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)

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)

Infobox Image

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

No action. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

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)

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).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, a question just popped up in my head, if harry can turn a teapot into a toad, how come he can't cure his own eye problems?

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)

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)