Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter)

original research (original analysis)

As interesting and thorough as this article is, much of it seems to be original analysis and speculation by fans who come to their own conclusions based on evidence given by the books and JK Rowling. Although I have nothing personally against this, Wikipedia needs to be based off of reliable secondary (and not primary) sources. Which means, no original research.

In addition, I don't think that talk about genetics is approriate at all in this article, as it was demonstrated how, in the world defined by Rowling, the laws of genetics don't exactly work as they should. And we're bringing in terms that should be deemed irrelevant to the subject, and talk about genetics is obviously original research. However, if you ask me, magic ability could probably be linked to "magic energies" present in the cells themselves, or maybe mitochrondria, which have their own DNA and exist as part of the cell.

Anyways.... alot of this stuff has got to go, i think... :(Blueaster 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong in basing articles on reporting primary sources, such as the books themselves. But there ought also to be references to the debate about this from reliable sources such as HP-lexicon, mugglenet, TLC etc. Sandpiper 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From the deletion discussion

{{examplefarm}} {{in-universe}} {{Synthesis}} {{Missing information}}

It appears at this point that the article will be kept, so I will report some of the issues raised:

The reason that this appears to be a "fan article" is because it reads like one. It simply describes a concept used throughout the series, making no reference, that I can find at least, to the literaty significance of said concept. It gives a ton of facts about the stories (way too many) without delving into the symbolism behind the concept. It just doesn't "look" encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of thing I would expect to find on a Harry Potter fansite, not in an encyclopedia. As it stands, this isn't an article about a theme but about a simple idea used in the books.

The article needs a serious reduction in current content; there are far too many examples, making it seem like an attempt at a research paper and not an encyclopedia article. While articles shold be detailed, this one reads like an example farm.

Also, it has a serious lack of secondary sources, which is one of the main reasoms it was nominated for deletion. As the main source for this seems to be the books themselves, it appears to be original research by synthesis, which is generally forbidden by Wikipedia policy. It needs to cite multiple secondary sources that report the same information that is presented in the article.

If these issues are not fixed soon after the deletion discussion closes, it stands a good chance of being nominated again with a reason such as "Previously closed as Keep and cleanup but was not cleaned up and still appears to fail WP:OR and is still written like an essay" which is more likely to attract some "delete" !votes than the current nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One major problem I noticed going through the article is the prevolence of words/phrases like "can be assumed", "is implied", "therefore", etc. Words like these are basically the definition of original research by synthesis of published material. You can't just say: "The book says A and it says B so, C must also be true." That may be fine for a research paper, but not Wikipedia. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The new sources

The new sources provided are better than nothing, but they are far from adequate.

1. You still mainly cite the books themselves. Articles should be built on secondary sources, using primary sources like the books only where necessary. Are there no secondary sources about this?
2. The citations themselves are fairly unhelpful (though I see on the deletion discussion that this is a work in progress). First, you give just an abbreveiation for the book with a link to its respective Wikipedia article. The title should be given in the reference. Also, you only give the chapter number, which is somewhat unhelpful. Using ref 2 as an example "[HP5], chapter 26". That chapter is 29 pages long in the hardcover version. Much of it seems to have nothing to do with the sentences it cites.

By no means is pure-blood status a guarantee of a person's attitude. The Weasleys and Longbottoms are old pure-blood families, but have no qualms about associating with Muggle-borns; moreover, while Mrs Weasley has no particular liking for Muggles or Muggle culture

The ref is apprarantly referring to the pages involving Ron and Neville talking to Muggle-born characters. There doesn't seem to be anything about Mrs. Weasley specifically or the families in general but simply a few characters. The citation must explicitly say what is said in the article. This appears to be an attempt at synthesis: "Ron and Neville associate with Muggle-borns" is what the book says; "The Weasley and Longbottom families have no problems associating with Muggle-borns" is what the article says.

1. Citation number 1, "Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Black Family Tree." Is this in some sort of special editon? My copy doesn't seem to have a "Black Family Tree". Can you please provide a page number.

I can help clean up some of the unnecessary examples, if anyone wishes for me to do so. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Well, it is useless to give pages and site numbers, since people have different editions. The UK- and US-edition, to start with, are totally different. Therefore one can only name the chapter as references. Second, the chapters I cited regarding the Weasleys and Longbottoms has other characters being nice to Muggleborns as well. In one of them Neville's grandmother appears and is kind to Hermione. The Black family tree is not in the books, but was publicised by Rowling for charity later. Neville Longbottom 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Still, even if multiple characters in a family associate with a few muggle-borns, that is still not enough to say the family associates with muggle-borns. The source needs to refer to the family in general, not just a few members associating with one or two muggle-borns. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • This may be a good source for avoiding OR in this page. - Peregrine Fisher 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this article contains a lot of things which you'd take away from the books but which you can't cite because it's the strong assumptions of every reader. (Though I would disagree that Mrs. Weasley doesn't like Muggles -- just is slightly perturbed by her husband's strong fascination -- so as this is an opinion, and can definitely not cited, it should be removed.) I have a book of Harry Potter essays, one of which partially discusses purity of blood. --03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the books are being used to cite speculative and inferred statements. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. For example:

It is strongly implied in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix that pure-blood families inbred with each other, somewhat like traditional European nobility.

This is sourced using Book 5, chapter 6. However, this is drawing conclusions based on that chapter, which is not allowed. This is an example of a statement that either needs a secondary source or needs to be removed. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many examples

This article has far too many examples. It goes into far more detail about the families than is necessary for an article about a plot device, especially as it seems most of the families have their own articles anyway.

I've pulled out a few random examples:

Most of the men in the family are named after stars or constellations, the exceptions being Phineas and Marius. Only three of the fourteen known Black women were named for stars or constellations: Cassiopeia, Bellatrix, and Andromeda.

Phineas Nigellus Black, the least popular headmaster in Hogwarts history, who has a portrait in the Headmaster's office as well as at 12 Grimmauld Place. He was in Slytherin House, and despised teaching as much as the students despised him.

"Narcissa" is the feminine form of Narcissus, a character in Greek mythology who drowned after falling in love with his own reflection (Narcissa Malfoy is said to be quite beautiful). It also refers to the narcissus flower, commonly known as the daffodil.

The Weasleys were also one of the poorest wizarding families in the series, though this has changed somewhat since Arthur Weasley got a promotion and all of their children except Ron and Ginny (who are still in school) have well-paying jobs and are able to support themselves financially.

Mrs Longbottom is a proud and dignified lady who wears long robes (her favourite colour may be green), a fox-fur scarf, a distinctive hat topped with a stuffed vulture, and carries a large red handbag.

Morfin Gaunt is buried in a grim graveyard beside the prison, where other inmates who died within the fortress are buried.

These are by no means all of the unnecessary examples. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out the unnecessary examples I found (not just the ones above). If there are no objections, I will remove them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

I didn't spot this in time to chime in on the AfD debate, but I do see a small problem with the title of this article. When I first saw Blood purity my original assumption was that it was going to be an article on the concept of "Blood Quanta" Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Blood_Quanta which is a real application of the concept of "blood purity".

Because of the potential for confusion and misdirection, I would propose that this article be moved to a less ambiguous name such as Blood purity in Harry Potter or Blood purity (Harry Potter) or something similar, and this page be turned in to a disambiguation page pointing both to this content as well as the Native Americans article.

Because this just underwent a contentious AfD debate, I am refraining from making this move unilaterally and waiting to see what, if any, thoughts on the matter come up. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will wait a few more days, if someone is against your idea, and if not, I will move the topic. It needs to be mentioned in the topic, that this is about Harry Potter, not Blood Purity in the real world. Neville Longbottom 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Found another quote by Rowling, which could be used as secondary source. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2353000/2353529.stm Neville Longbottom 17:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Article moving

This article (and not the talk page) was moved by means of copy-and-paste. I've reverted that; since it needs to be moved by an admin, I've asked John Reaves to do so. Michael Sanders 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) No It is scientific theory, you guys are wrong about everything. Really.

Derogative of African Americans?

Although this probably seems inappropriate, should it not be mentioned somewhere that mudblood is basically the equivalent of the term 'n-word' for African-Americans? 71.244.106.78

No because it isn't. That term is used specifically as a form of abuse for an entire race of people. 'Mudblood' is much more selective than that, it's about immediate ancestry. Aula^TPN 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Intended or not, every time someone uses some of these names it sounds just like the n-bomb. The use of mudblood, muggle or squib really sounds racist no matter who says it in the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mudblood is meant to be AS offensive as the n-word without actually being the n-word; so in a sense, you're correct. In the series, it's used the same way: as an inflamatory insult brought out by the hatred of someone's liniage. But simply beacause you see mudblood and think "n-word" says more about your personal perceptions than it does the intended use of the word. 143.138.26.138 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lestrange Family

In the Lestrange Family section, it says that a M Lestrange is a ghost at the Ministry of Magic and owned one of the first stores at the Diagon Alley. Where did those pieces of information came from? 201.37.226.89 22:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Potter family.

Folken and I disagree on whether the Potters should be listed as a pure-blood family; I say yes, Folken says no. My rationale is that Harry and Ginny's kids are all pure-blood, as their grandparents were all magical, and this is the criterion for being considered pure-blood. Ginny, of course, is also a pure-blood. In fact, Harry and his mother are the only Potters not to be pure-blood (and of course Lily wasn't really a Potter, but rather an Evans). Given this, I can't see why the Potters would not be considered a pure-blood family. Comments? faithless (^speak) 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is not really about how they are considered....

Blood purity is an in-universe concept, moreover invented and used by a certain category of characters inside the novels. The blood purity of the new Potter family has never been evoked in the books.

So, by writing things like "the potter are now concidered pure blood again", it's as if we, Wikipedia contributors, were acting as if we were characters in the novels talking about the blood purity of the Potters.

But the fact is, we're not characters of the books, thus we can't meddle with their in-universe concepts.

That's your own reasoning that the new Potter family is now pure blood because of Ginny, but would the fictional characters who've established the purity criteria think the same ? Wouldn't characters like Voldemort, or Umbridge, be tempted to say that once muggle blood is introduced, then its definitely over, had they to give their opinion on the Potters...?

All I'm saying, is that you're asserting things that you can't be sure of, because they are in-universe, thus subjected only to what the characters would say (or what the author would make them say). That's why we can't start deducing/considering things, we're neither characters in the novel nor the author.

On WP, we have to remain in an out of universe perspective, and avoid original research. Statements like the one we're discussing are against these 2 principles: yo're asserting something new, that was never said in the novels. How can you be sure of anything ? Folken de Fanel 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In CoS, Ernie ManMillian said that his blood was pure for nine generations therefore this is canon proof of a line being restored to purity. LizzieHarrison 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asserting things I can't be sure of. JKR has told us what constitutes blood purity. The Potters were an old pure-blood family, Harry being the only blip on the radar. Per the link provided, we know what characters such as Voldemort and Umbridge would think. Of the five Potters we know of at the end of DH, four are pure-blood. Why would the family not be considered pure-blood? We know the criterion, and the Potters pass it. By suggesting that the characters might go against the "rules" that the author has told us exist for determining blood-purity, it is you who is introducing original research into the article. In short, the author has told us what constitutes a pure-blood, and four of five Potters meet the standard. Why should they not be listed as such? faithless (^speak) 22:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the source you've provided specifically says that the Potter family blood purity is restored at the end of book 7 ? No it doesn't.

Does the source you've provided specifically says that if a half-blood marries a pure blood, then the purity of the line is restored ? No it doesn't.

In fact, Rowling wrote precisely the opposite. She wrote that these expressions are only here to show their originator's prejudices. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard.

Moreover, she explains that the Nazis had "the same warped logic as the Death Eaters", stating that "a single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda".

Now, what makes you think that people like Malfoy, Umbridge or Voldemort, would be glad to consider the Potters as pure blood, if they are said to have the same warped logic as Nazis ? According to what Rowling wrote, it's far from the truth...

Now, you'll notice that I haven't added anything to the article, thus you can't say I'm doing "original research". The only one doing OR here is you, because you're writing your own opinion about an in-universe concept, something which is exlucive to characters in the novels (thus the author).

You cannot assume you can judge as a character from the book. This is in-universe original research, and this cannot be accepted on WP.

I'm not arguing that the Potters are still half-blood, I don't give a damn about it. I'm saying that, in absence of clear statements in the books, you cannot assume things with an in-universe perspective. It's not you who're considering who's half-blood and who's pure blood, it's the characters who've coined these expression. I'm not saying you right or wrong, I'm saying that no matter the answer, it's not up to you to decide. You're introducing new content to the story, and that's what's wrong with your last edits. In fact, that's what's wrong in the whole article...Folken de Fanel 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rowling has stated what constitutes blood purity, per he link above. This is not my opinion, it is the author explaining the thought process of her characters. What makes me "think that people like Malfoy, Umbridge or Voldemort, would be glad to consider the Potters as pure blood?" Maybe the fact that the previous Potter family, the Weasleys, Longbottoms, MacMillans, Prewetts, Sirius Black, etc. were considered pure-blood. You're suggesting that the "bad guys" wouldn't consider the Potters pure-blood just because they don't like them; that's obviously not the case. There are pure-bloods on both sides. It is not up to Malfoy, Umbridge or anyone else to say who's PB; otherwise why would families like the Longbottoms and Weasleys be included? True, the only ones who actually care about that sort of thing are the bad guys, but the criterion for inclusion is the same no matter how you feel about it: that all four of your grandparents be magical. Again, this is not my opinion. We've been told what makes a pure-blood, haven't we? Yes. And four of the five living Potters meet the standard, don't they? Yes. faithless (^speak) 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Rowling has states what is the ideology of blood purity, so don't alter her words so that it fits your opinions.

Besides your own opinion, there's no element whatsoever allowing anyone (except the author) to assert what would be the thought process of a fictional character.

Rowling clearly explained what she intended by "blood purity", so don't alter her words.

It's a "warped logic" that certain people made up so that they could bully the people they don't like. Rowling clearly said that the "blood purity" ideology was the same as the Nazi ideology concerning jewish ancestry (and she specifically states that for them, one drop of jewish blood was enough to "pollute" the whole family). And that's why Harry was considered a half-wizard by Malfoy (and Malfoy himself, is considered pure blood by his peers, even though he is not a pure blood).

You see, that's what you totally fail to understand: that blood purity in HP books is an ideology and not scientific criterion.

That's why you're utterly mistaken (I even wonder if you've actually read JKR's statements on the subject).

It's up to (through the author) Malfoy, Umbridge etc to say who's half-blood and who's not, because they came up with the "warped reasoning", not you.

That's why, even though there's not a single drop of pure blood remaining at the time of the HP story, there are clans and divisions, some people calling themselves pure blood and calling others half-blood.

That's what Rowling made clear throughout her books, that there is no determinism in life, that it's not the way you're born that makes the way you'll live: she's always made clear that so-called "scientific" distinctions were just rubbish and that so-called half-blood could do as good as so-called pure bloods.

If you haven't understood that, I doubt you've carefully read the books.

Now, blood purity is an in-universe concept which involves individual fictional characters subjectivity, and there's no definite rule about it (Rowling confirmed no one was pure blood). The "warped logic" (not rule) was created by people "to whom these distinctions matters", and unless I'm mistaken, you're not even a character in the book so you've got no word to say about it. It involves the "opinion" of fictional characters, which have not expressed their feelings concerning the new Potter family; so if you're neither a character nor the author, sorry but you've got nothing to say. You're not going to write the sequel of DH.

And we go back to what i said in the beginning: the matter is not about what we Wikipedia contributors personally feel about it, no one gives a damn about it. It's all about the respect of the "no in-universe" and "no original research" rules. It's simple, if you don't have actual proof in the text, dialogues in which characters like Malfoy are saying how they concider the new Potters, then there won't be any comment about it in the article, since these judgments only belong to fictional characters, not WP users.Folken de Fanel 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother reading that, since it seems all you're doing is attacking me. Grow up. I'm not "altering her words" and accusing me of not having read the books is absolutely ridiculous. She has told us what constitutes blood purity. For some reason, you won't accept what the author has clearly stated. Don't bother responding, I won't read it. faithless (^speak) 17:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proving you're wrong is not an "attack".

The one who needs to grow up is you, because even when all the evidence is in front of you you refuse to see it.

You've altered Rowling's words, to the point of showing me a webpage where she explained that blood purity was a subjective "warped logic", which reliied only on the prejudices of a certain group of people (and she even compared it to the Nazi ideology where a single jewish ancestor "polluted" the line), and then claiming that she had written "the Potter family is pure blood". That is what Rowling told us about what constitutes "blood purity", so I can't see how you could alter her words more. She's even said there was no pure blood family remaining, which is the ultimate proof of what I'm saying: it's only a subjective concept, used against the enemies of death eaters.

It's not my fault either if you don't seem to be aware of important themes in the books. What Rowling wanted to show from the beginning whith "blood purity" is that it was all vain, it was only lies.

It's not my fault if you're writing your own fanfiction so that the HP plot could fit with your opinions. I'm merely repeating what "the author has clearly said", and if all you've found in an attempt to contradict me, was making up things that Rowling has never said, well, that's useless. And indeed, how could I assume you've read the book if you're not wanting to read JKR's comments ?Folken de Fanel 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, where does J.K. say that Four Wizardly grandparent's = Pure Blood? WookMuff 00:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand how there's debate on this. It's like saying a kid with a half-Irish parent and a pure Irish parent is pure Irish. He's not. He's three-quarters Irish. Potter's kids would be quarter-Muggle. Also, sorry for not signing this, but my tilde key gives me ¬ instead for some reason. Oh, also, you guys are being incredibly hostile over an esoteric concept in a fictional series. What gives? (72.241.182.49)

I dislike the idea of the Potter books being used to push something that simply isn't there. This article is dreadfully crufty. And - if you are having trouble signing using your tilde key, not that a little bit below the edit summary window is a set of hotlinked four tildes right after the words, "Sign your username:", which kinda makes it easy to sign, even if you keyboard or cellphone or whatever is not giving you tildes. I hope that helps

References

JK Rowling on blood purity

From her official site:

The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. 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.

If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda.

F.A.Q.:

Are all the pure-blood families going to die out? (We've lost the Blacks and the Crouches during the series)

Don't forget that, as Sirius revealed in 'Order of the Phoenix', none of these families is really 'pure' – in other words, they merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist. But yes, the number of families claiming to be pure is diminishing. By refusing to marry Muggles or Muggle-borns, they are finding it increasingly difficult to perpetuate themselves. This subject is touched upon in 'Half-Blood Prince'.

Outside refs

Genetic discussion of blood purity. Not good though; says Wizard gene is recessive. He obviously hasn't been reading the books carefully. Mugglenet's discussion is better.

[HP's Brazilian translator on issues with making Harry relevant http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2003/v48/n1/006954ar.html]:

• the concept of blue or pure blood was used deprecatingly in Brazil in the last century and is now relatively unknown except in animal breeding, although “good blood” has recently become current slang for a trustworthy person

“Harry Potter and the deconstruction of childhood”. Decent ref for the comparisons between Voldemort and Harry as regards blood. Can't be linked to. Must be found on Google Scholar

The wizard world from a sociological perspective.

Here there Be Cruft

Jumping Jesus on a palomino, there is a lot of cruft here. I've only tagged a few sections and I'm starting to think that this is like trying to grab a handful of water - it's all OR by synthesis. And who is suggesting that Harry is half-blood? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mistyped, or I misunderstand, but Harry is definitely a half-blood. faithless (^speak) 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I mistyped; Harry is indeed a halfsie.

One of the reasons for all the cn tags is not that a lot of the information that is actually quite accurate needs citations. Some of it isn't going to be able to be cited, and will most assuredly be purged after remaining uncited for a period of time. Any significant claims (with which this article seems almost exclusively composed of) need citation. Remember, the criteria for inclusion is citability, not truth, and not canon. Please leave the individual tags, as they target the parts that need attention and is less daunting than a page tag, which leaves as generic and all-encompassing the problems with the article.

And please, let's not see any more genetics doubletalk - unless someone has a geneticist or eugenicist up their sleeve who's willing to be cited speaking on Harry Potter and blood Purity? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell!! And I thought you were joking when you said you were running out of {{fact}} tags!! Where to start?? Are we looking mainly for references from canon? If so, are we using the {{HP1}} style (→^[HP1]) or the {{PStone}} style (→^[PS Ch.1]). I would advocate the latter, as it is more accurate and verifiable (which is the issue we're trying to address here). Happy‑melon 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

References from non-primary sources would be better. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Z-Man graps my point exactly. I don't mind citing the novels, but some of this is fairly explosive stuff, and even a whiff of OR or synthesis means it gets excised like a cyst. If we can find reviewers or reliable academics who have commented ont his topic, that would be utterly brilliant to have here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's stated repeatedly in the books! --Kizor 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We need some citation. Otherwise, taking and cobbling together info from the books is OR by synthesis, as you are the one cobbling it together. We don't do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Logic

"Dogs have four legs" doesn't mean "Four legs means dog". "He got 64% and failed the test" doesn't mean "Failing the test means you get 64% or below". "Harry isn't pureblood because he had muggle grandparents" doesn't mean "the standard for blood purity is the presence or absence of Muggle grandparents." This isn't OR, its logic. Apparently my quoting of a particularily apt Monty Python quote was unappreciated, so I shant do that again, but it is still the case that Logic isn't algebra. Unless JK says that "Blood purity means four wizard grandparents" then we can't assume that. WookMuff 09:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I got the Monty Python quote, I just didn't appreciate the attitude behind it. I believe that JKR has already defined what is considered pure-blood. Frankly this enture article belongs on the crufty chopping block. It has little worth. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, considering the amount of "citation requireds", but unless you are referring to some other JK quotes, she quite clearly says nothing more than the reason that HARRY is not pure-blood. Do you honestly think, logically, that death eaters would consider the son of a mud-blood to be tainted but consider his children to be pure? Its like saying that a Mulatto wouldn't be allowed in the KKK but they would gladly welcome his Quadroon child.

You might be right, but there are two things wrong with your assumptions. First, you may have noticed a distinct lack of citable information comparing blood purity dscrimination in Harry Potter books to actual real world discrimination. That's because there isn't that much in the way of it (if at all), so comparisons based on the common thread (which you provided) of blacks and mudbloods is a false argument. Secondly, I am not operating off of anyting but what JKR has supposedly said. Ask anyone around, I am an absolute bear when it comes to citations; if they aren't accompanying the statements (and this article is FULL of the type of statements that need citation at virtually very step). then the statements don't go in. Period.

This article is an example when a very little OR gets bit by radioactive synthesis. I would be amazed if even 5 tagged items are properly cited from sources outside the primary books. This article is - with all due respect to the creator who spent loving care craftingthe article - utter garbage, and needs two punctuation marks to the back of the Lead and a qucik burial in the logs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what JKR said IS NOT RELEVANT HERE because she never states what is needed to be pure, only what made ONE CHARACTER impure. The most relevant example I provided above was that of failing a test. Let us say that someone fails a test with a score of 64%. That tells us only that 64% is a failing grade. It doesn't actually tell us what a PASSING grade is. Same with Harry. JKR's quote tells us why Harry is not counted as a pure blood, but that doesn't mean that that is the failing grade, just that that is why Harry is not Pure Blood. Call me arrogant or rude or whatever all you want, but in truth I am merely exasperated that people fail to see this obvious distinction. WookMuff 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not really challenging the logic of what you say, Wook. I am simply stating that assumptions - even those based upon logic - are still assumptions, and they cannot be added to Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ARGH. But you miss my point, which is that YOU GUYS are using flawed logic in the first place, and that I am using logic to point that out. The assumption that 4 wizard grandparents makes your pureblood is flawed, and doesn't belong in wikipedia. WookMuff 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Okay, sorry for misunderstanding your argument. I think there was a reference in a webchat interview with JKR where she defined what made a pureblood, etc. If you give me a day or so, I will attempt to locate the specific citation to that effect. Would you be willing to give me that time? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My argument has never been with anything but the cited source, and peoples misreading of it. If you can find a source that actually says what the above reference doesn't then go ahead and add it, I will be the first to give you congratulations. WookMuff 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to understand, are you extrapolating what JKR said about onme character to apply it to other characters? (you had said: "what JKR said IS NOT RELEVANT HERE because she never states what is needed to be pure, only what made ONE CHARACTER impure") - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat less comfortable with the categorization of the magical houses, as none of them are really pure anymore. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NO!!! Everyone ELSE is extrapolating. I am claiming that to extrapolate is wrong, because its logically inconsistant. WookMuff 05:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, let's remove the blod purity info from the various houses, then. There isn't really a lot to base it upon, and removing it will not only keep out the crufty supposition and OR, but prevent people from making it ever more so. Logically, if an argument keeps getting misinterpreted, then the continual misinterpretations are not incorrect; rather it is the argument which needs to be restated so as to avoid misinterpretation. Would you not agree? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can think of a better way to say that the source doesn't mean what people think it means, then go right ahead. My only problem with it is that people don't get it. A failing grade doesn't define a passing grade, but vice versa. As for houses, I don't care... my issue is simply with the misinterpretation of that one source. WookMuff 06:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pure blood status stuff

I propose we just do what was done at the Weasley article and remove it from this one. Regardless of who is right about the Potters blood status, it's crufty as hell anyways, and hurts the aesthetics of an already ugly, crufty page. Thoughts? faithless (^speak) 06:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Logic aside, the page is clusterf***y as all get out. I am purging all the house blood purity mentions now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What the Hell?

Whats with all the thousands of "citation neeeded" tags for things that are straight from the book. Is someone just trying to be POINTy?. No article would have that many references, if you need refs that badly, why not try {{NOREFS}}.--Jac16888 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)