User talk:Imagine Wizard

I have noted your recent edit to the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Philosopher's Stone/Chapter 1, but unfortunately, I had to remove it. Your two base assumptions are wrong:


 * 1) The Killing Curse does not cause destruction. It is a curse of power, and can cause destruction when it misses its mark, but in the case in question it did not; it hit Voldy square on, else he would not have died. When it was used against the spider in OotP it caused the spider to quietly die; when it was used against Dumbledore in HBP he was thrown over the battlements -- or did he fall? already weakened, he had, if I recall correctly, regained his feet while talking to Draco, and could have simply overbalanced when he died -- but no damage was done to the tower.
 * 2) It is true that Pettigrew was the only secret-keeper, but that does not imply that he was the only one who knew where the Potters were. The secret keeper can let anyone else in on the secret, if he chooses, and Sirius was certainly in on it as he sent Harry a toy broom, viz. the letter in Sirius' room in DH. Additionally, of course, Pettigrew had let Voldy in on the secret. The discussion that you removed says nothing about Sirius or Hagrid being SK, only that they could have been let in on the secret.

I do hope I haven't discouraged you, and that you'll continue editing, but perhaps you might read a little more carefully before excising big chunks of text? Thank you. Chazz (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Of course, I still have to argue; how could I be a WB editor if I didn't?


 * You are correct that curses of power, which of course includes the Killing Curse, will cause explosive-type damage if they miss. We see that over and over again in Wizarding battles. However, if they hit, they have the intended effect and little else. No fire is set on the desk when the false Moody kills the spider in GoF. There is no explosion when Voldemort is killed by his own curse at the end of DH (chapter 36). Or when the killing curse rebounds on him in the Forbidden Forest in DH:34. There is no explosion when Dumbledore is killed by Snape in HBP. And going back to original sources, DH:17 does have a sign that says the house was left in its ruined state, but also the house itself, which we see, is damaged only in the area of the one bedroom. DH:17 makes no conclusions about what caused the damage. I'm going to suggest that no Wiki, not even ours, should be taken as authoritative.
 * In the matter of Pettigrew as secret-keeper, rather than excising the speculation, which still has some value, it would be better to reword to point out that Hagrid's seeing the house meant either that he was one of those who was privy to the secret, or that the Fidelius spell ended when the secret it was protecting ended. In fact, I believe the current wording is intended to show that, but may not be pointed enough.
 * Your thoughts? Chazz (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, an... interesting... point of view.
 * We know that the house was not demolished, because (also in DH:17) "This house... has been left in its ruined state", the "right side of the top floor had been blown apart". Damaged, effectively ruined, yes, but not demolished, not flat destroyed. As Voldemort had just been effectively killed at the point which you refer to, his memory about how much damage there was must, perforce, be suspect, and the rubble that he refers to may not have existed anywhere except in his own ruined mind. Again I point out that in the Forbidden Forest, and in the Great Hall, in DH:34 and DH:36 respectively, there is exactly the same rebound onto Voldemort, and no explosions or damage to anyone other than Voldy result.
 * I have already rewritten that chunk of text to eliminate the "multiple secret-keepers" error and the associated "Sirius could tell Hagrid" misapprehension. I'm not sure the paragraph should be shortened as much as you suggest, because we are never told outright whether Hagrid is privy to the secret; in the interests of fostering some critical thought, I would like to retain the rationale for our guesses about Hagrid's understanding.
 * Back to you... Chazz (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With point 2 more or less resolved, I would like to draw your attention back to the chapter in question.
 * As it is unlikely that we will ever resolve this – the rebounding Killing Curse in DH:36 was powerful enough to end Voldemort, whether or not the Elder Wand was truly his; why would it not have given the same sort of explosion, if any, that wrecked Harry's bedroom? – I am going to suggest that we leave it as speculation, lay out both sides and reasoning in the text and allow the student to make up his own mind. To that end, I have expanded that bit of text to include much of your reasoning and my counter-reasoning.
 * In general, in a text of this sort, it is better when there is some debate, to lay out the debate and the reasons involved, and allow the student to think it through and form his own conclusions, than to simply claim one side of the debate is correct and banish all other interpretations. We have been through this before... another editor and myself had a bit of an argument over whether Fenrir Greyback was transformed when he attacked Hogwarts in DH:32. A lot of that debate is on the talk page, but we sort of distilled it down onto the analysis page for that chapter. Chazz (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Order of the Phoenix/Chapter 1
I am very sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to back out these two big deletions.

In cases where there is some question, it is a good idea to keep the rationale for making a decision, rather than just leaving it as a given. I understand your feelings about this, but in fact not everyone reading this text will understand that Muggles are unable to perceive Dementors; and so the explanatory notes should remain, albeit perhaps modified base don what we have learned in the story since.

Thank you. Chazz (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * After a day or so of no response, I backed out the changes and modified the text to indicate that there is some dispute. Please check what I've written, and feel free to edit if you feel it's warranted... but please don't wholesale delete. I'm afraid that we can't take the author's word as gospel, either, as apart from the occasional flint, things she says in interviews often directly contradict things in the books.
 * Just as an aside, it is judicious ambiguity, in many cases, that makes a re-reading worthwhile. Because of that, it is probably better to highlight and comment on ambiguity than to come down hard on one side or the other. Chazz (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)