Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Talk:Sally-Anne Perks

12,083pages on
this wiki

Back to page

House

I think Sally-Anne is an Hufflepuff.

The Gryffindor girls are:

The Hufflepuff girls:

The Ravenclaws:

And the Slytherins:

She is in either Hufflepuff or Slytherin. However I think she is an Hufflepuff, because Perks is so similar to Parkinson. GianG (talk) 20:39, December 19, 2014 (UTC) I just realised;

If these are the Gryffindor girls:

These are the Ravenclaws:

These are the Slytherins:

And these are the Hufflepuffs:

So she must be either a Hufflepuff or Slytherin. Butterfly the rabbit 21:37, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Fay Dunbar and Kella can't be considered canon, because they contrdict informations from the books. Sally-Anne is either Gryffindor, Hufflepuff or Slytherin. GianG (talk) 14:20, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
What do they contradict? General Ironbeak (talk) 22:54, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
They contradict J. K. Rowling who stated the names of the two missing Gryffindors are in the list of the Original Fourty. The two missing Gryffindors are among these three girls:
  • Sophie Roper
  • Sally Smith
  • Runcorn
GianG (talk) 09:28, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
It is a good theory, but Eloise Midgen is also a Gryffindor -Thorning 09:59, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, ignoring Fay Dundar who only appears in the HP6 game for DS, and replacing her with Eloise, logic still clearly says that Sally-Anne is a hufflepuff or slytherin. 86.25.178.172 17:45, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
It states that Kellah is only a character for the movie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elisabeth22 (talkcontribs).
What does? General Ironbeak (talk) 22:54, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think than Sally can be a Gryffindor too. Kellah and Fay appear only in the movie, so the girls:

Gryffindor

  • Hermione Granger
  • Parvati Patil
  • Lavender Brown
  • Fourth Gryffindor Girl (Could be Lily Moon, Sally Smith, Sally-Anne Perks or Sophie Roper)
  • Fifth Gryffindor Girl (Could be Lily Moon, Sally Smith, Sally-Anne Perks or Sophie Roper)

Hufflepuff

Ravenclaw - (Sally can't be a Ravenclaw, and Isobel MacDougal is the Morag first name, Rowling maybe changed after)

Slytherin -

The Bespectacled Girl can be Daphne or Tracey, but, i think than if i need to chose only one, i will chose Daphne, because, the news characters than Rowling show's only in the paper in Harry Potter and Me, no one appears yet, i dont ever see Sue Li, Oliver River, or Megan. If this Bespectacled Girl is the Fifty Slytherin Girl, it have a high change to be Sally. If anyone could find the full image of J.K Rowling Notebook in Harry Potter and Me, PLEASE, LEAVE A MENSAGE here to help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 177.19.53.122 (talkcontribs).

Leanne is actually 1 year older than Harry, because in the book she was in the Gryffindor Tower with Katie.

What ever happened to Sally-Anne Perks? I mean, she was there for the sorting but not for the O.W.L.s!


There weren't many people left now. "Moon" "Nott" "Parkinson" then a pair of twin girls, "Patil" and "Patil" then "Perks, Sally-Anne" and then, at last - "Potter, Harry!" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter 7)

Ten minutes later, Professor Flitwick called, "Parkinson, Pansy - Patil, Padma - Patil, Parvati - Potter, Harry." (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 31)

58.168.18.194 04:55, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that Sally-Anne was one of the two unidentified Gryffindor girls and she left Hogwarts before 1995-1996 school year. This could also explain why the two unidentified Gryffindor girls were not members of DA.

Name?

Shouldn't this arcticle be called 'Sally Perks'? Isn't her full name Sally Anne Perks and Anne is her middle name? Anne B. Ng Talk 08:17, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

No; "Sally-Anne" is one name due to the hyphen, like "MaryAnn", "Mary-Anne" or any derivation thereof. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 10:26, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Slytherin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrJiAG8GmnQ#t=515 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrJiAG8GmnQ#t=516

Both links point to the same video, and as with other videos of that, nothing on the right-hand page (such as Sally-Anne Perks's house) is discernible/legible. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 14:55, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
Some letters on the fourth column can be read. There is  a "S" on the four column and the "S" is placed before a name that is placed before the deleted names.
I'm not going to bother arguing further, but watching the video with every screen size at highest resolution, I can barely make out the columns on the right-hand side of the page, never mind the letters. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:05, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

It is true that most of the names/pictures/letters can't be seen, but there is clearly a "S" that is placed before a letter that is before the deleted names, thus the "S" is referred to her. Lux in noctibus (talk) 15:10, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Lux in noctibus (I said unfortunately, because I was convinced that Sally-Anne was one of the two missing Gryffindors, see my blog), but looking at the letters I noted a "S" before the name which is before the crossed names out. GianG (talk) 15:15, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

If you can make that out, can you make out the first letter of the name next to Runcorn? I've been dying to use her in a fic! Princessfan (talk) 16:22, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't manage to read the names, maybe someone else can do it. GianG (talk) 16:31, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Stop the video at 8:36.Search for the deletd names. The first deletd name is Hermione Puckle. Above Hermione Puckle, there is Harry Potter. Harry Potter's house (and so most of the other houses) can't be seen. Above Harry Potter, there is Sally-Anne Perks. Look at her house (below the two blurred letters) and that s a "S" that can't be confused with a G, or a H or a R.

Lux in noctibus (talk) 08:18, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

I think a screenshot's in order. I can see nothing of the sort. -- Saxon 09:31, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Look more carefully. That is a S.

Immaginet

J. K. Rowling notebook

Yeah, all I can see from that image are blurred lines (and not the Robin Thicke sort, either). The video and then the screenshot prove only that Rowling was good at making fairly organised columns without a ruler. Sally-Anne Perks's house cannot be determined from either. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:05, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
As blurry and indistinct as that is, that writing might as well be in japanese for all I can tell. There's just no way to make a definitive conclusion from that. - Nick O'Demus 15:29, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
Even if you can't see it, I perfectly do it and I consider it canon. I won't edit the page anymore, but I'm sure she is a Slytherin and a Pure-blood
Immagined

Sally Anne is a Slytherin and a Pure-Blood

It really is far too blurry to read. -- Saxon 00:12, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

I tried looking at it real well but the only thing that I can deduce that there are more muggleborns and purebloods underneath Draco's original (well one of them) surname spugen. Mainly based on how dark they are, but I'm still looking.

EDIT: Actually I'm learning a lot from those screen caps. Even though I can't make out letters of the houses you can make out blood status. Judging by how dark they are down the middle means there are 7 or 8 muggleborns and purebloods because a star is squeezed between a circle and square. Since there doesn't seem to be a large smudge next to where her name is, Sally Anne looks like a half-blood.

Edit (again):

So I copied the list and I'm analyzing smudges (what is wrong with me?!?) and it looks like Malfoy and Macmillan are purebloods as are the patils. Everyone from perks to Runcorn look like half bloods. Smith could be pureblood or muggleborn. Turpin is a half-blood.

What is wrong with me?!? Princessfan (talk) 05:52, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree about Sally-Anne Perks. Her house must be Slytherin and her blood-status seems to be Pure-blood, because there is a circle.

I agree about all the others, except with Lisa Turpin, who is clearly a Muggle-born. Lux in noctibus (talk) 15:19, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

Clearly is the keyword. We are all looking at indistinct smudges and trying to see meaning in them. There is no clarity in this exercise. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:29, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
Immaginen
The image is indecipherable. -- Saxon 15:38, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Sally-Anne Perks's house, it seems (at least in my opinion) to be Slytherin, but zooming her house is unclear. However, I found other...

Notebook houses

The first two names (Ernest MacMillan and Draco Malfoy) are too many close and their houses can't be read. Zooming the picture (on paint), we can see that the third person (Roger Malone) is in either Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, because "H" and "R" can be mixed up (we know it is a "R", because it is sure he was originally a Ravenclaw). Looking at the Patil twins, the first is a Gryffindor, while the second can be either an Hufflepuff or a Ravenclaw, but we know she is the second.

Looking at Runcorn, we can note that her house is either Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, too. Since the Ravenclaw dormitory is full of girls, she should be an Hufflepuff.

Then there is Sally Smith whose house should be Gryffindor and so is Sophie Roper. GianG (talk) 16:31, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

All I can see from the above image is a few colourful circles around blurry squiggles. I'm sorry, but I still don't see why people are determined to use those images or that video as "proof" of these students' houses, particularly as these same pieces of "evidence" have already "supported" arguments stating that the girls were in every other House than the ones you've assigned them. Whilst it's fully possible (if not likely) that you're correct, we need concrete proof, rather than people trying to interpret blurred lines. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:08, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
You should zoom the picture, but not too much. GianG (talk) 17:09, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
What Hunnie Bunn said. You cannot seriously expect to take any kind of data from that image, no matter how many colourful circles you put in them. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:12, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
Please, try to zoom the picture (with 200 %) without the circles on your PC. GianG (talk) 17:13, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
Picture's dreadfully low-res. There's no zooming in in the world (or zooming out, for that matter) that can make it any clearer. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:20, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

Trust me and at least try... Zooming at 300 % (not 200, I badly wrote it) the picture with the circles (I don't know if the others are clear), you will clearly see Sophie's and Sally's letters are "G"s, while Runcorn's "H". GianG (talk) 17:25, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

The letters can be seen zooming, probably because they had been badly overshadowed. GianG (talk) 17:26, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That wouldn't make anything clearer. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:46, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: Zoom doesn't make the image any clearer. -- Saxon 17:47, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure, I didn't make up it. Zooming the picture and looking very well at the letters, tou can deduce they are "G", "H" and "G". I'll try to post the enlarged picture GianG (talk) 17:56, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

She can't be a Gryffindor

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Actually, she can't be in Gryffindor, because in the sixth book, chapter 9 (The Half-Blood Prince), all the Gryffindor students in Harry's year from Hermione to Harry are mentioned. They are: Hermione, Neville, Parvati and Harry. Since Sally-Anne is not mentioned, she can't be a Gryffindor. GianG (talk) 16:33, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Except that those were only the students cleared to take NEWT-level classes. It's fully possible Sally-Anne was a Gryffindor but failed her NEWTs. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 18:16, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that it is so likely to fall all the 9 O.W.L.s and I'm sure if someone in Harry's year had done it, this would have been noted. Also, I guess in the sorting, JK wanted to mention the same number of student of each house (except Gyffindor). In the Sorting thirty two students were mentioned: seven from Gryffindor (Lavanda Brown, Seamus Finnigan, Hermione Granger, Neville Longbottom, Parvati Patil, Harry Potter and Ronald Weasley), five from Slytherin (Millicent Bulstrode, Theodore Nott, Pansy Parkinson and Blaise Zabini), five from Ravenclaw (Terry Boot, Mandy Brocklehurst, Morag MacDougal, Padma Patil and Lisa Turpin), three Hufflepuffs (Hannah Abbott, Susan Bones and Justin Finch-Fletchley) and two students whose house is unknown. I think that Lily and Sally-Anne were Hufflepuffs, so there was the same number of Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws and Slytherins mentioned in the Sorting. GianG (talk) 18:45, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Sally-Anne Perks is not called to take her Charms O.W.L. ("Ten minutes later, Professor Flitwick called, "Parkinson, Pansy — Patil, Padma — Patil, Parvati — Potter, Harry." " -- Order of the Phoenix, chapter 31), so, for all we know, she could've been absent/sick off/otherwise unable to do her exams. It's entirely possible someone failed their exams and it goes without mention; unless one is expecting Rowling to give us a full account of every single student's report card. Besides, in the Half-Blood Prince scene you mentioned, Rowling skips over Seamus Finnigan, Lavender Brown and Dean Thomas -- couldn't she just've skipped Perks too?
And, not to burst your bubble, but your "guess" comes out of thin air. Who says Rowling did intend to mention the same number of students of each house except Gryffindor? It's an assumption with no basis in nothing whatsoever, apart from your personal opinion. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:00, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you mentioned Sally-Anne's absence during the O.W.L.s. Anyway, it is more than likely (like you said) that she was sick off. Rowling's errors. It's possible to fall exams and J. K. Rowling. And... yes, it's possible someone failed exams and it goes without mentions, but do you really think in an ordinary school year there is a person who failed ALL HER 9 O.W.L.s (at least 9 O.W.L.s)? There is not the need to provide report cards, it is not such a common event a student failed all his exam, this would have been noted. And in the sixth book, Seamus, Lavanda and Dean were not mentioned, because THEY WERE NOT BETWEEN HERMIONE AND HARRY in alphabetical order. All the Gryffindor between Hermione and Harry were mentoned and there were not Sally-Anne and Lily among them. Assuming one of them failed ALL THE EXAMS, it is just fan speculation, because the only time we see students who failed an exam (ONLY ONE EXAM, NOT ALL THE O.W.L.s) and had to repeat it is with Crabbe and Goyle.
And for the record, I never said J. K. Rowling intended to mention the same number of student form the houses, I just said I think this, but assuming Sally-Anne and Lily failed all the exams...
GianG (talk) 20:24, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Assuming either side of the argument would be fan speculation, and I therefore shouldn't have done so. Seth mentioned Sally-Anne's absence during the OWLs because it could potentially have significant relevance to why Sally-Anne might not be in a NEWT class. Also, note that all of the Gryffindor students Rowling mentioned had already been introduced at several points in the story to us; none of them were entirely new, or one-off characters. Sally-Anne, however, had only been seen once prior to Half-Blood Prince, and that was in the sorting in book one. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:25, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] My point is, just as Rowling skipped Seamus, Lavender and Dean, couldn't she equally have skipped Sally-Anne Perks and/or Lily Moon, even if they were called in-between some of the mentioned characters? From a reader's point of view, any of these background characters' reactions to whatever schedule they were assigned to would have little to no interest, since they weren't at all established characters by then (and it would make it a very awkward scene to introduce them at the spot, for no apparent reason).
By the way, "it is not such a common event a student failed all his exam, this would have been noted" -- sorry, but I don't see this happening at all. It would read like "Hey, know that girl that was never mentioned at all and had little to no interaction with us? She failed her O.W.L.s!" --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:53, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Scuse me... I mentioned the Italian text, because I didn't find the English book on the Internet (anyway, you can check this text... Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 9):
Hermione ricevette subito il via libera per continuare con Incantesimi, Difesa contro le Arti Oscure, Trasfigurazione, Erbologia, Aritmanzia, Antiche Rune e Pozioni, e filò via senza indugi alla lezione di Antiche Rune della prima ora. Neville impiegò un po' più di tempo a sistemare le cose; la sua faccia tonda era preoccupata mentre la professoressa McGranitt studiava la sua domanda e poi consultava i risultati del G.U.F.O. «Erbologia va bene» disse lei. «La professoressa Sprite sarà felice di rivederti con un G.U.F.O. 'Eccezionale'. E sei ammesso a Difesa contro le Arti Oscure con il tuo 'Oltre Ogni Previsione'. Ma il problema è Trasfigurazione. Mi dispiace, Paciock, ma un 'Accettabile' non basta per continuare fino al livello M.A.G.O., non riusciresti a stare al passo con il programma». Neville abbassò la testa. La professoressa McGranitt lo scrutò attraverso gli occhiali quadrati. «Perché vuoi continuare con Trasfigurazione, comunque? Non ho mai avuto l'impressione che ti piacesse particolarmente». Neville, afflitto, borbottò qualcosa tipo 'è mia nonna che vuole'. «Bene» sbuffò la professoressa McGranitt. «È venuto il momento che tua nonna impari a essere fiera del nipote che ha, e non di quello che si aspetta... soprattutto dopo quanto è successo al Ministero». Neville arrossì e sbatté le palpebre, confuso: la professoressa McGranitt non gli aveva mai fatto un complimento. «Mi dispiace, Paciock, ma non posso ammetterti alle mie lezioni di M.A.G.O. Vedo però che hai preso 'Oltre Ogni Previsione' in Incantesimi... Perché non provi a prendere un M.A.G.O. in Incantesimi?» «Mia nonna pensa che Incantesimi sia una scelta facile» borbottò Neville. «Tu scegli Incantesimi» disse la professoressa McGranitt, «e io manderò due righe ad Augusta per ricordarle che solo perché lei è stata bocciata nel suo G.U.F.O. in Incantesimi, ciò non vuol dire che la materia sia necessariamente inutile». Con un breve sorriso per l'espressione di lieta incredulità di Neville, la professoressa McGranitt colpì con la punta della bacchetta un orario in bianco e lo consegnò a Neville adeguatamente compilato. Poi si rivolse a Calì Patil, che per prima cosa chiese se Fiorenzo, il bel centauro, avrebbe insegnato ancora Divinazione. «Lui e la professoressa Cooman si dividono i corsi, quest'anno» rispose la professoressa McGranitt con una punta di disapprovazione: sapevano tutti che lei disprezzava la materia. «Gli studenti del sesto anno saranno con lei». Calì partì alla volta di Divinazione cinque minuti dopo, un po' abbattuta. «Allora, Potter, Potter...» proseguì la McGranitt rivolta a Harry, consultando i propri appunti. «Incantesimi, Difesa contro le Arti Oscure, Erbologia, Trasfigurazione... tutto bene. Devo dire che mi ha fatto piacere il tuo voto in Trasfigurazione, Potter, molto piacere. Ora, perché non hai chiesto di continuare con Pozioni? Pensavo che volessi diventare un Auror...» «Lo volevo, ma lei mi ha detto che dovevo prendere 'Eccezionale' nel G.U.F.O., professoressa». «Ed era così quando il professor Piton insegnava la materia. Ma il professor Lumacorno è assolutamente felice di accettare allievi da M.A.G.O. che abbiano ottenuto 'Oltre Ogni Previsione' al G.U.F.O. Vuoi continuare con Pozioni?» «Sì» rispose Harry, «ma non ho comprato i libri né gli ingredienti né niente...» «Sono certa che il professor Lumacorno potrà prestarteli» lo tranquilliz-zò lei. «Molto bene, Potter, ecco il tuo orario. Oh, tra l'altro, venti giovani di belle speranze si sono già iscritti alle selezioni per la squadra di Quidditch di Grifondoro. Ti passerò la lista a tempo debito e potrai fissare le prove a tuo piacimento». 'Qualche minuto dopo, a Ron fu dato il via libera per le stesse materie di 'Harry, e i due si alzarono da tavola insieme. 
Summarizing, the text says that Hermione received her schedule, then, McGranitt (McGonagall) gave the schedule to Neville. Immediately after Neville, she gave the schedule to Calì (Parvati). And finally Harry received his schedule. Then there is a break fiction, and (some minutes later) Ron received his schedule). Lavanda and Seamus were not mentioned, because they received their schedules before Hermione, while Dean and the two Gryffindor girls (who should be either Sophie Roper, Runcorn or Sally Smith) received their schedules after Harry. It can be noted that Calì received her schedule just, immediately after Neville. This means that (excluding Neville and Calì) all the Gryffindor students received their schedules before Hermione (Lavanda and Seamus) or after Harry (two girls, Dean and Ron).
I agree that it is fully possible Lily and Sally-Anne failed their exams, but in the Half-Blood Prince (video game, NDS), there are two girls who shared the dormitory with Hermione, Calì and Lavanda (one of them was called Fay Dunbar, but this can't be considered canon, because J. K. Rowling said the names of the two Gryffindor girls were in the list of the Original Fourty). Also, (as I said before), they would have mentioned a student who failed all the exams... Harry, Hermione or something else would have said something like: "Hey, do you know a Gryffindor girl was rejected?"
Anyway since the video games don't contradict the books and in the books Sally-Anne and Lily were not mentioned, they sould be either Hufflepuff or Slytherin.
GianG (talk) 13:55, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Sally-Anne Perks would come after Parvati and before Harry -- and the only thing that can be gleamed from the text is that McGonagall went to Harry after Parvati, not that she went to him immediately after Parvati. So it's still entirely possible McGonagall could've talked to Sally-Anne Perks about her timetable without it being narrated.
Still, you haven't properly addressed the fact that they could've failed their O.W.L.s. You are citing the NDS Half-Blood Prince video game, which is ludicrous, really, as a) it does not mention Lily Moon and Sally-Anne Perks at all -- and if it isn't plain enough, the fact that a Fay Dunbar is mentioned is proof enough that the game developers weren't even considering these two characters -- and b) it was launched in 2009, four years after Rowling wrote Half-Blood Prince -- certainly, Rowling would have no foreknowledge of anything of the sort when writing the book.
You really haven't got an argument when you say it would've been mentioned in the book -- there are multiple aspects of Hogwarts life that simply isn't mentioned in the book: an example is, for example, Angus Buchanan Cup for Outstanding Effort, which is awarded every year at Hogwarts, even though it managed to elude a single mention throughout the seven books; wouldn't one expect that to be mentioned? And there are many more examples where that came from. Bottom line is: an ommission is not in of itself a statement.
Either way, and I think this is the most important part of my rebuttal: I should note that nothing specifies McGonagall was calling the students in alphabetical order. In fact, when reading the excerpt in question, one gets the impression McGonagall went to the students as they remained in their seats: "After they had eaten, they remained in their places, awaiting Professor McGonagall's descent from the staff table." Couldn't she simply be giving out the timetables in the order the students were seated, so save time going back and forth? In fact, McGonagall seemed to be looking for Harry's application form as she turned to him («"So, Potter, Potter..." said Professor McGonagall, consulting her notes as she turned to Harry.») which seems to imply she was matching the students in the order they were to their timetables, and not the other way around. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:12, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
Before this, it was said Harry, Ron and Hermione were talking about Hagrid's lesson and about the fact nobody will continue to attend them. They were talking, so they were sitting next to ach other, so the theory doesn't stand, considering professor McGonagall gave the timetable to Hermione, then to other two students, then to Harry and after some minutes to Ron. Since Neville and Calì received their timetables after Hermione and before Harry, it is pretty obvious McGonagall used alphabetical order. McGonagall said:  «"So, Potter, Potter..." said Professor McGonagall, consulting her notes as she turned to Harry.» This could also indicate (and basing on canon informations, it is also the most likely explanation) that McGonagall had a list of students (obviously in alphabetical order) and some notes containing O.W.L.s results of all those students. Another possiblity is that McGonagall remember the alphabetical order of the students from her house, after all they are only 10 students. Obviously, the second explanation is just a speculation, but the first is supported by canon, because when there were official events at Hogwarts, student were always called in alphabetical order. It would be a bit strange in this one occasion, the Gryffindor students were casually called and just because of a coincidence, Hermione, Neville, Parvati and Harry were called in alphabetical order and Ron was called some minutes after Harry. GianG (talk) 13:58, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
Since there are sufficient proofs, I'll delete Gryffindor in the infobox information about the house of Sally-Anne Perks and Lily Moon. GianG (talk) 14:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
You didn't actually give me a chance to respond, so the discussion is still on-going.
Actually, no such "list of students in alphabetical order" is mentioned. While McGonagall's talking to Neville, it is said in narration that she is consulting the students' class applications and their O.W.L. results. Since nothing at all says McGonagall was necessarily carrying any of these forms in alphabetical order (quite the contraryis, the fact that she had to search for Harry's forms instead of having them ready straight away seems to imply they weren't -- if they were in alphabetical order, Harry's forms would immediately follow those of the student that preceded him, and there would be no reason to look for them).
"They were talking, so they were sitting next to each other." Not necessarily. Harry and Ron could conceivably be sitting next to each other on one side of the table, for example, and Hermione opposite them, and they'd still be able to mantain a conversation. McGonagall could've cleared one side of the table first (i.e. Hermione) before moving on to the next.
"When there were official events at Hogwarts, student were always called in alphabetical order". What exactly would constitute an official event? Sorting is done alphabetically, as is the role call before exams. But for, instance, the checking of Hogsmeade permission slips is not done alphabetically (Prisoner of Azkaban, chapter 8), and that's as "official" as the handing-in of the timetables. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:26, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
It has been two days you didn't respond, I wasn't able to know you could respond.
It is not mentioned a "lit of students in alphabetical order", but what has this to do? Maybe Harry didn't pay attention to the list, maybe this was just not mentioned... Yourself said before that a lot of things were not mentioned, but this doesn't mean they didn't exist! And there do are proofs to affirm McGonagall called the students in alphabetical order, she consecutively called Hermione, Neville, Parvati and Harry and called Ron some minutes later. Do you really think this is just a mere coincidence.
"if they were in alphabetical order, Harry's forms would immediately follow those of the student that preceded him, and there would be no reason to look for them". Well, it is not specified the timetables were ordred according to alphabet... it is possible McGoangall read the list of students and the next student (after Parvati) was Harry, so she said what she said.
"Harry and Ron could conceivably be sitting next to each other on one side of the table, for example, and Hermione opposite them, and they'd still be able to mantain a conversation. McGonagall could've cleared one side of the table first (i.e. Hermione) before moving on to the next". Actually, if Harry and Ron were sitting next to each other and Hermione opposited them,McGoangall would give the timetable to Ron, just after she gave it to Harry, but the book clearly states that Ron received it some minutes after Harry.
"But for, instance, the checking of Hogsmeade permission slips is not done alphabetically (Prisoner of Azkaban, chapter 8), and that's as "official" as the handing-in of the timetables." That's an official event, but it is not a scholastic event. Official scholastic event, such as the Sorting ceremony and the O.W.L.s are always shown to be done in alphabetical order. And so should be the "handing-in of the timetables". While Sorting, the O.W.L.s and the "handing-in of the timetables" were scholastic official events, events that were required, the trip to Hogsmeade was not a scholastic event. GianG (talk) 14:48, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
As for McGonagall being reading from a list of students in alphabetical order, it is you who holds the burden of proof. I never mentioned such a thing seeing as it is never even hinted-at in the text and you came up with it; so I don't see how in the would it could be used to support your argument.
"Well, it is not specified the timetables were ordred according to alphabet -- the timetables weren't ordered at all, they were all blank. As it is narrated, McGonagall fills the blank sheets in with a tap of her wand.
As for the "few minutes" between Harry and Ron's turn, that isn't nearly enough proof that Ron didn't immediately follow Harry -- if anything it is only proof that Ron's conversation with McGonagall took a few minutes. The book also goes that Parvati Patil took five whole minutes checking her grades with McGonagall, so I don't see why it couldn't have been a similar case with Ron.
Also, your makeshift definition of "scholastic event" is a clear example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Even if these "scholastic events" were something ever even remotely referred-to in canon, what makes you say that all of them must, by definition, be done in alphabetical order? You've so far provided two instances, concerning of highly formal situations (one of them a ceremony dating back thousands of years, the other a highly-regulated exam situation) -- who's to say that it still holds for a relatively informal occurence such as this? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 05:14, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean there are proofs to affirm McGonagall had a list of Gryffindor students in Harry's year, but I just said that it is the most logical explanation. It is statistically unlikely that McGonagall randomly called five stuednts in alphabetcal order. The probability that five students (out of ten students) would have been randomly called in alphabetical order is in the order of 0,001%. It is more than likely that McGonagall called the students in alphabetical order and even if the list didn't exist, McGonagall could have remembered by heart the alphabetical order of the sixth year Gryffindor students; after all, she knew them for six years, they were in her house and they were only ten students.
The timetables were not ordred at all and this is supported by the fact McGonagall had to search for Harry's one, but this doesn't mean that "the handing-in of the timetables" wasn't done in alphabetical order.
And the "some minutes" between Harry and Ron's turn could be both a proof Ron didn't immeditely followed Harry and a proof Ron's conversation with McGoangall took few minutes, but... the book clearly said: "Qualche minuto dopo, a Ron fu dato il via libera per le stesse materie di Harry, e i due si alzarono da tavola insieme." This means: "Some minutes later, Ron got the green light for the same subjects as Harry, and the two left the table together." The implication is clear: Ron's conversation with McGonagall was very brief and he immediately received his timetable. The description of "the handing-in of Ron's timetable" is similar to Hermione's one and it is mentioned Hermione immediately received her timetable. Also, Ron was not very interested in Hogwarts subjects and if he had taken a long time for his conversation, it would have been noted, because Ron is not just a boy Harry never mentioned, but he is his best friend!
And I'm not using the Not true Scotsman fallacy. You said: "who's to say that it still holds for a relatively informal occurence such as this?" Maybe, you're using it. You said that this is a relatively informal occourence, but just according to you! This is so formal as the Sorting ceremony and the O.W.L.s are. This "relatively informal occourence" will bring the students to their N.E.W.T.s. GianG (talk) 11:24, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
There's something I think I should clarify: the students weren't called and they didn't go to McGonagall, McGonagall went to them ("After they had eaten, they remained in their places, awaiting Professor McGonagall [...]"; "A few minutes later [...] the two of them left the table together"). This might not look like much, but it makes a world of difference. Students, as far as we know, sit wherever they like, with whoever they like. This would, certainly, influence the way McGonagall would hand their timetables over to them and would change the probability you suggested (which, actually, is somewhat off -- it would actually be (6*5!)/10!=0,02%, not 0,001, even though we can both agree the difference is insignificant for the sake of any argument) -- students wouldn't be seated at random, rather, where they'd like. You can't really calculate any probability -- people who are friends would likely sit together, but we don't know just how likely -- for instance, what if two people who would normally sit together got in a row that morning and we don't know about it? There are too many variables at play, here, and we can't pretend to know them all.
Besides, we don't know in what way McGonagall opted to clear the students. First one side of the table, then the other? One side to the opposite, and back? Did she alternate midway between these two ways? We don't know.
This whole argument of yours is based on affirming the consequent. If McGonagall hands-in all 10 Gryffindor students their timetables in alphabetical order (P), then the particular 5 students we hear about in the books have to have theirs handed-in in alphabetical order (Q). The error lies in saying that the fact that these 5 Gryffindors are given their timetables in alphabetical order (Q) implies that all 10 Gryffindors are given their timetables in alphabetical order (P) -- it doesn't necessarily.
As for the excerpt you cited, it goes "A few minutes later, Ron was cleared to do the same subjects as Harry, and the two of them left the table together." There is no implication whatsoever as to what happened. All it's said is that they left a few minutes later, simple as that. "A few minutes" is not synonymous with "instantly afterwards". "A few minutes" is vague enough to potentially mean the lenght of Ron's conversation with McGonagall, not necessarily anything else. There's no argument there (even if it meant that, it would be meaningless in regards to your argument, since there isn't rock-solid evidence that McGonagall handed the timetables in strict alphabetical order).
This event is informal, by definition. Social form can be defined as "an established method of expression or practice; fixed way of proceeding; conventional or stated scheme", as in a ceremony or an exam situation -- which this is hardly (McGonagall even stops to dicuss Harry's Transfiguration mark, and starts talking about a clearly unrelated topic such as the Quidditch team tryouts). You are using a staw man -- I never said it wasn't important, I said it was informal.
And no, I'm not using the No true Scotsman fallacy for the simple reason that I'm not the one asserting a claim, I'm the one criticising your assertion. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:57, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki