Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter)/Archive 1

Archive 1

In the article List of wizarding terms in translations of Harry Potter there is a phrase "Dirty-blood". Where does this phrase turn up in the books? What does it mean? Are there any people mentioned as examples with this feature? (Is it an actually existing category at all?) I suppose it should either be deleted from the other article, or it should be treated here, if it really exists.

195.56.10.8 22:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to my own suggestion:

"It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his sweaty brow with a shaking hand. "Dirty blood, see. Common blood. It's ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out."

He retched and ducked out of sight again.

(source: H.P. and the Chamber of Secrets)

So it may be simply a synonym for being Muggle-born, isn't it?

195.56.10.8 23:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't an actual phrase used elsewhere, though. Ron is just describing why "mudblood" is such a nasty name. Note the "see" Sonic Mew 08:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

WHen did Hermione have to flee from a mob of wizards according to the passage in the section Intolerance?

Cleanup

Added a cleanup template to the page, as both its tone and grammar fall short of what I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll take care of it myself when I have more time, if nobody gets to it first. -Simon Crowley 10:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to drop in from time to time and smooth out the wording a little as well as make grammar, etc. corrections. By all means work on it yourself as well, though. -Matt 00:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Merope Gaunt and Squibs

I've removed Merope from the list of known Squibs. Marvolo refers to her as such in HBP, but it's almost definitely just an insult referring to her (apparently) woeful magic. Merope displays definite magical abilities which are just stunted, as Dumbledore explains, by the oppressive personalities of her father and brother.

I'm removing her again until someone gives a reason to put her back. Countmippipopolous 19:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some unobservant person (to put it nicely) who is, and I quote, "too lazy to sign in", added her as a Squib again. (Grinds teeth) Needless to say, I fixed it. Noneofyourbusiness 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well squibs can see dementors and enchanted buildings. Merope made a love potion, but it is unclear from the texts whether squibs can or cannot do this. It's not apparent if potion making requires any magical ability as Snape has said, "There will be no silly wand waving in this class." Dumbledore said that her magical ability may have been suppressed by abuse. Has it ever been verified by JKR that squibs cannot make potions? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

She also performed a cleaning spell with her wand. And understood Parseltongue. Squibs cannot see Dementors, as Rowling has confirmed (see the Arabella Figg page}.

Didn't she also provoke her father's wrath by (mis)summoning a cauldron? Just because she did it badly doesn't make her a squib (it reflects either a lack of skill or confidence).Michaelsanders 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Squibs are the same as Muggles, they can't even do spells badly. It's definitely a lack of confidence. Neville is bad at spells for the same reason. An untalented wizard is an untalented wizard, not a Squib.Noneofyourbusiness 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rowling does make it clear that magical ability has nothing to do with blood purity than it does by the qualities a person has, confidence, bravery, intelligence, conscience. It explains a lot, like how Neville has untapped ability and Harry is powerful but has trouble with unforgiveable curses. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is quite old, but I still would like to clear a couple of things up. Firstly, squibs can not see dementors. Arabella Figg was lying when she said she could. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 Secondly, I know I've read from a reputable source that only wizards can create potions. That is, that their magical ability is central to making all of the ingredients "work." Of course, I can't find the appropriate link right now, but it is out there! :P Faithlessthewonderboy 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Split Pure-Blooded Families?

I don't listing pure-bloods by family is a good idea. Some members of the family are indeed not pure-bloods. Ted Tonks and Nymphadora Tonks, for example, are included under the Black family. Some random viewer will get the idea that they are pure-bloods, since they is listed there. --Mozart2005 15:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple of notes to the Black family's entry to clarify that Ted and Nymphadora aren't considered pure-blood even though they're (arguably) part of a pure-blood family. I think this is a better approach than removing the listings-by-family. --Icarus 05:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Biological Explanation

Your biological theory has a big flaw. When a wizard and a muggle have a child, the child is usually magic. Under your theory this would only happen in the offside chance that the muggle parent had a recessive gene. Arctic.gnome 09:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I took out the part about eye colour. My criticism of the recessive gene theory is that two DIFFERENT parents (wizard and muggle) will produce the so-called recessive gened child in nearly EVERY case. Unless all these wizards are marrying muggles with the recessive gene, the theory is flawed. It has nothing to with the occasional oddity of blue-eyed parents having brown-eyed children, half-bloods becoming wizards are the norm, not freak cases. Arctic.gnome 04:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

To me, it looks like the major flaw is having this section exist in the article at all. Anyone else think it ought to go away? Friday (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to go away at all. This kind of speculation keeps things interesting and this is essentially an informal wiki page. As for my take on it, alleles act in ways that are more than just Mendelian. Multiple/quantitative alleles might also factor in, considering the fact that some people possess greater magical potency over others and some wizards seem to have this almost inborn talent for magic (re: Dumbledore). Also we might consider the fact that many genes have partial and full expression thresholds. If magical ability is mendelian dominant it only requires a 50% expression threshold but maybe the threshold is even less, akin to 25%. This would explain why half-blood and muggleborn wizards/witches are equally as potent as purebloods - the gene requires a lower level of expression than your average mendelian gene to manifest in a phenotype.141.157.26.152 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A more plausible biological explanation for both Muggleborns and Squibs is by mutation. You see this in dwarfism. Dwarfism is one of the disorders most likely to be newly-arisen in families where no one has the trait. Once the mutation occurs, dwarfism is a dominant inheritable trait; however, a fair number of the children of dwarves get a reverse mutation and are of normal stature.

Yeah, that's very true. Another example is Huntington's disease, which is dominant but often arises purely through spontaneous mutation (CAG repeats within the huntingtin gene - >40 repeats I think is enough to cause severe huntington's and between 30 and 40 is mild). I think that's probably the most plausible answer - there's something wrong with the magical gene and a squib arises. It's not so simple for the Muggleborn, since the magical gene is kind of hard to arise purely through spontaneity. I'm actually intrigued, I think that the magical gene might exist within the genome as a jumping gene or "transposon" and at certain places in the genome it can become active. This explains how that if an ancestor of who knows how long back had the gene, it can become deactivated - and then reactivate many generations later, causing a Muggleborn witch or wizard. However, I think the mutation theory seems to make sense for Squibs.141.157.26.152 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias in decline?

The article says that the idea of blood purity and superiority to muggles is in decline. What is the basis for this? I have seen it reported that pure-blood families are in decline (the characters discuss this somewhere, something about difficulty of pure bloods finding other pure bloods to marry?), but where does it say that bias in general is in decline? Many wizards (even the ones on the good side) seem to have strong views on who/what is superior to what else. Sandpiper 23:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Chamber of Secrets, Borgin in the Dark Arts shop of Borgin & Burkes told to Mr Lucius Malfoy: "Wizard blood is counting for less everywhere..."

Comparison of "Mudblood" to "Nigger"

I notice this was just removed by an anonymous editor: The term Mudblood is comparable to the word "Nigger" used towards people of African descent in America. It looks like it had been in there at least a little while, and I see no problem with it, so I put it back. I know the n-word is offensive, but the comparison is IMO quite useful. Friday (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody removed it again, so I put it back. That fact that the word "nigger" is offensive doesn't make the comparison less true. --¿WhyBeNormal? 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They might have a good reason to take it down, but if that's so, they should argue their case. -Arctic.gnome 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't kept track of changes to this page for a while, but I decided to check previous changes and saw that the mudblood/nigger comparison is gone yet again. It's a valid comparison, so I put it back. If somebody has a good reason to take it down, as Arctic.gnome has said, they should argue their case here on the talk page. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Squibs and Dementors

Why does someone keep adding that Squibs can't see things hidden from muggles? Figg could see the dementors.

No she couldn't. She was trying to convince the court that she could because she wanted to support Harry, but her description was vauge enough that it was clear that she was just repeating descriptions she'd heard. --Icarus 18:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, that make sense. In that case maybe Filtch can't see Hogwarts from the outside. What about ghosts? I seem to remember something about muggles not being able to see them, is that true? Arctic.gnome 03:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about ghosts, sorry. And you're right, maybe Filch can't see Hogwarts from the outside. I figure that either squibs aren't affected by spells intentionally cast to make things look different to muggles, or there's a special spell to make specific squibs immune to specific spells like that. Either that, or they have to Obliviate every daring Muggle teenager who decides to brave the "dangerous abandoned building" on a dare!--Icarus 04:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a question... Can Muggles kids admitted to Hogwarts (like Hermione Granger) see the school?? Jam2k 07:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hermione doesn't count as a muggle; she's a witch. Muggles are people who can't use magic at all, and there are none at Hogwarts (other than the Squib caretaker). Hermione's parents are muggles, but all that does to her is make her a "mud-blood", which is just an racist word with no relation to her ability to see or use magic.

The term is just so confusing I guess... Thanks for your reply :-) Jam2k 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following note (bolded) about Squibs being able to see Dementors:

A Squib is a person of wizarding heritage but lacking magical ability. A rare anomaly in the classification system, they appear to be the same as a muggle, but they can see Dementors, as is said by Arabella Figg.

My source for this is J.K. Rowling's site here, where she states that Figg doesn't see the Dementor, but had enough magic knowledge to correctly identify the sensations in the alleyway. --Deathphoenix 17:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for "25 percent Muggle" as half-blood?

I don't recall anything that specific in the books. Has Rowling mentioned it on her site?Serendipodous 23:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That she has, though it still could be phrased a little better.

Well the way it was written there it's wrong. It said that you need at least one muggle grandparent to be half-blood. But having one muggle parent makes you half-blood as well. (And probably also having muggle great-grandparents, according to the people who care about blood status). I know JKR talked about that purebloods will even consider a 25% muggle to be a half-blood etc., but the describtion that "at least 25% muggle blood is needed for you to be a half-blood" is kinda faulty. Well I changed the word from "at least one grandparent" to "at least one ancestor", but the 25%-thing is still there. Should it be removed? --Mithcoriel 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This '25%' thing sounds like an extremely ridiculous term to use, as well as the comparison to Nazi principles too. Did Jews of the Reich have to have 'at least 25%' Israelite heritage to 'qualify'? Since when was Nazism a coherent ideology anyway? I thought Mein Kampf was a rambling manifesto that had multiple contradictions and little consistency. Anyway, sorry, this isn't about Nazis. 'Pure-blood' means exactly that, your blood is magically pure. Anything else is a Mudblood. Isn't it that simple? You shouldn't have to resort to Maths, for crying out loud. If you did then you would be defending the underlying prejudices as based on some sort of logic. Is there a single human alive today that can claim that they are descended from a single race? Perhaps all wizards have a certain amount of Muggle blood and just don't know it, rendering the entire 'pure-blood' argument redundant? --84.68.200.235 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To the user who posted above me: I disagree with you on some issues. First of all, I don't think it's ridiculous to compare this to the Nazis, as even the author herself made that comparison. And Hitler wasn't an Arian, and Voldemort isn't a pureblood, there's another parallel. Next: You don't need to tell us that Nazi ideology and/or Voldemort's ideology are stupid, that no human alive can claim being the descendant of only one race etc., we know that. :) And just because there's some (simple!) maths in it, that certainly doesn't mean we're justifying anything! That would be like saying "I killed two people and then another two, that makes four. See, I can think logic about it, so it's okay." Anyway, next: You said: " 'Pure-blood' means exactly that, your blood is magically pure. Anything else is a Mudblood " sorry, this isn't quite correct: There's pureblood, which is what you said, then there's half-blood, which is a person whose ancestors are partly wizards, partly muggles, then there's Muggle-born/Mudblood where the ancestors are only Muggles.

And yes, I agree with you, it is very well possible that most wizards who act pure really have some muggle blood in them. But this doesn't render this argument redundant, because we're talking about a book in which characters make these distinctions in blood purity, and we're trying to explain what they're talking about. As for the 25%-thing: Basically that was brought into the discussion because: Harry hasn't got 50% muggle blood, but he's still called a halfblood, and not a "three quarter blood" or who knows what. There has to be a part of the article that explains that 25% muggle blood is already enough for you to be considered halfblood in the wizard world. Just a closer explanation of the term. Okay, hope my babbling made sense. :) --Mithcoriel 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry has got 50% Muggle ancestry, so to speak, as one side of his family is entirely Muggle except for his mother.

Ok, true, so Harry is a bad example. I'm just saying: halfblood doesn't mean 50%. 25% Muggleblood is also still called Halfblood. --Mithcoriel 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Half-breeds

Shouldn't we make more explicit that the term half-breed isn't exactly a flattering one, and is only used as an insult? As it is, listing Flitwick and Hagrid on a list of "half-breeds" is rather odd. I should also point out that "half-breed" is an insulting name for someone of mixed white/black lineage, so one should be careful how one uses it in any case. Serendipodous 10:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It always seems insulting to me, too. Is "mixed-breed" any better? Sounds a little like a dog. Or "Characters with Mixed Ancestry" and let the examples explain that it means human mixed with other Beings? Kam Tonnes 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Or how about "part-humans"? --Mithcoriel 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In the last couple of days, I've seen more than one claim that Teddy Lupin must have inherited his father's lycanthropy, but there is no reason to believe this. Not only does Rowling not mention it, but Remus Lupin himself wasn't born a werewolf -- he was created one in childhood. There is no reason to believe that his child must be "half-werewolf."68.72.103.126 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization and Hyphens

I went through the article to make the use of capitals and hyphens more consistent. Rowling uses capitals for Muggles, Muggle-born, Squib, and Mudblood and hyphens for pure-blood and half-blood. If it's good enough for her, it's good enough for me.  :) Also, the explanation that Mudblood is insulting appeared in three different places, so I removed two of them. Kam Tonnes 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

R.A.B. speculation

I removed the following as it is still only speculation.

"Regulus, known as a Death Eater in first 5 books. But he destroyed one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, so he changed his way, but nobody knew that until that letter, which ends with: R.A.B.."

And I believe this theory is covered on the page for Regulus anyway. Kam Tonnes 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"unrelated"

Indeed magical ancestry and ability are unrelated in reality as some of the most powerful characters in the series are Muggle-borns.

Saying it's "unrelated" is much to strong. One is much more likely to be a wizard if one has at least one wizard parent. Like, most of the people with Muggle parents are just plain Muggles, with few wizards, while most of the people with at least one wizard parents are wizards, with few Squibs. Taw 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It means that presuming you are a wizard, the strength of your abilities is not related to being pure-blood, half-blood, or Muggleborn.

Where does Mrs Black's Name come from

Where is this from - she is not on the tree.

Hi. JKR's hand-drawn Black family tree which she donated for a charity auction was put on display, so the information on it --such as the name of Sirius's mother-- has now been publicized. See The Leaky Cauldron article here. --Mercury McKinnon 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Crabbes, Goyles, etc.

I've cleaned up the language in the section about the status of the Crabbes et al., but I've commented out this paragraph because there seems to be no basis for its inclusion. Why do we think the Crabbes, Goyles, etc. are pure-blood? Just because their kids are in Slytherin? That shouldn't be enough, as both Voldemort (who did end up in Slytherin) and Harry (who almost ended up there) are both half-bloods. If there is any justification for thinking these families are pure-blood, then please include it. –Ryan McDaniel 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We know the Crabbes are a pureblood family, as they intermarried with the Black family. We don't know that the Goyles are pureblood.

Hi. Also, according to Rowling's early notes that list the students in Harry Potter's year, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle are pure-bloods. However, which pieces of info contained in these old notes still holds true is in question (as some have been superseded by the published books). A discussion of and link to an image of the notes is here. --Mercurio 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Extinction?

Would the Crouch family line really be considered extinct? Barty Crouch Jr. had his soul sucked out, but in essence, he was still alive in physical terms. Unless of course, he had died physically after book four, but Rowling does not state that. Thrashmeister 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking that after getting the Dementor's Kiss, chances are pretty slight that Barty's going to be having any kids.nmw 01:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your body is not you, your soul is.

Wikipedia itself says that "the moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species." Family, in this case, not species. The definition of death is "the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism." The soul is gone. But the brain, heart, and all physical functions are still alive. Therefore, I don't think the Crouch family should be considered extinct yet. --Thrashmeister 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Barty Crouch has been destroyed. There is no Barty Crouch. A soulless body is not Barty Crouch. Therefore there are no existing Crouches.

But if in a (circuitous and unlikely) chain of events, a male legitimate heir was to be fathered by the brain-dead Crouch (e.g. reflex ejaculation), the Crouches would not have ceased to exist at all. Michaelsanders 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are way overanalysing this. Dumbledore notes in the book that the Crouch family is over ("Your Dementor has just destroyed the last remaining member of a pure-blood family as old as any -" Goblet of Fire, chapter 36) so there's really no need to be discussing er, "reflex ejaculation". 70.52.229.39 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of the blood categories

I put up an accuracy flag on the categories section because I think it's wrong to suggest that there are three separate categories of blood type. From the perspective of the pure-blood, there really are just two: pure-blood and muggle-born. We have Harry Potter down as a half-blood, and he might literally be half-muggle, half-wizard. Yet, JK says on her website that Harry is muggle-born[1]. It might, as a matter of academic interest, be important to figure out precisely how much blood of each type is in a person, but as a racial epithet from a pure-blood to a muggle-born, the only thing that really matters is the casual use. And, in this sense, it's a fairly binary thing: you are either pure-blood, or you aren't.

JKR says Harry is a Muggle-born? I think this is a misinterpretation of the reference you've cited. The statement in question goes: "Even Muggle-borns like Harry attract a certain amount of unwelcome attention at Muggle schools by re-growing their hair overnight and so on." This could probably have been punctuated and/or worded better. I'd put it as "Even Muggle-borns would attract a certain amount of unwelcome attention at Muggle schools if, like Harry, they re-grew their hair overnight and so on." The comparison to Harry is not about being a Muggle-born, but rather about attracting attention at Muggle school by uncontrolled magical displays.

Rowling clearly defines a Muggle-born wizard as the child of non-magic (Muggle) parents. (The last word is plural, meaning both parents have to be Muggles/non-magical.) However one categorizes Lily, James is definitely not a Muggle, so Harry does not accurately qualify as a Muggle-born. --Mercurio 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really get what you're saying here. Where does she "clearly" say this?

Sorry. I didn't have my books on hand, and wrongly assumed that you were quite familiar with the novels (where the definition is explicitly stated). I'll provide you citations on the definition of "Muggle-born" later. --Mercurio 06:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for me. I'm asking for the purposes of having the article itself cited.CzechOut 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You personally don't need to be convinced? Funny, I thought that was the whole point of raising the dispute flag and all this talk. Anyway, I've finally found time to cite references below why I've been saying that Harry/half-bloods are "clearly" not Muggle-borns. --Mercurio 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is woefully lacking in citation so nothing's particularly "clear"--other than the citation which I'm providing here. Yet, instead of just taking it as is, you seem to be saying that Rowling, a very careful writer, in a written response over which she had full control, got it wrong. The sentence, as she phrased it, can't really be misinterpreted to mean anything other than that Harry is a muggle-born.

I acknowledge that the sentence can be interpreted the way you say it, but it can also be interpreted in the way I've already explained. (I am choosing to read it this way because Rowling has defined "Muggle-born" and "half-blood" in several places elsewhere, and the interpretation that Harry is a Muggle-born contradicts these previous statements. It would be the first and only place I've heard Harry referred to as a Muggle-born, so it should be challenged.) In the sentence you interpret as JKR saying that Harry is a a Muggle-born, I offer that the phrase "like Harry" could (should?) have been set off by commas. I would read it like this: "Birds, like bats, can fly." Bats aren't being offered as an example of birds, instead it's the succeeding thought ("can fly") that is being pointed out as similar between the two. Muggle-borns can attract attention at Muggle schools if they regrew their hair overnight, like Harry. (I'm not explaining it well, probably.)

Rowling is a careful writer, yes. And some of the time she can mis-speak (mis-write) or otherwise not come off clearly, just like anyone. --Mercurio 06:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But why should we assume that she's mistaken here?CzechOut 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied without having fully absorbed what you were saying in the whole paragraph above. As the sentence currently appears, I don't think there's a way in which the sentence can be read in any other way but that Harry is a muggle-born. Taking a ridiculous analogy, "Even Martians like Fred . . ." can only mean that Fred is a Martian. In other words, though you suggest that she's not coming off clearly, I think her meaning is entirely clear.

That's not to say that it may not appear contradictory with other statements, which is what you're really saying. We thus come rather immediately to the question of whether JK made some sort of mistake here. I guess I just don't accept that JK would have made such a basic error as you suggest. And, even with commas, the meaning of the sentence is not necessarily altered. Because of the plurality of muggle-borns and the singularity of Harry, commas would still most likely make the sentence imply that Harry is a specific example of the general category. In the phrase, "Even trees, like the oak, need water," the commas are optional and have little impact on the meaning of the sentence. They merely change an adjectival phrase into an appositive one--which is really a question of stylistic choice. It's only in sentences where there's numerical agreement between the subject of the sentence, and the clause, where you can possibly entertain the thought that the one isn't a subset of the other, as in, "Even the best presidents, like the worst criminals, are under constant scrutiny." If JK has wanted to clearly differentiate the two, there were much, much easier ways to do it, such as, "Like muggle-borns, Harry . . ." Instead though, she chose to make the sentence read as an unambiguous (if apparently contradictory) statement that the Harry is muggle-born

Again, I think the real trick with this section is to look at it from Malfoy's perspective. Is there evidence to suggest that he would, in his own world view, be wrong to call Harry a mudblood? Does he actually distinguish between the two groups, affording some better treatment to Harry which he would not to Hermione? I don't see that level of distinction in the books or films, and indeed I think the implicit point is that anyone but a pure-blood is equally inferior.CzechOut 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that there are other sites which claim this same three-tiered system but I don't see it in what she says here, nor do I think it's really her intent to have her racist characters really distinguish between the two. It's all or nothing with Malfoy, and it's his perspective which really matters, here. Is there really any evidence of a special status which attaches to the "mixed" parentage wizard in the books or films? I think there might be, especially as we talk about prophecy fulfillment, but it doesn't seem to me that it's all that important when talking about genetic classification.CzechOut 03:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we might consider pulling the half-blood discussion to a place under the muggle-born heading as a subcategory, but I really think it would take a rewrite to do it. Unless you happen to have a quote handy which backs up the 25% claim, and the fact that it actually IS an intentional reference to the Nazi perspective on the Jews, as opposed to coincidence.

I'm one of those opposed to the inclusion of the following sentence in the article, which I think you're referring to. "That is, if a person has 25% or greater Muggle heritage, then they are disqualified from being a pure-blood, a reference to the Nazi point of view about Jews." I think it's a jump to say that a number (like "25%") has been clearly pinned down in canon, as being the threshold between "half-blood" and "pure-blood". Also, Rowling's FAQ seems to me to clearly say that the similarity to Nazi thought was unintentional [2]. I'll be bold and strike the sentence out. --Mercurio 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the same FAQ, Rowling twice distinguishes between 3, rather than just 2, categories of "blood purity". So I'm for not treating "half-blood" as a subset of "Muggle-born". --Mercurio 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to these? I've seen points at which she calls Harry "half-blood", but that doesn't in itself mean that "half-blood" isn't a subset of "muggle-born". For instance, it's quite correct to call Guinness both a stout and an ale, because stout is a subset of ale.CzechOut 03:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed the link I gave above to JKR's FAQ where she mentions Nazis and 3 classes by blood? Here's the link again: Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?

Nope, didn't miss it. But it doesn't prove that "half blood" and "muggle-born" are wholly separate categories. If anything, it, combined with the other quote from the same place, seem to me to strongly suggest that there is no distinction, in the minds of a Malfoy, between someone like Hermione and someone like Potter. The real question we need to find an answer to, as I see it, is whether having any wizard's blood in you makes any difference to the way you'll be treated by a person like Malfoy. I don't see any particular evidence of that, and so am prepared to rectify Rowling's statements in this FAQ answer, with her ones in the FAQ I cited, by saying that, really, most everyone is muggle-born to some degree. The likelihood of you being called a mudblood depends less on what your actual blood composition is and more on what the perception of your blood composition is by the person hurling the epithet. CzechOut 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Rowling's list of all the students in Harry Potter's year? Image courtesy of the HP Lexicon Interview transcript courtesy of Quick-Quotes Quill The three-fold classification of parentage ("blood purity") is evident here. The squarish symbol represents Muggle-borns like Hermione and Justin; the other two symbols (a star and an encircled star) apparently indicate half-bloods and pure-bloods. Admittedly, this doesn't disprove your contention that half-bloods are a subset of Muggle-borns. Again, I'll get back to you with references for the definition of "Muggle-born". --Mercurio 06:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a neat find :) Really cool to see that :) But, no, as you pointed out, it doesn't really suggest the two are truly separate.CzechOut 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, one good reason to think half-bloods aren't a subset of Muggle-borns is that, in many ways, the distinction between muggle-borns and the other two categories is much greater than that between pure-bloods and the other-two. Specifically, except in odd cases of half-breeds like Harry or Dean Thomas or Tom Riddle, both pure-bloods and half-breeds grow up before going to Hogwarts at least partially in the magical world. On the other hand, muggle-borns, by definition, would live their first 10 (11?) years not knowing anything about magic. This might suggest, though, that the most important distinction is not blood at all, but whether you grow up in the magical world or the muggle world. john k 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Um I don't think that really explains what went on with Hermione. She's got no wizard blood at all, and is clearly shown to live in the muggle world, but yet she has more knowledge of "things wizard", even on her first day of classes, than either Ron or Harry. Each person's different—which is, rather, the thematic point.CzechOut 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hermione knew stuff on the first day because she got all her books and read them as soon as she was invited to go to Hogwarts. She had no knowledge of magic from her upbringing. john k 19:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think the section needs to stress that these categories are more important to racist pure-bloods than they are to other characters in the books. Put another way, it's not shown in the books that the distinctions are generally that important. Yes, Harry and the rest of the Trio have a number of encounters, notably with Malfoy, in which the issue comes up—and parentage in general is quite important to the orphaned Potter—but in the main "blood strength" isn't shown to be a burning social issue. Hogwarts (at least under Dumbledore) is at its core a meritocracy, and the Ministry doesn't seem to be enforcing laws based upon blood strength. CzechOut 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The books and the author do emphasize that the whole thing about "blood purity" is only an issue to those people to whom these distinctions matter. --Mercurio 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the section should have their all-or-nothing view of the matter predominate.CzechOut 03:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Harry is a half blood. Voldemort is a half-blood. Harry says flat out in Chamber of Secrets (in his second meeting with Dobby) that he isn't Muggle-born, and Voldemort obviously would never call himself Muggle-born. Snape is also half-blood, and indeed makes great play of the fact by naming himself the "half-blood prince", yet he waged a war against Muggle-borns. Since the only people these classifications matter to are the blood purrity fanatics, it's safe to go by their classification. Hence, half blood and muggle born are different things.Serendipodous 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Voldemort cut others with similar blood purity some slack? If you're at least half-blood can you escape the wrath of the Death Eaters?CzechOut 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously yes, otherwise the Death Eater Snape could never have styled himself "The half blood prince" in Voldemort's presence.Serendipodous 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I see no evidence that half-blood and muggle-born are seen as the same thing. It's potentially possible, I guess, but most of the info we have points the other way. john k 19:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask, what is this "info we have" and whether the section(s) wouldn't be made stronger by citing it? Even if we lay aside what I see as JK's direct attribution of "muggle-born" to Harry, how are half-bloods seen as "different" from the "zero percenters"? I mean Harry's dad was as much a target of Voldemort's rage as his (seemingly) zero-percent mother? If half-bloods aren't treated differently than muggle-born, how are they different?CzechOut 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Harry's dad was a pure-blood not a half-blood. Voldemort kills anyone who is in his way. As for proof that they are seen somewhat differently, look at the part of the Half-Blood Prince where Hermione is talking about who the Death Eaters allow to join their ranks. Not to mention the fact that Draco Malfoy has never called Harry a Mudblood, although he has referred to Hermione and to Harry's mother as such. If he could have applied the term "Mudblood" to Harry, surely he would have done so by now. --23:42, 24 April 2006 (EST)*

In the context of what she wrote, what she meant was Muggle-raised. 23:51, 21 April 2006 (EST)

And that's something that she could have just as easily said. But she didn't. CzechOut 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Because she's not as fixated on precision of language as some people are. The context is clear. She was talking about wizards who are raised by Muggles and go to Muggle primary school. Not all half-bloods would go to primary school. If both parents were wizarding folk, the children would be home-schooled. Even if one parent was a Muggle, the children would likely to homeschooled to prevent incidents. 19:52, 22 April 2006 (EST)

It should be noted that comments by the author on her website don't trump canonical material as presented in the books. In the books, Harry is never referred to as a muggle-born. You can't hang your entire justification on a single careless comment on the author's website. john k 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

References

• "Mudblood's a really foul name for someone who is Muggle-born -- you know, non-magic parents." --Ron Weasley in Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 7. I believe this is the first use of the word "Muggle-born".
• "A Squib is someone who was born into a wizarding family but hasn't got any magic powers. Kind of the opposite of Muggle-born wizards...." --Ron Weasley in Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 9. This implies that a Muggle-born is someone born into a non-magic family but has magic powers.
• "But I'm not Muggle-born -- how can I be in danger from the Chamber?" ... "One of my best friends is Muggle-born; she'll be first in line if the Chamber really has been opened." --Harry Potter in Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 10.
• Harry Potter, born of a pure-blood father and a Muggle-born mother, is a half-blood. --from many sources, primarily in Order of the Phoenix.
• Rowling's list of students in Harry's year shows a three-fold categorization by blood. Hence, Muggle-borns and half-bloods are distinguished. Rowling explains that the list tells "what their parentage is, because I needed this later for the Death Eaters and so on, and the various allegiances that will be set up within the school." (transcript)
• Even Muggle-borns like Harry attract a certain amount of unwelcome attention at Muggle schools by re-growing their hair overnight and so on. --Rowling's site. The sentence is non-contradictory if the phrase like Harry is (by no big stretch, as this is one of its meanings) taken as a comparison rather than as indicating an example. ("Ron, like Harry, is a wizard." or "The Dursleys, like Harry, lived at Number Four Privet Drive." or "The Slytherins, like Harry, possessed top-of-the-line Nimbus brooms.") At worst, the sentence is a an ambiguous construction or mistranscription.

Taken together, the above illustrate that half-bloods are not (a subset of) Muggle-borns. Instead the two are distinguished by definition and depiction. As previously touched on by john k and Serendipodous, it is telling that the half-bloods seem more akin to pure-bloods than they are like Muggle-borns.

As outlined in the author's notes, pure-bloods and half-bloods are distinguished (both by star symbols) from Muggle-borns (which are notated with squares). In the novels later on, Death Eaters are shown to accept half-bloods, but to be vehemently anti-Muggle-born. So it seems clear to me that half-bloods are a third and middle ground between the poles of pure-bloods and Muggle-borns.

Consequently, I have removed the dispute tag from the article. --Mercurio 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention:

• Harry: "I don't see where you get that from. If he'd been a budding Death Eater he wouldn't have been boasting about being 'half-blood', would he?"

• Hermione: "The Death Eaters can't all be pure-blood, there aren't enough pure-blood wizards left. I expect most of them are half-bloods pretending to be pure. It's only Muggleborns they hate, they'd be quite happy to let you and Ron join up."

"Half-Blood Prince", Chapter Twelve. -- 23:44, 29 April 2006 (EST)

Surely, if you're being REALLY technical, EVERYONE in the Harry Potter Universe is a (non-literal) half-blood: because, as Rowling has said, all 'Pure-bloods' in reality have muggle ancestry somewhere; and, since magic appears to be genetically hereditary, muggle-born magicians must have magical ancestry somewhere. Which is the inevitable result of looking to closely at a non-logical system of prejudice. Michaelsanders 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, as pointed out in the article. Noneofyourbusiness 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, since the non-magic genes are recessive, and inbreeding increases the chances of recessive genes having an effect, it's probably the inbred "pure" families that have the highest chance of producing Squibs. There's irony for you. Noneofyourbusiness 04:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes... were it not simply impossible by our standards for the non-magical genes to be recessive (dominants are common, recessives are rare) - the fact that there are so very many more non-magicians than magicians is a clear indication that magic is the recessive gene, rather than the dominant; as is the emergence of magicians in non-magical families (with Squibs as very, very rare examples of 'defaults': where the recessive genes reset to the dominant form - e.g. blue-eyed genes resetting to the brown-eyed default - without necessarily making the effect hereditary, so Squibs can still pass on magical genes). Everything in the canon supports this (maybe Squibs are so rare that there's only one or two per generation - which would explain why it is so VERY humiliating, and why the Longbottoms were prepared to drown Neville to prevent him from being a different sort of 'chosen one'). Wizards, judging by Hogwarts school and what we have seen of the wider wizarding world, are rare. The only problem, the only obstacle to simply writing this off as a mind-bogglingly obvious solution are two bizarre, possibly unconsidered statements from the author: that the magical gene is 'dominant and resilient', and that in a marriage between a magician and a muggle, most of the children will be magical. The first is pretty much impossible: dominant genes, by their very nature, can not be resilient, because if they are not passed on then they are GONE. Recessive genes are resilient, because they can stick around for hundreds, thousands of generations, waiting to resurface. Dominant genes don't do that: either you have them and are wearing them, or you never got them. The second statement, meanwhile, has little real canon support. True, we've seen literal half-bloods - Seamus Finnegan, Dean Thomas, come to think of it is there anyone ELSE? - but of these, Seamus has never mentioned any siblings, and Dean only has siblings by his muggle mother and his muggle stepfather. We have no canon evidence of most half and half children being magical. Indeed, if we consider the muggle-borns, we note that the Creeveys are the only muggle-born magical siblings: Petunia is not a witch, and Rowling intended Hermione to have a muggle sister. Furthermore, given the seclusion, it is entirely possible that genuine muggle-magician marriages are very rare. And we have not heard from all the offspring of these marriages who weren't magical, only from those who were. Michaelsanders 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the author's statements in this matter must be taken as absolute fact. Also, it is not true that dominant genes are always the most common. If the mutation that produced these genes only produced very few of them, then regardless of their dominance they will not necessarily have become very widespread. Many genetic diseases are dominant, but still most people don't have a genetic disease. Obviously it is the Muggleborns who are a case of the recessive gene resetting to the dominant form. Noneofyourbusiness 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though reemergence of recessive genes is far more common than the very rare reset function? Not to mention, by that logic, that muggle-born magicians would be extremely likely to produce non-magical children, making them just as dangerous as the elitists believe them to be - which the author is clearly arguing against. As for the point about genetic diseases: they are rare because many carriers of those diseases certainly used to have a high chance of dying before being able to breed, and others would deliberately choose to not risk passing on the disease (whether it could be passed on or not: epileptics were at times discouraged from marriage because it was thought hereditary, which was an issue in the case of Ferdinand V of Austria (The Cretin)), and others would not be able to get married because their disease made them unappealing or unattractive to the opposite sex. Very few sufferers from such hereditary diseases, prior to the last century, managed to pass their genes on. We may well see a rise, given that people are less superficial or fearful these days. But magic, in the Potterverse, was not a hereditary disease. There is nothing to suggest that wizards and witches are somehow less capable of breeding. More to the point, if magic were dominant, the more rational magicians would have noticed that muggle-magical unions produced mostly magical children. They would have taken steps to breed-out muggles: Britain, as an island, would within a thousand years, probably have been entirely magical. And given that the Seclusion was only imposed in the 1600s, there is no reason to think that magicians and muggles did not freely intermarry. And the most paranoid magicians looked at these marriages, and said 'Most of their kids aren't our sort!' THAT is what had the elitists running scared all these years - a careless observation. They saw that most maggle-muggle kids weren't wizards, and didn't see that all-magical marriages produced entirely magical offspring (with two or so Squibs per generation), regardless of blood purity. That is far easier to accept than a scientifically impossible statement from the author. And it is easier to accept the obvious - muggle-borns are the distant descendants of wizards, whose recessive genes have bubbled up - than to imagine that a very rare phenomenon provides Hogwarts with 25% of its annual intake. Michaelsanders 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This is magic we're talking about. And your comments are obscenely long. Noneofyourbusiness 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hello. This is magic we're talking about." So does that mean that it doesn't conform to the rules the author has tried to claim it functions by? Either this is a fairy-tale, where anyone can simply say 'open sesame' and operate the magic, or dance naked, or be a seventh child of a seventh child, or pray to the gods; or it conforms to real rules. Could magic, as we have seen it in the Harry Potter Universe, make the sun set in the south, or allow a person to create ships from rainwater without taking a breath? It functions according to rules. Rowlings conception of magic is not one in which people simply 'are' magic; it is one which requires exacts a cost from the user, and which is passed down genetically. And magic cannot rewrite biological laws. If magic is inherent according to one's ancestry, then it has to do so in a way that makes sense. One cannot duck the issue with a cry of, "well, it's magic, why should it make sense?". Michaelsanders 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. The gene switches between dominant and recessive every so often. Noneofyourbusiness 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

????Does that make an ounce of sense? What do you mean by, 'the gene switches between dominant and recessive every so often.' Are you referring to the reset function, that can make a person with two recessive genes display the dominant characteristics (e.g. genes for blue eyes but displaying brown eyes)? Or are you saying that magic can be carried on both dominant and recessive genes (which would mean that everyone was magical). What all this boils down to is thus: either magic is just magic, with no explanation needed for how you get it (Discworld witches - you simply are one) - in which case there is no point even debating any sort of genetic explanation for inheritance of magic - that would be like trying to hear yellow; or it does operate under a logical, coherent, rational set of rules, including those of genetics - in whch case it has to obey them.Michaelsanders 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that it's usually dominant (thus most half-blood children are magical) but sometimes changes to recessive and resurfaces later (thus the existence of Muggleborns). Alternatively, the reset function (resulting in Muggleborns) could be more common for this gene than for any other. Either way, it does follow genetic rules but not the same rules as normal genes, which is perfectly believable. If magic can interfere with the usual laws of nature, then there's no reason it can't make genes do strange, but physically possible, things. Noneofyourbusiness 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What, then, would happen when a child received the recessive gene for magic AND the dominant gene for magic? And there is still the inescapable fact that if magic were a dominant gene, there would be millions of magicians in the world. There aren't. Roughly, the wizarding world's population would fit into Chester with little difficulty (i.e. not a lot of them). Magicians are a statistically irrelevant percentage of the total human population in Rowlings Universe. That simply wouldn't be possible if magic were the dominant gene: the basic human drive to procreate would mean that the world's magical population would be noticable, be totally in control due to a simple outnumbering of the mundane population. That hasn't happened; instead, the wizards are cowering in their little enclaves, whilst the rest of the world swarms with muggles. There is no way to explain how that could possibly have happened if one argues that magic is the dominant gene. Furthermore (and correct me if I am wrong) but we are supposed to believe that the Elitists are totally wrong, and talking utter nonsense. Unless we have in store for us a moment of disillusionment in the seventh book, whereby we realise that there is often truth amidst the lies (which seems unlikely given that Rowling claims to be writing a moral tale), we are not going to be suddenly told that actually, muggle-borns are 'tainted', because only they are magical, and have no capability of passing the ability on. Hermione, remember, is meant to be as good as Harry and Ron: whereas, under the 'magic is dominant' theory, the child of herself and another muggle-born would probably have the magical capacity of a gnat, because it had only inherited the recessive genes of its grandparents. Michaelsanders 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"What, then, would happen when a child received the recessive gene for magic AND the dominant gene for magic?" They'd be magical. "That simply wouldn't be possible if magic were the dominant gene: the basic human drive to procreate would mean that the world's magical population would be noticable, be totally in control due to a simple outnumbering of the mundane population." A) Inbreeding isn't very good for population size, B) Dominant genes are not always the most common. "whereas, under the 'magic is dominant' theory, the child of herself and another muggle-born would probably have the magical capacity of a gnat, because it had only inherited the recessive genes of its grandparents." That's pure nonsense. A Muggleborn's magic genes would be as dominant as those of any other witch or wizard, so even if both Hermione and her husband had only one copy of the magic gene there would be only a one-in-four chance of their child being a Squib. Noneofyourbusiness 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You only get dominant genes if your parents had dominant genes. How could a muggle-born have a magical gene if it was dominant? Their parents would both have had recessives. As for the inbreeding, we know that not all magicians inbreed (James, Mr Thomas, Mrs Finnegan, etc). And prior to Going into Hiding, there would have been a lot more magical-muggle marriages. With all the associated effects: either plenty of magical children, if magic is a dominant gene, or a seeding of the mundane population with the potential to produce magical children on their own, if magic is a recessive gene. As for 'dominant genes not always being the most common': that only happens if there is, or was, some obstacle to procreation. What obstacle would there have been in the case of magicians? Furthermore, if magic were dominant, the chances are that the Ministry would have insisted on breeding with muggles, to build up the wizarding population, to make wizards the superior force; to force muggles to accept wizards. Whereas what we see with the inbreeding is the result of hundreds of years worth of panic, which has left one solid impression: only the children of two magicians can be 'certain' of being magical; a magical-muggle marriage is simply too risky for anyone wishing to ensure a magical continuance in their family. And to clarify about the 'reset function': although it gives the person the appearance of a dominant, they have the genetic information of a recessive. So, I think that if a muggle-born were the result of a 'defaulter', whilst they would have magic, they could not pass the capacity on themself. Which is yet another reason why magic as a dominant gene would make no sense. Michaelsanders 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. This is an interesting discussion, not least because I'm a biology student with a keen interest in genetics, but also because it really seems to have sparked this odd fact that magic works in tandem with real-world biology. And I'm sure it does! It seems likely that many wizards have at least a basic knowledge of genetics, even if they don't understand it well - re: Slughorn's comment that Harry's potency with potions must be the result of Lily's "genes" coming out in him - but at the same time I've noticed that this discussion seems to hinge completely upon the idea that magical genes are either dominant or recessive. That would be nice and fine - IF we adhered purely to the rules of Mendelian genetics! Keep in mind that most genes - MOST of them - completely disobey the four principles of Mendelian genetics. I don't see why magic would be any different! So here's my take on it:

Magical genes are quantitative - that is, they exist as multiple alleles or genes present within the system of a single person, perhaps as short as a siDNA or miDNA fragment, 18 to 20 nt pairs long. Hence the presence of numerous magical genes would inevitably result in a greater magical potency. This would explain why some people like Lily Evans, Dumbledore, etc. seem to have an innately more powerful understanding and ability with magic than most others. This can be relegated to two reasons: either Lily has a beneficial mutation that makes her immensely powerful in magic or she has enough quantitative genes to overwhelm the threshold of expression. This goes along with my theory stated far above on the discussion page, that the gene expression of magic is only 25% as opposed to 50% that would be found with Mendelian genes. If anyone has any questions about this, feel free to post under me. I'm very interested in discussing this.

Spoilers

This article has multiple spoiler tags but no spoiler end tags. Brian Jason Drake 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the blood categories

Someone removed all the categories other than the ones between both worlds. This makes no sense and I have reverted the article. Noneofyourbusiness 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, one or more people have been removing important parts of the article left and right without having the decency to talk about it on the Talk Page first. Noneofyourbusiness 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Voldemort's Motivations

To what extent is Voldemort actually trying to bring about a wizarding society based on Blood Purity, and how far is he solely pursuing 'ethnic cleansing' (which seems arather inappropriate term, since DE discrimination seems based not on ethnicity but magical heritage)? Voldemort seems to be as contemptuous of Purebloods as he is of Muggles and Muggleborns, and he seems to discriminate not between 'Wizards' and 'Muggles', but between 'those who serve Me' and 'Those who oppose Me' (remember that he went after the Pureblooded Prewetts and Longbottoms, as well as others who I think were Purebloods; and Severus Snape seems to be climbing quite high in the organisation). Michaelsanders 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed blood

I seem to reacall an interview with JKR where she mentions the (unintentional) and creepy similarity between the system of blood purity followed by the wizards in her books and the Nazi's. SPecifically I remember he mentioning mixed bloods, which woudl be people like Harry who are the child of a half blood within some number of generations. Am I just imagineing this? If not can someon dig up the interview so we can add it to the article? Dalf | Talk 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

She did state that. Noneofyourbusiness 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any idea where? I think this article saying Harry is "Half-blood" is incorrect, and shoudl be changed but I wont change it without a reference. Maybe I will dig through the archives of interviews later today. Dalf | Talk 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference is: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58 --T-dot 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I was worried that I may have been remembering incorrectly and it appears that I was. Thanks for the reference. Dalf | Talk 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that part hits a quite important point (being an Newbie, I trie to adjust myself as good as possible to standards, but neverthelsess, this one might open to misunderstanding): The whole discussion in the books about "blood purity" is - at least in my opinion - in the end a racist discussion. Don´t get me wrong, I don´t say the books are racist, what I´m trying to say is, that the concept of blood-purety ist in itself a racist one (and those wizards who are in the Order of the Phoenix or in the DA don´t care abotu it, f.e. there is a sentece Dumbledore says in GOF, that it´s not about how you were born, but what you choose to do with your life.

It´s mostly the Death Eaters (and part of the ministry) that are obsessed with blood-purity. The similarity between the Nazis and the Death Etater becomes qutie obvious in Book 7 when they start these tribunals with muggle-born wizard.

Shouldn´t that be metnioned or discussed somewhere (or is it against the neutral point of view rule?). Personally, I´d rather like to see the problems of the concept of blood-purity discussed than carrying it through all character descriptions without ever mentioning that this is quite a problematical concept. What do you think about that?

Piers Fletcher HH

Wizards and Judaism

Has the comparison between Wizards and Jews been brought up anywhere? Michaelsanders 09:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, assuming that it hasn't, anyone who cares can read my summation on my discussion page User_talk:Michaelsanders (it is there because it is over-long and rambling, and thus probably shouldn't clog up this page). If however, I am merely restating what can easily be found somewhere else, please tell me. Michaelsanders 17:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)