Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Changes: Talk:Petunia Dursley

Edit

Back to page

m (moved Talk:Petunia Evans to Talk:Petunia Dursley over redirect: We use the surname most used throughout the series. Lily's page is at Evans because she's mostly referred to as flashbacks to before her death.)
(Infobox image)
 
(99 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
   
 
My point exactly.I also believe Petunia was born in 1958,not 1959.Thats why I keep changing the dates. [[Special:Contributions/85.75.74.179|85.75.74.179]] 12:16, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
 
My point exactly.I also believe Petunia was born in 1958,not 1959.Thats why I keep changing the dates. [[Special:Contributions/85.75.74.179|85.75.74.179]] 12:16, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
It has been changed back to 1959 and I'd like to know where's the proof that 1959 is correct. Whoever changed it back didn't think it necessary to prove their opinion. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 19:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
   
 
== Death ==
 
== Death ==
Line 34: Line 36:
   
 
Im gonna say it once more.The way you write it,it lokks like Petunia died in 1997.Thats why I keep reverting the article. [[Special:Contributions/85.75.119.29|85.75.119.29]] 16:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 
Im gonna say it once more.The way you write it,it lokks like Petunia died in 1997.Thats why I keep reverting the article. [[Special:Contributions/85.75.119.29|85.75.119.29]] 16:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
Someone seems not to have understood your point. The way it is written it really sounds as if she died in 1997. But she didn't; the Dursleys were just shoved out of the way in case Voldemort was trying to get at them in his effort to catch Harry. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 19:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
   
 
== Middle name? ==
 
== Middle name? ==
Line 50: Line 54:
   
 
I was curious about this too, actually. I've seen here reference said subplot, and from the time that she denied Petunia being a Squib but said she was something "very different" I'm guessing it was to do with her, but I can;t for the life of me find here actually flat out saying who it was supposed to be. If someone does know and an share the link I'd be eternally grateful—[[user:Green Zubat|Green Zubat]] ([[User talk:Green Zubat|owl me!]]). 00:36, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
 
I was curious about this too, actually. I've seen here reference said subplot, and from the time that she denied Petunia being a Squib but said she was something "very different" I'm guessing it was to do with her, but I can;t for the life of me find here actually flat out saying who it was supposed to be. If someone does know and an share the link I'd be eternally grateful—[[user:Green Zubat|Green Zubat]] ([[User talk:Green Zubat|owl me!]]). 00:36, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
== The original Aunt Petunia? ==
  +
  +
Just though I'd mention another pop-culture character called "Aunt Petunia", which may or may not have influenced JKR's choice of name.
  +
  +
The Fantastic Four's Thing (Ben Grimm) also grew up as an orphan, and was raised by his Aunt Petunia and Uncle (Jacob). In contrast though, they were kind; Petunia was his "favourite aunt".
  +
  +
The Thing often mentions his "Aunt Petunia", and it's possible that JKR may have encountered the name here, even if she wasn't directly referencing it in the books, or had even forgotten having heard it. According to the [[w:c:marvel:Petunia Grimm (Earth-616)|Petunia Grimm Marvel Wiki article]], the Thing "has made numerous references to Aunt Petunia over the years." --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">[[user:xensyria|xensyria]]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>[[user talk:xensyria|T]]</sup></span> 19:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
{{Archive
  +
|result=Consensus reached by 4 to 1, proposal for idea of "half-blood muggles" rejected.
  +
|sig=[[User:Nick O'Demus|<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus</font>]] 09:48, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
|discussion=
  +
==Actually a half-blood?==
  +
I've been doing some thinking; a 'muggleborn' witch, like Petunia's sister comes from a dormant magical gene, right?
  +
  +
That means that Lily and Petunia have a wizard ancestor; thus there must be a squib somewhere - most likely from the wizard; this means that they're '''''NOT '''''a 'muggleborn' and 'muggle' at all. Thought it's a distant relation, the squib would have married a mugle and had a half-blood child; this halfblood child would have married a muggle and had a half-blood child and so on down the line until Mr. (or Mrs.) Evans.
  +
  +
This, in turn means that both Lily and Petunia - despite being classed as a 'muggleborn' and 'muggle' are actually half-bloods. It's only a distant and diluted link but the gene is there - as evidenced by Lily inheriting it - so can we change their "blood status" to halfblood? [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 22:54, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:No, because that would mean that every Muggle or Muggle-born would be a half-blood. Because their parents did not exhibit magical ability, and neither did their grandparents, Petunia is a Muggle, and because Lily can do magic, she is a Muggle-born witch. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 23:00, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Aye, but all the ancestors descending from the witch (or wizard) would be squibs; there WOULD still be magical blood there, thus they would be half-bloods, the same for ALL muggleborns. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:13, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
::Then what, exactly, is a Muggle-born, by your definition? '''Our definition of "half-blood" comes directly from Rowling via interviews, and specifies that either their parents or grandparents are a mix of both Muggles and wizards.''' Aside from this, Lily is directly referred to as Muggle-born in canon, and Petunia is called a Muggle. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User_talk:1337star|Drop me a line!]])</sup> 23:31, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::It's stated, is it not, that the gene for muggleborn comes from a squib ancestor? If there is a sqib ancestor, there must thus, to create the squib, be a WIZARD ancestor; it's diluted, but still there - as Lily inherited it - so she '''''is '''''a half-blood, it's just several hundred years down the line and everyone thinks the squibs have become muggles. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:34, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::I'm not going to spend the time reiterating what I've already said. Your most recent reply directly contradicts what I've already said, and I've even gone back to my last reply and bolded it. Unless you have new evidence, I'm not going to respond further to this. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User_talk:1337star|Drop me a line!]])</sup> 23:42, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Here. [[File:For_wiki.png|300px]] <--- click. THIS is what I mean. They '''''are''''' half-bloods. --[[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:45, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Your chart is inherently flawed. The non-magic child of a Muggle and a Squib is a Muggle, for starters. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User_talk:1337star|Drop me a line!]])</sup> 23:47, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::By title '''''ONLY. '''''There's magical blood there and they do have magical ancestors, thus they '''''are''''' half-blood. So, by association - and means of descent from said squib - Lily and Petunia are half-bloods. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:48, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::What do you think the whole blood statuses business is, apart from "title only"? Rowling has said herself, "''The expressions ‘pure-blood’, ‘half-blood’ and ‘Muggle-born’ have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudice.''"
  +
  +
:::::Your chart '''is''' flawed, like 1337star pointed out. If we are to take it as correct, kindly present a definition of "Muggle-born". -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 00:10, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::muggle-born: a witch (or wizard) born to two non-magic parents. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 00:15, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::Mr and Mrs Evans were non-magical. Lily was born to them. She is Muggle-born. Petunia was born of the same non-magical parents. Petunia was non-magical. Petunia was a Muggle. QED. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 00:19, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::Wizard/squib ancestor - means one side of the descent (either Mrs. Evans' mother or father or Mr. Evans' mother or father) has magical blood, making them (and all their descendants) half-blood, thus Lily and Petunia are a half-blood.
  +
  +
:::::Example: Wizard married Witch/squib (or vice versa, witch married wizard/squib) and they had a squib, that squib married Mr. Evans' ancestor - this line, still half-blood despite being called muggle due to all the squibs - eventually reaches Mr. Evans, who marries Mrs. Evans and has Lily and Petunia; Mr. Evans (or Mrs. Evans if it is her ancestor) is a half-blood through the wizard and squib ancestry and so the offspring of the marriage - Lily and Petunia - are half-bloods, as in turn, is Dudley being Petunia's child. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 00:24, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::That logic makes the classification of "Muggle-born" redunant and inexistent. By that logic, ALL Muggle-borns are Half-bloods because ALL of them must've had some Squib ancestor who married Muggles and produced non-magical offspring. Define "Half-blood". -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 00:46, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Half-blood; one or more wizard parents with muggle ancestry.
  +
::::Pure-blood: no muggle ancestry at all. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 00:49, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::I would disagree with your definition of "Pure-blood" (and so would Dumbledore, vehemently so), but I'd be digressing.
  +
  +
:::Your argument pretty much defeated itself, there. The Evans sisters did not have '''wizard''' parents with Muggle ancestry. They ''were'' Muggles themselves. Note that the three possible combinations of half-blood ancestry are: a) One pure- or half-blood parent, one Muggle parent; b) One pure- or half-blood parent, one Muggle-born parent; or c) Two magical parents, known Muggle ancestry (i.e. Half-bloods themselves, or a combination of half- and pure-blood); none of which are the case of either Lily (Muggle-born witch) or Petunia (plain ol' Muggle). -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 01:11, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::That's not technically true; they have a wizard ancestor (we know this due to Lily inheriting the gene through a squib) so there's magical blood regardless - no-onecan deny that. This means that they are half-bloods.
  +
  +
:::Wizard/squib + muggle = muggle (by title only) and actually half-blood (as by your above comment that have "One pure- or half-blood parent and one muggle parent", correct? Thus, the offspring of that would also be half-blood; then, marrying a muggle and having a child would create ANOTHER half-blood, despite being called a muggle - and the line continues on downwards to Mr or Mrs. Evans. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 01:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::'''Half-bloods are wizards''', by definition! There's no such thing as an "Half-blood Muggle", the concept would be absurd to the people who came up with the concept of blood purity. People with no magical ability are Muggles, and that's that (safe, of course, the special case of Squibs) -- the whole premise of a concept of Blood purity is that it is wizard-centered. The "One pure- or half-blood parent and one muggle parent" = Half-blood equation only holds true for wizards! Accepting what you say is admitting that the Lucius Malfoys of the world actually ''cared'' whether a Muggle was this or that: it was a Muggle, it had no magical ability, it was inferior.
  +
  +
::There's no such thing as a distinction between "by title" or "in actuality", in fact, I'm not sure where this distinction is even ''hinted'' at in canon. The non-magical offspring of a Squib and a Muggle are Muggle, and that's all there is to it. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 01:41, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
It's like this Seth ---> [[File:2233322323.png|250px]] --[[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 01:44, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Sorry, but no; as has been stated numerous times up and down the page, there's ''no such thing as a half-blood Muggle''. [http://web.archive.org/web/20110806214249/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58 the Evans are Muggles, their ''witch'' daughter is Muggle-born, Harry is half-blood because of his ''pure-blood father'']; there is not enough wizard blood in them for the Evans to be wizard and witch, therefore they don't get a blood status. It's like how if we go back far enough we're all (supposedly) from [[Africa]], but you don't go around saying you're half-African. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 02:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Wizard + muggle = half-blood, thus any and ALL descendants - Lily and Petunia included - would be halfbloods. That's why Rose and Hugo are half-bloods, the muggle blood of whichever of Hermione's ancestors does not have the magical gene purges it.
  +
  +
:::The half-blood offspring of a wizard and a muggle, who married a muggle would have a half-blood squib offspring - who in turn would have a half-blood squib offspring with another muggle. And the cycle goes on, thus making Lily and Petunia half-bloods.
  +
  +
:::Point. Made. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 03:10, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Look, I'm going to make this as simple has possible. Your entire argument hinges on a flawed, or rather overly simplified, definition of half-blood. You've already been told the correct definition several times, and it is not simply "wizard + Muggle". Merely restating the same point over and over again doesn't make it any more true. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User_talk:1337star|Drop me a line!]])</sup> 03:33, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::I'm merely repeating what Seth said. The offspring of a wizard and muggle IS (and no-one can deny it) a half-blood. Thus, any and all offspring they have - no matter how distant - is a half-blood all the way down the line, this includes Lily and Petunia. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 11:05, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::You are '''not''' repeating what I said, you are taking a piece of explanation and using it as your argument, while systematically ignorning all the rest. The offspring of a wizard and a Muggle is an half-blood '''if, and only if''' said offspring is a '''wizard'''. If the offspring of a wizard and a Muggle does not possess magical powers, then they are Squibs. The non-magical offspring of that Squib and a Muggle would be a Muggle. Simple as that. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 18:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::Given the confusion already rampant in this discussion, I figure I should clarify one thing. The non-magical offspring of a wizard and a Muggle is a Muggle, not a Squib (as confirmed in Lockhart's Pottermore bio). -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User_talk:1337star|Drop me a line!]])</sup> 19:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Anyway, we don't have any proof whether the Evanses have magical blood down the line of their ancestors. It's entirely possible that a muggle-born wizard or witch is subject to a spontaneous genetical mutation. So let's just remain with Petunia being a Muggle. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 19:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::1337star, thank you for bringing that up to my attention. Apparently there is contradictory evidence to what constitutes a Squib: ''Pottermore'' says that a non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle is a Muggle; but Rowling had previously said that a Squib was "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070606214416/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 a non-magical person born to ''at least'' one magical parent]" (that'd make the non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle a Squib). Bummer. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 19:36, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Yes, and Pottermore is the higher canon, being the most recet; THUS, as I said "half-blood + muggle that has squib = half-blood". Half-blood squib + Muggle (as you yourself say DIRECTLY ABOVE) = half-blood squib as the squib is a magical parent as they can see everything still and have the ability to  have magical offspring. Thus, as I said RIGHT FROM THE FRACKING START, Petunia and Lily ARE half-bloods.
  +
  +
:::Example: Wizard + muggle = half-blood squib
  +
:::Half-blood squib + muggle = half-blood squib (since the former squib is magical as they can see the magical world, dementors, etc - as confirmed by Mrs. Figg - and can have magical offspring).
  +
:::Line continues like this until Mr. (or Mrs.) Evans, making Lily and Petunia half-bloods; Petunia a "half-blood squib" and Lily a "half-blood witch."
  +
:::I shall expect your apologies in due course. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 22:36, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Meaning no disrespect, but this is actually the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's like saying, if your great-great-great grandfather was Spanish, that you therefore were Spanish because it continues down the line that every new person is Spanish, with no dilution of the blood occurring.
  +
:To use the phrase you used in a different conversation: "the admins have spoken". As have 1337star and myself. And so has "Josef D.". --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 22:41, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Now, who's being ridiculous; if you have a great-great-great-grandfather who was Spanish you would be 1/8th Spanish.
  +
:As Seth posted - and I DIRECTLY FRACKING QUOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  "but Rowling had previously said that a Squib was "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070606214416/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent]" (that'd make the non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle a Squib)."
  +
:Thus, as I said a SQUIB (read!!!!!! SQUIBBBBBBB!!!!!!!!!!!!) plus a MUGGLE would have a SQUIB (READ! SQUIB, SEEEE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!)
  +
:This means that if a wizard + a muggle (or witch/wizard that was half-blood - or pure with a later unpure marriage) had a NON MAGICAL child it would be a squib. Thus, this squib - who would be magical due to being able to see Dementors, etc and have magical anceestry) would have a SQUIB! This squib, assuming it didn't have magical offspring, would have ANOTHER SQUIB and the line would go down to Petunia and Lily, REMAINING HALF-BLOOD DUE TO THE ORIGINAL ANCESTRY OF THE WIZARD THAT HAD THE VERY FIRST SQUIB!!!
  +
:THUS, AS I SAID RIGHT FROM THE START YOU POMPOUS PRAFFIN HEADED PEA BRAIN, LILY AND PETUNIA ARE FREAKING HALF-BLOODS, LILY BEING A WITCH AND PETUNIA BEING A SQUIB!
  +
  +
:Rant. Done. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 22:49, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
::I seriously love the originality of that insult; do you mind if I borrow it? "'Pompous praffin headed pea brain''" is actually my favourite, not joking. ''
  +
  +
::Now, to the topic at hand: you're forgetting the other half of the family, the mothers. With each ''Muggle'' mother to whom the child is born, the blood would become even more diluted. It isn't just *half-blood wizardry disappears because the kid is a Squib* *half-blood wizardry returns because there's a wizard some generations later*. For each new non-wizard child, the blood is diluted even further, which is why there ''are'' Muggle-borns like Hermione or Lily.
  +
  +
::I do hope you understand that I ''do'' understand what you're trying to say, I completely understand, and even if I'm not acting like it, I ''do'' grudgingly respect your opinions, but (beg pardon) as far as I'm concerned they are just that: opinions. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 22:53, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::I do understand what you're saying. but you forget one thing; it may be diluted, but the magical blood is STILL there and the decendant will always be a half-blood.
  +
::Example: James Potter II married a muggle and has a squib.
  +
::This squib marries a muggle and has a squib
  +
::this squib marries a muggle and has a squib.
  +
::^ STILL Hlaf-blood due to James Potter II's magical blood; tis the same with Lily and Petunia. They ARE Half-bloods, it's just distant ancestry and "muggle-born" is a title for - if you'll pardon the french - prejudiced ***** like Lucius Malfoy. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 22:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::This is getting ridiculous. Listen here: the terms "Pure-blood", "Half-blood" and "Muggle-born" '''only apply to WIZARDS'''. There isn't such a thing as a Half-blood Squib or a Pure-blood Muggle -- that way there wouldn't be '''any''' Muggle-born wizards, all of them would be half-blood. Muggles are Muggles, Squibs are Squibs, nothing else. You '''CAN'T''' apply the blood status logic to Squibs and Muggles, so just don't.
  +
  +
:::That being said, I'd like you to watch your tone, HarryPotterRules1. It's not the first time we discussed this -- this only makes you look bad and does not improve your argument the least bit. Yes, in this matter, the admin has spoken (whatever that means). -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 23:11, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Fine. Fine. Crack down YOUR opinion and fuck everyone else's as usual; I give up. There's a reason I hate admins - this is it. I! Give! Up! [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::It's not cracking down anyone's opinion: what you are saying completely goes against the spirit of the concept of blood purity and goes against '''ALL''' of the '''numerous''' instances in canon where it is laid down that Lily is Muggle-born and Petunia is a Muggle, so of course we couldn't help disagreeing with your argument! -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 23:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::In the books; as you yourself said, J.K. Rowling said that "a Squib was "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070606214416/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent]" (that'd make the non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle a Squib)."
  +
  +
::::Thus, as a squib IS magical (through the wizard ancestry!) ALL and ANY descendants ARE half-bloods, no matter HOW diluted. It could be fifty bajillion years and they'd still be a half-blood, due to the wizard ancestry. Thus, Lily and Petunia (due to the wizard ancestry through the squib ancestor) would be half-bloods - and you CANNOT deny this, as I have quoted YOU directly. If you do it makes you a hypocrite not fit to be admin. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:22, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:I '''CAN''', actually. A Squib '''IS NOT''' magical and '''NONE''' of his direct descendence with a Muggle is half-blooded! Blood Purity is a '''society label''' coined by biased people: it did not follow biological principles!
  +
:Note that your logic has no internal coherence whatsoever! If ALL of the descendents of such a Squib/Muggle couple would be half-blood, then '''kindly EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE OF MUGGLE-BORN WIZARDS'''.
  +
  +
:I '''CAN''' very well deny what you said, and if I'm the hypocrite, at least I am not the one who is twisting my words to fit their own. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 23:28, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Muggle-born is a title coined by prejudiced wizards, just like mublood; Arabella Figg is still a magical person - she has magical parents, magical blood and can have magical offspring if she ever (possibly) married. The same would be for the ancestor of Lily and Petunia. The magical blood would remain - no matter how diluted - and pass down each generation. Magical + muggle is a half-blood. The '''''MAGIC''''' of the squib, combined with the '''''MUGGLE '''''makes a half-blood, no matter the generation. Thus, Lily and Petunia are half-bloods - and, if you disagree I shall go over your head and message J.K. Rowling on twitter and write to her through the addresses provided on Answers.com. Then, once it's done, I shall wave it under your nose, have you on bended knee and kissing my boots until I can deign myself to accept your apology. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:35, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:: Just throwing in my two cents, but by [[Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks#Examples of personal attacks|our policy]] the above comment borders on, if it's not outright, [[Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks|personal attack]], and if the other admins concur, I think is grounds for a cooldown block at the very least. --<span style="border: 2px blue solid; background-color: blue;">[[User:Cubs Fan2007|<font face="Gisha" color="red">'''Cubs Fan'''</font>]] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|<font face="Gisha" color="white">'''(Talk to me)'''</font>]]</span> 23:45, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:: By the terms of "There may be certain users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behaviour in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Harry_Potter_Wiki:Administrators administrators]. However, this is no excuse to engage in personal attacks against them. NPA applies to '''everyone''', including the administrators." we can block Hunnie Bunn for making a personal attack in calling me "ridiculous" and Seth for "disagreeing with my opinions" which is a personal attack on my opinions. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 23:49, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::You've got one thing right: "Muggle-born is a title coined by prejudiced wizards". What you don't seem to understand is that [http://web.archive.org/web/20110806214249/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58 "Pure-blood" and "Half-blood" are too]. They weren't coined by wizard geneticists and do not reflect any actual genetic evidence whatsoever.
  +
::An accurate definition of "half-blood" would be: a '''witch or wizard''' with at least one Muggle parent '''and/or''' grandparent (see [http://web.archive.org/web/20110806214249/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58 this]).
  +
::Squibs, obviously, carry a dormant magic gene. On this we agree. However, Rowling defines "Squib" as a "[http://web.archive.org/web/20120208051328/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 non-magical person]". They don't have one of the three blood statuses; they're Squibs. Only wizards can be half- or pure-bloods or Muggle-borns (and a wizard, is an individual who carries the magical gene, but in which said gene is '''not''' dormant). If a Squib marries a Muggle, then there are two possible scenarios:
  +
::#They sire a magical child -- in which case the child would be an Half-blood (not because of her Squib parent, but because of her wizarding ''grandparents''; see [[Mafalda]]).
  +
::#They sire a non-magical child -- in which case, the child is a Muggle (no magical powers; non-magical parents).
  +
::You could argue that the "Muggle" of the second scenario is Half-blood. And I would repeat: the blood status logic is wizard-centered. It only applies to wizards, because '''ALL OF IT is a series of titles coined by prejudiced wizards'''.
  +
::What happened with the Evanses was scenario number 2. That Muggle married other Muggles, and had Muggles children, which married Muggles and had Muggle children of their own. When the dormant gene (that was there, even though it was carried by Muggle individuals) resurfaced, it resurfaced in Lily. Lily is a Muggle-born witch: she had two non-magical parents and two sets of non-magical grandparents. As for Petunia? She was non-magical. Therefore, she was a Muggle. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 00:03, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::Aye, but you forget one thing; the son of a squib would not be a muggle due to having a magical ancestor (grandfather/grandmother); thus that person too would be magical. Their descendant, due to having a magical great-grandfather/mother would also be magical and so on down the line (as you said, it keeps going down with the gene) the half-blood part remains; it's not 100% muggle, there's magic too, so they're half-blood; this is Lily's ancestry. They have a magical ancestor and magic blood, so they're not 100% magic or 100% muggle; half and half is a half-blood. Thus, they're halfblood. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 00:08, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
I've always thought that, since neither Muggles nor Squibs can perform magic, there's no fundamental difference between them. Oh well... [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 00:12, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
There's a biological difference; the magic gene in squibs, no magic gene in Muggles. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 00:15, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:You've said it all. There is a ''biological'' difference. No one denies this. What it is being denied is that the biology of the thing makes it any different in the Death Eaters' eyes (note that this system was based on the Nazis' warped logic that a Jewish grandparent polluted the blood -- need I say that this claim is biologically unsound?) And I am repeating myself when I say that the blood statuses weren't coined by wizard geneticists and do not reflect any actual genetic evidence whatsoever.
  +
  +
:The non-magical son of a Squib and a Muggle would be a Muggle. Per ''Pottermore'', the non-magical son of a wizard and a Muggle is a Muggle (even though it would have one set of wizarding grandparents), and this wouldn't be any different. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 01:21, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:J.K. Rowling said that "a Squib was "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070606214416/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent]" (that'd make the non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle a Squib)." - thus, a squib son of a squib is a half-blood; as per the canon policy SHE comes above Pottermore.
  +
  +
:Thus, the ancestor of Petunia and Lily (and, due to your stubbornness I am reapeating myself AND I have reported you) would be a squib, who would then have a squib, who had a squib, and so the line goes on to one of Lily and Petunia's parents; Mr. or Mrs. Evans would havebeen a squib, who had a squib (Petunia) and a witch (Lily); Petunia had a squib (Dudley) and Lily, both through herself and her marriage to James, had a wizard (Harry).
  +
:Point, I do believe, to me. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 02:14, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Good for you on reporting us due to your own stubbornness. This wiki reports facts from the books, not misconceptions on part of the fans. The books themselves state in innumerable places that Petunia Dursley is a Muggle, not a half-blood Squib, half-blood Muggle or - heaven forbid - half-blood witch. The books also stated who knows how many times that Lily was a Muggle-born witch. That is, fundamentally, what this whole argument was started about, that you thought Lily and Petunia were half-blood. You're arguing with the books and there, my friend, is where that point is lost. Nobody's point. Moot point. However you want to say it. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 02:28, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::I was edit conflicted, but Hunnie Bunn basically said what I was going to (though I was additionally going to point out that the material from Pottermore Seth is citing was written by Rowling, contrary to what you claim). Anyway, consensus on issues in the past has been to go with what Rowling says when its stated directly, regardless if indirect statements would seem to make that nonsensical (for instance, the [[Jinx on the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher]], should, by all accounts, be a curse, but since Rowling calls it a jinx, we have to as well). Since you've agreed that Lily and Petunia must have the same blood status, if Lily is not half-blood, Petunia cannot be either, Q.E.D. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User_talk:1337star|Drop me a line!]])</sup> 02:35, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::And YOU are missing the fact that J.K. Rowling said (and I squote from Seth!): "a Squib was "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070606214416/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent]" (that'd make the non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle a Squib)."
  +
  +
::::Thus, this makes Lily and Petunia half-bloods as J.K. Rowling comes above the books. wizard (magical parent through the blood) and a muggle would, as per the words above, have a squib; this squib, being magical through the mother or father would have a squib and so on and so forth down the line until one of Lily and Petunia's parents; it's still half-blood at this point due to the magical gene carried down by the original squib and all squib descendants since. This is how Lily became a witch - the gene suddenly clicked on in her - and Petunia a squib (and Dudley, though her).
  +
  +
::::Please, do kindly use your brain and read before replying. I would hate to have to laugh at you making a fool of yourself. I do believe that is evidence enough to change the article; it comes from J.K. Rowling (and thus, despite what you say, there is '''''<u>NO</u>''''' form of higher canon!) [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 02:38, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::This will probably be the last post, per {{U|John Reaves}}'s request for us all to quit it. I just wanted to point it out to you that you, despite telling me that I'm not using my brain, are refusing point-blank to accept a cold, hard fact because of a theory you concepted based on your own interpretation of the text. Simple. I'm done. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 03:01, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::Fine with me I'm right, you're wrong. Seems a perfect place to end to me. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 03:11, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::'''<u>CONVO END AS PER {{U|John Reaves}}'s REQUEST</u>'''. [[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] ([[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|talk]]) 03:11, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
}}
  +
  +
==Floruit==
  +
I do agree with those who don't like the "floruit" information. It '''is''' confusing, since it makes a reader believe she died in 1997, while she did not. Besides, on the basis of a spot check I did, there are not many pages that sport this term. I am of the idea, if a consensus is reached, to remove the term "floruit" from other pages that show it.
  +
  +
I take that the 1959 date is the year of her birth, if so, let us keep '''that''' in. [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 19:51, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
: Right - most people wouldn't understand this "floruit" thing. It's the first time I heard about it, too. And it really made things look as if Petunia had died in 1997. And, where from do you take it that Petunia's year of birth is 1959? All we know is that she's Lily's elder sister. She could as well have been born in 1956 oder 1954 or 1949. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 20:01, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::I deleted it '''deliberately''' - far as I can tell, this is the only page that uses it. Can we solve the issue before starting an edit war? [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 20:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::That would work if the editor managed to read this discussion instead of unnecessarily reverting the deletion. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 20:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:HB is generally a sensible guy, but he has a bit of a tendency to overreact. Since this makes us two of a kind, I can't really blame him for it, can I? :-P [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 20:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::This is NOT the only page on this wiki that uses a floruit. Do a search for "'''fl.'''" and you'll get about a hundred results. - [[User:Nick O'Demus|<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus</font>]] 20:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Nick, you're besides the point. We're discussing the fact that to most people this "floruit" does not mean anything at all and that it makes things look to many as if Petunia died in 1997 which is NOT the case. That's why this was deleted. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 20:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::Discussion is fine, but it should not be removed until/unless a consensus is reached on the matter. - [[User:Nick O'Demus|<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus</font>]] 20:21, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::I don't see you making much of an effort to reach a consensus since you seem to ignore most of what MinorStoop and I have been discussing here. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 20:27, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::I have read this discussion, and I'd like to point out that we shouldn't just get rid of something because we don't understand it. "fl." ("floruit") is a very useful means of informing readers of the approximate time we know a character to have been active during the books. Once we know what it is used for, it becomes much more helpful for us, and two people (Nick O'Demus and I) agree to use it here. Two people (MinorStoop and Josef D.) don't want to use it. Assuming this is a legitimate vote, I should point out that one more vote one either side would seal the discussion. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 20:31, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::The term is generally used and accepted in English language reference work, and would therefore seem suitable here. As a Latin-derived term, it is understood in a bibliographical sense throughout European languages, wherever they may flourish around the globe. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:38, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::Actually, a proper voting consensus requires '''plus 3''' on one side, not just 3. As I stated, removing the use of the floruit would affect over a ''hundred'' other articles on this wiki, so this is not something that can be decided be just a few minutes' debate, and the standard practice is for the article to be kept as-is until the matter has been sufficiently discussed - [[User:Nick O'Demus|<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus</font>]] 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::''Floruit'' is not a made-up term; it's a concept actually used in genealogy and history. As we are not being misleading (the use of the notation is correct and matches other uses of it in the fields of knowledge I specified), so we can't really be held accountable if someone does not know the meaning of it, that's not our fault. If you come across something you do not understand while reading something, it's expected that you look into it so that you understand it; if someone does not know what that little "fl." behind the dates means, then he or she should research it -- I think this is common sense.
  +
  +
::Banning this kind of things on the basis that "most people do not know what it is" would be akin a the wiki-wide ban on the use of words like "borborygmus", "garrulous" or "pulchritude" just because they are not common words and would be, perhaps, unfamiliar to most of the readers. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Yep, there are a number of pages that use the "floruit" diction - type "fl." in the search engine. I haven't checked all the results, as I probably should have, but from the cases present in the first two pages, it is pretty clear that that the term should be interpreted as "known to be active" (choose your own term here) in the date(s) given, sometimes one, sometimes two. It does not matter whether they are also the dates of birth and death. Furthermore they are all either mentioned characters or with a very tenuous relationship with the saga (what does Matthew of the Gospel writer has to do with it?).
  +
  +
:::Petunia Dursley is an important secondary character of the books, and none of the ones I've checked (from Minerva McGonagall to the other Dursleys) show it. Why should "she" show it?
  +
  +
:::Another two points - 1997 is not her year of death; and this is confusing. How do we know 1959 is her year of birth, and why isn't there a reference for it? [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 20:43, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Nobody claimed that it was a made-up term. It's just not quite understandable to most people. And things which are worded in a way so that they can't quite be understood very well can be quite misleading or can, at least, be  understood to be so. Second, at least the year 1997 has to go. Even though Petunia's last activity we know from the novels and movies takes place in 1997 that doesn't mean she's actually stopped doing things. Given her approximate date of birth she is very likely still "craning over her neighbours' fences". Anyway, that term "florit" can't be all that common. I've never ever seen it in eight years of activity in the Wikipedia. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 20:55, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::The term does not indicate she died then, only that this is the last reliable date for which activity on her part is recorded. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::What he said. Floruit expresses the known period of time ''we know for sure that the person was alive''. Besides, the infobox template does make it less ambiguous since specifies she was born ''before'' 1959 and does ''not'' provide year of death. -- <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">[[User:Seth Cooper|<font style="color:#333333;">&nbsp;'''Seth Cooper'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Seth Cooper|<font style="background:#333333;color:white;">&nbsp;'''owl&nbsp;post!'''</font>]]</span></small> 21:04, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Maybe not, but it makes it look like it. Anyway, it's still possible that J. K. Rowling writes another HP novel in which Petunia makes an appearance. I suggest that we just remove the 1997 as it can be interpreted in a misleading way (even though a few people here do not wish to admit that). And, I may remind you, MinorStoop asked for a reference to her year of birth which may, or may not, be 1959. [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 21:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::Actually, at this point, I think that the real problem is why _only_ Petunia Dursley, among the relatively important, if secondary, characters has the "floruit" diction, and not the others - the other Dursleys, Ministry staff, Hogwarts staff, the (non-Ron) Weasleys, etc... [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 21:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::I mean, all the pages I've checked (not very many, I admit) are of people with quite tenuous a relationship with the saga! [[User talk:MinorStoop|<font face="French Script MT"><font size="6" color="cyan">MinorStoop</font></font>]] 21:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::The word establishes neither birth nor death, but only the corroborated period between the two. For most other significant characters, a date has been specified. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}}
  +
  +
::"''I mean, all the pages I've checked (not very many, I admit) are of people with quite tenuous a relationship with the saga!''"
  +
  +
::[[Beedle the Bard]], [[Antioch Peverell]], [[Cadmus Peverell]], [[Dedalus Diggle]], [[Rowena Ravenclaw]], [[Poppy Pomfrey]], [[Rolanda Hooch]], [[Grawp]], [[Irma Pince]], [[Marvolo Gaunt]], [[Morfin Gaunt]]... - [[User:Nick O'Demus|<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus</font>]] 21:28, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::We understood as much now. But the point is that it's not very understandable to many users. I just checked with the Wikipedia, and they are using "active" instead of "fl". This would be much clearer to the user, while the "fl" thing has some kind of a 19th century odour, hasn't it? [[User:Josef D.|Josef D.]] ([[User talk:Josef D.|talk]]) 21:22, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
Then why not also [[Vernon Dursley]] for example? 21:33, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Infobox image ==
  +
  +
I don't like the current infobox image. Petunia looks ugly with an angry face.
  +
<gallery widths="250">
  +
Petunia DH.png|Current
  +
Petunia Dursley.jpg|Image A
  +
PetuniaDursley.jpg|Image B
  +
</gallery>
  +
  +
:I don't know if it's fair to say she looks ugly, but a smile does make everyone look better. Personally, I think Petunia looks a bit like Voldemort in Image B: flat nose, wide eyes, frowning. I therefore feel Image A should be selected out of the three provided. --[[User:Hunnie Bunn|Hunnie Bunn]] ([[User talk:Hunnie Bunn|talk]]) 13:07, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:07, July 2, 2014

Okay, I don't really like Petunia, but I feel a little sorry for her. If I had a sibling that got accepted to Hogwarts, but I didn't, I'd be jealous too. I don't think I'd stoop so low as to calling them freaks but you know what I mean. --Mistress Remy 19:45, January 10, 2010 (UTC)


Yah I get what you mean but I do think she loved Lily and Harry but she let her jealousness show alot more than her love.

---CholcolateFrogs

There is another cause why I can understand Petunia's jealousness. I don't like her too because of her cruel behaviour towards Harry who is absolutely innocent. But when it was revealed that Lily was a witch the parents were proud like: Lily here and Lily there. It seems they paid less attention towards Petunia. That does hurt a child. That Lily was a witch and Petunia not was not the fault of Petunia. In this point she is as innocent as Harry who is a wizard. Harry granger 19:53, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


Main quoteEdit

I was just wondering if the quote at the top of Petunia's page was the best choice. I watched that deleted scene and really liked the way she said it but shouldn't we make it one from the books or one that actually made it into the movie? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just thought that would make more sense :)

I agree. It also blatantly contradicts canon, as in the book Petunia leaves Harry with a "Well, goodbye", without even looking at him. What quote should we put there instead? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:46, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Jo herself said that there are things from the movies that aren't in the books but that fit the story, things that she didn't come up with, but, she wish she did. I think this is one of them, I loved this scene, and, a lot of fans agree. It shows a sensitive side of Petunia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diegoavila (talkcontribs).
Regardless, it directly contradicts canon, as Petunia left Harry without saying a word. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:53, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Birth yearEdit

This article currently states that Petunia was born in 1958. While I recall it being revealed that she was Lily's older sister in "The Prince's Tale," I don't recall it being specified how much older, so I think this information should be removed from the article unless a source to verify it can be provided. Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:32, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly.I also believe Petunia was born in 1958,not 1959.Thats why I keep changing the dates. 85.75.74.179 12:16, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed back to 1959 and I'd like to know where's the proof that 1959 is correct. Whoever changed it back didn't think it necessary to prove their opinion. Josef D. (talk) 19:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Death Edit

How do we know Petunia died in 1997? 85.75.74.179 12:15, August 21, 2011 (UTC)


She didn´t. The dates at the beginning say she is known to have during that period. So, she lived in 1997, wasn´t dead.--Rodolphus 12:18, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

The way you write it,it seems that Petunia died in 1997. 85.75.74.179 12:48, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Im gonna say it once more.The way you write it,it lokks like Petunia died in 1997.Thats why I keep reverting the article. 85.75.119.29 16:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems not to have understood your point. The way it is written it really sounds as if she died in 1997. But she didn't; the Dursleys were just shoved out of the way in case Voldemort was trying to get at them in his effort to catch Harry. Josef D. (talk) 19:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Middle name? Edit

Wherefrom do we know that Petunia's middle name is Violet as mentioned in the article? Harry granger 20:22, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Again put in. Where is the source? Harry granger 14:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

late magic (cut subplot) Edit

Hey, I was looking at some old interviews and I'm seeing references to a subplot of the books of someone displaying magic late in life. Is it possible this is Petunia? Or maybe Dudley? Just a thought 174.252.45.143 01:19, September 12, 2011 (UTC)Lorchyism23

J.K. addressed that somewhere.......it might've been her FAQ section on the Web site..........she was planning on it but changed it.Alumeng 23:40, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I was curious about this too, actually. I've seen here reference said subplot, and from the time that she denied Petunia being a Squib but said she was something "very different" I'm guessing it was to do with her, but I can;t for the life of me find here actually flat out saying who it was supposed to be. If someone does know and an share the link I'd be eternally grateful—Green Zubat (owl me!). 00:36, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

The original Aunt Petunia? Edit

Just though I'd mention another pop-culture character called "Aunt Petunia", which may or may not have influenced JKR's choice of name.

The Fantastic Four's Thing (Ben Grimm) also grew up as an orphan, and was raised by his Aunt Petunia and Uncle (Jacob). In contrast though, they were kind; Petunia was his "favourite aunt".

The Thing often mentions his "Aunt Petunia", and it's possible that JKR may have encountered the name here, even if she wasn't directly referencing it in the books, or had even forgotten having heard it. According to the Petunia Grimm Marvel Wiki article, the Thing "has made numerous references to Aunt Petunia over the years." --xensyriaT 19:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

FloruitEdit

I do agree with those who don't like the "floruit" information. It is confusing, since it makes a reader believe she died in 1997, while she did not. Besides, on the basis of a spot check I did, there are not many pages that sport this term. I am of the idea, if a consensus is reached, to remove the term "floruit" from other pages that show it.

I take that the 1959 date is the year of her birth, if so, let us keep that in. MinorStoop 19:51, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Right - most people wouldn't understand this "floruit" thing. It's the first time I heard about it, too. And it really made things look as if Petunia had died in 1997. And, where from do you take it that Petunia's year of birth is 1959? All we know is that she's Lily's elder sister. She could as well have been born in 1956 oder 1954 or 1949. Josef D. (talk) 20:01, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it deliberately - far as I can tell, this is the only page that uses it. Can we solve the issue before starting an edit war? MinorStoop 20:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
That would work if the editor managed to read this discussion instead of unnecessarily reverting the deletion. Josef D. (talk) 20:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
HB is generally a sensible guy, but he has a bit of a tendency to overreact. Since this makes us two of a kind, I can't really blame him for it, can I? :-P MinorStoop 20:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
This is NOT the only page on this wiki that uses a floruit. Do a search for "fl." and you'll get about a hundred results. - Nick O'Demus 20:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Nick, you're besides the point. We're discussing the fact that to most people this "floruit" does not mean anything at all and that it makes things look to many as if Petunia died in 1997 which is NOT the case. That's why this was deleted. Josef D. (talk) 20:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is fine, but it should not be removed until/unless a consensus is reached on the matter. - Nick O'Demus 20:21, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I don't see you making much of an effort to reach a consensus since you seem to ignore most of what MinorStoop and I have been discussing here. Josef D. (talk) 20:27, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I have read this discussion, and I'd like to point out that we shouldn't just get rid of something because we don't understand it. "fl." ("floruit") is a very useful means of informing readers of the approximate time we know a character to have been active during the books. Once we know what it is used for, it becomes much more helpful for us, and two people (Nick O'Demus and I) agree to use it here. Two people (MinorStoop and Josef D.) don't want to use it. Assuming this is a legitimate vote, I should point out that one more vote one either side would seal the discussion. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 20:31, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The term is generally used and accepted in English language reference work, and would therefore seem suitable here. As a Latin-derived term, it is understood in a bibliographical sense throughout European languages, wherever they may flourish around the globe. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:38, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a proper voting consensus requires plus 3 on one side, not just 3. As I stated, removing the use of the floruit would affect over a hundred other articles on this wiki, so this is not something that can be decided be just a few minutes' debate, and the standard practice is for the article to be kept as-is until the matter has been sufficiently discussed - Nick O'Demus 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Floruit is not a made-up term; it's a concept actually used in genealogy and history. As we are not being misleading (the use of the notation is correct and matches other uses of it in the fields of knowledge I specified), so we can't really be held accountable if someone does not know the meaning of it, that's not our fault. If you come across something you do not understand while reading something, it's expected that you look into it so that you understand it; if someone does not know what that little "fl." behind the dates means, then he or she should research it -- I think this is common sense.
Banning this kind of things on the basis that "most people do not know what it is" would be akin a the wiki-wide ban on the use of words like "borborygmus", "garrulous" or "pulchritude" just because they are not common words and would be, perhaps, unfamiliar to most of the readers. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Yep, there are a number of pages that use the "floruit" diction - type "fl." in the search engine. I haven't checked all the results, as I probably should have, but from the cases present in the first two pages, it is pretty clear that that the term should be interpreted as "known to be active" (choose your own term here) in the date(s) given, sometimes one, sometimes two. It does not matter whether they are also the dates of birth and death. Furthermore they are all either mentioned characters or with a very tenuous relationship with the saga (what does Matthew of the Gospel writer has to do with it?).
Petunia Dursley is an important secondary character of the books, and none of the ones I've checked (from Minerva McGonagall to the other Dursleys) show it. Why should "she" show it?
Another two points - 1997 is not her year of death; and this is confusing. How do we know 1959 is her year of birth, and why isn't there a reference for it? MinorStoop 20:43, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that it was a made-up term. It's just not quite understandable to most people. And things which are worded in a way so that they can't quite be understood very well can be quite misleading or can, at least, be  understood to be so. Second, at least the year 1997 has to go. Even though Petunia's last activity we know from the novels and movies takes place in 1997 that doesn't mean she's actually stopped doing things. Given her approximate date of birth she is very likely still "craning over her neighbours' fences". Anyway, that term "florit" can't be all that common. I've never ever seen it in eight years of activity in the Wikipedia. Josef D. (talk) 20:55, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The term does not indicate she died then, only that this is the last reliable date for which activity on her part is recorded. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
What he said. Floruit expresses the known period of time we know for sure that the person was alive. Besides, the infobox template does make it less ambiguous since specifies she was born before 1959 and does not provide year of death. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:04, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it makes it look like it. Anyway, it's still possible that J. K. Rowling writes another HP novel in which Petunia makes an appearance. I suggest that we just remove the 1997 as it can be interpreted in a misleading way (even though a few people here do not wish to admit that). And, I may remind you, MinorStoop asked for a reference to her year of birth which may, or may not, be 1959. Josef D. (talk) 21:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, at this point, I think that the real problem is why _only_ Petunia Dursley, among the relatively important, if secondary, characters has the "floruit" diction, and not the others - the other Dursleys, Ministry staff, Hogwarts staff, the (non-Ron) Weasleys, etc... MinorStoop 21:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I mean, all the pages I've checked (not very many, I admit) are of people with quite tenuous a relationship with the saga! MinorStoop 21:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The word establishes neither birth nor death, but only the corroborated period between the two. For most other significant characters, a date has been specified. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}}
"I mean, all the pages I've checked (not very many, I admit) are of people with quite tenuous a relationship with the saga!"
Beedle the Bard, Antioch Peverell, Cadmus Peverell, Dedalus Diggle, Rowena Ravenclaw, Poppy Pomfrey, Rolanda Hooch, Grawp, Irma Pince, Marvolo Gaunt, Morfin Gaunt... - Nick O'Demus 21:28, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
We understood as much now. But the point is that it's not very understandable to many users. I just checked with the Wikipedia, and they are using "active" instead of "fl". This would be much clearer to the user, while the "fl" thing has some kind of a 19th century odour, hasn't it? Josef D. (talk) 21:22, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Then why not also Vernon Dursley for example? 21:33, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image Edit

I don't like the current infobox image. Petunia looks ugly with an angry face.

I don't know if it's fair to say she looks ugly, but a smile does make everyone look better. Personally, I think Petunia looks a bit like Voldemort in Image B: flat nose, wide eyes, frowning. I therefore feel Image A should be selected out of the three provided. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:07, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki