text:
Ricky Rodriguez

Richard P. Rodriguez (born David Moses Zerby; January 25, 1975 – January 9, 2005) was an American member of a religious cult called The Family, formerly known as the Children of God (COG), who murdered one of his childhood sexual abusers, Angela M. Smith, and then died by suicide.

During Rodriguez's childhood, he and his mother Karen Zerby and adoptive father David Berg, both of whom were leaders of The Family, traveled across the world to convert followers. Berg believed Rodriguez was called upon to become a prophet during biblical End Times. From a young age Rodriguez was brought up in a heavily sexually abusive environment and was sexually abused and raped by numerous people, including a cohort of adult "nannies", as described in the Family-published document titled "The Davidito Book".

Despite leaving The Family and finding marriage, Rodriguez struggled to adjust to life outside the cult and sought revenge for his abuse. He left his wife in Tacoma, Washington, and traveled across the U.S. in an attempt to find Zerby. After learning his former nanny Angela M. Smith was in Tucson, Arizona, he stayed with people he knew there until he settled in an apartment. On January 7, 2005, he recorded a video, saying he needed to take retribution for abuse in The Family—including his own—alluding to murder. The next day, Rodriguez invited Smith to his home for dinner, where he stabbed her to death before driving to Blythe, California, and killing himself.

The Family urged its members to disregard media reports about Rodriguez and Smith, and a spokesperson for the group said reports neglected to show Smith as a victim. Another former member considered it, out of other suicides in the group, to be one of the worst moments in The Family's history, and noted that it corroborated other stories of abuse within the group. Experts on cults noted that while murder was unjustifiable, Rodriguez's anger towards members of The Family was understandable, and cult specialist Rick Alan Ross described his suicide as an outcome from one of many individuals who suffered in "one of the most horrifically abusive and destructive cults in American history".

Early life
Richard P. Rodriguez was born on January 25, 1975, in Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, as David Moses Zerby. His mother was Karen Zerby, the spiritual leader of the religious cult Children of God (COG), and his father was a Spanish hotel waiter named Carlos whom Zerby had "Flirty Fished", a practice in which female cult members would have sex with men to draw in potential converts. Rodriguez was unofficially adopted by David Berg, the group's founder and Zerby's husband, and was given the nickname "Davidito" and often referred to as "the prince". Rodriguez's legal name was changed multiple times as he traveled across the world with Berg and Zerby as missionaries. However, no official adoption by the two ever took place and he was looked after by "nannies", young female members of the group. He was also raised alongside Techi, Zerby's daughter.

On May 2, 1978, Berg declared in a publication that Rodriguez and Zerby would one day have the power to "call down fire from Heaven and devour their enemies". He also predicted they would both be killed and raised from the dead "3 $1⁄2$ days" later, and Rodriguez would go on to guide followers as a prophet during biblical End Times. Many who knew Rodriguez said he grew shy and uncomfortable around group members because his status as a supposed prophet made him prominent.

Sexual abuse and aftermath
Rodriguez's sexual abuse at the instruction of COG leaders began as a toddler. While growing up in the COG, Rodriguez was frequently exposed to adults engaging in sexual intercourse at Berg's home as part of the group members' sexual "sharing". When he was ten months old, Zerby and Berg asked Sara, one of Rodriguez's nannies, to start creating a document titled "The Davidito Book" (also referred to as "The Story of Davidito"). The book contains descriptions of adults sexually molesting the child Rodriguez, describing this abuse in a "celebratory" tone. Most of this material was previously sent out to members in the form of pamphlets called Davidito letters.

The 762-page document included photos of Rodriguez with naked teenage girls and being present during the group's orgies. One of his nannies, Angela M. Smith, who was also Zerby's personal secretary, was included in the photos, in one of which she is undoing his pants; the picture is captioned "Undressing ... for Sue!" (Smith). The material also contained captions and text written by Berg commenting on the situation in a sexual manner. Berg later ordered "Davidito" and similar documents that had been created to be purged or references to sex removed, but former members were able to establish its existence by distributing the material via email.

Davida Kelley, who lived with Berg from the age of 13, said Rodriguez was sexually abused "[by] all the adult women. Most of them, at least", including Zerby. According to an article by the Los Angeles Times, Berg reportedly had sex with numerous female members of the group; in an effort to prepare Rodriguez to do the same when he became leader, he was put into "teen training," in which he would have sex with multiple older teenage females every afternoon.

In 1986, the COG, which was now called The Family (eff. 1978 ), banned adult sex with (ie rape of) minors along with Flirty Fishing. Berg died in 1994, and Zerby, alongside her then-husband Peter Amsterdam, took full leadership of the cult. A British court, headed by Lord Justice Ward, issued a verdict during an investigation related to a 1995 trial, stating that the Davidito book was an example of Berg's promotion of pedophilia within the group, and that the leadership considered it a guidebook for adult–child relationships. Amsterdam, as ordered by Ward, distanced The Family from Berg's writings on child upbringing.

Departure from The Family
In 1996, at 21 years old, Rodriguez moved to a Family-owned home in Budapest, Hungary, where he met his girlfriend Elixcia Munumel, who returned with him to Zerby's home in Porto, Portugal, and lived with him there. In 1999, the couple told Zerby they were going to The Family's compound in Mexico, but instead Munumel went to England and Rodriguez went to the United States. Rodriguez stayed at the not-for-profit charity The Family Care Foundation's headquarters in Dulzura, San Diego, California. He sold a car Zerby had given him so Munumel could meet him in Tacoma, Washington. Rodriguez and Munumel married in a minister's home. According to Munumel, they struggled with finances and experience in the outside world, and moved into a low-rent apartment. Rodriguez took a job on a fishing boat in Alaska, began to take knife-based martial arts lessons, and spent time at a shooting range while trying to obtain a gun permit.

Resentment towards Family leaders
According to The Family, Rodriguez officially left the cult to pursue his education and he remained on good terms with it. According to Munumel, however, when they first met in Budapest, Rodriguez began having reservations about Berg's teachings, which noticeably contradicted the Bible, and expressed his frustrations to her about the group as a whole. She said he heard stories from former members and carried guilt because of his position as a future leader of The Family, which he felt contributed to the abuse of other children. Rodriguez' friend Celeste Jones also said he felt angry because "there was no justice" to apprehend abusers in The Family and that he pretended that he was not angry around members of the group; according to the Tucson Citizen, however, Rodriguez became more vocal around the time he started talking to former members.

In 2002, Rodriguez made a post on the website "Moving On" accusing Berg of abusing his own daughters and granddaughter in the Philippines, and describing Zerby as apathetic and violent towards her children. He also mentioned his "teen training" in most of his posts on the site. Ex-member Sarah Martin, who corresponded with Rodriguez through the site, said that he "carried this huge weight on his shoulders", never got over the Davidito prophecy and felt he had a need to "put an end" to Zerby's abuse. Rodriguez also said he thought about suicide since his "teen training" and hoped the group's leaders' "evil legacy will die with The Family". In a similar 2004 post, he said he realized he could not move on because "the first 25 years of my life will always haunt me", with the end of his post asking those "who have nothing to lose, such as myself" to help him with a plot for revenge. Rodriguez further told his martial arts teacher, Kevin Schmitt, he had considered murdering members of The Family in the past. Rodriguez's friend, ex-member Daniel Nathan Roselle, advised taking legal action, but he was mostly concerned with finding Zerby and Amsterdam.

Search for Zerby, murder of Angela Smith, and suicide
Zerby, and other Family members, had their locations isolated and their names kept secret with pseudonyms. Rodriguez, according to Munumel, spent years trying to find Zerby and his half-sister, Techi, whom he wanted to take out of The Family. In summer of 2004, Rodriguez left Munumel. Later, they both separated, but according to her they continued to talk "every day". Rodriguez traveled to San Diego, where he met Martin in person.

Rodriguez learned that Smith was serving on the board of The Family Care Foundation and was a member of Elderhaven, a nursing home in Tucson, Arizona, run by Rodriguez' grandparents. According to a statement made later by Munumel, Rodriguez also learned that Zerby and Techi were going to visit his grandparents at Elderhaven during Christmas of 2003. He subsequently came to Tucson and stayed with the family of his aunt, Rosemary Kanspedos, for a month. He received a job as an electrician, never divulging the details of his prior life to his boss or his wife.

Prior to 2005, Rodriguez moved into an apartment on Tucson's North Side. On January 7, of that year, Rodriguez recorded a videotape in which he discussed his thoughts of suicide and his desire for revenge, describing himself as a vigilante. He presented numerous weapons including a Glock 23 pistol, a KA-BAR knife, a drill, a soldering iron, and duct tape, some of which he planned to use for torture. Rodriguez specifically named Zerby as his target, stating that if he did not find her before he died, he "will keep hunting her in the next life" or someone else will "pick up the torch". Rodriguez alluded to Smith as a person he intended to kill and predicted his upcoming actions would result in conflict with law enforcement, but insisted he intended no harm towards law enforcement. After recording the video, Rodriguez called Celeste Jones and told her of his suicidal thoughts. She encouraged him to testify in a legal case and said "things will be taken seriously". He replied that he did not believe her. Rodriguez sent copies of the video to Munumel, two of his family members, and Martin.

The next day, Rodriguez invited Smith to dinner in his apartment. After she arrived, Rodriguez stabbed her several times in the arm then slit her throat. Rodriguez then left his apartment and drove to Blythe, California, where he arrived at midnight. He rented a motel room and began to call his family members in Lakewood, Washington, notifying them of a body in his apartment. Next, Rodriguez pulled into a parking lot near 14th Avenue, called Munumel, told her he had killed Smith, and asked her to call the police. He also told Munumel he had killed Smith to avenge his sister Techi and those still in The Family rather than himself. He said Smith "didn't understand what she had done wrong" as she was dying. Rodriguez called the murder "the hardest thing I ever did in my life" and said it did not make him feel better. Munumel claims that Rodriguez pleaded with her to commit suicide with him, then said goodbye to her and hung up. At roughly 2 a.m., Rodriguez shot himself in the head with his handgun.

Investigation and memorial
At 8 a.m., a Palo Verde Irrigation District employee discovered Rodriguez' body in his car and contacted local police. The investigating detective thought Rodriguez had simply committed suicide, but answered Munumel's call to Rodriguez' cell phone and learned of the murder from her. Blythe police then notified the Tucson Police Department officers of Smith's body in Rodriguez' apartment. Aside from his video, Rodriguez left no suicide note. Detective Sgt. Mark Fuller, who was in charge of the homicide investigation, assumed Rodriguez had killed Smith because she was responsible for his abuse; but because of scant details about her involvement in his childhood, authorities initially could not ascertain the real motive. According to police, there was no evidence Smith was tortured for information on the whereabouts of Zerby. Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Carlos Valdez said Smith died shortly before her body was recovered and that Rodriguez had left for Blythe twelve hours prior. Smith's birth name was Susan Joy Kauten; her name-change would have delayed the notification of her death to her family if she was not carrying her cell phone, which gave her birth name.

A memorial for Rodriguez was held in San Diego on March 26, 2005. In her eulogy, Munumel said while Rodriguez "chose a path that no one could share with him", he knew she loved him. More than 100 people who had been formerly associated with The Family attended the service.

Researchers, ex-members, and outsiders
Stephen A. Kent, a professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta, said while Rodriguez was unjustifiable in the murder, one "can understand his frustration and rage" because "he and others from that generation" had never seen justice "from all the abuse they suffered". Rick Alan Ross, a cult researcher who had interviewed numerous former members of The Family, noted that Rodriguez reflected the many suicides of those who suffered "tremendous amount of pain" from being in "one of the most horrifically abusive and destructive cults in American history". Don Lattin, a journalist and author who spent two years studying Rodriguez' motives for the murder, published a book called Jesus Freaks. He believed Rodriguez was a "time bomb" waiting to go off because he exhibited aggressive tendencies and expressed guilt for other victims' abuse. According to Lattin, the abuse was not accounted for because "there's a statute of limitations. A lot of this happened a long time ago outside of the U.S. by people who kept constantly changing their names ... So even the victims, the kids themselves, often don't know who abused them".

Roselle was sad rather than angry the murder-suicide took place. He said; "the only way anybody's listening" to the stories of abuse within the group "is that Rick and Angela died". He also said Rodriguez' suicide brought the total of suicides in his peer group to 30, but that he considered Rodriguez' abuse to be one of the worst cases from The Family. John LaMattery, a former second-generation leader, said Rodriguez' death was "a monumental event" in The Family's history and predicted that the group would "spin it" in an attempt to disregard unfulfilled prophecies and attempt "damage control". He also believed Rodriguez killed Smith because he could not find Zerby.

After Rodriguez' death, former members of The Family made similar allegations of abuse. For example, Juliana Buhring, co-author of the book Not Without My Sister (which details her family's experiences within the cult), mentioned that most of the children she and people like Rodriguez grew up with in the cult were sexually abused. She empathized with the rage he felt, especially when he had "no closure" and "no restitution" for it.

Numerous members of the website "Moving On" expressed their concerns about the incident. Editors of the website described the situation as "a horrible tragedy, and something that we sincerely hope is never repeated". Staff at Palo Alto's Restoration Hardware, Smith's workplace, remembered her as a kind person; her boss stated, "There was nothing creepy about Angela". The non-profit Safe Passage Foundation was established partially as a result of Rodriguez' suicide in an aim to protect minors from "high-demand organisations" and to provide them with support and resources to leave those groups.

The Family
In an internal memo, Zerby told followers of The Family that reporters were trying to "make Ricky look like a hero and role model" rather than a perpetrator of a crime. In another memo, which was sent to an estimated 12,000 followers, Amsterdam urged followers to disregard media reports and internet news about the murder-suicide and said Rodriguez was "overcome by the enemy and forces of darkness" and that Zerby is "the sweetest, most loving person I know". He also said people were "exploiting this tragedy" to hurt him, Zerby, and The Family in an effort to "tear down our work for the Lord". Techi stated in a letter she became "deeply disturbed" after learning about Rodriguez's death, and that he was not an angry person when she knew him. The Ricky Rodriguez Memorial Site (RickyRodriguez.com), which was managed by The Family, included "never before published photos" of Zerby and "messages from Jesus". The site was not renewed and does not exist anymore. Claire Borowik, the spokesperson for The Family, said both deaths were tragic but that media reports portrayed Smith as an offender and Rodriguez as a victim. She said Smith was never Rodriguez' nanny but had only visited him and that The Family gave him "ample financial and emotional support" when he wanted to become independent. Borowik also compared Rodriguez' upbringing to one in "a nudist colony" and cited scholars who argue sexual practices similar to those of The Family do not harm children. In regards to the "Davidito" prophecy, Borowik said The Family "knew that Davidito wasn't fulfilling that prophecy" because prophecies of the group were always "dependent on man's choices". Borowik also said former members, whom she called apostates, failed to move Rodriguez in "positive directions" and wanted "to do damage to our movement". She criticized Lattin's book for "inaccuracies, misconceptions and erroneous conclusions", and "sketchy research".

In media

 * British documentary series Cutting Edge's episode "Cult Killer" is about Rodriguez' story leading up to the murder.
 * Lattin's book "Jesus Freaks: A True Story of Murder and Madness on the Evangelical Edge" recounts the events of Rodriguez' life in a story-like setting.
 * HBO's documentary "Children of God: Lost and Found", which is about The Family and was directed by former member Noah Thomson, includes footage from Rodriguez' video.
 * "Sects", the 19th episode of Law & Order's 15th season, is loosely based on Ricky Rodriguez and The Children of God.

title: Ricky Rodriguez


text:
Talk:Trash (Alice Cooper album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trash.jpg
Image:Trash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Trash (Alice Cooper album)


text:
Talk:SEK Studio

Akhem . . . !
Is the Il principe dei dinosauri cartoon is their work?

1997?
Light Years (film) came out in 1988 - SEK was founded 1997 according to the article. Typo? --109.192.15.16 (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy tree friends???
I'm pretty sure a North Korean animation company had nothing to do with Happy Tree Friends. It is by Mondo mini shows, an American company, maybe it was confused with Mondo TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilorat (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That surprised me as well. It would be hilarious if it was true, however. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, Happy tree friends is banned in NK --20:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk)

Acronym
--Isn't it expanded as Scientific Educational Korea or something similar? --Error (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)--
 * It's already mentioned. --Error (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge

 * Oppose merging Squirrel and Hedgehog here. The series gets considerable coverage in literature about North Korean propaganda as an exemplar of indoctrination aimed at children. Passes GNG and is better know for what it is rather than which studio happened to make it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - many of the works produced by SEK have their own articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article may be a stub, but still has the potential to be expanded.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Byeolnam and Rubber Ball
Though Byeolnam and Rubber Ball is produced by SEK Studio but it's actually animated by an unknown South Korean studio since you can see a laptop running Windows 7 which is banned in PRC and DPRK. Just like a handful of Mainland Chinese animated TV Shows produced by CCTV Animation were in fact animated by Hong Ying in Taipei, Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.104.27 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding more entries into the list
I'm the user who edited this page with two anonymous IPs on the 26th-27th of December. Just gonna tell users how to add more entries to the list here: 1. Go to dprktoday or uriminzokkiri 2. Copy and paste the Korean title of the animation to the search entry on: https://unibook.unikorea.go.kr/ You will find some valuable information, such as: 1. The date of publishing 2. Morals/Summaries of the animation 3. The artists, writers and directors of the work. Have fun editing. User:Musical Rabbit (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:SEK Studio


text:
Talk:Candlebox (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Candleboxdebut.jpg
Image:Candleboxdebut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

post grunge, wtf
post grunge did not exist in 1993. fucking a people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.13 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Dismissing a band as “post-grunge” in 1994 is kinda like declaring “mission accomplished” in Iraq in May 2003  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Candlebox (album)


text:
Talk:Best of Bowie

I have the US single-disc edition of this album, and my album has a different track listing than is shown in this article. I've placed footnotes next to the tracks my edition does not include, but I'd like someone else to verify that some editions in fact, do have these tracks. Thanks. -- Heath 66.32.1.24 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * there is quite a few different tracklistings for this release. -- Alex Ov  Shaolin  00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BestofBowie.jpg
Image:BestofBowie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – December 2010
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:
 * BNutzer (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Best of Bowie. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129015131/http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Gfk_week1013.pdf to http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Gfk_week1013.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Best of Bowie


text:
Misprision of felony

Misprision of felony is a form of misprision, and an offence under the common law of England that is no longer active in many common law countries. Where it was or is active, it is classified as a misdemeanor. It consists of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities. Exceptions were made for close family members of the felon and where the disclosure would tend to incriminate the reporter himself.

With the development of the modern law, this crime has been discarded in many jurisdictions, and is generally only applied against persons placed in a special position of authority or responsibility. In this case, the offence of misfeasance in public office or malfeasance in public office may be considered instead. For example, corrections officers who stand idly by while drug trafficking occurs within the prison may be prosecuted for this crime.

It has been abolished in:
 * England, Wales and Scotland, as part of the criminal law reforms that abolished the distinction between misdemeanor and felony—Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58), section 1
 * Northern Ireland, with the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967—(c. 18) (N.I.), section 1
 * Ireland, with the Criminal Law Act 1997—(No. 14), section 3
 * New South Wales, Australia, with the Crimes Act 1900—section 341

In some cases, misprision has been replaced by a more tightly defined statutory offence. For example, in England and Wales, the 1967 Act states that a person who has information which might lead to the prosecution of an arrestable offence—and who agrees to accept consideration in exchange for not disclosing it—is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment.

United States federal law
Misprision of felony remains an offense under United States federal law having been enacted in 1790 and codified in 1909 under :

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

U.S. courts have held that misprision of felony requires active concealment of a known felony rather than simple failure to report it.

Under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, it is illegal for anyone who is aware of being a target of a federal investigation to intentionally erase browser history on a computer. Khairullozhan Matanov was prosecuted for erasing computer records about his friends, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; he pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense in 2015.

The federal misprision of felony statute is usually used only in prosecutions against defendants who have a special duty to report a crime, such as a government official.

Other sources

 * Curenton, The Past, Present, and Future of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4: An Exploration of the Federal Misprision of Felony Statute, (2003) Vol. 55 Alabama Law Review, 183.
 * U.S. Code Online via GPO Access (wais.access.gpo.gov) United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter I, Section 4

title: Misprision of felony


text:
File:Bomber (song).jpg

Cover of Motorhead's vinyl single "Bomber". Alf 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

title: File:Bomber (song).jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peach Friedman

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peach Friedman
This page is not authored by the person in question. I know this because I worte it and I am not her. Moreover, while I would agree that she is not reasonably well known, I would argue that very few modern poets are. By the standard in the Wikipedia guidelines, "One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I would say that several original publications would qualify someone to be featured here. Keep. Snowberg BUT! Not in my own defense, rather for the sake of Wikipedia's consistency, there are MANY people with Wikipedia pages who are really not well known at all either, EXCEPT IN TECH FIELDS. It does seem like there's a real slant toward technies in here--so I may be as well known in the field of poetry as another is in the field of Linux, and you guys will only recognize the Linux people. Makes you think, no? I'd ask the question of whether or not you're representing the whole population of people, or just one slice of the big ol' pie. I'm known in certain cirlces. x's and o's, peach.
 * Vanity page, by the person in question herself. Her brother and uncle are both reasonably well known, but she hardly qualifies. Delete. JZ 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hardcore vanity. Gwk 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. Phoenix2 23:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real claim to notability. The article describes her as an "aspiring poet", which is fine and laudable, but only poets with established careers should have an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the person in question. I did not write the article. My boyfriend did, sweet of him.  I would actually have no clue how to figure it out.  I am only writing this comment thing right now because he set it up for me.  And honestly, I don't really mind whether or not I have a Wikipedia page.  It's true that I'm not famous.  I have a few poems published and lots of people used to read my blog before it became an exclusive community, but other than being Nat Friedman's sister, I'm not that noteworthy.
 * Delete reluctantly as a Google search comes up with 61 results.  My understanding is that the benchmark for poets includes publication with a circulation of more than 5,000. If it can be shown that she has been published in a publication of reasonable note, then I will vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I'll change my vote if we can get more information on how she's been published.  Almafeta 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, vanity. Xoloz 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; Peach's point is noted, but I think it's that we're letting in too many techies, not too few poets ;-) Dcarrano 23:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Henry IV, Part 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
This article is very much inadequate, especially compared with the one on Part 1. ZephyrAnycon 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Overall, this article is terrible. The play doesn't focus on Falstaff, as is claimed. The "synopsis" misses major points and meanders around themes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.249.55 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
See [old] discussion on Talk:Henry IV, Part 1. --Quuxplusone 02:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC) It is completely untrue that there is a widespread consensus Part II is worse than Part I. To many Part II is considered the better play and it is rare, even in Shakespeare, to find more profound and moving scenes than Henry IV on his deathbed. The reason Hal and Falstaff meet sporadically is to show that Falstaff is losing touch with Henry and Henry is completing his transition into a worthy heir.It demonstrates that their relationship is coming to an end and Falstaff is no longer worthy of a place in the Prince's life.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Why no mention of this classic piece of cinema being based around Henry IV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.53.33 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question. Which aspect of Grail IS based around Henry IV? AndyJones 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henry IV, Part 2


text:
Talk:The Great Twenty-Eight

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Great Twenty-Eight


text: Category:Flight lists

title: Category:Flight lists


text:
Soltaniyeh

Soltaniyeh is a city in the Central District of Soltaniyeh County, Zanjan province, Iran, serving as capital of both the county and the district.

At the 2006 census, its population was 5,864 in 1,649 households, when it was in Soltaniyeh District of Abhar County. The following census in 2011 counted 7,116 people in 2,013 households. The latest census in 2016 showed a population of 7,638 people in 2,319 households, by which time the district had been separated from the county in the establishment of Soltaniyeh County.

History
Soltaniyeh, located some 240 km to the north-west of Tehran, was built as the capital of Mongol Ilkhanid rulers of Iran in the 14th century. Its name which refers to the Islamic ruler title sultan translates loosely as "the Regal". Soltaniyeh was visited by Ruy González de Clavijo, who reported that the city was a hub of silk exportation.

In 2005, UNESCO listed Soltaniyeh as one of the World Heritage Sites. The road from Zanjan to Soltaniyeh extends until it reaches to the Katale khor cave.

William Dalrymple notes that Öljaitü intended Soltaniyeh to be "the largest and most magnificent city in the world" but that it "died with him" and is now "a deserted, crumbling spread of ruins."

Ecclesiastical history
The city was established as a Catholic episcopal see on 1 April 1318 for the Archdiocese of Soltania. In 1329, the Latin Diocese of Samarcanda became its suffragan for the Chagatai Khanate, at least until Tamerlane (founder of the Timurids) swept its see Samarkand. The archdiocese was suppressed as residential see around 1450.

Residential archbishops

 * Metropolitan Archbishops of Soltania
 * Francesco da Perugia, Dominican Order O.P. (1318.08.01 – ?)
 * Guillaume Adam, O.P. (1322.10.06 – 1324.10.26); previously Archbishop of Smirna (Smyrna) (Asian Turkey, now Izmir) (1318 – 1322.10.06); later Metropolitan Archbishop of Bar (Montenegro) (1324.10.26 – death 1341)
 * Giovanni di Cori, O.P. (1329.08.09 – ?)
 * Guglielmo, O.P. (? – ?)
 * Giovanni di Piacenza, O.P. (1349.01.09 – ?)
 * Tommaso, O.P. (1368.02.28 – ?)
 * Domenico Manfredi, O.P. (1388.08.18 – ?)
 * Giovanni di Gallofonte, O.P. (1398.08.26 – ?)
 * Nicolò Roberti (1401.01.24 – ?); previously Bishop of Ferrara (Italy) (1393.02.04 – 1401.01.24)
 * Thomas Abaraner, O.P. (1425.12.19 – ?)
 * Giovanni, O.P. (1425.12.19 – ?)

Titular see
Transformed at its suppression as residential see in 1450 into a Latin Titular archbishopric, which was itself suppressed in 1926:
 * Titular Bishop Francisco Salazar, Friars Minor (O.F.M.) (1548.09.12 – ?)
 * Titular Bishop: Bishop-elect Bernardino de Carmona (1551.07.10 – ?)
 * Titular Archbishop Alberto Bitter (1922.10.09 – 1926.12.19)

Sources and external links
• Audio slideshow: (6 min 45 sec). http://sultaniyya.org/
 * Official website
 * GCatholic, with residential and titular incumbent bio links
 * Video of Soltaniyeh
 * Farnoush Tehrāni, The Crown of All Domes, in Persian, Jadid Online, 31 December 2009,.

title: Soltaniyeh


text: User talk:68.37.10.48

title: User talk:68.37.10.48


text:
User talk:Shriya

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. Gamaliel 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shriya


text:
User talk:Menibig~enwiki

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Image:Klinger.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Klinger.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. See Image copyright tags for a list of copyright tags that you can use. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problems with SpyCQ
Hello. Concerning your contribution, SpyCQ, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, SpyCQ appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. SpyCQ has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Menibig. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Menibig~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Menibig~enwiki


text:
User talk:7EA

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:7EA


text: User talk:66.30.67.78

title: User talk:66.30.67.78


text:
Talk:Fictional universe of Harry Potter

Transportation
Should the transportation section be expanded and moved to its own page? There is a lot of stuff that could be added... I'll do it, if anyone wants me to... Phoenix Song 02:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok 👍, you can do it. 72.193.153.70 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Dwarfs

 * Could someone please clarify for me, dwarves have been added to the magical creatures>beings list. As far as im aware there are no dwarves in the Harry Potter serise. I have deleted the entry but on the off chance that I have missed an errant dwarf hidding in Dumbledore's broom cupboard, I will of course add them back on. Death Eater Dan 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There are dwarves mentioned in Book 2 : HArryPotter and the Chamber of Secrets during Valentine's Day. The one who sang Ginny's letter to Harry. And where were minotaurs mentioned?-Isao
 * I don't recall a mention of minotaurs anywhere in the series, but perhaps someone else can. Noneofyourbusiness 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I dislike the opening paragraph and it's focus on the meaning of the wizarding "world". Its not a hard concept to grasp and I think the section should be rewritten. Sorry im posting announomously I forgot my account name.

British Vs. American spelling
Could Kestenbaum please expand on his comment that the American artifact is prefered to the British spelling artefact? As it is commonly taken on all the Harry Potter articles (dicussed several times on the talk pages) that British English is the more appropriate spelling, as the series is set in Britain with predominantly British characters, written by a British author and originally published in Britain. Death Eater Dan    ( Muahaha )

 * This source discusses the difference: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-art1.htm (both forms are used on both sides of the Atlantic, but apparently the "artifact" version is more widely used overall).

 * Moreover, as to the very specific Harry Potter context, on Wikipedia alone, there are seven articles that reference "muggle artifacts", and only two that reference "muggle artefacts". The Google numbers are 11,500 for "muggle artifacts" and 693 for "muggle artefacts".

 * Based on those sources, I thought I was on pretty solid ground changing the spelling back to "artifacts". But, I could be wrong, and if so, there are a lot of other references to be changed.

 * I don't know whether the British edition of Rowling's works uses the "artefact" spelling (perhaps you could check and post that here?), but the American one certainly does use "artifact". Kestenbaum 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if the American one does or not, we're going with the British spelling. If the British version does in fact use "artefact", then that is the appropriate spelling, irregardless of what other Wikipedia articles on Harry Potter use...if they use "artifact", those articles may well be incorrect as well. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Artefact" may be the leading British spelling, but it is not the only British spelling. No one yet has answered my question as to which one Rowling actually used in the British edition of the Harry Potter books.

 * I don't think American readers of the series outnumber British ones by 15 to 1, but the Google references to "muggle artifacts" outnumber "muggle artefacts" by more than that. This strongly suggests that both editions use the "artifact" spelling.

 * May we have something tangible to go on, please? Kestenbaum 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm only saying that whatever the British version uses should be the correct one. Until that's determined, it doesn't matter as much. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that we should try and be consistent, the consensus is that British English spelling is the more appropriate for the subject matter, this is also the guideline stated in the Wiki Manual of Style. The fact that both versions are in common usage is not relevant as this is an encyclopedia and therefore the correct grammar should be used and the fact that some web site can argue either way on the usage of certain words is not relevant either as artefact is and always will be the correct British English spelling (see British dictionary). Who knows, in years to come we may all be calling pavements - sidewalks, but encyclopedicly the correct version in a British context would always be pavement no matter how popular the American English word may become. I have to say though after all the google tests and website quoting, I must go back to my initial point, consistency is the key - British subject matter = British Spelling. Death Eater Dan    ( Muahaha ) 16:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sources quoted above stated flatly that both spellings are used on both sides of the Atlantic.

 * If Rowling used "artefact", then sure, let's go with that, and make all the references consistent.

 * But if, let's say, Rowling used the "artifact" spelling in both the British and American editions, does that mean that she misspelled the British word? Are we also going to argue with her spellings of "muggle" and "horcrux"?  In this case, the word is not invented, but the concept ("muggle art*facts") is.  Can't we find out how she actually spelled it in the original UK edition and go with that?

 * Danlina, I can't help but be a little put off by your position. Does you mean that a British author is not entitled to spell it "artifact"?  That use of such a spelling by a British author would be simply disregarded as error, and your preferred spelling substituted?

 * Again, let's have an answer from the actual text, not rhetoric about what it ought to be. Kestenbaum 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I’ll check. What book and page is it on? 72.193.153.70 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not allow both spellings as both are recognised in the english language as a whole--Radioactive turnip 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go with "artifact". I myself am British and actually didn't know it was spelt "artefact". But, the real answer is whichever JK. Rowling spelt it as.

 * I have the British editions right in front of me, and Rowling spells it "artefact." I've changed the spelling in the article to reflect her preference. (I've also changed "firewhiskey" to "firewhisky"; even if no one spells the real drink without the "e," the name of the HP universe product is spelled without one.) IrisWings 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * "No one spells the real drink without the e" ? According to Whisky, the spelling whisky (without the e) is used everywhere the drink is produced, except on the one hand in the USA when talking about spirits made in the USA, and on the other hand in Ireland. In particular, I've never seen Scotch Whisky spelled otherwise than without the e., I suppose you meant even if no one spelled the real drink without the e, with a conditional of irreality. — Tonymec (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 * IrisWings, many thanks for finding the answer. Now, we have a big job ahead in fixing all the references, not just in this article, but in many other Potter-related articles. Kestenbaum 05:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge
See Articles for deletion/Wizarding Examinations Authority. Petros471 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per my reasoning in the above AfD, I don't really have too much of an opinion on this one, but I think the section titled "Education" would be a good place to put this simply because this group is responsible for evaluating students as part of their education. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

List of wands in Harry Potter
As a result of the recent AfD of List of wands in Harry Potter and my discussion with the administrator who closed the debate, I've created a redirect to Wizarding World. This is a link to the most recent version of the list of wands. From this, we can decide on what information needs to be merged into this article. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If the article/section is supposed to be entitled "List of Wands in Harry Potter", there is no need to fill the reader in on details about the status of wands in the Wizarding World. I propose a recreation of the List-of-Wands-article, containing a only a list of the various wands dealt with in the series and their properties, while the additional information on Harry Potter wands as such would be found either in the Wizarding World article or -seeing as the Wizarding World article is alreadz rather long- in Wands (Harry Potter). Of course, all three articles would be linked.

User:Livedevilslivedevil

Population
The article states that "about 40" people entered Hogwarts with Harry, and referenced HP1. I can't find any reference to this count in the book. I'm assuming that it is a calculation, based on (five students per dorm [going by Griffendor]) * (two dorms, boys and girls) * (four houses). However, in HP5, when Harry quarrels with Seamus, he says "If you've got a problem sharing a dorm with me, go and ask McGonagall if you can be moved," implying that there may be more than one male dorm in their year. Is there some more definitive basis for this comment? -- Delius1967 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In Chapter 7 of The Philosopher's Stone, there are 22 1st years who are named in the sorting. It must be mentioned however that Dean Thomas, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle are not named, sugesting that there may be others that we dont know about in Harry's year.--Radioactive turnip 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) \__________________\

_______________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Limits of Magic
"About the only feats disallowed by magic are the conjuration (creation from nothing) of permanent objects [...]" Where does this come from? Wizards are conjuring solid objects all the time. Dumbledore creaates a chintz armchair at Harry's hearing in HP5; he conjures mead (and glasses for it) in HP6; Malfoy conjures a snake in HP2; etc. These things only disappear when he directs them to, which for all practical purposes makes them permanent. There is some limitation, obviously, since why would they need Diagon Alley otherwise? But it's not as black and white as "no conjuring anything". -- Delius1967 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In Book Seven it is revealed that food cannot be created out of nothing, that it's one of the five exceptons to some magical law. Since it's an exception, that means other things can be conjured. The 'no conjuring food' rule goes against Dumbledore's mead-conjuring, but maybe he transported it from elsewhere instantaneously, basically teleporting it. There's also a spell for conjuring water, but maybe it's teleported from somewhere too. Or maybe drinks don't count as food and can therefore be conjured (not all liquids can be conjured, however, otherwise making potions would be pointless since you could just conjure them instead), or maybe water is the only exception to the food rule. On the Diagon Alley thing, I think if you conjured, for example, a broom, it would just be a nondescript, average broom, not a Firebolt or a Nimbus or anything, people have to buy those. Also, it wouldn't make sense if money could be conjured. Obviously. Sik2thestomach 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. 72.193.153.70 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

RE: Conjuration and Magical Duration -

You are confusing the concept of "solidity" with that of "permanence". That a conjured item is solid (as opposed to liquid or gas) is not neccesary and sufficient for it to be permanent. In each of the three instances you bring up, a very short amount of time passed between the conjuring and subsequent active vanishing of the items, 15 minutes for the chairs at the hearing, 20 minutes for the goblets & mead at the Dursley's, and less than 1 minute for Draco's snake.

Had these items been left to exist they would have returned to nonexistence of their own accord eventually. A Ravenclaw Common Room password riddle shed some light on this in Deathly Hallows: "Where do vanished objects go? Into non-being, which is to say, everything". Draco's snake was solid and as such dangerous, but had Snape not vanished/destroyed it would have gone back "into non-being, which is to say everything", and sooner rather than later as Draco was not an exceptionally powerful wizard. It may have been 3 minutes or 20 minutes or 2 hours, but while the snake did exist the damage it's very sharp (solid) fangs could perpetrate would be very real. This is rather faulty logic. The Ravenclaw common room riddle spoke of where objects that are actively vanished by a wizard go - it said nothing to the effect that objects spontaneously vanish themselves. Taurisimus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, it appears that the potential, strength, and duration of all types of magic, not just summoning, in the Potterverse are strung along a vast continuum. All wizards are not created equal, and no amount of studying or practice will turn a Wormtail into a Dumbledore. The way I read the books, the great majority of wizards & wtiches are at the middle to bottom of the bell curve, while those with the prodigious skills of Dumbledore are very very rare. I think of when Madam Poppy Pomfrey reflexively conjured a chair out of thin air for a distressed Minerva McGonagall and the chair that appeared was very basic, hard and wooden (not very comfortable) contrasted with the squishy luxurious armchairs Dumbledore conjures up with the merest flick of his wand. This is pretty much all conjecture, and unsupported by the books. There is nothing to say that wizards a born with a certain raw power - indeed, this goes against JKR's message that birth counts for nothing compared to a person's choices. From my reading of the books, I find it much more likely that power is directly related to magical skill, and skill alone. See: http://www.readcon.com/index.php?page=20 for the full argument. Taurisimus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that either of these chairs is permanent, but my take is that left unvansished, Dumbledore's would last much much longer(years?!) than Pomfrey's, which might only last hours days or weeks. Only when Dumbledore succumbed to Snape's Avada Kadavara did the Petrificus Totalus he placed upon Harry dispel, that is to say had Dumbledore not cast the counter jinx or died, Harry would have remained frozen indefinently, whereas with the vast majority of spell casters such a spell wears off much more quickly and in direct proportion to their own personal magical ability. And yet a great many enchantments and spells last for hundreds of years, without renewal. For example, the spells upon Hogwarts.

Similarly, all types of spells have to be reapplied throught the books as their effect wears off, the Imperius, Stupify, Disillusionment Charms, Silencing Charms, as well as the magic of potions i.e. Polyjuice. In "Magical Beasts & Where to Find Them" the Ministry of Magic warns pet owners that "Disillusionment Charms should be performed daily, as their effects are apt to wear off". As with summoning charms, Disillusionment Charms are only temporary and both their effectiveness and longevity is explicitly connected to the level of magical power residing in the caster.

So, it's Nuture vs. Nature, you are either born with magical ability in your genes or not. Among those who are, the maxium theoretical magical potential residing dormant since birth inside each one available for them to tap into and develop varies enormously along a wide spectrum from Squibs to Dumbledore. You can develop the latent intrinsic power within you by studying and practicing, but very few wizards have the "inate magical power" coursing through their veins to become the equivalent of a Ronaldo or Michael Jordan. It's the same with Hermione beating the pants off Harry & Ron at every turn. When Wormtail chops off his hand he can't conjure a replacement, but must wait on Voldemort to do it for him.

Following this logic in reference to your theory about all conjured brooms only being nondescript and average I would submit that the quality of the conjured broom is entirely dependent upon the quality of the wizard conjuring it. Using the wizards mentioned above, Wormtail's innate genetic magical potential, honed to it's fullest potential, might net him the equivalent of one of the Hogwarts school brooms in bad disrepair with a serious pull to the left, Madame Pomfrey a Comet 260, Minerva McGonagall a Nimbus 2001, and Dumbledore a Firebolt 5000 etc. I find it likely that when conjuring a broom, all you'll get is a regular broom - extra charms have to be added to make it fly. Taurisimus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course JK Rowling's theory of magic as presented to the reader has more holes in continuity than time travel theory. The fact that you are questioning the system of magic in her universe shows that you find it interesting enough to wade through the murky waters of suspension of disbelief in effort to remain engaged despite the gaping holes, and they sure are there. The above is just how I patch the cracks in Hogwarts crumbling magical foundation.Negroe Hypothecary Substitute 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Conjured objects exist temporarily:

My understanding is that a conjured object only exists so long as the conjurer retains his mental concentration on the object, and it does not have permanent existence. Thus Dumbledore’s chintz armchair would cease to exist when he left the room or no longer needed it (intentionally banishing a conjured object is probably not necessary but is good for keeping the mind clear of distractions). It would follow that food could not be conjured in this way; when you eat food it becomes a part of you, so for something to be food it must have its own independent existence. There are examples in the book of food appearing out of nowhere, such as the feast at the beginning of the year, but that food was prepared by the houselves and then magically summoned to the table.

-JLM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.24.46 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In our Muggle world, matter is neither created or destroyed. We have a huge social effort aimed at processing raw materials, making steel, refined oil, cement, bricks etc. Agriculture uses plants to process raw materials into food. Industrial chemistry emerged from medieval alchemy about the seventeenth century. I see magic as a vastly more effective form of industrial chemistry. In our world, counterfeiters have tried to make money since money was invented, & governments design currency to make it very difficult to counterfeit. Wizarding governemnnts will also work to make it difficult for wizards to process raw materials into coins. --DavidJErskine (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Economy
Can we really say that one knut equals a British pound? If 493 knuts equals a galleon, that means a galleon is worth about 500 pounds. At the Quiddich world cup, Harry buys everyone omnioculars for 10 galleons apiece, and by the current standards, is dropping around 1500 pounds on his buddies on a whim. There are a number of other examples as well that would suggest the money is worth far less.
 * There is a lot of confusion about the value of a galleon. See Money in Harry Potter. And please sign your posts. Four tildes should do it :-) 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

re: reversions
There are arguments for keeping the old layout; that I will concede, though I think my layout is clearer. But changing the intro, which, by any definition, is far too short, that I cannot abide. For now, I'll leave the layout as it is, but the intro should be retained. Serendipodous 07:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing the sources tag
I placed a sources tag on the article; another person reverted it very shortly after with the edit line "sources are from the text". "Sources are from the text" is not acceptable, not with an article this large (the Harry Potter article itself is very well sourced). If a whole universe fictional universe article is synthesized from a text, it's original research. There should be third-party sources to corroborate the information in here. This is Wikipedia, we can't just go making up large amounts of text from our own interpretations of books. ColourBurst 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Since none of the other HP articles on this site are referenced at all, you'd have a hard time drawing the other editors to your point of view. Serendipodous

Wizarding Genetics Section
I have deleted the genetics section, as it has no place in this or any other article. It is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the HP series. Furthermore, it has no basis in the series and isn't mentioned, ever. John Reaves 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that different species can not mate. Different species can mate as long as they are from the same genus--they just can not have viable offspring. As an example, a horse and donkey can mate and have a mule, however, mules can not reproduce. As a results. Thus giants and humans, for example, can be from separate species but bear off spring (such as Hagrid). Theoritically, Hagrid should be sterile. Since im not a biologist, however, I defer to someone with a more substantive background in this topic to change the relevant text. Also, Im not sure that it is "extremely" important to bring this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.70.122 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tebo
What is this? Michaelsanders 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "...an ash-coloured warthog found in Congo and Zaire." From Fantastic Beasts... John Reaves 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Michaelsanders 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Patronus charm as communication
Michaelsanders, I don't want to start an edit war on this, so let's discuss it here. In HP5, Dumbledore says (quoting from memory, I don't have the book in front of me): "I should explain that members of the Order have a more reliable method of communication than the floo network." He doesn't detail what it is, only that it exists. In HP6, Tonks does indeed use her Patronus charm to alert people in the castle that she (and Harry) have arrived.

However, that the first comment refers to the second action doesn't seem plausible to me on several counts. First of all, a Patronus is a localized manifestation of a single wizard; it would not serve well for long-distance communication. The same argument would raise security concerns, etc. Second, there is no indication that a Patronus has the capability of delivering a payload, i.e. an actual message, as opposed to simply making its presence known. It's the difference between getting a telegram and reading it. A Patronus seems particularly ill-suited to any form of detailed communication.

You say in the edit summary that Rowling has confirmed that she was referring to the Patronus; can you provide a link to this? Delius1967 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "Members of the Order use their Patronuses to communicate with each other. They are the only wizards who know how to use their spirit guardians in this way and they have been taught to do so by Dumbledore (he invented this method of communication). The Patronus is an immensely efficient messenger for several reasons: it is an anti-Dark Arts device, which makes it highly resilient to interference from Dark wizards; it is not hindered by physical barriers; each Patronus is unique and distinctive, so that there is never any doubt which Order member has sent it; nobody else can conjure another person's Patronus, so there is no danger of false messages being passed between Order members; nothing conspicuous needs to be carried by the Order member to create a Patronus." That said, your points are entirely justified: I consider the idea that a Patronus could be anything other than a visual signal (or its real purpose, a Dementor ward) unadulterated rubbish (and on the Redhen site, there's a brief amusing parody comparing the business to Lassie giving messages). Nonetheless, it is unfortunately what Rowling has said, so we just have to accept it. And hope that there is some half-credible logic in it. Michaelsanders 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, straight from the source. Should probably add that link to the main page. Delius1967 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Schools: Where is this Brazilian school mentioned?
Bill Weasley had a pen pal at an unknown school in Brazil, who took offence when Bill couldn't afford a student exchange programme and sent him a cursed hat that made his ears shrivel up. " Huh?--Problematik 05:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is mentioned in GoF ch. 7. faithless   (speak)  02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the books to suggest that the Salem Witches Institute (not Academy) is a girls' school in the U.S. or even a school at all. In "Goblet of Fire," Harry sees some middle-aged witches from the SWI attending the Quidditch World Cup but no young girls who might be students. It has been suggested on another Harry Potter Wiki site that the name of this Institute was intended to be a play on the Women's Institutes of the U.K. I think that's likely. I think it's meant for Salem, Mass. I mean everyone has heard of that.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add the tildes to my post, above. However, I must say that the Wiki HP sites are crammed with poor grammar, punctuation, and syntax. I'm trying to work on this without altering substantive content, but the task is, frankly, wearisome.68.72.102.12 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Relations To the Muggle world: Add why it is a secret.
In the Relations To the Muggle World section, while it constantly mentions that the Wizard World is a secret from the Muggle World, it never says why it is a secret. This should be added.--Little Jimmy 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * A belated reply. Harry asks Hagrid that very question in HP1 Chap 5. Hagrid replies: Why? Blimey, Harry, everyone'd be wantin' magic solutions to their problems. Nah, we're best left alone. A lame reply, perhaps. I have spent most of my working life as a technician in a scientific research institute, & scientists are like wizards. Scientists are exasperated by the ignorant & erratic Muggle response to scientific knowledge (magic) & in the future scientists might retreat into their own world & abandon the Muggle world. --DavidJErskine (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2009

(UTC)

 * I expect that JKR was trying to fit in with history. In Europe, witches were a perceived threat until about 1700, & the preceived threat declined thereafter. The Statute of Secrecy was, I think, 1695. Once wizards & witches faded from sight, Muggles no longer took witchcraft seriously. --DavidJErskine (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge in Money of Harry Potter
The article contains nothing but factoids from the books, which is unnecessary as the book and film articles cover the story. The one reference to Rowling talking about exchange rates could be moved in here. Judgesurreal777 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge: that article about Money is barely more than a stub, and is obviously part of the HP Universe. Lord Opeth 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been no objections over a period of several months so I thought I'd be bold and merged the page. Guest9999 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Capital or lower-case Universe?
I was about to move the article to Harry Potter universe with a lower case "u" until I had second thoughts and wanted to pass by the main editors of this page. "Universe" is not a proper noun, this is not the "official," per se, name of the article, so shouldn't it be "u"? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No response, so I'm moving the article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Blood purity
That whole article about a fascinating topic harry potter, is unfortunately just all OR and should have any important parts merged in here. Judgesurreal777 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose this merger. Even if all of the unnecessary cruft is junked, there is still quite a bit of good information. The Harry Potter universe is already 55K, and there's probably about 10K worth of good stuff here. Trim Blood purity (Harry Potter) if you must, but I don't think merging is the way to go here. faithless   (speak)  17:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine if it can stand on its own, I don't love mergers for the sake of them. But what within Blood purity is out of universe? I was under the impression it was AFD'd because it had none. Judgesurreal777 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No merge. I think that Blood Purity is it's own article. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Merge. The Blood purity article is almost entirely in-universe; at the very least it should be pared down to a brief explanation. If we could find some sourcing that linked it to real-life racism, that would be excellent, but I doubt such a source exists (making me wonder if the subject really merits an encyclopedia entry per WP:WAF). bwowen talk•contribs 00:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge. Let's just clean-up the article so that it fits the fiction criteria and Wikipedia's standards. The article about Blood Purity contains lots of information about families, and some of this information is not detailed or even mentioned in character pages and sections. Lord Opeth 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge. I don't think you can fix it to fit the fiction criteria - it is very much an "in-universe" thing.  A Harry Potter wiki might have such an article, but not, I think, a general encyclopaedia. The whole thing seems to be drawn essentially from primary sources, and looking at Google we seem to be the leading authority on this subject, which is not right - encyclopaedias are a tertiary source and the secondary sources to support this are all just fansites. Cruftbane 06:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Prophet
"The Daily Prophet" redirects here, but there seems to be no content related to it in this article 172.130.152.27 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the page to a more suitable loaction in Harry Potter newspapers and magazines. Guest9999 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Why was this moved to "Harry Potter Universe"?
It's called the Wizarding world or the Wizard world. That's the name of the Harry Potter universe. Changing it is like changing "Middle-earth" to "Lord of the Rings Universe".  Serendi pod ous  14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the article does, or will eventually include the whole of the Harry Potter universe, not just the wizards, because remember there are many muggles who aren't part of the "Wizarding world". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Error in Money section
I haven't read all of Harry Potter, yet. But I remember (from the first book) that 1 sickle is 29 knuts. The table in the exchange rate sections states that 42 knuts are one sickle. Vandalism, or was this changed in the later books? --Stesch (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked the link to CNN's currency converter and they configm: 1 sickle is 29 knuts. And: the table showed that 1 knut is 0.03448 sickles. That's the correct value for 1/29, not for 1/42! Looks like hidden vandalism. I changed the 42 to 29 and the 714 to 493 (= 1 galleon). --Stesch (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_universe&diff=189344195&oldid=189298053 and later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_universe&diff=192248870&oldid=192246919 (could be a failed attempt to correct the error). --Stesch (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

source information
I am new here and wondered where you get all the source info that you use on these pages. I have all 7 books (American version) also the books Fantastic beasts and Quidditch that J.K.R. wrote, and the first 5 films on dvd (american). Some of the stuff I see here I have never heard of. I check J.K.R.'s site a lot and don't find the stuff listed there either. Shouldn't the information here be taken directly from Rowling? From anyone else it is just guess work.

Thanks ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHITETIGERLADY44 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

source information
I am new here and wondered where you get all the source info that you use on these pages. I have all 7 books (American version) also the books Fantastic beasts and Quidditch that J.K.R. wrote, and the first 5 films on dvd (american). Some of the stuff I see here I have never heard of. I check J.K.R.'s site a lot and don't find the stuff listed there either. Shouldn't the information here be taken directly from Rowling? From anyone else it is just guess work.

Thanks WHITETIGERLADY44 ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHITETIGERLADY44 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

coinage
Passage states their money is bimetalic, then goes on to state they use three metals- which would be 'trimetallic'. I don't know the series well enough to know which is more accurate, could somebody check it out and fix it? Thanks. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After Hogwarts
"It is customary for young wizards to travel the world to "observe foreign witches and wizards" after graduation to complete their education".

How the heck is it customary to travel? I would imagine that it is just like people who complete University. They may travel the world, or they may go straight into the work force.Wild ste (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Narcissa
I just happened to come over the Narcissa page. It's a redirect to here as "Narcissa Malfoy". As there is a much more notable Narcissa, the American missionary Narcissa Whitman and a small place in Oklahoma, Narcissa, Oklahoma, I'd like to turn it in a disambiguation page. As the original author, User:Od Mishehu, said in creating the redirect that "As long as there are no other claims to this first name, it should redirect here. If there are others, feel free to replace with a disambiog page" I think that there are no objections, so if no are risen here, I'd be bold and do it. Link to this discussions have been posted to Talk:Narcissa Whitman and User talk:Od Mishehu. Happy editing,  Snowolf How can I help? 07:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt there could be any objection. A redirect is a disambiguation page with one entry.  When there's more than one, it gives the reader a clear choice.  Go for it.  —EncMstr (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Snowolf How can I help? 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nurmengard
When I searched for Nurmengard, I was redirected to this page but it doesn't have an entry. I would go ahead and add it but I'm not sure where to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.234.233 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Squibs
I would appreciate some clarification on the following text please. "Squib births are rare anomalies, and the Ministry of Magic does not keep records of them." JKR does not actually state that no record is kept of them in the reference given. While it is clear in the series that Squibs are an anomaly, I am uncertain about no records kept of them. In Book 5, Order of the Phoenix, when Mrs. Figg is at Harry's trial, it is said that there is no record of "any witch or wizard living in Little Whinging". When she states that she is a squib, she replies "so you wouldn't have me registered." I take this to mean registered as a member of the wizarding community. Mrs. Figg is told that "We'll be checking that. Leave details of your parentage with my assistant Weasley."

I may be nit picking [and would be pleased to be told so], but I think "the Ministry of Magic does not keep records of them." is ambiguous. Given that the Ministry places great importance on keeping the wizarding community secret from Muggles, it would be in their best interests to know the identity of Squibs at least. Presumably, checking on Mrs. Figg's parentage would reveal they had produced a child and that she is a Squib.

I suggest that the text could read "and the Ministry of Magic does not require them to be registered as part of the Magical Community." Any comment would be appreciated. Proxxt (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I found it strange when reading the article too. Edit it. 86.135.97.226 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now made the change I mentioned above. Thanks for your comment. Proxxt (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion
This is very badly done. There are many instances when a Muggle-born or half blood does something religious. This should not really be included in a section about wizarding religion, because they weren't raised by wizards (though technically they are, it could easily just be a one off case and should not be applied to the universe as a whole). Also, the fact that there are churches in Godric's Hollow is irrelevant; there are churches and a cathedral in London, but they're nothing to do with wizard religion. If there was a church in Hogsmeade, I'd see that as proof of religious wizards, but there is no mention of one.

I've added a few lines to explain this, but it may be better off with a sentence at the end saying something like: It should be noted that Wizards raised by Muggles may not have the same religious beliefs as pure blood wizards due to their upbringing. Religious actions by these wizards could simply be one off cases influnced by Muggles, rather than an indicator of a wizrding religion."

How come then does Mrs. Wealsly say "Thank God" in the 7th Book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.131.57 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I could be way out here. Thoughts? 86.135.97.226 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that they are Christian, Harry's parents were buried in the graveyard of the church at Godric's Hollow, and when burying Mad-Eye Moody's eye next to a tree, he carves a cross into the tree. So at the very least the Potters are Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.197.176 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely statement. The in-universe truths, puts all "muggle religions" out of play. If something there would have to be denominations specially for Wizards for it to work. That is, the in-universe realities in the HP series are obviously incompatible with either denomination of the christian religion. chandler ··· 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think religion is relevant in jk rowling's universe. She doesn't really think that much about religion, and her world relfects that. If you've joined pottermore, and r british, then it appears that wizards are about as religious as british muggles. It's clearly not a big deal to rowling therefore, u shdn't think 2 much ab it. (82.28.146.233 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Series
How about we use a vertical series box (part of a series on the Harry Potter Universe) on this page, Spells in Harry Potter, Places in Harry Potter etc., or alternatively, on all Harry Potter pages (i.e. Part of a series on Harry Potter. ajmint (talk•email•contribs•subpages) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wizard World backwardness
The article mentions that the wizards lack Muggle technology, but not how the separation in 1700 also put them out of touch with social progress. They missed out on the abolitionist movement and so still own elf-slaves. Their use of dementors in prisons violates the American Fifth Amendment and its counterparts in other countries. Also, their notions of legitimacy are so primitive that Voldamort apparently was able to take over simply by occupying the Ministry of Magic. The fact that Voldamort's mother took refuge in a Muggle orphanage implies that they have no social-welfare system, except for scholarships for poor students at Hogwarts. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood Purity
In fact, by the end of the eries the Weasley's Family is nos a pure-blood family according to the definition given. The Weasleys have mixed theri blood with that of Harry and Hermione who have muggle ancestors; this contradicts the idea of Blood Purity as "not having muggle ancestors on the genealogical pedigree".--Luke in spanish (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Family
The Black Family-Which is in the middle of Blood Purity seems to be out of place. I suggest putting it in another section because BLACK FAMILY is not a blood status like Squib-Mudblood-etc... --Tech-Chef (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirrors as communication
It is true that mirrors were used as a form of communication but it is only mentioned used by James Potter and Sirius Black and only mentions one invented mirror by one of the friends. I would like that subtitle to be deleted unless there is proof that there were more mirrors.

Gaunt line?
Technically speaking, since Voldemort is Merope Gaunt's son and he doesn't really die until DH, can it be said that the Gaunt line ended before book 1? It did end in the male line, in that Morfin died childless, but it didn't end entirely. EDIT: Claiming this comment because I forgot to log in before. Sorry! Nachturnal (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Half-breeds and mixed-breeds
I've removed the following paragraph: "The only mixed species in the Harry potter books are: Hagrid (half-giant), Fleur's mother (half-veela),and Teddy Lupin (half-werewolf)." It is suggested in GoF that Madame Maxime is also part giant; the fact that Fleur and Gabrielle's mother is half-Veela means they are also mixed-breeds; and I'm sure if I scoured the books I could find more characters of mixed breeds. Nachturnal (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Uh? I removed it. I do in fact have multiple personalities, but you're not me. As far as I recall.
 * And I removed it because it didn't make too much sense (bad grammar and punctuation) and I was pretty sure it was factually wrong.
 * Just sayin'. --Jean Calleo (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

sirius black killed
in HP5, siriusb is killed by bellatrix, but it aint a killing curse, for it was a red jet of light. the book says: harry saw sirius ducking bellatrix's jet of red light [...] the second jet of light hit him sqaurely in the chest. i think it was a stunning charm. he died by falling through this deadly curtain thing.

Potions?
Where have all the potions gone? Wasn't there a list of their names, appearances, effects, etc. somewhere? 71.189.41.100 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Choice of 17 and 29 as divisions of money
Does anyone have a source stating why Rowling chose those ugly primes? Years ago on Money in Harry Potter (before that was merged) it said "The coin values may be arbitrary, possibly a parody of the British monetary system before it was decimalised." That seems interesting and likely (even as it completely misses the point that £sd's utility came from its high divisibility), but annoyingly I have not found a source for this. (Strange number conversions may not bother the wizards, but I'd be amazed if not being able to split a Galleon evenly into halves doesn't bother them.) Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's probably a half-Knut, though the books don't say so.--2001:A61:21F4:A101:EDDF:555D:8EF0:DD32 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just part of the general comedy trope of wizards having little common sense, I think. Mezigue (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

half-Knut should not redirect to half-penny98.210.246.205 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't and doesn't in the article. This is just the talk page. Mezigue (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Black Family Tree
There's an image, on the page, of a family tree-- which is now incorrect. Charlus and Dorea are not the grandparents of James; James's parents are Euphemia and Fleamont Potter who were "old by wizarding standards" when James was born; Dorea would be 40 at the time James was born -- hardly old. Can this be removed please?--86.186.69.43 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Fictional universe of 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4739474.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825112544/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=20 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=20
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timewastersguide.com/review/1566/Harry-Potter-and-the-Order-of-the-Phoenix
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.herts.ac.uk/fms/documents/schools/law/HLJ_V3I1_Spanyol.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.nypost.com/potter/archives/2007/08/the_real_epilog.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpana.com/news.20137.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fictional universe of 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5qwWxzwkd?url=http://www.herts.ac.uk/fms/documents/schools/law/HLJ_V3I1_Spanyol.pdf to http://www.herts.ac.uk/fms/documents/schools/law/HLJ_V3I1_Spanyol.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5vvbb4a1U?url=http://blogs.nypost.com/potter/archives/2007/08/the_real_epilog.html to http://blogs.nypost.com/potter/archives/2007/08/the_real_epilog.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Magical Congress of the United States of America" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Magical Congress of the United States of America and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fictional universe of Harry Potter


text:
User talk:Invisipunk

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Invisipunk


text:
Bomber (song)

"Bomber" is a song by the English heavy metal band Motörhead, recorded and released in 1979 (see 1979 in music). It is the title track to their album Bomber and was released as a single peaking at 34 on the UK Singles Chart.

The single was released in the UK by Bronze Records as a 7-inch vinyl single with the first 20,000 copies pressed in blue vinyl and thereafter in black. The band promoted its release with an appearance on the BBC TV show Top of the Pops on 3 December.

On 13 April 2019, Motörhead re-released the original single of Bomber for the first time since 1979, along with the single edit of Overkill on picture disc as a celebration of the albums 40th anniversaries on Record Store Day.

Background
In an interview in 2015 with Rolling Stone Lemmy recalled the origin of the song "'I was reading Len Deighton's book Bomber at the time I wrote it. It's about a bombing raid on Germany when the British hit the wrong town, and it's what goes on the floor in the air from both sides. It's a really good book. You should read it. 'Bomber' was the first song I wrote about war. We made a big bomber lighting rig for the tour and we've still got it. It's big; it's about 40 feet down, 25 or 30 feet across and it's got lit-up propellers on it. It gets a truck all by itself.'"

Other versions
The song became a staple of the band's live set, with live versions being released on the albums No Sleep 'til Hammersmith, Everything Louder than Everyone Else, Live at Brixton Academy, Better Motörhead than Dead: Live at Hammersmith, The Wörld Is Ours - Vol. 2: Anyplace Crazy as Anywhere Else and Clean Your Clock; and on the video releases The Birthday Party, 25 & Alive Boneshaker and The Best of Motörhead.

"Over The Top"
The B-side of the single was the non-album track "Over the Top", which has subsequently been included as a bonus track on the re-mastered Bomber album.

The song was also performed as a joint collaboration between Motörhead and The Damned for inclusion on the proposed "Ballroom Blitz" single, but the recording session ended in drunkenness and the results were deemed unsuitable for release. The recording was, however, finally issued in 2003 on the Stone Deaf Forever! boxset. The Damned included the track on their compilation CD "Tales From The Damned" (released 1993, Cleopatra Records - CLEO71392), performed as "MotörDamned" with the following personnel: Rat Scabies, Lemmy, Fast Eddie, Captain Sensible, Philthy Animal Taylor, Dave Vanian, Algy Ward.

Live versions of this song have been released as the B-side to the 1981 single "Motorhead", on the 2005 video Stage Fright and on the 2007 album Better Motörhead than Dead: Live at Hammersmith.

Single track listing

 * 1) "Bomber" (Ian Kilmister, Eddie Clarke, Phil Taylor) - 3:45
 * 2) "Over the Top" (Kilmister, Clarke, Taylor) - 3:12

Personnel

 * "Fast" Eddie Clarke – electric guitar
 * Phil "Philthy Animal" Taylor – drums
 * Lemmy (Ian Kilmister) – bass guitar, vocals

Cover versions

 * Girlschool covered the song on the St. Valentine's Day Massacre EP, a joint release between the two bands. This cover is also on the soundtrack to the game Brütal Legend.
 * Mudhoney released the cover version as a B-side to their 1992 single "Suck You Dry", and has been included as a bonus track on their Piece of Cake album.
 * Onslaught recorded its own version featuring Tom Angelripper and Phil Taylor and released it on the Sounds of Violence album (2011).
 * U.K. Subs made their version of the song for their covers album Subversions (2018).
 * Saxon recorded a version on their covers album Inspirations (2021).

title: Bomber (song)