Talk:Magic in Harry Potter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article combines the Muggle and Magical Schools (Harry Potter) pages.
The article Spells and spell-like magic in the world of Harry Potter, formerly List of spells in Harry Potter that ended up losing the list, has been merged here.It had a talk page, with no open discussions, viewable here.

Durmstrang and Location[edit]

We can't use Krum's nationality as a "hint" about Durmstrang's location -- the British Draco Malfoy after all could also have gone there, we are told. Not to mention that it's explicitely hypothesized that it's somewhere in the North instead and Bulgaria *isn't* a Northern country, it's a southern one.

We should stick to the hypothesis which is actually *in* the books -- and that's northern Europe, the educated guess that Hermione makes.

Northern Europe as a location is also supported from the descriptions of the kind of clothing worn by Durmstrang Students when they arrive at Hogwarts for the Tr-Wizard Cup. There are also a couple of comments by the Durmstrang students on how warm it is when the climatic reputation of the UK can hardly be considered warm by equatorial standards.

Also, Harry once spots Krum taking a dip in the lake and we have numerous mentions across multiple books to indicate that the lake itself was considered cold and freezing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.88.255.123 (talk) 11:49, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore performing magic without incantations[edit]

"Albus Dumbledore has been known to do good-sized feats of magic without the use of a single spell, and is known to only have used an actual spell once - and when he did, it smashed effortlessly through a sturdy door."

What about Ennervate (in this same scene) or Portus (in the fifth book)? Should the second half of this sentence should be removed? neatnate 17:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed it. Aris Katsaris 04:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[[parselmouth)): who is 'herpo the foul'?

gandalf 10:35, 10-21-04

Mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them. Aris Katsaris 12:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


in half blood prince the students get taught non-verbal magic, dumbledore is powerful and maybe saying a spell makes it more powerful (the door in and Ennervate) and the portkey had to be powerful to get through hogwarts wards

Side note - It has been theorized that it is possible to create a Portkey *out* of Hogwarts, but not *into* it. That's why the Triwizard Cup was able to bring Harry back after he was in Little Hangleton - the cup was 'tethered' to its starting point, at Hogwarts. That may not be the reason he spoke Portus aloud. It was really more important as a clue to the readers.DittoTOL 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity[edit]

"Harry Potter is often thought to be a Half-blood. But he is in fact not. A person's blood is determined only by their parents, not their grand parents, great grandparents and so on. And since Lily Evens, and James Potter were both wizards/witches, that would make Harry Potter a pure blood."

Uh, what? The books make it pretty clear that blood purity fanatics do not distinguish between Muggle-born wizards and Muggles. A half-blood may be a child of a wizard and a Muggle; or may have Muggle grandparents. Harry is repeatedly called a half-blood, once by no less an authority than Dumbledore (in OOP). Cite: HP Lexicon Nightsky 20:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I updated the "Unnamed Status" section, hope that clears it up. To Nightsky: I get a rude, superiority vibe from you're post, and I would imagine the original poster would appreciate that, just because s/he asked a question you and i know the answer to. Incidentally, I would consider JKR a more cite-able authority than the Lexicon, but to each his own, I suppose.
Cite: JKR's FAQ
Cheers,
Daniel
7-17, 4:35 PM Mountain Time


JK Clearly states in the FAQ on here website: "As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents."

Impending Article Split[edit]

Now that I have your attention, I'm working on an article on the Wizarding World, where I'm planning to describe the setting in detail, and once done I'd quite like to move the descriptions of wizard society in this article there. Objections? Please voice them. -- Kizor 09:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tiiiime's up! -- Kizor 23:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so this has been somewhat delayed. -- Kizor 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Population" section reads like an essay[edit]

It also seems to be original research. It should be removed or heavily edited. MosheZadka 1 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

In the Emerson/Melissa interview, Rowling states that the British wizarding population might be around 3000 (plus magical creatures). 66.140.75.102

moved it here in the meanwhile. MosheZadka 1 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

While J. K. Rowling has never been very consistent regarding maths and dates in her works, it is interesting to estimate the population of wizards in her world; such gives an idea of how easy it is for a wizarding world to exist alongside our own.

The equation for approximate population is: Population = Birth Rate * Average Life Span. This is close to accurate under the assumption that these values remain relatively constant for a duration greater than the average life span, which is usually a bad assumption but is good enough for the moment.

According to J.K. Rowling, all people with the potential for wizardry that are born in Britain are invited to Hogwarts. Assume the numbers of students at Hogwarts has been consistent for the last century or so. We can estimate that about 40 students are in Harry's class (about 10 per house), and by our assumptions that would mean about 40 students per year. Assuming an average wizard life-span of, say, a century (which isn't too far off based on lists of known wizard life-spans, although they can live to over 150 if they don't blow themselves up or otherwise get killed), that places P = 40 * 100, or 4000 wizards and witches, with rather conservative estimates.

More optimistic estimates could easily double or even triple that number. One could assume, for example, that many wizards or witches are home-tutored, take a correspondence course by owl, learn in alternative learning environments (covens, etc.), or simply learn on their own by reading esoteric books. One could also say that the average number of wizards attending Hogwarts over the last century is higher (Voldemort's reign may have had an impact on birthrate). One might also add those that have the ability, but choose not to educate themselves. In any case, it would be difficult to justify a population of much more than twelve thousand wizards in Britain.

So... pick a reasonable and convenient range of, say 5500 to 11000 potential wizards in Britain in 1991, the official WB date for Sorcerer's Stone. The population in Britain of 55 million would indicate that about one person in ten-thousand to one person in five-thousand has magical ability. Assuming the same average ratio worldwide would mean that there are between 1/2 million and 1 million wizards and witches in the world.

Considering that, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, over one-hundred thousand witches and wizards watched the Quidditch World Cup (Bulgaria vs. Ireland), one must assume that a fairly significant portion of witches and wizards around the world are interested in it, and that inter-continental travel is very cheap for wizards.

In any case, with at most one person in five-thousand having magical ability, in combination with attempts to keep it secret, it is easy to see how magic could be kept secret from the Muggles. Especially since, if you estimate that only one in four wizards at Hogwarts is a first-generation muggle-born, that means that around one in twenty-thousand Muggle children are born as wizards (assuming that only half of them go to Hogwarts). Even if they each proved to twenty friends and family members that magic exists, that still amounts to 99.95% of the muggle population having no such proof.

i think that some people should keep in mind that when you are writing a series of books that have becomed loved by millions, you get the urge to please everyone, everywhere, all the time. harry potter is fictional and inconsistencies are a given. imagine plotting 7 stories, 40+ characters, their personalities, traits, background stories, timelines, made up creatures. keep in mind 'she' cant keep everything in order constantly. sometimes she leaves things out.

terms[edit]

moving the terms (that regard blood purity) to Blood purity (Harry Potter).--jonasaurus 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of various types[edit]

I came here looking for squibs, following a link from a redirect page. I'd like to have a list of squibs, such as:

What's the best way to do this? Uncle Ed 19:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

You could look at Blood purity (Harry Potter)#Squib (which the squib page ought to redirect to instead...), which lists a couple squibs, which might be all that are ever mentioned in the books. That's also all that HP Lexicon mentions, and same for JKRowling's FAQ page on them --Mairi 07:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


As a separate note on character types, I was under the impression that Animagi *could* have at least some vague control over their animal form. Wasn't it discussed somewhere in the book that the reason Sirius and James were a large dog and stag (respectively) were so they could be large enough to keep Lupin in line during his transformation? Steamboat28 (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snape and Occlumency[edit]

Too much speculation in the Legilimency/Occlumency section of the article. Since it is not known where Snape's loyalties lie, it is not known whether he must have used occlumency against Voldemort. Also, Dumbledore may have chosen Snape to teach Harry Occlumency because of Snape's skills at Legilimency, which he has demonstrated throughout the series (every time Harry suspects Snape is reading his mind, he is!). I'm not sure how to deal with these issues other than deleting the sentences altogether. The section seems somewhat blank without it though. What to do? --MrBawn 01:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Apparition[edit]

How come the house elves apparate in Hogwarts?

Aside from artistic licence on JK Rowling's part, we can only assume that what house elves do isn't apparition, but some other kind of magic which has the same effect. Note that the house elves appear to posess a great deal of inherent magical ability. "Teleportation" may be one of these inherent abilities, and don't relate to casting specific spells to apparate. (Well, it's a guess.) 88.107.112.147 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this question has been answered. It was either on her website or in her World Book Day online interview that J.K. Rowling explained that house-elves have a different sort of magic from wizards (which allows them to better serve their masters), and that they could do certain things wizard's can't, including apparition-like teleportation in places where it is normally impossible. Kajerm

It says that it's unclear whether you can disapparate without a wand, but I think it is crystal clear that you cannot. Almost all wizards are basically helpless without a wand. After Hermione is tortured in Malfoy mansion, Harry has to grab the wands out of Draco Malfoy's hand in order for them to escape. He tosses Ron one of the wands and tells him to take it and GO. If Ron hadn't needed the wand, there would have been no reason to take the time and risk of tossing it to him; they would have both just disapparated immediately. Can that be changed? 64.131.187.102 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, despite wizards idiocy, house elves have much more power than wizards think, possibly even more than many wizards. All the motifs and themes in Harry Potter are extremely symbolic of real events, be it house elves oppression, Grindlewald, and even rebellion. --Storytellershrink 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Agree: Seems a logical proposal. The Spells and spell-like magic in the world of Harry Potter page was a "leftover" after the huge lists of spells were split out into category pages. Makes sense to roll the information into here. - Beowulf314159 15:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that disapparition should be merged here! Someone, please do it! Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete[edit]

I've finished adding content from the aforementioned article with a behemoth for a title. These two interwiki links were 'left over': could a French and a Portugese speaker check where they belong?

[[fr:Imperium (sortilège)]] [[pt:Lista de feitiços em Harry Potter]]

--Kizor 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore understanding parseltongue[edit]

Where is the proof that Dumbledore understands parseltongue? (Am I spelling that correctly? Hardest word in the Harry Potter universe, in my opinion.)Emily 03:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what are you referring? I don't believe he ever spoke parseltongue, though he could speak Mermish. Actually, after looking some more, Dumbledore's article does mention something to this effect. I'll make another comment over there. fruitofwisdom 03:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication whatsoever that Dumbledore speaks Parseltoungue. He is, of course, well aware of what Parseltongue is and its impact and its reputation related to the Slytherins through Salazar Slytherin. He is especially conscious of it because of the link between Voldemort and Harry through the failed Avada Kedavra spell where Voldemort is supposed to have given Harry a part of himself.

A clear proof that Dumbledore does not speak Parseltongue is that he never managed to locate the Chamber or Secrets the key to it was a command spoken in Parseltongue.

128.88.255.123 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKR said in an interview - I forget who with - that Dumbledore was "simply brilliant", and indeed spoke Parseltongue. And for Dumbledore not finding the chamber, perhaps he did not know where to look. Either way, this "proof" is OR and cannot be included. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyone that knows parseltounge is evil? Well, if thats true, Mr. Crouch is a goblin, and Dumbledore is a merman --Storytellershrink 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disapparition merge[edit]

I support the merge of the article Disapparation into this article . Lag 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the meger and now propose the deletion of Disapparation. Lgriot 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid weasel words link[edit]

Inadvertently provided a "bad link" to the "avoid weasel words" guidelines section in my edit summary. here it is: avoid weasel words --T-dot 09:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parseltongue[edit]

Since it's listed here, I'll ask my question here: I know little is said about the phonetic properties of parseltongue in the books, but since its also used in the film, wouldn't it be possible to add some information on parseltongue as a language as apposed to only a magical ability? Redge(Talk) 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to go ahead and note the attributes of it as a language, but make sure you note in the film and not in canon. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition[edit]

"As one might expect, it is considered quite rude to Apparate into a private area such as a residence. For this reason, as well as for reasons of security, many private residences also have anti-apparition spells protecting them from uninvited intrusions. Therefore the most reliable (and most polite) way to travel to most locations is to apparate somewhere unseen nearby and proceed to the final destination on foot."

Could someone explain where this comes from? Michaelsanders 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply common sense, I'd guess. Not canon. That's why it says 'as one might expect' -- it's assumed common courtesy not to apparate into any old place. However, there is some support of this in canon when Arthur Apparates home from work but instead of arriving in his house, he arrives outside and waits for Molly to open the door. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll tone it down a bit. The 'don't apparate into a person's house' probably has enough support from canon and common sense to remain, but the idea that the 'ancient and powerful magics' on Hogwarts, which are supposed to be remarkable, are employed on several hundred box-standard houses is rather pushing the limits (as you can see, I immediately altered the 'apparate somewhere public', which suggested that people preferred to apparate in the middle of a crowd). Michaelsanders 12:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that description in quotes is an accurate rewording (without infringing upon copyright) of what Dumbledore tells Harry in Book 6, chapter 4. An apparition-restriction spell exists and the same spell is used for all dwellings, including Hogwarts. The boundaries of the area and whom it affects can be specified by someone. For other examples of the apparation-restriction spell in use, see Book 6 chapter 17, Book 7 camping scenes, and Book 7 scenes at Grimmauld Place.sewtf3 8:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain side along apparition? Its mentioned several times in the latest book

Priori Incantatem Inconsistency[edit]

I'm not really sure if this is the right section for this but it seems that either there is an inconsistency in the facts about Voldemort's attack on the Potter's or Priori Incantatem does not strictly obey the "most-recent-to-oldest" order of regurgitating echoes. We are told that Voldemort killed James Potter first and then Lily Potter but in the graveyard duel "Echo James" emerges before "Echo Lily" despite the fact that his murder preceded Lily's and therefore he should emerge after her. Although I suppose it is possible that this is merely an oversight by Rowling but that seems incredibly unlikely in addition to the fact that the movie version, while not canonical, does follow the book's order.

This mistake was actually fixed in later editions and thus doesn't really deserve mention. http://www.twwn.net/mistakes.php
Mrobfire 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Debts[edit]

I added a section on life debts, such as that owed by Snape to James and by Wormtail to Harry in the Spell-like Effects section. Please flesh it out for me as I'm not quite an expert and move it if it belongs elsewhere. --72.200.78.136 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually any canonical evidence for debts being spell-like, as opposed to simply social phenomena? Seems wierd. 207.112.101.68 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parcelsus[edit]

While Parcelsus was mentioned in PS (he was on a Chocolate real source is Frog card), there is no indication that he was a possible source for the word Parceltongue. Indeed, the real source is listed. So unless someone can find a reputable source, I'd say this is original research and should be deleted. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sirius black[edit]

If the priori incantatem spell can reveal the last spell a wand used..then why didn't the Ministry of Magic examine Sirius' wand to see if he really killed the people they think he killed instead of immediately sending him of to Azkaban? Veritaserum wouldn't hurt either to get the truth

Veritaserum isn't admissable evidence in a trial because it can be resisted, according to the page here, and I think 'why not use Priori Incantatem' fell through a plot hole and was lost. (I suspect she didn't come up with the idea until after...) --StarChaser Tyger 09:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black was sent straight to Azkaban. There was overwhelming evidence and many eye-witnesses, and he did not receive a trial. In their haste, I'm sure the Ministry broke his wand before anyone considered that he might be innocent. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


merge in metamorphmagus[edit]

Its a paragraph, has very small notability, no out of universe sources, creation info, it would fit very well in this article. Judgesurreal777 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Most of that paragraph seems irrelevant anyway. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Horcrux[edit]

There was a {{mergeto}} tag added on Horcrux earlier today, but no discussion started, so I'll do it...

  • No. Both articles are long and detailed. Horcrux should keep its own article. Matchups 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Length and detail do not yield separate articles, because summary style assumes that such spinoffs would be notable. For instance, it would be unacceptable if Bill Gates wrote every ounce of his life story on Wikipedia. The key is to write encyclopedic summaries of the main plot elements, find all real-world information available to show notability, combine the two, and write from the perspective of the real world. This can be difficult for individual pieces of a concept, until it is combined with the greater whole. In other words, a general article on the Magic of Harry Potter would have a far greater chance of containing substantial real-world content than twenty subarticles would. — Deckiller 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read Harry Potter? You have tagged many many articles for being unimportant. Most readers would agree that Horcruxes, Patronuses, and Occlumency are extremely important. Horcruxes are so important that the 6th and 7th books are devoted almost wholly to the gathering of details, and destruction of horcruxes. •Malinaccier• T/C 20:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are important to the plot, but they do not show real-world content/importance, which is the perspective of Wikipedia. — Deckiller 23:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Big 'no'. More than being crucial to the central plot of the later books, the specific details in the Horcrux article would clutter an article devoted general magic. There may be an argument to move the description, creation, and destruction sections if that were all the article contained, but with so many specific details, this aticle should remain right where it is. A perfect example is the article for Ingsoc from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. While Ingsoc is a part of a larger idiology which includes the Inner and Outer Parties, the concept is important enough on it's own to deserve a separate article. The Horcrux as a concept, a plot point, and an object within the Harry Potter universe are important enough, as well (not to mention how much specific information can be gathered about them beyond other magical objects... but I digress). — Flërnk

--Storytellershrink 01:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles suggested to merge into this article[edit]

Deckiller has nominated that the following articles be merged to this page:

Most of these on the basis that the articles are not notable. Discuss further below. •Malinaccier• T/C 20:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as these articles don't have enough notability to stand on their own, and would be better combined in here. Judgesurreal777 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just wanted to test the waters here. I know next nothing about Harry Potter, so I can't help with merges, but I still recommend you try to follow WP:FICT and WP:WAF. At the very least, try to merge those articles fewer than two pagescrolls to comply with WP:NOT#PLOT; borderline articles like the spells list can wait for a more in-depth discussion. — Deckiller 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter, Magical Beasts, Animagi, Patronus Charm, and Unforgivable Curses are each substantial enough and play a large enough role in the series and in Potter scholarship to justify independent articles. Each of these play an integral role in the series and have been discussed extensively either in essays anthologized in books such as Philosophy and Harry Potter and its ilk or Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them, not to mention HPL, TLC, and MN. Floo Network, Dark mark, and Metamorphmagus are not significant enough to merit these and can be merged rather simply into this parent article. Occlumency and Dark Arts I could see going either way on. They both have some meat to them, but Dark Arts in particular is a hodgepodge of tiny items that seem a bit like filling. The point of these articles should be that you can't talk about the Harry Potter phenomenon without them; if you could delete them without meaningful detriment to such a discussion, then they could probably be merged into something else. DittoTOL 02:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ditto for the most part; perhaps this is too in-universe, but Dark Arts and Magical Beasts are substantial enough to have their own courses at Hogwarts. I was surprised to see an article on Floo Network. If Dark Arts is kept, then Dark Mark should be merged there, rather than here. On Occlumency, I'll come down on the side of merge, preferably into Legilimency (perhaps retitling the combination). Ditto didn't comment on Unbreakable Vow; I'd go with a merge on that one as well. In response to Deckiller, pagescrolls are a very variable measure of length. How many lines were you thinking? Matchups 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Dark Mark with Magical objects in Harry Potter or Dark Arts (Harry Potter). Merge Floo Network with the Floo Powder article at Magical objects. Spells, Patronus Charm, Unforgiveable Curses, Dark Arts and Magical Beasts are notable enough for articles. Unbreakable Vow, Metamorphmagus, Legilimency (not mentioned here) and Occlumency could merge here. Most already have a section to themselves, saying "see X for more information" or something to that effect. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, but Occlumency, Metamorphmagus, Animangus, Parseltongue, and all other magical attributes could be grouped together in an new article titled "magical skills in Harry Potter" couldn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.25.161 (talk • contribs)

Yes, either that or the already relevant section in this article. I think that would be better, as there is a lot of fancrufty type stuff in these articles (speculation etc.) that we do not need in an article. It would be better to remove it and put the relevant stuff here. As a side note, the only thing "wrong" in your post above was the lack of signing (with for tildes - ~~~~). Please do this, even if you do not have an account. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legilimency. Matchups 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge for Unforgivable Curses. Magic (Harry Potter) is already plenty big. Prune the OR and speculation from UC, sure... but don't merge, it'll become ungainly or you'll have to cut too much. - BalthCat 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition.[edit]

Should we cite the movies as examples the visual effect of the apparition when they may have just added the smoke for effect? It seems more reasonable to cite the books as the only source for the effects of magic. Beligaronia 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. The films aren't usually considered canon. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The films are most definitely *not* canon - not core, anyway. If you're describing Harry Potter, describe the books. Only things JKR had a direct hand in creating qualify (technically making Famous Wizard cards found on her site more authoritative than the movies). She had oversight, but not control, therefore they should not be treated as gospel. The apparition effects in the movie differred from each other and the books dramatically. Spells seen only the in movie are listed in a separate entry from the book spell-list; all magic effects, plot points, character differences, etc., should be given the same treatment, if mentioned at all. A 'Differences between the book and other media' section might simplify this, but it would probably be an awkward project to jam these in to each relevant topic.DittoTOL 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part-Veela Males[edit]

I read in this article that veelas charm males. This clearly means that Veelas can only be female. However, can a veela or part-veela woman and a human male give birth to a boy? If so, would that boy have the veela charm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.39.145 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps the veela characteristics are dormant in males, or the veela genes disallow for males to be born. As we do not know any male Veela children we cannot be certain. But yes, Veelas do attract males - but as demonstrated in GoF, those with strong willpower can resist (Mr. Weasley, and later Harry). THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration[edit]

Out of the five exceptions, only four are mentioned in the series: food, love, life, and information. The fifth is probably money, although it is only mentioned indirectly. 20:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did these items come from? It *is* mentioned that Love and Life cannot be magicked, but *not* that it falls under Gamp's Law. I'm not sure what is even meant by 'information', nor that reference. Money is sort of dubious, since money changes from culture to culture and is not encompassed as a 'universal' such as Love, Life, Food and (I suppose?) Information. Consider leprechaun gold - clearly an example of magic money being created and disappeared. One of the fundamental limitations on magic in Harry Potter is the D&D-esque idea of a set duration for spell effects. Charms wear down, conjured chairs cannot stick around forever. This is why there is still poverty (food isn't the only limitation), and why you still need a full Wizarding economy. People have to invest significant resources in creating permanent effects.DittoTOL 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money is a man made creation to begin with, having no realy value without something behind it --Storytellershrink 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on adjusting this section the fact that the word "probably" was used for the case for money is a very good indication that it is speculation although it is likely they are Gamp's Law without reference/evidence it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I would also suggest removing "information" from the list as that has no references. --Sin Harvest 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Inferius[edit]

While being really cool and scary, (myself being a harry potter fan), the article on the Inferius isn't notable, there is no real world information on it, and the article therefore becomes a plot regurgitation, which is duplicative of the book and film articles. Therefore, mention it here. Judgesurreal777 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with a merge, under the Dark Items or Creatures subcategory. A lot of that article is OR too, so that can be wiped. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but inferi isn't something just in the Harry Potter series. --Storytellershrink 01:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the concept may be in other works, but the name was certainly a JKR original. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge, the Inferi are (or is) not that notable for having its/their own article. Lord Opeth 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Number Seven[edit]

I propose this section is deleted. It is largely Original Research and full of cruft. For example: page numbers in DH - 1+3+3 and 5+0+2 is taking it a bit too far. If it is decided to keep the section, there is a lot of cleanup required as well. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malinaccier for deleting it. All discussion about his decision here. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of place sentence[edit]

"But in HP1 and HP2 film Hermonie uses a spell on Harry to make his vision clearer and to repair his glasses outside Hogwarts."

The above sentence suddenly comes when describing about the significance of the number seven in the Harry Potter series it seems really out of place should. I think it should just be removed from the article all together what does everyone else think? --Sin Harvest 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I agree, it was awkward and trivial. faithless (speak) 10:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Unforgivable Curses and Dark Mark[edit]

Agreed, I think the best resolution would be to give a quick outline here and then redirect to main article --S.ELF OBJECTION! 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has made another comments about this I'm going to go ahead and cut down the Unforgivable Curses section in Magic (Harry Potter) and show a main article redirect thing in --S.ELF OBJECTION! (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at the wikiproject was merge, and we have found a suitable target (this one), so feel free to merge these articles at anytime. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about merging the Unforgivable Curses into "Spells" rather than in here? Lord Opeth (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose that would be the more appropriate merge as it is a sub article of the magic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Elf was talking about cutting information out of here, not merging Unforgivable curses at all. I think the merge wouldn't be prudent, as there is a lot of information in the Unforgivables article. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bellatrix and occlumency[edit]

Why is everyone so sure Bellatrix knows occlumency and legilimency? I don't remember it from the 6th book. What chapterBracelet (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the page, but Snape says "Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you occlumency. What are you trying to hide from your master?" Which at least proves she knows occlumency. This occurs when Harry is at Slughorn's Christmas Party, and sneaks off to eavesdrop on Malfoy and Snape. Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it says that on pg 323 of the the US hardcover edition in chapter 15, The Unbreakable Vow. Grey Maiden talk 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I looked it up, and you're right! I've read the book before, I just didn't remember that part. Bracelet (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animagi transformation[edit]

"...out of the Six Animagi described as such in the books (Minerva McGonagall, Rita Skeeter, James Potter, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew, and Rita Skeeter)"

Rita Skeeter is listed twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll fix that. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck is this article listed among the Satanist and Occultist wikiprojects?[edit]

What exactly are we trying to prove here? That Christian fundamentalist loonies are right? Serendipodous 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, perhaps someone should remove it. Obviously someone has put it there by mistake. --Jammy (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potions?[edit]

There's some detail on spellcasting technique but barely a mention of potions, though from book 6 it's clear that not just ingredients but technique can make a big difference in potion making. Should there be a small section on magical potions too? JackSeoul (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Communicating with the dead" section[edit]

Rowling says it is impossible in her universe to resurrect the dead, so this section's claim that "raising What exactly happens when the Resurrection stone is used? Are the dead really brought back? Or just representations of them? This needs to be cleared up before that essay can go back in. Serendipodous 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ressurrection Stone is just a misnomer, it basically just brings a spirit back to the real world, but it doesn't make them mortal again. --Jammy (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly right, as shown by "The Tale of the Three Brothers" (HP7, and also readable in "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" on the Amazon website). -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition[edit]

I woul dispute the claim that this being "sometimes accompanied by a distinctive cracking or popping sound" is "associated with ineptitude rather than success"; after all, the sound is clearly non-magical in cause, being that of the air molecules being violently forced out of the way (arrival) or rushing to fill the sudden vacuum (departure). I don't doubt that skilled magicians can counteract this with another spell (perhaps by Apparating the air that would be displaced on arrival, into the space left by departure?), but I don't see how failure to do this amounts to ineptitude at Apparition itself. -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portkeys[edit]

Portkeys should be listed after the Floo Network as they are both used for travel. --Bending Unit (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit[reply]

Inferi[edit]

Should a comparison be made between Inferi and the bodies in the Dead Marshes in the Lord of the Rings? IIRC, in LotR, the bodies try to drag Frodo down don't they, similar to the Inferi trying to drown intruders to Voldemort's cave. Or am I clutching at straws? TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what we consider to be OR. Sorry. It was an interesting point though. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler[edit]

After glancing through the first few sections, I think this article needs a spoiler tag. A big blinky one,(just in case).

Don't want to do it myself though. 91.109.70.127 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had this discussion last year. Outcome was no spoiler tags, be they blinky or not. Sorry. WP:SPOIL tells why. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book reference is wrong[edit]

After reading the Wiki article I found a discrepancy.

" Albus Dumbledore told Harry after finding the magically concealed boat to reach the locket Horcrux that "Magic always leaves traces...sometimes distinctive traces..."

This was, infact, in the 6th book, The Half-Blood Prince. Or atleast I"m pretty sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.103 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Magic study section[edit]

The magic in Harry Potter series is seen as equivalent to science of our world. Known researches included the Philosopher's stone etc. And there is also journal named "Transfiguration Today". So this part of magic should be included in the article. Dreamback1116 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Gamp's Law Section[edit]

It is not mentioned anywhere in the series, nor in any other piece of canon, that the information in this section is true. While it is true that these things may not be magicked, it is confirmed nowhere that they are the Five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration. Indeed, the section seems to me to be largely composed of OR, and I suggest that it is removed entirely from the article. --CBrock055 00:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not mentioned anywhere in the series? I don't have the books with me, but this forum post suggests that Gamp's Law is mentioned by name in Deathly Hallows and that there are five exceptions to it. If I had the book, I could look it up. Anyone else? --clpo13(talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may have been a bit unclear in my post. What I meant was that the info in that section is completely non-canon and composed of OR, not that Gamp's Law was never mentioned. In the seventh book, yes, Gamp's Law is mentioned. However, the only exception that was canonically given was food. Whoever wrote that section of the article was clearly making assumptions, and, as far as I'm aware, mere assumptions do not qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedic article, even if it is about the laws of magic in a fictional world. =) --CBrock055 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. There's a reference in that section that points to a bunch of www.accio-quote.org/themes/therules.htm quotes by J. K. Rowling about the rules of magic, and I think most of that section came from there, but I'm not really sure. If you want to trim it down to what's just referenced in the book, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I think having a third opinion would be good before making such drastic changes.

--clpo13(talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any hint that information cannot be magicked; J.K. said that "you cannot find someone just by writing them a letter and then tracing the owl", but claiming that no information can be obtained magically is a bit overstretching that sentence.85.18.101.3 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have love, life or information been "objects"? I very much doubt that these are three of the exceptions to Gamp's Law, although it's true that they cannot be conjured. -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clp013, the source you give here doesn't mention Gamps Law at all really, just says that there are laws. I do not recall a mention of information, but I will leave it there as I clean up the section, simply because I may well have missed it. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "life" really one of the Five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration? We've seen wizards create both animals (Avis spell) and plants (Orchideous spell). Maybe the one who wrote it meant "bringing back people from the dead"; in that case shouldn't it be changed to "soul"? 84.90.61.144 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgivables[edit]

It should be noted in this section that Molly Weasley implicitly used the Killing Curse on Bellatrix Lestrange in The Deathly Hallows. It is the only confirmed used of Avada Kedavara by a "good character," albeit as a non-verbal spell. In-text, Harry even notes how similar Lestrange's death is to Sirius's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.96.157 (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Harry Potter → Magic (Harry Potter) — I think the new name better befits naming standards. Compare other articles in the Magic disambiguation page. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think this is a better title. We may consider moving other articles to match. Powers T 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photographs[edit]

I think two sections were merged into one, because it went from talking about photographs to ghosts. Can someone please fix it? 143.200.225.110 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speak of photograpsh, it is stated that "figures in Wizarding pictures do not reflect the emotions or actions of their counterparts in the real world" but later contradicts when Percy appeared to have walked out of it".[23] It is also mentioned that in a photo (taken by Colin Creevey) of Gilderoy Lockhart and Harry, Harry's picture had walked out and was resisting all of Lockhart's efforts to pull him back in." Are those two not reflecting the emotions or actions of their counterparts in the real world ? Because Percy was bitter with his family when his picture left the frame and Harry did not want to be be photographed with Lockhart. 143.200.225.110 (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with your Horocrux section[edit]

Yeah you guys need to fix the Horocrux section of this page. It's all messed up.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.130.194 (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be tagged as containing original research?[edit]

Should this page be tagged as containing original research? I see that this page is full of unsourced content. However, one might argue that the few amount of inline citations is understandable and we should Ignore all rules. I believe that this page contains loads of original research. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magic in Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic in Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic in Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wingardium leviosa....!"[edit]

Do any of the editors of this article know of any published reference to any connection between the words "Wingardium leviosa!" and the late actor Peter Wyngarde? I've long assumed that J K Rowling devised the wording as a homage to Wyngarde, but has anyone else made the same connection? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you noticed wing and levi? I mean levi as in levitation. It has got nothing to do with Peter Wyngarde. Fcbcampnou (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortescue (Harry Potter Portrait) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fortescue (Harry Potter Portrait). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 22:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing killing curse counters[edit]

The article states that the curse -cannot- be met with countering means. The text then quickly proceeds to list some means by which the curse can be averted, mostly physically but clearly also magically. The words "but" and "however" appears in very close proximity rendering the rather small section quite confusing - to not say unnecessarily contradictive. Arcsoda (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It first states the norm, and then goes on to list the few exceptions, including dodging, physical objects, and Harry Potter. —El Millo (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magic_in_Harry_Potter/Archive_1&oldid=1140387216"