Talk:Mistakes in the Harry Potter books

Archive 1

The wings of a car

Somebody added the "error" that the Flying Ford Anglia, as depicted on the cover of CoS, "doesn't have wings", so the passage stating that its wings were smeared with mud was supposedly wrong. As another editor pointed out, this was nonsense as in fact all cars have wings (British English "wing" being the same as American English "fender"). Unfortunately they did so by adding this information to the article, compounding the false "error" instead of correcting it (what's known on the TV Tripe for Idiots Wiki as "repair, don't respond"). Hence I've removed the passage. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:12, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

There are, however a few examples of "responding" present on the page, so perhaps it's sometimes best to respond with an explanation, to prevent someone else pointing out the "mistake" in the future? RavenclawDBS (MCKA DevilboyScooby) 20:53, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Once again

Once again I think it needs to be made clear that this topic is for mistakes made  by the AUTHOR.  Mistakes, incomplete knowledge, or bad choices by the characters are part of the story, and are not mistakes by JKR. Wva (talk) 15:46, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Error in PS chapter 1

I've spotted two dubious points in the first chapter of [i]Philosopher's Stone[/i], but I'm not sure if either are serious enough to qualify as "mistakes". Professor McGonagall spends the entirety of 1 November 1981 watching the Dursleys. This raises two issues: (1) This day falls within the Hogwarts school year, as the first holiday is not until Christmas. As far as I know, Hogwarts was not closed during the First Wizarding War. So why is McGonagall not teaching, and why does Dumbledore say "I shall see you soon, I expect", as if he does not see her every day at Hogwarts? (2) Why is McGonagall watching the Dursleys at all if she is surprised to learn at the end of the day that Harry is about to be sent to live there? Is that not a bit of a coincidence?

I imagine the first point has several plausible explanations I might be missing: perhaps McGonagall was not teaching at Hogwarts by then, or lessons were cancelled for a week in celebration (although surely at least Heads of House should still be there to watch the children). I don't understand the second point though. Are either of these serious enough contradictions to be included in the list of mistakes?

They aren't mistakes! :) 

McGonagall was teaching at Hogwarts by then. Since Voldemort was defeated the night before, it was probably a day of celebration and Dumbledore must have permitted her to take leave for the day. She wanted to see whether the Dursleys were suitable to raise Harry. She wasn't surprised by Dumbledore bringing Harry to Privet Drive - she knew what his plans were - but she was surprised to hear Dumbledore still intended to leave Harry there even though she had noticed they were not kind people. She tried to change Dumbledore's mind and she was shocked he wouldn't. I believe what Dumbledore meant by "I shall see you soon, I expect" is that he will be seeing her back at Hogwarts soon - that is where he expects her to be. Hope that helps! --Kates39 (talk) 20:10, 24 September, 2016 (UTC)

There are several possible explanations.  In the Muggle - real - world, it is common for facutly members to be able to take sabbaticals to do research.  For example, at my institution, for every seven years you teach you are allowed to take one year for a sabbatical.  So it is possible that she decided to take a sabbatical that year.  It also is not necessarily true that a teacher has to teach every day of the school week.  In US high schools, teachers usually have free "planning periods" during the day where they can grade papers or work on future lessons.  At Hogwarts, it is possible that teachers have a day or two free from teaching responsibilities to handle their administrative work or to do research.  This is likely to be even more true if she was head of house at the time.  We know the headmaster does not usually teach since there are apparently significant administrative responsibilities he must handle.  So it would not be surprising if a "head of house" was given a day free of teaching responsibilities.  The same for a "head of department" as she apparently was at the time.  All the more so if she was both at the time.  (Even though we run into few professors who are not head of house and/or head of department, the very fact the terms exist suggest that "plain old professors" must exist.) Wva (talk) 20:12, September 24, 2016 (UTC). 

Mistake?

I don't think the second point under the heading The Boy who Lived makes much sense! Could someone help me out and explain why it is a mistake? We know it took Hagrid a day to get Harry to Little Whinging because McGonagall spent it observing the Dursleys. The Potters died the night before on 31 October, everyone celebrated on 1 November. McGonagall observed the Dursleys for the day on 1 November and then Hagrid took Harry to Little Whinging that night. -- Kates39 (talk) 18:59, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Which BTW means that nice and gentle professors Dumbledore and McGonagall let one year old boy almost 24 hours in dirty nappies and without any food (not mentioning, he let one year old boy overnight outside in the English November)?

Mcepl (talk) 09:44, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. I highly doubt McGonagall and Dumbledore left Harry to fend for himself for the day without giving him any food. There are many people who would have cared for him on 1 November. James and Lily die on the night of 31 October. Harry is picked up by Hagrid - we don't know how long he spent with him. McGonagall observes the Dursleys while the Wizarding world celebrates the fall of Voldemort and someone cares for Harry on 1 November. That night, Harry is left on the doorstep of Privet Drive. 

There is no mistake. Rowling intended that to happen. She wanted McGonagall and Dumbledore to leave Harry on the step on 1 November. It is more a question of McGonagall and Dumbledore's carelessness by just leaving him there!

Thereby, I still think the point should be removed since the page is a list of Rowling's actual mistakes - which I don't see here - not whether you think the actions of her characters were good ones! -- Kates39 (talk) 12:05, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that the point is not very clearly made, it's what has been known as the Missing 24 hour problem, which has a long history - JKR herself has answered questions about it. The Alohomora podcast talked again about it recently and The HP Lexicon just updated their related essay.

Rather than remove it, more clarity is needed to raise the point how it's implied that Hagrid both got Harry from Godric's Hollow just as the Muggles were beginning to swarm (early morning 1 Nov) but brought him straight away(?) to Privet Drive (near midnight 1 Nov). I'll look for quotes later, but that's the gist of it. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:35, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I will get started on a better explanation. -- Kates39 (talk) 17:31, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

How can one find dropped Invisibility Cloak?

“I found this at the base of the Whomping Willow,” said Snape, throwing the cloak aside, careful to keep this wand pointing directly at Lupin’s chest. “Very useful, Potter, I thank you. …”

—HP & The Prisoner of Azkaban, chap. 19

How can one found the invisible cloak lying on the ground?

Mcepl (talk) 10:54, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

As described in PS and OP, the cloak is not always invisible. It's only invisible when someone wears it.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:56, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

It's an Invisibility Cloak, not an "invisible" cloak; it doesn't need to be invisible unless someone is wearing it. IIRC, in Philosopher's Stone it's decribed as being "silvery" in appearance when not being worn. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:20, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Possible false "plot hole"?

I've just seen the movie Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (I am housebound, hence don't get to see films until the Blu-Ray comes out), and I'm surprised that so far, nobody on this wiki has raised the point that "if Obscurials usually die before they are ten, how is it that Harry Potter lived for eleven years in the Muggle world with no ill effects at all?". (This point has been raised on the TV Tripe for Idiots Wiki.) To forestall it, do we need warning comments in the page source, pointing out that the reason Harry didn't become an Obscurial is because the Dursleys simply didn't tell him that he was a wizard (or even that there was such a thing as magic), so Harry didn't need to repress his magic and thus was in no danger? — RobertATfm (talk) 13:53, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

JKR has explained this on her website.

https://www.jkrowling.com/welcome-to-my-new-website/

--Rodolphus (talk) 15:35, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

I made a video for Mistakes of the COS book 

[url]https://youtu.be/EcL5o_wkvAg[/url]

[ I’m huge fan of harry potter and jk rowling ... Watch this video as fun video, not Criticism (but it is … kind of) :) ]

[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone:[url]https://youtu.be/p-s05L08I14[/url] ]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Payamsalimi (talk • contribs) 19:59, May 3, 2017 (UTC).

Delphi goes to Azkaban

An editor recently added (since, rightly, reverted):

• On page 293 where they are telling Delphi that she will be taken back to our time Hermione then says in line eight of that page, "And you'll go to Azkaban. Same as your mother." It is possible for her to go to Azkaban (if it is still in use) but the part of her mother being there is false. Bellatrix Lestrange was killed in the Battle for Hogwarts, so the sentence from Hermione should have been "And you'll go to Azkaban."

I don't recall if this was before or after Bellatrix was killed (I've only read Cursed Child once so far), but even if it was after, the figure of speech is still correct. "And you'll go to Azkaban. Same as your mother." is being used to mean "you will go there, just as your mother did", not necessarily "you will go there to join your mother". — Evilquoll (talk) 10:37, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Why don't the books from Harry potter and the goblit of fire onwards (up to Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) have the chapter headings like in the books before them? Are peple working on that or is this how the page is going to stay?

Audiogamer22 (talk) 18:00, November 1, 2017 (UTC) 17:55, November 1, 2017 (UTC)Audiogamer22 (talk)

Mistakes with Fidelius Charm?

I have published what for me are some mistakes in the page but it has been removed and I don't know why.

My point is this: in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry, Ron and Hermione went to Grimmauld Place beacuse they thought it was the safer place to be since, among the Death Eaters, only Snape could enter. Why this?

• I know that he was good and he didn't want Harry to be killed but why didn't Voldemort ask him to reveal the name of the place since after Dumbledore's death he knew that Snape was a Secret Keeper?

• And since Harry, Ron and Hermione knew very well how the Charm work why were they sure about the fact that Snape had not revealed it?

• Moreover, we know that the secret could be told not only by telling it directly (thing that could have happened despite the Tongue-Tying Curse as we know that Snape later in the book could speak without any problem) but also by writing it on a piece of parchment as Dumbledore did with Harry, so even in the case Mad-Eye's Charm would have been effective Snape could have told Death Eaters and Voldemort how to enter.

• Finally, if Voldemort didn't know that the house could be a place for Harry to stay, why did he send so many Death Eaters without giving them a way to enter - that is: make Snape tell them the secret?

And another doubt is: when Hermione let Yaxley enter in the Fidelius Charm (so telling him the secret) why did she say that he could have let other Death Eaters enter inside the house? For sure she knew that Yaxley was not the Secret Keeper and he couldn't bring anyone inside, so how is it possible that she committed such a big mistake?

Has someone an explanation for these?

TheHunter94 (talk) 19:04, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

A very simple explanation: characters are not omniscient.

This charm is described as an "immensely complex" bit of magic.  Therefore, there is reason to believe that the vast majority of wizards have never even heard of it, let alone understand the details of how it works.  In addition, since it is apparently incredibly rare, the magical world itself probably hasn't discovered all of the details about the charm.

Keep in mind that Dumbledore said of Voldemort, (paraphrased), "What he does not value he makes no effort to understand."  Since this charm is based on friendship and loyalty - things that Voldemort despises - it makes perfect sense that he knows absolutely nothing about this charm.  It also makes sense that the Death Eaters were equally ignorant about the charm.  They didn't know that everyone became "secret-keepers" on Dumbledore's death, and it is certain that Snape never bothered to tell them with this detail.  Voldemort didn't tell Snape to let everyone into the house because Voldemort did not know that Snape became a secret-keeper on Dumbledore's death.

They were certain that Snape had not told the secret to the Death Eaters because the Death Eaters were not waiting for them  in the house.  It became perfectly clear when they saw  all the Death Eaters in the square staring at the house waiting for them to leave.  They wrongly thought that this was because of the "tongue-tying" curse, but the effect was the same.  We also know nothing about the nature of the "tongue-tying" curse; despite its name, it may prevent information from being communicated in any manner.  (Also, remember that according to JKR Snape entered the house BEFORE Mad-Eye created these curses, so we have no idea what effect they might have had on Snape.)

It is not clear if the Death Eaters knew the trio was in the house.  It is possible that the "taboo" alerted them to the fact but they could not enter due to the Fidelius Charm.  Or, it is equally possible that they had no idea they were there, but this was one of the locations they were staking out "just in case."  (Remember, in the books Lupin told them they were watching every Order-connected property, and the movie shows Yaxley entering Hermione's old home.)

As for Hermione, she likely made a mistake about the effects of bringing Yaxley within the range of the Charm.  Again, characters under extreme stress make mistakes; if they didn't do this the characters would be unrealistic, and there would be no story.  More charitably, it is possible that upon reflection Hermione didn't know for certain what the effects would be, but decided that the RISK of going back to the house or calling Kreacher was too great. Wva (talk) 04:55, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Ginny's eyes in CS?

At which point in CS does it describe Ginny's eyes as green? The only time I think her eyes were mentioned is in the Burrow chapter, where they are correctly described as brown.--Rodolphus (talk) 16:58, April 2, 2018 (UTC)

Even if Ginny's eyes are green in CS, when she is 11, that doesn't preclude their turning brown when she gets past puberty. It often happens that children have a small amount of iris pigment when young, and the true colour develops as they grow older. I saw this happen in a kitten my family had once. — evilquoll (talk) 17:23, April 2, 2018 (UTC)

From what I can find, it appears Ginny's eyes might have been described as green in the UK edition, but then changed to brown in the US edition. My US first edition has: "Harry just caught sight of a pair of bright brown eyes staring at him before it closed with a snap." Anyone have a UK first edition to check? --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:02, April 2, 2018 (UTC)

Digging a bit deeper, I can confirm that in the US version of the COS audiobook, Ginny is described in this passage as having green eyes, whereas the UK version of the audiobook she is said to have brown eyes. I'll update the article to note this distinction, but if someone has a UK first edition of COS to check, that would be helpful information to know as well. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:20, April 2, 2018 (UTC)

"Literally" the whole school?

The following passage was yesterday deleted:

• It also remains unknown how literally the whole of Hogwarts School (thousands of students) could possibly all fit into one crowded second floor corridor which could barely contain the entire school.

This deletion was done on the grounds of the use of "literally" being "informal". Really? This passage has always struck me as "literally" being used in its original meaning, that of "in actual fact", rather than as a general-purpose intensifier as it is so often used. — evilquoll (talk) 09:54, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Because it is not "literally" in its original meaning. The entire school was not there. The students from the classes in that corridor were the only ones there, with certain teachers and Ernie Macmillan showing up. But not the entire school. It was never stated such nor implied. Murali9395 (talk) 23:01, June 11, 2018 (UTC)

Memory charms mistake in Deathly Hallows?

I've been re-listening to the UK version of the audiobooks lately (by Stephen Fry), I don't have my UK edition book on hand to check.
In chapter 6 The Ghoul In Pajamas, Hermione explains to Harry all she's done for their departure: "I've also modified my parents memories, so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins...".
Then in chapter 9 A Place To Hide, when they fight Dolohov and Rowle in the café, Harry decides to wipe their memories, Ron says: "but I've never done a memory charm" and Hermione says "Nor have I, but I know the theory".
Has she or has she not done a memory charm on her parents? Or was it a different form of spell she cast on them? Ssephill (talk) 10:48, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

Not a mistake. Hermione did not use a Memory Charm (Obliviate) which erases memories. She used a memory modifier. MJLogan95 (talk) 19:09, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

One would think that a memory modification as complex as she did on her parents would be the next step after learning to simply wipe an event from memory though. Ssephill (talk) 15:27, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

GoF ch17 "mistake"

A mistake in Goblet of Fire, Chapter 17, is listed but I don't think it's a mistake at all?

Harry is said to be facing competitors who'd had three years more magical education than he had. But Cedric was only two full school years above Harry being 17 years old, so he'd only had two years more magical education than Harry, having been in his 7th and final year of Hogwarts. However, Harry could have simply been referring to their ages and not their exact years of magical knowledge.

Harry is in his 4th year. Cedric and the other competitors are in their 7th year. This means that Cedric has completed his 4th, 5th and 6th year in addition to Harry's years 1 to 3. JosineZ (talk) 20:53, April 7, 2020 (UTC)

On chapter 11 of Half Blood Prince:

On chapter 11 of Half Blood Prince:

the page says it's a mistake that first years were at the try-outs for Harry's team because first years aren't allowed on the team. Hoever, the books don't say that first years cannot join the Quidditch Teams. First years are only forbidden to have their own brooms, meaning that IF they want to join a Quidditch team, they must use school brooms. And Harry was exempt from that rule; Wood stated in the first book that they had to get Harry a decent broom, not one of the school brooms, and McGonagall agreed to try and bend the rules a bit, so that Harry could get a broom.

Ron, in the first book, says excitedly "First years never get picked for their house teams" and that Harry must be the youngest player in over a century. However, there is no rule that prohibits first years from joining the team. They just never get chosen, likely because of the crappy brooms.

CherryDot (talk) 22:45, July 12, 2020 (UTC)CherryDot

Film mistakes?

Are we going to create one? Because I just noticed a glaring one in GoF. In the scene where the Champions are selected, Fred (or George.) sits with Harry. But then, Fred AND George sit on the other side of the hall with Ginny and some others. Pauldarklord (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We have pages for each film, and they have sub-sections for film mistakes. I suppose we could put every error on one page together, if you want to set one up and transfer everything to it. If not, you can check if the one you found has been included on the GOF film page and add it if it hasn't. - Kates39 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Progressive development of the Universe

I don't know whether to make this into one mistake (e.g., Dumbledore flying to London on a broom in the first book), but there should be some explanation of the source of many in-universe suspicious things, that is the Progressive development of the Universe. Why did Dumbledore fly to London on a broom in the end of the first book? Would you like to enjoy lovely five and half hour flight (considering the travel speed of a broom 150 km/h and distance around 800 km, which is probably a way optimistic estimate of the speed of broom)? Wouldn’t it make much more sense for him to Apparate, use a Portkey or Floo from his office?

Outside-of-universe answer is that no other mode of magical transportation have been discovered in books yet. Even humble Floo is from the Second book (when Harry ended up in the Knockturn Alley), not mentioning Portkey from the Third Book (Quidditch World Cup) and Apparition from the sixth book (Harry and Dumbledore travel to visit Slughorn).

There are many other such problems which lead to all those conspiracy theories about evil or manipulative Dumbledore. Why there wasn’t the age line in front of the Fluffy’s corridor (it wasn’t “discovered” before the fourth book)? And other ones. Mcepl (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Harry summoning the egg

A mistake has been added to "The egg and the eye chapter" about Harry not summoning the egg. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that it is uwas said in the past that a mistake a character makes is considered a part of the storyline and not a mistake. Harry just did no think of this possibility. Also, didn't Barty pick the Mao up vefore? Based on this, I think it should be removed. What do you think?Rodolphus (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also if Harry would have Summoned the Map, wouldn't there be a possibility of others seing the spells effect without the caster?Rodolphus (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the book specifically say the contestants didn't think of the possibility? If not, I would say it's a mistake. MalchonC (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about the mistake described in the "The egg and the eye" section of the article, not the first task. Harry didn't think of using the Summoning Charm when he lost the egg leaving the Prefect's Bathroom and was nearly caught by Filch and Snape. His thoughts are describbed in that scene, so we know Harry didn't think of it (At least if I remenber correctly) and if he wozld have used it, someone could have scene the Map and the egg flying towards the invisible Harry. Rodolphus (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, then probably it isn't a mistake. People get flustered in situations like this, so it's perfectly normal. MalchonC (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

this mistake

owl post . No. 3 hermy prob didn’t know about the eu not having customs checks just saying —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymeijiang (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC).

Chapter 2: In Memoriam

"It is said that Harry never learned how to repair wounds, but he did learn at least one spell for such a purpose: Episkey"

Episkey fixed a broken bone, which isn't necessarily a wound. -RogueOwner (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just re-read the chapter and he used the spell to heal broken lip. -RogueOwner (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Fawkes in the Chamber of Secrets

"It is unclear how Fawkes spoke Parseltongue to enter the Chamber of Secrets to intercede Harry"

Harry opened the entrance when he, Ron and Gilderoy entered the pipe. -RogueOwner (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Book 1, Chapter 2

Hey everybody! I was reading through this article and came by what I believe to be a mistake, but I wanted to see if I was missing context. The article states: "After Harry talks to the snake, Dudley says "You won't believe what this snake is doing", but if Harry had spoken Parseltongue Dudley should have said "You wont believe what Harry is doing."

This doesn't make sense, considering I recall that Dudley was talking about the snake moving around and being close to the glass, not Harry speaking to the snake. Can someone clarify this for me? The next sentence doesn't make sense either. Thanks!  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       19:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The editor is suggesting that Dudley should have been more amazed about Harry's ability to speak different language than a snake moving its head. -RogueOwner (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the text of the article has been updated since the last time I viewed it. The information added still wouldn't make a lot of sense, considering there is nothing to insinuate that Dudley heard Harry speak parseltongue or talk at all. Remember, Dudley was behind him looking at something else before he ran over. To quote the book:

"The boa constrictor jabbed its tail at the sign again and Harry read on: This specimen was bred in the zoo. “Oh, I see — so you’ve never been to Brazil?” As the snake shook its head, a deafening shout behind Harry made both of them jump. “DUDLEY! MR. DURSLEY! COME AND LOOK AT THIS SNAKE! YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT IT’S DOING!”).

I see no compelling reason based on the text from the book and scene in the film to include the mistake at all. Even if Dudley, Piers, and Uncle Vernon all heard Harry speaking to the snake, the fact that the editor included "After Harry talks to the snake, Dudley says "You won't believe what this snake is doing", but if Harry had spoken Parseltongue Dudley should have been more amazed about that than a snake moving its head, so it seems plausible that his line was intended to be "You wont believe what Harry is doing" shows that they personally believe that that should have been the reason they all ran over, but it clearly wasn't. Seems fairly speculative to me. Any other thoughts?  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       22:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well first off the fact that this article mentions Dudley saying "you won't believe what this snake is doing" is wrong in and of itself as that happened in the film, and this article is about book mistakes; that aside, I think I would agree that this event should not be listed as a mistake here; it could very easily be explained as that Piers simply did not hear Harry and the snake talking. Though I don't imagine parseltongue sounds much more to a muggle ear than strange hissing noises anyway. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Clear to me in both cases that it is not a mistake, neither in the book nor in the film.
In the book, Piers reacts to the snake's change in attitude.
Book excerpt: As the snake shook its head, a deafening scream behind Harry made them both flinch. -Dudley! Mr. Dursley! Come and look at the snake! You won't believe what it does!"

In the film, Dudley shouts (because Piers is not present): -- Mummy, Dad, you won't believe what this snake is doing -- Dudley also reacts to the snake's change of posture (suddenly moving) and not to Harry's "conversation" with the snake, he didn't notice that at all. LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the discussion on this page and the lack of any objection to doing so, I have gone ahead and removed that article entry. I wanted to get another set of eyes on this because I wasn't confident that I was interpreting it correctly. A big "thank you!" to everyone that contributed.  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       23:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries 👍 -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Mistake "Chapter 17: The Four Champions"

Harry is said to be facing competitors who'd had three years more magical education than he had. But Cedric was only two full school years above Harry, so he'd only had two years' more magical education than Harry. However, Harry could have simply been referring to their ages and not their exact years of magical knowledge.
The book never says that all of Harry's competitors are three years above him: just that Harry would be up against those who are. Given that Cedric Diggory is only two years above Harry, "competitors who'd had three years' more magical education than he had" could be taken to mean Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour but not Cedric Diggory.

I cannot find the above statement in this chapter.
Harry's competitors are 3 years older than him (Harry celebrated his 14th birthday on 31/07/1994).
The competitors must be 17 years old to enter the tournament.
In addition, Cedric is 3 years further along in his education. Harry starts 4th grade, Cedric starts 7th (finished 4th, 5th, 6th grade). Cedric was born in September or October 1977. He was not yet allowed to Disapparate for the 1994 Quidditch World Cup, so he took a Portkey with his father (HP 4 Ch. 6).
But he is allowed to take part in the Triwizard Tournament because he has come of age in the meantime.
Where is there a mistake?LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement is on page 248. And Cedric was in 6th year, not 7th. AdamPlenty (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I found it, thanks for the info.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Mistake "Chapter 11: The Firebold

Perhaps one should finally accept that almost all the time indications in the books do not correspond to reality.
1 November 1981, when the story begins, was a Sunday in reality. In the book "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" it was a Tuesday.
Therefore, hardly any of the dates in the books correspond to reality. And I can't call them mistakes. Especially not on which day the moon was full. As long as it is conclusive in the books, the dates should not be called errors and any explanations given.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Chapter 23: Horcruxes

Where in Book 6 does it say that the old man is Frank Bryce?
Dumbledore uses this fact, the death of an old man by Nagini, to imply that Voldemort was considering perhaps creating Nagini as his final Horcrux.
Anything else is speculation and not a mistake in the book. LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Whom else could Dumbledore have been referring to? Bryce was the only old Muggle man whose death at the hands of Voldemort or Nagini Dumbledore could have been aware of. Dumbledore also says there was an 'interval of some years' between the attempted murder of Harry Potter and this murder, which again leads to Bryce being the person referred to. It is also known that this was around the time Bertha Jorkins disappeared, which also leads to Bryce, for no other old Muggle man is ever even suggested to have been killed around this time. Even if it was someone else, how could Dumbledore have known about it? Even he was not aware of Voldemort and Nagini's movements. Either way, this is a mistake. AdamPlenty (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Voldemort killed Bertha Jorkins first before Frank Bryce. With Jorkins' death, Voldemort created his last Horcrux -- Nagini.
Why would Dumbledore refer to Bryce if Voldemort had already made Nagini into a Horcrux?

Voldemort had killed a Muggle vagrant to make Slytherin's medallion and an Albanian peasant for Ravenclaw's diadem into Horcruxes. Dumbledore could also be referring to these two.
Besides, you yourself write "probably" and "if", "it is possible", so it's all speculation and not a clear mistake.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"Voldemort killed Bertha Jorkins first before Frank Bryce. With Jorkins' death, Voldemort created his last Horcrux -- Nagini. Why would Dumbledore refer to Bryce if Voldemort had already made Nagini into a Horcrux?" Dumbledore did not say that Nagini had already been turned into a Horcrux; he was speculating that this murder (Bryce's) was the one used to do so.

"Voldemort had killed a Muggle vagrant to make Slytherin's medallion and an Albanian peasant for Ravenclaw's diadem into Horcruxes. Dumbledore could also be referring to these two." No, because those happened before his attempted murder of Harry Potter. Dumbledore clearly states that this murder happened years after.

"Besides, you yourself write "probably" and "if", "it is possible", so it's all speculation and not a clear mistake." Yes, it is a mistake, unless you or someone else can state whom else he might have canonically been referring to and explain how he could have known. All the signs point to Bryce, and no other old Muggle man is ever even implied to have been killed by Nagini around that time. AdamPlenty (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Dumbledore knows that a Muggle named Frank Bryce is missing. Not how he died. He assumes that the Muggle was eaten by Nagini because his body was not found.

Harry never told Dumbledore or Sirius about his "dream" of Bryce's murder.

Only that his scar hurt.

Harry didn't know that the missing Muggle that Dumbledore reported was Frank Bryce.

Harry didn't say that Bryce came from Voldemort's wand in his report to Dumbledore and Sirius either, only that an old man came from the wand.

Dumbledore had no connection "Harry's old man" was Bryce.

Therefore, Dumbledore could still assume that Bryce had been killed by Nagini, and the killing of Bryce gave Voldemort the idea of making Nagini his final Horcrux.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Harry never told Dumbledore or Sirius about his "dream" of Bryce's murder." Yes, that's part of the mistake; Dumbledore would had to have had knowledge of how he died to make such a statement. There's no reason to assume Nagini ate him (even if she did, that's not what Dumbledore said; he said Nagini killed him, which isn't the case and is therefore another mistake, nor would Dumbledore have had any way of knowing unless Harry told him, which he didn't) just because his body was never found; for all we know (or Dumbledore knew!), Pettigrew could have vanished the body, or transfigured and buried it, like Barty Crouch Junior did with Barty Crouch Senior's body.

"Harry didn't know that the missing Muggle that Dumbledore reported was Frank Bryce." Yes he did; Dumbledore told him.

"Harry didn't say that Bryce came from Voldemort's wand in his report to Dumbledore and Sirius either, only that an old man came from the wand." Dumbledore would have deduced it was Frank Bryce, but he therefore should have known that he therefore couldn't have been killed by Nagini, which is yet another mistake. Otherwise, how did he know that an old Muggle man had been killed, or that Nagini was in any way involved? (indeed, how did he know Nagini was involved anyway, as Harry never told him about his "dream"?) A mistake either way.

"Therefore, Dumbledore could still assume that Bryce had been killed by Nagini, and the killing of Bryce gave Voldemort the idea of making Nagini his final Horcrux." Nagini had already been made into a Horcrux; Bertha Jorkins's death was used. But Dumbledore did not know this, hence his speculation that Bryce's murder was the one used. AdamPlenty (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I give up. It makes no sense for me to talk past each other.

In my opinion, the whole article "Mistakes in the Harry Potter books" consists of too many "it's possible", "maybe", "could be" etc. for it to be meaningful anyway.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Chapter 9: The Half-Blood Prince

Is Harry becoming captain over Katie Bell really a mistake? There's nothing to suggest that only students in the latest year amongst the team are eligible for captaincy (it is even noted that this is an assumption, but it's a baseless one if you think about it). Surely, a student's temperament and leadership skills are also taken into consideration; just because a student is in a higher year doesn't mean they'll be a better captain. AdamPlenty (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And another thing: Harry joined the team in his first year via special exemption from the first-year rule, which means Katie joined in her second year. Therefore, they'd both have the same amount of experience being on the team, Harry's ban in his fifth year notwithstanding. AdamPlenty (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)