Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 2

Harry's Skill in Potions

Under Magical Weaknesses, the article states that "Harry shows weakness in some classes, including Potions ... When Professor Slughorn takes over, however, he gets top marks, partly due to the Half Blood Prince's old textbook, but also because he does not hate Slughorn and also because he is actually very good in potions." However, in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry is shown to be completely inept in the antidote mixing scene as well as whenever he doesn't have direct help from the scribbled on book, such as when he needed an antidote for a love potion for Ron and was forced to go to Professor Slughorn.

You don't get Exceeds Expectations OWLS unless you know something about potions. Snape hated Harry; the fact Harry got a good OWL In potions was despite Snape and his hatred of Harry. Jclinard 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Look, whoever is putting stupid "he dies hahaha" style messages replacing the article just stop it. Not cool, and, in case you haven't noticed, anyone can roll the article straight back to its original state and you will no doubt be blocked/deactivated/something bad-ed from wikipedia if you carry on.

Detailed family relations of Harry is irrelevant

Paragraph 5 of the Background section is highly irrelevant. We should delete it and just provide a link to the main page Relatives of Harry Potter. If I do not hear any arguments against it, I will make the change in a week's time. Sushovande 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture should depict Harry, not Daniel

The picture on this page should be an artist's impression of Harry Potter, not a real person who plays the role! Sushovande 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we probably should. But Daniel as Harry has become an international icon. Anyone who has seen the movie will think thats what Harry looks like. And usually, people like seeing a real life person, rather than a drawing. And you have to admit, in most drawings of Harry, Daniel looks eerily like him. Disinclination 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a picture is to identify the subject under discussion. No other picture would be universally recogniseable. It also immediately shows the interpretation of Harry made by warner bros, after consultation with Rowling. Sandpiper 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep Daniel as Harry, simply because he's himself Daniel Radcliffe in the role of Harry Potter. Other articles of Hermione and Ron also apply this kind of depiction. Thus I will recover the original version as synchronization._AbelinC A usesobad 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I want to see illustrations of Harry, not a human look-a-like. It would be good if you could show his picture in all the world's illustrations. Save the pictures of the film Harry for Radcliffe's article. One is good for this one. --Vehgah 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have both. I would put the illustration at the top of the article and the picure of dan further done. A precident has been set for this by other fictional charactor's wiki articles.Angielaj 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Angielaj, just put one of Dan further down, many people despite physical resemblances, do not like seeing Dan as Harry (myself included), so just get one of each. Mbatman72 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the preference depends on first contact; whether the reader of the article first saw the drawing of Harry in the books or saw Daniel in the role of Harry in the films. I think both a drawing of Harry and a photo of Daniel (as Harry) belong at the top of the article. Since Daniel has committed to the role in all seven films he simply is the human face of Harry Potter. Why not make the comparison easy for the reader? ZouBEini 02:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there for sure should be a drawing AND a pic of the actor. most of the other HP charecters have more than one pic, harry, only has one.

Agree. Daniel is just one of the depictions of Harry. Just take the Frodo Baggins page as an example of how they've put Elijah Wood's picture.

Disagree, all we need to do is put a caption: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter.

Easy.. Megan :) 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Harry Potter

Wouldn't this section be better off further down, rather than right near the start of the article? --Dave. 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be in this article at all. If there's a reputable source commenting on any similarities between the two, Harry Potter would probably be the best place for it; if there isn't, it should stay in its own article. To put it here would be to suggest that there is a connection or basis between the two - and whilst we may or may not think that, without serious proof, it would be OR (and slanderous) to introduce it here. Michaelsanders 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possessions

I have separated possessions by book. I intend to work them into the sections as soon as possible; if anyone can finish it up before I can, please try (I do think they are relevant).--Aaronhumes 21:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished for you. Sargun 05:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, apparently 72.200.27.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did. Maybe you forgot to log in. At any rate, whoever did this should use the preview function for future edits. John Reaves (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOB

The first book, where the character is supposedly 11, is written on 1997. Surely the, the character's DOB is in 1985, as opposed to 1980? Nowhere in the book does it claim this year of birth as far as i am aware. Could somebody with knowledge of this leave a message either here, or on my Talk Page? Jonomacdrones 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was implied in book 2, where the date was referenced as 500 years since 1492; Rowling then confirmed it on her Black Family Tree sketch, where Draco (Harry's contemporary) was shown as being born in 1980. Michaelsanders 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, with a new book coming out this July, and Harry (in the upcoming book) turning 17, it makes sense to readers that he would turn 17 this year in 2007, as this is the final installment and it goes no further than this. Because of the staggered arrival times for all the other books there hasn't been one a year so that he ages in life the same as the books come out. According to that his birth date should be 1990, as should Ron's, making Hermione's in late 1989. The books don't seem to be set 10 years earlier than today, and it's very odd to think of Harry, Ron and Hermione being born in the early 80s and late 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.143.35 (talk • contribs)

As odd as it may seem, you need to go with facts set by JKR(They are her creation!)Angielaj 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time setting has been given both in the book(Chamber of Secrets) an by the author. The time references with in the book are by definition considered canonical.

Book 7 shows the grave stones of James and Lily Potter, with their dates of death listed as October 31, 1981 (pg 328). Harry was one year old at the time, so this puts his birth year as 1980.

Lack of Education

Should it be discussed that he hasn't received any form of education in non-magical subjects since the age of 11 and what implications this leads to in terms of his status as a children's role model and perceived intelligence in the normal world? 65.213.142.2 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he can read, write and cipher; shouldn't that be good enough?--206.27.244.59 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source (teachers or government officials or journalists) expressing an opinion about Harry Potter lacking knowledge of music or intermediate mathematics or adequate foreign language skills or literature or technology or sports or politics or history or sciences and such, use it. If you can't, however, it would be your own thoughts, or otherwise unattributable, and thus inappropriate for wikipedia. Michael Sanders 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose to say he doesn't recieve any of those educational activities at Hogwarts? It being written into the book would be perhaps useless, since it isn't really helping the plot move along any since its just taking up space. Disinclination 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have we had the kid's timetables quoted at several points - and no mention of any such subjects - and it would be pretty simple to throw in something like "Some of their lessons were like primary school - maths and English - but some involved magic", but I think we can safely say that if Professor McGonagall was teaching the kids about the joys of Sir Walter Scott on the side, it would have been mentioned at some point. Michael Sanders 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're studying history of magic and probably in that way magic's litterature. As of science, it's completely irrelevant to the wizarding world. The same applies for math, economy, informatic and pretty much all we're learning in high school. As for English as a subject, they seem to practice it quite a lot since they are writing lots of things for their classes. 207.107.233.124 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. Literature and history are not the same thing, and limiting the study of history to only the history of magic sounds dangerously narrow. Mathematics would be valuable in any setting (numbers and their properties don't just cease to exist), magical or not. Economics most obviously so, as inflation, supply and demand, etc would still exist no matter how magical the society.--Lovepush 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling Skills

Show Harry's dueling skills seriously be considered a weakness. Everyone listed that Harry fought and didn't fare well againts (save for Draco Malfoy) were all adults. I don't think a 14-16 year old is expected to outclass experience death eaters in combat. Lionheart08 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher's not Sorcerer's

Should the thing at the side say "First appeared in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" not Sorcerer's. Never mind I changed it, if the article is supposed to be British English it should be Philosopher's.

Just say "First appeared in Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's stone in the American adaptation)." Or just leave it the way it is. --Majinvegeta 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher's is correct. As he did first appear in it before appearing in the american adaptation. (Rekija 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Clean up

Um, this article is VERY long, and should be cleaned up. I don't know if we truly need seperate sections for each book. Perhaps a chop down and combining sections is all we need. He is the main character of the series, obviously he's going to appear in every book. Just list the names of the books that he appears in and combine all the book sections into one: Here's an example of a main character article that I just worked on, where there is four books to the series, and all four books were combined in one section, while the character's ancestry/other info had it's own section. Perhaps we could do something like that. The reason why I say this is because Harry Potter is a fictional character, and according to Wikipedia, fictional character articles are supposed to focus on the author's development of the character, not the history of the character itself--Majinvegeta 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the alleigance listed to the Order is incorrect, agreebaly he becomes a secret keeper in 'Deathly Hallows' but was he ever actually enlisted to the Order?

AiselneDrossel 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho! I'll do the needful!--Bubka42 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage

The section on blood (Parentage) was recently edit from:

blood=[[Blood purity (Harry Potter)#Half-blood|Half-blood]] |

was changed to:

blood=[[Blood purity (Harry Potter)#Pure-blood|Half-blood]] | with the following edit summary: "Harry Potter is Pure Blood according to the books"

Not being an expert in this area, I have revered the edit due solely to the fact it was only half done. The actual displayed type was not changed only the link itself was changed. I will leave it to other to either edit completely or let the revert stand Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe

I removed the in-universe tag as this article seems to be adequately labeled. I am new-ish at this so if each section needs its own label I will put the tag back or try to fix it. Let me know what you think. :-) ZouBEini 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - loads of probs saying when this all happened.

It's common knowledge Harry was born in 1980 - so everything else should fall in line...

Book Teasers

The begginnings of all the individual book sections seem a lot like the teaser you can read on the back of the book; not as neutral as wiki is supposed to be. If nobody objects, I'll be happy to rework them.--Solar Sunstorm 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Harry Potter's Wand.jpg

Image:Harry Potter's Wand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the section on Deathly Hallows

Since the book is out we must update it to come up with the story. Marlith 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinse Deathly Hallows came out...

It has been revealed that while Vernon and Pattunia dislike Harry, eversinse he saved his life Dudley cares about Harry and his safety.

Horcrux Potter

Sorry, fans, but if it is an important characteristic of the character, it should be pointed out - and Harry's Horcruxness is not a trifling matter. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Eyes

For what it's worth, there will be spoilers here unrelated to JUST Harry Potter (character). One of the themes that was supposed to be better explained was the constant reference to Harry having his mother's eyes. This was stated, or confirmed, by the author several times in various interviews. Admittedly, I read the book quickly, but I never noticed anything "new" about his eyes other than the comment at one point that emphasized that he had "exactly" her eyes, or something like that. I came to this page to see if anyone had mentioned it yet, and seeing how no one has, if anyone did catch what was so special about Harry having Lilly's eyes, please add it to the article. Thanks! Maijstral 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will have been because of Snape's love for Lily Potter. His last words were for Harry to look at him, so that he could gaze into the eyes of Lily before he died. Pettythug 10:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Epilogue

If it was 19 years after the events of the book, shouldn't it be 2015, since the book's events occurred in 1997? Thanks ^^

HP was born in 80, so he entered Hogwarts for his first year in 91. H1 would have been 91-92. H7 would have been 97-98. Assuming "19 years later" refers to 19 years after the end of the main story line, that would be 1998+19 = 2017. Maijstral 06:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

There are some inaccuracies "Events heat up for the final battle, as Voldemort demands that Harry, the faculty, and older students of Hogwarts fight him." WRONG only harry is asked to come "Give me Harry Potter"..."and none shall be harmed. Give me Harry Potter, and I shall leave the school untouched. Give me Harry Potter and you will be rewarded. "you have untill midnight"

So on this basis i shall modify accrodingly the uppermost quote.

DONE Picer 10:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the part about his characteristics, it says that Harry has confronted Voldemort five times. I think that needs to be updated for Deathly Hallows, because I count nine now: 1. Original attack at one year old. 2. Voldemort and Quirrel in Sorcerer's Stone. 3. Riddle memory (Horcrux) in Chamber of Secrets. 4. Graveyard/ Voldemort's rebirth in Goblet of Fire. 5. Ministry of Magic possession and duel scene from Order of the Phoenix. 6. Escape from the Dursley's house in Deathly Hallows. 7. Godric's Hollow and Bathilda Bagshot in Deathly Hallows. 8. When Harry gives himself up to die at the end of Deathly Hallows. 9. When Harry finally kills Voldemort. Can someone please change it for me? Thanks.

black hair

If any dumbass calls that hair on the picture black, the world is really going to an end.

Harry the ex-Horcrux

As Harry-19-years-later appears in the epilogue - how would "parting from the Horcrux" and ceasing to be a hero have affected him? (The fanfic is already, no doubt, being written).

How many other characters are there who can be seen as composite entities of this nature - apart from Dr Who Black Wolf? Jackiespeel 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the characters in Isaac Asimov's original Foundation trilogy was also "affected" as a child - name anyone? Jackiespeel 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Married?

I know "19 years later" has him with kids (but are they really his?) and a relationship of some sort with Ginny, but is it ever stated that they are in fact married? Perhaps they have been living in sin all this time. Perhaps they are involved in some sort of group relationship with their old school chums. Anyway, no interpretation should be ruled out unless the text itself excludes it.

Cheerio!

There are several references in the epilogue that these are Harry's children: Young James is said to give his father a hug goodbye, and Harry tells his children something he's never mentioned to them before, stuff like that. I think it's safe to assume that Harry and Ginny are indeed married, but since Rowling never specifically mentions it, no reason to do so here, I guess. PNW Raven 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is solid proof that Harry and Ginny are indeed married. It is a comment by Lily Potter (Harry's child) that if Teddy Lupin and Victoire Weasley got married then Teddy really would be faimly revealing that Harry would then be related to Ted Lupin through marriage to Ginny.

Yes, but since Lily is Victoire's cousin through Ginny's side, Teddy would become "family" to Lily whether Ginny and Harry were married or not. I believe they are, but there's still no positive proof from Rowling. Overall, I thought the Epilogue was strangely vague, perhaps deliberately so to leave open the possibility of more sequels. PNW Raven 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Today Show interview with Rowling specifically states that Harry and Ginny are married.--71.220.32.25 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the discussion to its logical conclusion - nobody is married to their partner unless it is specifically stated that they are. (Equally the (unmentioned) "infant Potter quads" might be being looked after by Dudley Dursley) Jackiespeel 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-Magical Person Who Does Magic

Rowling stated that there was to be a non-magical person who develops magical ability in adult life and it would be revealed in Deathly Hallows. Who is this? I must have overlooked it in the book. At some point I want to add a quick line about this to that person's page (if there is one), because I'm sure others will want to know if they are also confused about it I thought it would be Dudley, who was affected by the Dementors, but it apparently wasn't. Is it Trelawney? PNW Raven 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? It's possible you may have just misinterpreted what Rowling said.--Lovepush 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misinterpret it, and I now see that there's some discussion on the other Deathly Hallows page about this. I can't site a source right now, but it's been mentioned by Rowling in a number of media sources, and Rowling specifically said it would NOT be Aunt Petunia. I also think it is mentioned in Galadriel Waters' Harry Potter analysis books and maybe on some of the fan sites (Leaky Cauldron, MuggleNet, etc.). PNW Raven 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the transcript of J.K. Rowling's online chat interview on The Leaky Cauldron, and she states that she did intend to have a non-magical character (she does not say who) to be able to apparate to Hogwarts. As she was writing the final book, she changed her mind about this. PNW Raven 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Spolier Warning For Family Tree

There should be a spoiler warning for harry's family tree. It could ruin someones reading of the book

Tomazzr 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really needed? It's a Wikipedia article, not a fan site. --VorangorTheDemon 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any spoiler warnings for like anything. I disagree, because someone shouldn't go on here, if they haven't read it.

What if somebody, for example, wants information for the reading of another Harry Potter book, and sees that? Some parts of that family tree only occur at the end of the last book. Maybe they wanted to see if Harry was related to Salazzar Slytherin? Tomazzr 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea for spoiler warnings, because people going on here don't know how much it will reveal.Coldpower27 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if you have enough sense, you will avoid most of those areas anyway. The only spoilers bit really is about Harrys children and who he marrys at the end. As soon as you see the tree, anyone who didn't want to be spoiled will have enough sense to avoid it.Wild ste 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed

I have changed An ultimaum to his ulitmatum there is only one. Picer 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm following you. "An ultimatum" is singular--it's an indefinite article and noun indicating one ultimatum--and it is the same as "his ultimatum." It's just more specific as to who's ultimatum it is.

People killed by Lord Voldemort

Why is the article in this category? LV does not kill Harry. Marc Shepherd 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He shot him with the killing curse. For a similar aqument over whether it counts as killing when the victim subsuquanly resurres see here

Killing curses are fired at lots of people. "Killed" means it worked...and Harry's case it did not. There is no reliable source for the proposition that Harry is "killed" at any point in the story. Marc Shepherd 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry avoided direct killing curses four times. The first time, Lily Potter gave her life as shield. The second time, Voldemort and Harry's wand cores declined battle. The third time is certainly the most mysterious, as there is good evidence that Harry had a choice in the matter. I'd prefer to say the killing curse wasn't binding on Harry - just like Voldemort's aftermath of that attempt found his spells from silence to torture quickly dispelled. The final time Harry bet it all on that the Elder wand was his. He used his signature move of disarming. Voldemort didn't stand a chance. If Rowlings states that Potter goes on to head the auror office, it means that the department will go for non-lethal methods if they can. Given Harry's experience, he'd only really have a problem with dark wizards who mean it. Jclinard 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, LV killed Harry in the seventh book. Auroranorth 10:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actor for baby Harry?

Should the actor for Baby Harry be noted in the info box? Snape's teen actor is noted on his page, and he literally appears for like five seconds.VorangorTheDemon 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what is his name?.--Pachoolao

Yes, and how is that noetworthy? It isn't like the infant had any key lines in the script, and was quite likely - in the case of feature length films, portrayed by a number of babies. I am thinking this is not at all noteworthy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profession

Someone want to update the 19 Years Later section with the now know information about Harry being the head of the Auror department at the Ministry. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ --71.220.32.25 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. . .by the time I posted, it had been updated.--71.220.32.25 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In jk rowlings interview it stated that ron joined george at the joke shop. Ron didnt become an auror.

No, that's what he did before he became an auror. V-train 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New info re. post-Hogwarts

Harry is an Auror, Ron is not. New interview up here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/07/30/potters.afterlife.ap/index.html. Please update 'Nineteen Years later' with this information.

No, she has already stated they are both Aurors. Someone in the chat asked what they did right after the end of book 7, and she wrote that Ron went to work with his brother. That does not contradict what she said previously, it merely supplements it. CNN is merely summarizing only what was mentioned in that chat. V-train 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on an actual 'Harry Potter'

I found an interesting article on my local newspaper website about a 78 year old Florida man who has the same name. If a person does not find this appropriate for this article and finds it appropriate for another article for example, the main Harry Potter article, can move it. KSweeley 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't relevant. There are lots of "actual" people called Harry Potter. It doesn't add anything to the article, which is about the character. I've therefore deleted it.--Dave. 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - what you found was a slow news day. There must be thousands of people named Harry Potter. There is even a Monty Python skit that has a Harold Potter as a character. Coincidence is just that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]