults were left alone. Thus, the fortunes in both vaults would be at least double what they originally were prior to the story's beginning in the first book. In the case of the Black fortune, this may be as much as tripled, as Sirius spent time in Azkaban during much of Harry's life, and nobody else in the family had apparently touched it, potentially including Serius himself, with the possible exception of two major purchases: Harry's firebolt and Ron's owl Pigwidgeon."

Could someone please explain where this excessive speculation about how Harry's fortune came from? If T-dot hadn't deleted it, I would have. If whoevere you are wants, you should set up a seperate article: Speculations about Harry Potter. I'm not complaining -- given the recent rubbing Admins the wrong ways I 've done during the past week -- but this really streaches things. -- Jason Palpatine 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry’s Eyes

I may be wrong. But does anyone else find Harry Potter’s eyesight a little strange? Because I do. Because his eyesight seems inconceivably – unrealistically – bad. To the point where he cannot function without them. This is not a case of needing specs to see the blackboard or the textbook. This is an inability to see: to the point where he seems almost legally blind. We have had descriptions of what he sees without the glasses. And the answer is, not a lot. He cannot see anything clearly, only vague shapes, and even in PoA (when Sirius invades the dormitory looking for Scabbers), when thinking Ron under attack, has to reach for his spectacles. He is without his glasses, nearly non-functional, beyond any sort of inherent eye-weakness I have heard of (I am short-sighted myself, and have needed glasses since I was ten; I therefore when reading the books when younger found myself comforted that at least my only problem was being unable to focus on something far off, and that I was not close to disabled). Until he puts his glasses on, at which point he is able to see so well that he can function as one of the best Seekers ever in Hogwarts (unless it rains, at which point he hasn’t a hope of seeing the ground, let alone a tiny gold orb). What sort of eye condition IS this, that he cannot survive without glasses, but is able to enjoy a perfectly respectable quality of eyesight with a pair of NHS issue? What caused this abysmal level of sight, and so young in life? Years of being locked in a cupboard? But if it could only have been caused by that, surely someone would have noticed: his optician would have realised that the four year old he was treating had eyes that would be expected from a Prisoner of War. Surely, for that matter, it would have been commented on by Dumbledore or Hagrid (Dumbledore would surely have realised that there was something seriously wrong with the child’s eyes, that his eyesight was abysmally worse than James’s) And even if they felt it expedient to not point out another manner in which the Dursleys had crippled Harry, I doubt Sirius would have the same delicacy (and you’d expect him to have been knowledgeable enough about his best friend’s problem to notice that Harry’s was far worse). Which leads us to the possibility of inherited eye problems. Which is pretty common. But which in the case of Harry seems horrific. Are we to believe that it is an inherent trait in the Potter family to be nearly as blind as the proverbial bat (maybe the Gaunts weren’t the only family to retain distinctive traits through inbreeding)? That this appalling, seemingly unparalleled eye condition strikes down nearly every Potter in their first decade? If so, then I don’t see how, in this case, Petunia cannot be at least partially justified in calling the Potters, at least, freaks. There is also the matter of deterioration. Those suffering from defective eyesight will generally find, in their teenage years, that their sight gets WORSE. It is perfectly common, and natural. If you have bad eyesight as a child, you expect to leave childhood with worse eyesight than when you started out. This does not seem to apply to Harry Potter. As remarkable as it is that he could have been so badly myopic at age ten, it is equally remarkable that since then he has never, to our knowledge, needed to update his prescription. Got a higher strength pair of glasses so that he can continue to enjoy his 15-20/20 enhanced vision. Bear in mind that he is a Seeker, a job where he needs near-perfect vision. And his eyesight would decline enough, mid-year, at least in the midst of adolescence, to make him realise at the summer Quidditch match that he couldn’t see the Snitch as well as he could at the winter match (assuming that over the previous summer he had gone with Petunia to the opticians). Yet he never seems to have had any trouble seeing in summer. Which would, at face value, suggest that his sight isn’t declining. That he can see as well at the end of HBP as he could at the start of PS. Which seems remarkable. And unbelievable. When did Harry’s eyes first start acting up? Or could he never really see? Was he living in a world of fog and shadows, before someone finally took him to the opticians, and (in a moment comparable to the Ollivander Sequence, which IS similar to getting glasses after a long time of struggling with bad sight) gave him the tests: eventually leading to the right lens, at which point he suddenly saw clearly? Personally, I am suspicious of the Dementor-induced memories in PoA: I suspect that his inability to see his parents and Voldemort with any clarity, yet fully hear them, was due to simply being unable to see. I suspect that his life with his parents was like that: fog, shadow and sound. Which would make his discovery of the Mirror of Erised all the more poignant, because it would be his first real sight of his parents EVER. Though, if he really was at that stage when he went to the Dursleys, he would not have been wronged by them in the matter, but actually be somewhat indebted to them: it would have been they who gave him the ability to see, so to speak (which is, of course, an ambivalent ability: it would have meant that he could see the bad as well as the good). It is likely that when the Dursleys first got him glasses, his sight was extraordinarily bad, to the point where he NEEDED them. The Dursleys, after all, had no compunctions about locking him in a cupboard for nine years. I doubt they’d have got him glasses merely because he couldn’t see the board at school (Vernon would have told him to sit closer and to stop whining). But they would have got him glasses if he was in danger of walking under a lorry that he simply couldn’t see (especially since in such an instance the result would probably be some magical reaction from the boy). This would be especially true if they couldn’t get glasses on the NHS (I don’t know what the situation would be for a child in the care of an obviously affluent family, especially in Major’s Britain: quite possibly Vernon would be footing a large bill): they would have only acted if there was a risk of something embarrassing happening, or if it was likely that Harry would die by mischance, leaving the Dursleys with a very angry wizarding world, and a curious muggle police force to deal with. But if that were the case, I find it extraordinary again that a pair of glasses could so remarkably improve Potter’s sight. Less problematic is the question of general maintenance. Glasses will inevitably get damaged over time: indeed, in the first book, Harry’s glasses are held together with cellotape, due to having been constantly snapped by Dudley (though I would imagine that his parents have ordered Dudley not to let the specs suffer any sort of irreparable damage: the Dursleys don’t want to replace the things, and don’t want the boy dead, but have no problems with casual mistreatment of him), though I would imagine that, if not already repaired/replaced, Mr Weasley’s repairs in the second book took care of that. Which probably suggests an unspoken explanation of what happens if they get damaged at school: the teacher will take a wand to them and repair them, and it is either so rare or so common an occurrence that, to Harry’s mind, it merits no mention in the books. That is easy to explain. And if his eyes aren’t deteriorating, then he can merely counter the growth of his head by using some sort of charm to stretch them (maybe he does this the first day back every year). It would explain why he seems to have worn EXACTLY the same glasses every year (even if it is a common brand, you’d expect some problems in getting the same style every year, and it would suggest that he genuinely liked the way those particular glasses made him look: which doesn’t seem to be the case). Why he has never bought more trendy pair, or at least had a change, or even considered contact lenses. He probably doesn’t need to. There are however, two possibly relevant points this leaves us in the canon. First: why has no-one ever incapacitated him simply by throwing something solid at his head (Crabbe or Goyle could do that easily), and will there be some point in the seventh book where he IS rendered useless by a punch to the specs? Second: he has Lily’s eyes. But he has James’s eyesight. Is there some relevance to this, or the fact that Lily’s eyes cannot see well without James’s specs? There is also the question: is his eyesight even possible? Michaelsanders 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure most of the points you raised are eligible for discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. And as for Harry's eyesight, maybe it's as bad as it is because in his youth he was forced to read eighty-lines-long essays without any double line breaks. You raise interesting points, some of which could definitely benefit the article (for example noting that the condition of Harry's eyesight with as opposed to without the glasses is unrealistic). Most of the rest, however, is speculation we have no way of verifying and would be more at home in a fan forum than in an encyclopedia article. --AceMyth 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a plot devise, it doesn't have to make sence Shadoom1 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But if Rowling is attempting to portray a conceivable, functional universe based upon rules (as opposed to a fairy-tale where everything simply 'is') then it has to make sense! Michaelsanders 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm short sighted, am always taking off my glasses and lossing them. Being unable to see without them is partly a habit you get into. Sometimes I reach for them so I can see something, and then realise I already have them on. i even try to put on a second pair while wearing the first. But personally, I think it is all due to having inherited Lily's second hand eyes. (sorry). Sandpiper 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Awful, awful joke. Seriously though, I agree with some of those points (I often get momentarily confused about if I have mine on or not, lose them, etc). But, in my experience, I can see best when I have not had them on for an extended period - e.g. mornings. I am able to see pretty well then. It's when I take them off after having worn them for a long period of time that I have problems - because I have got used to using them. Harry, by contrast, is unable to see anything properly from the moment he wakes up, when his eyes should be at their best (refreshed, unused to correction). Before his sight is miraculously perfected by a cheap pair of spectacles (which, equally miraculously, have managed to survive over five years without noteworthy damage, or needing to be replaced or upgraded. Oh, for such a pair!). Michaelsanders 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a running joke where Hermione kept repairing them with magic? Now, I would have thought that a permanent spell to correct vision ought to be simple enough. Obviously glasses are considered an important prop for a wizard. Sandpiper 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, they are only repaired once: when he smashes them on the Borgin and Burkes hearthstone. Although Hermione did make them waterproof. Perhaps Dumbledore banned such spells: because once, there was a little boy who used a vision spell, and he grew up to be the most evil wizard to have ever lived. Michaelsanders 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry as a murderer?

The following was posted by Michaelsanders:

There is a noticeable difference in the manner the film and book treat Harry. In the book, he merely prevents Quirrell from stealing the Stone, leading to the callous abandonment of Quirrell by Voldemort: an example of Voldemort's treatment of even those who serve him faithfully. In the film however, Quirrell is killed by Harry, who does so semi-deliberately. Which means that whilst even at the end of Book Six, Harry still has shreds of innocence (he has not killed anyone, although he must now prepare to do so), at the end of the first film, Harry is left a murderer before even reaching the age of twelve. Which is a rather profound difference.

This claim is false. Watch the film again. Chapter 31 on the American DVD. Voldemort commands Quirrell to kill Harry, who had just refused to turn over the Stone. Quirrell attacks Harry, nearly choking him into unconsiousness. Harry grabs at Quirrells hand, which turns to ash. Quirrell again goes after the Stone on command from Voldemort. Harry knows that Voldemort will stop at nothing to take the stone, and kill him, based on everything that has happened thus far in the dungeon. Harry places his hands defensively on Quirrells face, turning the rest of Quirrell to ash. Voldemort flees when Quirrell is finally destroyed. This is clearly self defense. Harry was going to die - and had every right to use any means necessary to defend himself, and furthermore, to protect the Wizarding World from Voldemort by denying him access to immortality through the Stone. Furthermore, in the hospital room debriefing with Dumbledore, Dumbledore explained "why Professor Quirrell could not bear to touch (him)" - it was as a result of the protection charm that his mother had placed on him. Harry was simply channelling the protective magic that his mother gave him. If Quirrell had not been attacking Harry, then the protective charm would not have been available to him. While it is true that the end of Quirrell in the movie was different than the canonical book, it cannot be said that Harry committed murder, and was therefore somehow less "innocent" per se. He did not, for example, use an unforgiveable killing curse, or some other wizard-dual type curse or spell, nor did he threaten or pursue Quirrell in a murderous rampage - quite the opposite. Quirrell / Voldemort attacked Harry, period. Harry made every effort to flee the scene, and to protect himself and the Stone. --T-dot 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true actually. In the book, the magic is defensive: Quirrell is burnt when touching Harry, but that stops when Quirrell is no longer in contact with Harry. In the film, it attacks: when Quirrell comes into contact with Harry, he is destroyed in a grotesque manner. In the book, Quirrell is pinning Harry to the ground and about to (wandlessly) 'perform a deadly curse': Harry, "by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrells face". He then knows that "Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain - his only chance was to keep hold of Quirrell, keep him in enough pain to stop him doing a curse." Harry then grabs Quirrells arm and 'hung on as tight as he could'. In the book, then, he is clearly being defensive: acting to merely prevent anything further happening. And furthermore, Quirrell is still alive when Dumbledore gets there (since Voldemort is still shrieking). Harry has merely been carrying out delaying tactics.

In the film, the magic is different. Quirrell can throttle Harry with no pain at all; when Harry claps his right hand onto Quirrell's throttling hand, Quirrells hand promptly scorches and turns to ash (a very disturbing effect of 'mothers love'). Harry observes the hand fall apart as Quirrell clutches it, standing away from Harry. Quirrell then advances on Harry: who, having observed the effect of the protection, plants both hands firmly in Quirrell's face. Having just observed the effect on the hand. He will be pretty certain that the same effect will be produced on Quirrell's face, and yet does it, and keeps hanging on even when Quirrell's face begins to collapse. He does not try to flee the scene. Or, for that matter, seem particularly disturbed when he has killed Quirrell (he actually smiles when he picks up the stone). Which is certainly bizarre for an eleven year old. But in any case, whilst murder probably was too strong a word (it was self-defence, I admit, although whether it was his only option is another matter), the main point remains. In the books, there seems to be a lead-up throughout the series to the final loss of innocence and entry into the sullied adult world. And so far, the final right-of-passage seems to be the struggle to the death between Harry and Voldemort, where for Harry to become an adult, he must kill Voldemort. And when he learns from Dumbledore that he must kill Voldemort in books five, he finds the idea disturbing: because he is still an innocent child, and still finds the idea of killing anyone, even Voldemort, repugnant (even in his battle with Bellatrix, he doesn't try to kill her: he uses crucio (a further loss of innocence), and trys to STUN her). But in the film, the whole point is derailed, because Harry has already killed at age eleven. There can be no right-of-passage because he has already passed: Voldemort will be, to him, merely a stronger Quirrell, rather than a dreadful step into darkness. Harry, in the film, has already lost his innocence. A disturbing fact, which I think should be pointed out.

There is also the comparative treatments of Voldemort. In the book, we see an example of Voldemort's truly callous nature: "He left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as to his enemies." This point is entirely lost in the film, because it is Harry who has killed Quirrell: Voldemort only leaves Quirrell when Quirrell is dead. Which means that a relevant point on the pitiless nature of Voldemort is lost. Secondly, there is the fact that Voldemort's descent into darkness can be viewed by his murders, and attempted murders. He is a murderer by around age sixteen. It is a record Harry, in the book, has not equalled. Harry, who is compared to Voldemort quite frequently, is meant to come off better in comparison (e.g. sympathetic rather than merciless, innocent rather than corrupt). In the film, having killed before age 12 (regardless of motives) leaves him a killer several years younger than Voldemort. Which means that Voldemort at age twelve could be viewed as more innocent than Harry. Which is a serious warping.Michaelsanders 11:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry certainly does indeed attempt to flee the scene. Before Quirrel/Voldemort assaults him for the stone, Harry turns and rushes for the exit, but flames erupt blocking his path, preventing his escape. That qualifies as an attempt to invocate the "duty to retreat" clause, in any self defense claims as required in some "real world" jurisdictions. In any case, it is certainly agreed, and well within Rowling's intents and purposes, that Harry is forced to take some very "adult" actions in self defense against adults and others at the very tender age of 11 and afterwords, as he keeps getting assaulted with intent to kill by various wizards and other assorted characters, even students, around him. This cannot possibly be considered comparable (or "worse") than Riddle's youthful torturing of his peers at the orphanage, nor Riddle/Voldemort's various murders and evil horcrux-creating acts. Nevertheless, I think the paragraph in dispute is now close to a good compromise - with the "Harry as a murderer" or "killer" and his "innocence lost" aspects removed. Still this material more properly belongs in the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) page, in the section that discusses differences between the film and book. As a side note, a bigger issue might be that some social and morality rules in general in the magical world of Harry Potter and the Wizards seem to be somewhat different than accepted "western world norms", which might make an interesting essay. They sure seem to get away with a lot of stuff that would never be "accepted" in modern society, with little serious investigation and few consequences ... such is the magical world of J. K. Rowling. In any case, thanks for your contributions and willingness to reach a compromise. --T-dot 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Romantic attachments

In the first sentence, it says that Hermione was a mistaken love interest; isn't this a classic P.O.V.? Therequiembellishere 08:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. --AceMyth 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy-editing tag

I did a (hopefully) decent run-through of the Harry Potter (character) page and did what I could with copy-editing: Summaries of Philosopher's Stone through Order of the Phoenix were updated to present tense, which is, I believe, standard for discussing plot. Also changed around some of the wording for flow and added paragraph breaks where I felt they were needed.

Also, after this last revision, does anyone think the copy-editing tag can come down? Yay or Nay?

I'm new to Wiki, so any comments, feedback, etc. is greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Roarke Stratton 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

HP Characters' biography template?

I'm considering adding a template for Harry Potter characters so it will be easier to navigate and locate them all. The template would be located at the bottom of most characters and it would be seperated with the following categories: Hogwarts students (The trio, Neville, Luna Lovegood, etc), Hogwarts faculty members (Dumbledore, Minerva, Flitwick, Snape, etc), Death Eaters (Voldemort, etc), Government employees (Minister, Umbridge, Shacklebolt, Mr. Weasley), Media (Rita Skeeter). There would be a Miscelleneous for the other characters and I figure Harry's parents and Hogwarts founders need to fit in there somewhere, but I think a template would be really benefiticial to locate the characters' bios by all being connected through it. The template I have in mind looks a lot like the one used for The Simpsons and their characters.

Good idea? Bad? Give me your thoughts to see if I should get started on the code.

Throw 14 June 2006 21:18

Spoiler

This page should have a spoiler warning right at the top, at the beginning of the biography section, so I'm going to add it. For someone who hasn't read the books, every paragraph in the article gives away plot details.

Is section 3.1 Audio really necessary?

A four-second clip doesn't seem to warrant that template being there. Throw

Lilly's not a red-head!

I have removed the bit that said James fell in love with another red head because Lilly was not a red head, in the books it never says what couler her hiar is and in the first movie when Harry sees her in the mirror she has sort of grayish blond hair (not red) Shadoom1 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In OP Lily's hair is described as red at least when she was young. Excluding the possibility that she is a Metamorphmagus, I think we are reasonably sure she is a redhead. -Freyr 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What page is it on Shadoom1 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

in the bit where Moody shows Harry the ootp photo it says NOTHING about her hair couler, if you don't belive me look at the last paragraph on page 158 on the hard back Bloomsbury edision, there is NOTHING about her having red hair, it is pure fannon with no factual basis. and even if it did say that it could have been hair dye, she was muggle born Shadoom1 23:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lily's hair color is mentioned on page 647 (English Scholastic Version) of the Order of the Phoenix.

"She had thick, dark red hair that fell to her shoulders and startlingly green almond-shaped eyes - Harry's eyes."

In response to the hair dye comment, well any of the muggle-born characters could have dyed hair in theory. But since there is no mention of anyone changing their hair color through non-magical means we will have to assume that everyone has their apparent hair color. Otherwise we have to list Hermoine as having theoretically brown hair and such.-Freyr 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter is a Horcrux

• I know this is right. Something on Harry (his eyes, his scar) or Harry himself is a horcrux and in the end, to defeat He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, he will have to kill himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.47.241 (talk • contribs)

That is some terrific speculation there - and it may even be true - but sorry - this "just the facts" encyclopedia does not allow for such speculation. You might want to air your views on some of the fan forums and blogs at other web sites, such as those discussed at the Harry Potter fandom page. Thanks for your ideas though, and feel free to edit here, but please stay within the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically, unless J.K. Rowling says, in a published book, or on her web site www.jkrowling.com or in a verifiable interview, that Harry's scar or whatever is a Horcrux, then we cannot say it here. She has not done so, so neither can we. Besides - why would Voldemort want to kill Harry, if Harry was a Horcrux? If Harry was a Horcrux - then Voldemort would do anything within his power to protect him, right? He certainly would not trap Harry in a graveyard and try to kill him with an Avada Kedavra. But even going through that line of reasoning might constitute Original Research as well, so we just leave it alone, and let the fans argue the points in the HP forums and blogs. We deal only in the verifiable facts here - what Rowling has confirmed in interviews, or written. Thanks again, and have fun editing, within the guidelines! --T-dot 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bit negative assuming he will have to kill himself. I'm sure someone will think of a better plan than that. But as T-dot said, that is all rather something which hasn't happened yet so we can't exactly report it as fact. It is a fact that many people think it likely that Harry is a horcrux, but some care would be needed to include even that. Sandpiper 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is a bit negative, but I think it's a likelihood too - Harry is the last Horcrux and will have to self-destruct in order to finish off Voldemort. True if Harry is a horcrux Voldemort would want to protect him, BUT, if Voldemort already knows there are plenty of other horcruxes to keep him alive, and that this one has a pesky habit of foiling his plans and almost killing him for good often, I think He-Who-Must-Go-To-Hell would risk killing The Boy Who Lived (by the way, if this really is true, I'm sure Jo will have a much better way of reasoning it out than I do! lol). But this is all speculation and so cannot be presented as fact in any article. 80.47.9.234 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage about magic skills

Here Can use limited forms of magic without a wand. An example of this is used in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where he causes the glass protecting a snake's cage to disappear with simply his sight.

I do not think this is some fantastic skill that only Harry has. I recall a passage in book 1 or book 2 mentioning Neville being able to use magic without a wand through, his grandfather or something threw him from a tall position and he bounced back up. I think that sort of magic, done without a wand at an early age, is more of the sort of uncontrolled abilities that all wizards have that manifest themselves at an early age. The way to tell if you have magic in your blood or not. Itake 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

....yo Itake 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

As of now the article fails every GA criteria even article's stability. Come back to GA once you have added inline citations, cut down on the trivia section (or removed it), prosify the bullet points (I don't mean all of them but a few of the unnecessary ones) and make sure that all pictures have their fair use rationale stated on the image page. If you have any questions just ask them on my talk page. Lincher 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite and In-universe tag

Rewrote Strengths and Weaknesses section as suggested, though I did not touch magical part.

Another thing, what's with the tag? Most of the events described are fictional. The in universe thing needs some explanation.--200.32.222.2 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the tag. It doesn't really help to include a tag which the majority of editors here do not consider is appropriate. Better to discuss the matter here. Dare I say it, it has been conceded elsewhere that the in-universe approach is perfectly OK for describing storyline, which is what is happening here. I would however say that the article strikes me as spending rather too much text going over the details of the story so far. I would much rather not see the article divided into sections for each book, rather telling his story point by point as a whole.

For those that havn't a clue what in-universe meant, some people feel it is better to write an article of this sort repetedly saying 'in book 5', 'the author said', 'Harry is shown as talking to', rather than just describing the story. The idea is to distance the description from becoming simply a re-telling of the story. That is 'out-universe'. I think this generally daft, as it is a wholly unnatural way to tell a tale. It is entirely plain we are discussing a work of fiction and no reason not to get the storytelling done in the most comprehensible way for the reader. That is not to say that as appropriate there should not be information to the reader to show where the information comes from 'in chapter 7', 'at the end of HBP', but taking that approach obsessively makes the article poorer. Sandpiper 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• Harry Potter was voted No. 85 among the 100 Best Characters in Fiction Since 1900.
• Harry shares the same birthday with his creator, J. K. Rowling, July 31st.
• While a great Quidditch player, Harry has only ever been personally involved in one final match victory leading to the Quidditch Cup in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. In matches where he wasn't incapacitated and the Quidditch season wasn't cancelled, Harry was in detention.
• According to Daniel Radcliffe in the Goblet of Fire DVD special features, he is so used to his Harry glasses, he hopes that future film roles he takes are visually impaired. -- belongs in Daniel Radcliffe article
• Harry shares a striking resemblance to Lezard Valeth from the Valkyrie Profile video game series. However, the first Harry Potter book was published three years before Valkyrie Profile was released, making their resemblance a mere coincidence. -- OR and irrelevant anyway

---

• This information should either be place appropriately through out the article, or deleted. John Reaves 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

er, it should perhaps be born in mind that what this article needs more of, is external information about how the character affects real life. What it has probably got rather too much of, is simply retelling his story in the books. Assuming that comment at the top here has a ref, it strikes me it should be in the introduction.

Ok, I stuck it back in, though I would suspect that by 2006 he may have climbed the list a bit Sandpiper 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Second one is also already back in. Sandpiper 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I struck out the last two and left some comments. Will go see how to incorporate the third. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All done. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA

Let's try to get this to GA. Something this important needs and deserves it. ♥ Fredil 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Where did all of the images go? After what seems like a little revert war happening, all of them have been deleted. Anyone care to explain? Disinclination 18:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'little revert war' was when I saw that someone had deleted the links to the pictures. I reverted that (for obvious reasons). However, the links do not work (they are red, indicating that the pictures are deleted), so I put it back to how I found it. I would be interested to know why the pictures no longer work. Michaelsanders 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the images in the HP pages (and many other categories) were uploaded and "registered" as Fair Use images under Wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines. But a number of adamant wiki-editors and administrators have taken up the duty of cleansing and purging the Wikipedia of all or most of these "fair use" images, under the strictly interpreted grounds that there should be "free" images that can replace the "fair use" ones. You cannot argue or discuss the matter with these people. They firmly believe that the use of images in the Wikipedia should be heavily restricted to only those images created and freely contributed by the editors - regardless of the quality. A really badly composed amateurish photograph of a car taken on a terrible cell phone camera, for example, is far preferred to one professionally produced image provided by the automaker in press release materials. These people say that "free-ness" of an image is always to be preferred over "quality". I have gathered a large number of high quality professionally made fair use images, taken from the publisher's publicity media pages, which I uploaded to the Wikipedia over the last year. All were clearly allowable and described and documented and linked and referenced under fair use "publicity photo" images, and all of which were freely provided by the respective publisher or copyright owner specifically to the free press and other media outlets, for use in promoting their product. Most of these images have since been deleted by the "un-fair use" fanatics, under their belief that someone should be able to replace it with a "free" image. They generally give you about a week to replace your targeted fair use image with a free one, and then go ahead and delete the fair one, whether there is a suitable replacement for it or not. It is the burden of the original uploader to find a free use image to replace the fair use one. I am sure some of the fanatics are simply victims-turned-terrorists who are making a point: since their favorite fair-use images were deleted, then they go around deleting others they find out of revenge. This has become a major problem in the last 6 months or so, and there are enough administrators rallying behind the efffort that there is really nothing that can be done. Just say goodbye to any professional images uploaded under the "fair use" criteria, and hello to really crappy street pictures, at least until the pendulum swings back to the left again, and the "allowable" use of fair use images are allowed as free media. It will probably take a grass roots effort and a clear ruling by Jimbo on this - when enough formerly "good" articles" get downgraded to "awful" because of the lack of suitable and high quality images to illustrate them. But for now, many hundreds and thousands of former wiki-editors have abandoned the project altogether because of this fair-use image issue "policy", as their "good faith" efforts to beautifully illustrate the Wikiworld have been trampled into the dirt; and the trampling nazis are winning the fight and growing in numbers. The overall quality of the Wikipedia suffers when poor images or no images are used to substitute for formerly great images. That's where we are now, and you see it in more and more articles every day, with their images stripped. That said, stealing copyrighted photographs and images from web sites, and posting them on the Wiki is not the answer. There has to be a middle ground, and that middle ground resides in the Fair use policy - or at least it used to. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide the names of these adamant prudes so we can voice our opinions to them? John Reaves 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm not certain, because the images have been deleted so I can't check them, but I think they were deleted on the technical ground that no one had added a text explanation of why they were fair use, and where they came from. It is not sufficient merely to tag them as screen shots. The 'rules' require a written explanation as well. Afraid I have yet to see an explanation of what should be in the explanation, but there we go.... Sandpiper 11:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jk rowling an ACDC fan?

Because of his scar.