Talk:Harry Potter

This article needs to be from a in-universe perspective. I am making some changes.

• Archive 1

Grammar

According to basic rules of English grammar, when relating events that happen in a story they are always done so in the present tense. You relate them as if they were happening at that moment, not as if the person relating them (you, dear reader) were looking back on them after the end of the book. Every time someone changes "Harry Potter was a half blood wizard" to "Harry Potter is a half blood wizard" someone always comes around and changes it back! Even if we choose to completely disregard the rules of grammar, this idiotic reversion back to "was" makes no sense. Harry Potter IS a half blood wizard and will remain one until he dies, only then can his blood status be talked about in the past tense, as it is with his parents. As this article now stands there's a mixture of past and present tense regarding events and characteristics. It's high time that some consensus was reached on how to view pages like this and in what tense they should be recorded in. Mr Norrell 15:03, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, this is done per Harry Potter Wiki policy on tense that was voted on and approved. --Hcoknhoj 15:11, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Picture?

Who changed the picture of Harry? The Last Dark Angel 10 14:01, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

The picture currently in use was voted on and decided to be the main article picture. See here. -- Ratneer ^{Owl Me!} 17:09, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Murderer, or not?

According to Wikipedia:

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with inten.

Emphasis added.

Harry killed the basilisk, but that´s not murder. I agree that Filch said something like "You´ve mursdered my cat" in CS, but I think he was just losing his temper.--Rodolphus 16:35, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I looked at everything about murder and it always says human. Okay, I will get rid of the murder cat.--L.V.K.T.V.J.^{(Send an owl!)} 16:39, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the cat wasn't murdered, just petrified. Filch was upset and assumed the cat was dead, Dumbledore corrected him by telling him that the cat was merely petrified and that when the mandrakes mature a draught can be made to cure her. --BachLynn23 13:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Harry killed Quirrell. He also caused Voldemort's Killing Curse rebound on and kill him. So he is a murderer.

As the definition of "murder" is the "unlawful killing of another human with intent, technically Harry did not "intend" to kill Quirrell, it was remnants of Lily's protection that caused his death, Harry did nothing intentionally. And when duelling LV Harry cast the dissarming spell against LV's killing curse, so regardless of whether or not Harry wanted LV to die, if he had truly intended to kill him himself he would have cast the killing curse also, so as it was the elder wand that would not kill it's true master, that was something that Harry only "assumed" would happen, he couldn't have known 100% that it would rebound and kill him. So I stand with the idea that Harry has never truly murdered as per the definition. --BachLynn^(Accio!) 16:34, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

The Quirrell scenerio would obviously also be considered self-defence, especially considering Harry was 11 years old at the time and Quirrell was actively trying to kill him, or at the very least, do him significant bodily harm. Voldemort's death occurred in the middle of open warfare, and since it would hardly constitute any sort of war crime, there's no way you could argue it was murder-- though even if you take it out of the context of battle, you couldn't possibly claim Harry used excessive force with Expelliarmus. Harry was known and chastised for not using enough force, so murderer? Please.--Emmy (★) 19:20, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you count the Basilisk. 70.249.147.238 19:23, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

...which was neither human, nor was killed using excessive force. --Emmy (★) 19:26, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, yea if killing the basilisk made Harry a "murderer" then we all are, I mean I alone have intentionally killed flies, ants, spiders, snakes. And anyone who hunts would be a murderer deer etc. lol, and at least the basilisk was trying to Kill harry so it was self defense, the spider I killed this morning was doing nothing to no one, it was just annoying me. --BachLynn^(Accio!) 19:32, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

If Harry did kill, he did so in self defence, which would not be classed as murder

Current Picture

You can't even see his scar in the current picture. What's the Boy Who Lived without his scar? --Scarletmoon579^{(Talk to me!)} 22:07, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

The picture was voted on and approved by majority decision. If you feel it should change (and if you look at the battle over the Hermione picture from February and March, I suggest you don't), feel free to start a discussion here on the talk page. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 06:00, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Harry's Blood

Harry Potter is a PURE BLOOD! Both his mother and his father were of magical blood. He had absolutely NO muggle parentage therefore making him neither Half-blood or Mudblood (sorry). Really people, please think about what you write! 99.236.189.175 14:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling, the AUTHOR and CREATOR of this series, says he is a HALF-BLOOD. Read this. And perhaps you should listen to your own advice on thinking about what you write. 70.242.123.186 16:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also, read Blood purity. Basically, if you have any admitted muggle lineage you are a Half-blood. --99.22.168.72 16:43, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

And also Harry's mother was a Muggle-born and the Durseleys were Muggles.SeanWheeler 21:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Book

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in the beginning, Harry reads a book. Which book is this. -Danniesen 25/5 2010 22:31

In the POA movie? --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 21:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

It was a History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot. Jayce ^{•Avada Kedavra•Crucio•Imperio•} 21:18, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think both Harry and Ron would laugh at the above comment. -Salazar S

Infobox Image

{{archive |result=No action. |sig=--  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC) |discussion= With the release of an Official Promotional image of Harry Potter from the film adaption of Deathly Hallows I think we should change the infobox image accordingly, as we have done in Hermione Granger article. --El Profeta Vespertino 18:29, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Old image

New image

Support for "Old Image" (File:Dhharryroomhighreso.jpg) (+3)

1. "New image" provides a better view of Harry's face, but Harry's eyes are grey. One of Harry's most recognisable features are his green eyes. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:24, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 14:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
3. There's not much point in changing these images right now, seeing as it is widely agreed we will be using epilogue images for the main characters eventually. Jayden Matthews 15:05, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

--Okay so after seeing the film, I don't think it is really needed to change the pictures to the epilogue pictures especially in Hermione's case. They pretty much looked the same ESPECIALLY Hermione. _—  Firefox1095  _— 19:06, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Reply to Jayden Matthews. But that makes no sense to use the Epilogue pictures. I know you will probably say it is like having a 15-year-old picture of queen Elizabeth on her wikipedia page but the thing is the Harry Potter books were set at the time of them as teenagers. I know Harry Potter wikia uses an in-universe perspective but there must be a few exceptions and it is unfair to base a whole main picture on those few pages in the end of the book. I mean the epilogue is only 5 pages and if you did not even read the epilogue in the books, it wouldn't have mattered much because the story ended in the chapter before that. The Epilogue was like an extra feature in the book. From book 1 to book 7 Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, George, and everyone else are teenagers and that's how it should remain...The pictures of teenagers and not the pictures of the 30-year-old characters. —Firefox1095 01:29, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support for "New Image" (File:Harrypotterdh.jpg) (+2)

• It is a very good view of Harry's face. The face; not the body -- ƃuıuɹoɥʇ^{(Send me an owl)} 13:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. --El Profeta Vespertino 18:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Of course, you can crop again the original image [1], if you want more 'body' than 'face'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Profeta Vespertino (talk • contribs).

Parselmouth or not?

So if the part of Voldemort's soul that was attached to Harry was destroyed, and that was what gave Harry the ability to talk to snakes, is Harry no longer a Parselmouth? Something to think about...RolandaSmithson 02:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

JKR confirmed in an interview that Harry was no longer a parselmouth. 70.244.161.30 02:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sirius and Snape

Something I would like to point out: Both Sirius and Snape see James in Harry and treat him they way they would treat James. Sirius treats Harry like his old friend, James, by encouraging rule-breaking rather than treating him a godson. Snape sees James in Harry's arrogance and misbehavior and treats him as he wishes he could have treated his enemy, James. So Sirius and Snape have a parallel view of Harry (seeing James) with opposite reactions.--64supernoob 22:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

About Harry’s relationships:

Why is it that Ron’s paragraph about his bond with Harry (573 words long) smaller than Ginny’s relationship with Harry (760 words)? Wouldn’t Rons be longer considering that they’ve been through more together? Sure, Ginny and Harry got married and had three children, but most of their adventures together aren’t even mentioned in the series. I would help it myself, but I have a bug in my computer so I can’t help edit the page.

Actually upon re-reading Ron's section, I sort of agree, but where it was a feature article I'd like someone else's opinion before adding too much. I wasn't sure how detailed the Relationship article's should be. It doesn't mention how Ron helped Harry get to the philosopher's stone. Then it doesn't say anything about their interaction between 1994 and 1997. Maybe this information isn't necessary for the relationship page, I don't know. Any thoughts? --BachLynn23 07:36, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Bartholomew Mashingspoon?

Okay, maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I can't find mention in any of my HP books of the name 'Bartholomew Mashingspoon', yet it's listed as one of the 'also known as' name at the right of the page. Does this alias really exist, or is it just someone playing a joke. And if so, could you tell me what book and scene?--Nia River 01:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not book, game. In the GBC version of Chamber of Secrets, Harry calls himself Bartolomew Mashingspoon in order to evade Lockhart's cupids. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Damage

Someone has been fiddling with the article. I tried to fix it but it didn't work.

what needs to be fixed? (and don't forget you need to sign your posts, thanks). --BachLynn23 21:33, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I think that we could change the main image due to the publication of new trailers and promotional images of Harry. This, perhaps?Pol 871 08:33, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Profile 1

Profile 2

Profile 3

Profile 4

Profile 5

Actual Image

I would like Profile 1. In this picture he looks like in the books. His hair looks black and his eyes look a bit greenish because of the green light in the wood. Harry granger 15:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I like #1 also. --BachLynn23 15:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but Harry is a bit dirty in this picture, isn't he?
--The Evening Prophet (Owl Post) 16:25, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

True, but he does spend most of the movies on the run and in battles. --BachLynn23 16:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I saw this too and I agree with BachLynn23. Harry came directly from the first part of the Battle of Hogwarts when he decided to go to Lord Voldemort to let kill himself. Harry granger 16:51, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about #1. I might be the only one, but something about it makes him look a little ghoulish, in my opinion. Personally, I'm leaning towards #2. In that one, with the semi-profile view and looking into the distance, he appears suitably heroic, I think. Plus, his famous lightning bolt scar is on prominent display, rather than partly covered by fringe as it so often is. So yeah, I'd vote #2. (Although, it would be better still if someone could clean up the dark line on the right edge.)--Nia River 23:03, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nia River.Pol 871 09:02, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Profile 1, although Idk much about this Wiki so I don't know if I'm important to vote. lol Griffin87912 00:30, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Sources

What are the sources for all of the stuff that happens in later life for example Kingsley Shacklebolt changing the law and Harry being portrayed on a chocolate frog card? These are unsubstantiated claims, I could understand if they were said in the books but i've never heard any of this before, could somebody put some sources in please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.28.162 (talk • contribs).

They were revealed by JK Rowling, either in interviews given after the book came out or on her website. 70.242.125.59 03:07, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Aurors

After voldemorts death there will ot be any dark-wizards so whats the point of being an auror after voldemorts deathNishant77 08:52, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

There are other dark wizards in the world besides the Death Eaters. Voldemort wasn't the first dark wizard and he won't be the last. 12.51.4.122 09:20, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

reasons of death

is there any reason for voldemort to kill harry or they were just guesssing? Nishant77 09:10, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

See The Prophecy. 12.51.4.122 09:20, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Scar

How much did his scar hurt? Did it hurt just a little, or was it a lot, or was it as bad as the Cruciatus Curse? 75.27.36.231 17:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on what was happening. There are times when it seemed that Harry could ignore the pain, like at the end of his first year, before they saved the Philosopher's Stone. But I think when he was having a vision, the pain was unbearable. I mean it caused him to collapse once. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 18:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Seeker

Was Harry still a seeker in 2017? Maybe he plays for a national team or something? Secret agent clank 10:06, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Harry works as Head of the Auror Department in the Ministry of Magic. Ginny played on the Holyhead Harpies for a while, but quit when she and Harry started their family, and became a Quidditch correspondent for the Daily Prophet. It's in both of their articles. 70.249.152.62 10:18, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

this is the new infoboxpicser van Harry Potter.

Apparation

Did Harry ever learn to apparate? 75.27.36.231 23:33, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Is that a joke or did you not read books 6 and 7?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!! Harry can Apparate and did it without a liscence all through book 7. His first real Apparation was when he Apparated himself and Dumbledore back to Hogsmeade after escaping that terrible cave. In the book version Harry did that himself as Dumbledore was too weak but in the movie Dumbledore took them from and directly to Hogwarts which never happened in the book. First real Apparation and he succeded in doing Side-Along. Don't think anybody else can say that. He managed to Apparate at least once before during traning but only went a few feet.--WarGrowlmon18 23:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

He is correct, Harry illegally Apparates around England throughout Deathly Hallows. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 02:39, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Harry and Schoolwork

Hello.

I'm new here, so I can't edit the page. However, I just want to draw attention to the following segment:

"although he was clever, Harry also lacked intellectual curiosity, rarely putting forth effort into school work; for example, he relied on the notes of the "Half-Blood Prince" to get ahead in his sixth-year Potions class rather than devoting time to studying"

I feel this it is a little unfair to characterize his attitude to work from this single piece of evidence-whilst he did use the Prince's book in Sixth year potions, remember he even went as far as to found the DA in order to learn proper defence. Also, in the Prisoner of Azkaban, it says that he wants to do his homework. The excerpt seems to portray him as lazy when it came to schoolwork. I would say that he is selectively diligent; he puts extensive effort into subjects he enjoys or is good at (i.e, Transfiguration, DADA, Charms), and puts a minimum of effort into the rest. He also frequently is seen doing his homework with the others.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so feel free to slap me down.

Augusta Longbottom 21:45, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

It is Jkr's imagination and u cant go against d author and in d fifth movie he didnt make d D.A. to learn defence against the dark arts but to teach it

Jin kazama7 07:41, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate

I was reading the article and saw that the birthday was incorrect. I have read the books, and know his birthday is August 31, 1980.

Read the books again, he was born on July 31. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 22:15, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

His birthday is definitely July 31.

btw, when is the first mention of that in the books? On page 201 of the American version of GoF, this exchange happens:

Trelawney: I think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in midwinter?

Harry: No, I was born in July.

Later on, at the very top of page 346, Professor Trelawney is telling the class "that the position of Mars with relation to Saturn at that moment meant that people born in July were in great danger of sudden, violent deaths", but that book never specifies the 31^st of July.

there is mention of July 31 on page 51 of the first book, but no connection to that being Harry's birthday. On page 43 it says his birthday is on Tuesday (which i've heard is a mistake). i didn't know that Harry's birthday was July 31 until i saw on a fan site what JKR had said separately from the books. The Knights Who Say Ni 20:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

The fact that his birthday was said to be on Tuesday is not a mistake. People misinterpret this. His birthday was in midnight of Tuesday: in other words, the first minute of wednesday thus that's not a mistake. Also it is known by Trelawney's prophecy that Harry was born as the seventh month dies out so it is known that at least Harry was born in the last week of July.

then you don't get what i said. What I said is: "we know b/c JKR told us that he was born on July 31. Do the books ever use that date directly mentioning it as Harry's birthday?" and page 43 of the first book specifically says:

"If it was Monday — and you could usually count on Dudley to know the days of the week, because of television — then tomorrow, Tuesday, was Harry's eleventh birthday."

This means that today is Monday. and tomorrow is Tuesday. Harry's birthday all day long. from midnight Monday night to midnight Tuesday night. The first night (Monday night/Tuesday morning) is when everything in the Hut on the Rock happened. Also in the fourth book it says Halloween falls on a Saturday, and Halloween that year was a Monday. so yes, it was a mistake. but that was not remotely what the talk post was about. and this talk post was about the irrelevance in general of what day of the week days on the calendar actually fell on. The Knights Who Say Ni 00:20, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

One of the dot points in the 'Behind the scenes' section mentions the Marauders being claimed to have discovered more secret places than anyone else is false. The section claims this is because the Marauders did not find either the chamber of secrets or the room of requirement. The claim was not that they had discovered every secret, just the most. That they missed two out of an entire magical castle does not disprove this. --124.168.30.74 04:46, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Spell

What is the name of the spell that Harry nonverbally used to on the glass in Hagrid's hut in 1997 to get Hagrid and Slughorn drunk???

If it is non-verbal then i dont thinks d spell wil be mentioned Jin kazama7 06:27, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Blood

If Harry's mum and dad were magical but his mother was a muggle-born does that mean he's half-blood.

Well:

Lily Potter	Muggle-Born
James Potter	Pure-Blood
Harry Potter	Half-Blood

Oh, wow I get it now. But is he a half-blood???? Hufflepuff Parseltongue^{(Owl Mail)} 21:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Read this. 70.249.144.239 21:58, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Harry's Main Image

harry's picture does not show his normal apearance as he looks far too curius that normal, so i suggest we should change him to something like in his hogwarts uniform or something.

Despite of the fact that I am not a supporter of the most chronicle image policy especially because they will change the main images used for the characters (the trio to be specific) to the pictures of the 30-year-old characters from the Epilogue when the Deathly Hallows part 2 comes out, I disagree with you. I think Harry's main picture is one of the best in this wikia because it shows him rather normally without looking straight at the camera and smiling but just a picture of him in a normal state (though Curious). The main image is awesome. If you, however, have better images of Harry for the main image, you can feel free to post them in a gallery under this subtitle of yours (right here) and ask an administrator to start a vote for main image change because Main Images must be voted for in an election officially started by an official administrator of the Harry Potter wikia such as BachLynn23, Cavalier One, Seth Cooper, and Grunny. _—  Firefox1095  _— 00:18, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

For want of a comma . . .

The caption under the picture of Harry, as a baby, reads:

"Harry as a baby, faces death."

It desperately need a comma after 'Harry' to set off the independent clause of 'as a baby.' Otherwise a careless reader might think that's the only time Harry faced death.

"Harry, as a baby, faces death."

Although I am a registered user, I'm locked out of the editing function on the page. I tried editing the picture, but that edit button does not include the caption.

Sub-headers and a picture.

"Battle of Hogwarts" and "Returning to Hogwarts" should be actual sub-headings,a

s they are barely noticeable.

Same for the mention of Ravenclaw's Diadem...there is a picture missing there and the paragraph lacks a sub-heading. It would look neater.

(ArcturusHatton 16:19, July 4, 2011 (UTC))

Informational Errors

There are several typos in this article. This is to be expected due to such a long article. Here are a couple I noticed. The first appears in the section on his third school year, PoA. It says that Hermoine told them Buckbeak was to be put on trial/sentenced to death, when (at least in the Movie) it was Hagrid that told them when they went down and asked him (if the book is different than I shall be corrected). Also, I do believe the broom destroyed in PoA at the Hufflepuff match was the Nimbus 2001, not the Firebolt. Didn't he receive the Firebolt from Sirius at the end of the book/movie? I'm still reading, so I will add more if I notice any. Thanks!

It wasn't the Nimbus 2001 or the Firebolt. It was the Nimbus 2000.

Was it Draco and his father that got all of Slytherin team the Nimbus 2001's?

Sad about Harry :(

I'm really sad Harry Potter ended. Whenever I think about Harry, then I feel like crying :'(

Teamcullen 19:52, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Quote and Picture

Now that the final movie is out, and we know that they "why do you live" quote wasn't actually in the movie, shouldn't the quote at the top be changed to one that was actually used in the books or movies. Also, shouldn't the infobox image be updated to an image from the epilogue, since that is the most chronologically recent?Icecreamdif 23:04, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

So the quote really wasn't in the film and I wasn't imagining things. Today I saw the film for the 2nd time but this time in IMAX (I saw it the 1st time the day it came out though in 3D cuz it was sold out) and I still didn't see the "Why do you live? Because I have something worth living for" quote and I thought I might have looked away for a second and missed it but now that you mentioned it, I am sure that it wasn't in the film. It might be an extra scene though that we will see in the DVD release. Oh and the images can not be changed just yet because first there has to be a poll to vote for the image change and also we must wait for the DVD and Bluray release of the film to get clear images of the epilogue. _—  Firefox1095  _— 04:35, July 24, 2011 (UTC)