Talk:Sirius Black

Possible page move?
I'm starting to work on creating articles for all the members of the House of Black, and have hit a problem: there are three Sirius Blacks. We currently have articles for two; this one, and one for his ancestor, Sirius Black Sr.

Here are my two proposals to sort out the problem.


 * This page becomes a disambiguation page, linking to all three Sirius Blacks.
 * I create three new pages:
 * Sirius Black I (for the eldest known Sirius), with Sirius Black Sr. redirecting to it.
 * Sirius Black II for the middle Sirius.
 * Sirius Black III for the youngest, and most well known, Sirius.

OR


 * This page stays the same.
 * I create two new articles:
 * Sirius Black I (for the eldest known Sirius), with Sirius Black Sr. redirecting to it.
 * Sirius Black II for the middle Sirius.

Obviously, the second option saves changing all the links to this page, as well as letting users get here quicker. However, it will not have uniformality.

I open this up to debate, since I do not want to make such a drastic change without consensus. However, I will be creating the Sirius Black I and Sirius Black II pages to deal with the two ancestors. - Cavalier One 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think leave this article as is, create a Sirius Black I (with Sr. redirecting to it), a Sirius Black II, a Sirius Black III that redirects here (or alternately you can redirect "Sirius Black" to "Sirius Black III") and a Disambiguious page with links to all three. I figure this since when people search for Sirius Black they'll most likely be looking for the youngest one so they should immediately be able to get to this page - there can be a disambig link up top. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 11:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly on the fact that when people search for Sirius Black, they probably want this one. But to create a proper disambig page, we have to free up the Sirius Black page, and move Sirius Black to Sirius Black III. - Cavalier One 11:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. We can just create a "Sirius Black (disambiguation)" page. Lots of other wikis (which I know are not here, but just saying) do that when there's a use that is much more prevalent than others. For example: sine. I think it would be the best thing. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 11:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that. Good idea!  I'll implement it immediately. - Cavalier One 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
58.181.105.81 left this question on the article so I moved it here  13:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

we are still having confusion, many of us, of how exactly is sirius's name pronounced? is it serious, syrus, or serios, or what? it is very confising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.181.105.81 (talk • contribs).
 * Well, it is pronounced 'serious', like "I'm serious, no leaving the house young man!" 13:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the film pronunication - Si-ree-us. Its the way Sirius (the star) has been pronounced for decades. -  Cavalier One ( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pronounced Serious, all right. It says so in the sixth book-In the first chapter, the Muggle Prime Minister was thinking about how Fudge had come in and "said something about Serious Black." Prissymis 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Admission of guilt?
I'm sorry, but I don't recall Sirius ever actually admitting that he'd orchestrated the Shrieking Shack Incident with Snape. Obviously, I'm mistaken, as you state, "...Sirius excused his own actions, explaining that he had simply told Snape what he wanted to know about the tunnel, whilst omitting crucial information. He simultaneously claimed it 'served Snape right'... " in your article.

You didn't make page citations, which I'm sure is an oversight. Can you tell me where in the books he makes this statement? I'm not doubting it, but I do need citation for my own peace of mind. I could re-read the book for the 5th time... but that would take a week at least, and I'm hoping you'll have an answer for me sooner lol.

Magpie friday 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth and Death
As Sirius's date of birth is never mentioned in the series or even by JK Rowling, wouldn't it be more prudent to write "c. 1960" instead of just "1960" which is misleading as he could have very well been born at any time after September 1st 1959. Considering that Snape, Lily, James and Remus were all born in 1960, Sirius might as well have been 1959. This could apply for Peter Pettigrew as well.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it mentions the Battle of the Department of Mysteries taking place in June, so it would be safe to add June 1996 to Sirius's date of death.

More recently, I have found an old F.A.Q section question on JK Rowling's website that states that Sirius was around 22 years old when he was sent to Azkaban. Considering that this happened circa November 1, 1981, this means that Sirius was born in Between September 1, 1959 and October 31, 1959. Here is the link: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=61. If people agree, please write an agreement to change his birth year from 1960 to 1959.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.219.185.6 (talk • contribs).

-Rowling herself has stated that she is often bad at math, and even dates on the Black Family Tree can be discredited (i.e. Bellatrix' birth in 1951, and yet in GoF, Sirius mentions that at some point, Snape and Bellatrix had known each other while at Hogwarts, which is an impossibility if the 1960 date in Hallows is true, unless Bellatrix had been held back a year). Therefore, I would recommend the date at least saying "c. 1960" rather than 1959, if only to uphold the canon from the books.


 * How does saying c. 1960 uphold canon better than c. 1959? The comments above from J.K. Rowling's website make it more likely he was born in late 1959 -- which still fits in with the timeline because he would have been 11 (nearly, but not quite, 12) on 1 September 1971, and thus in the same class as James, Remus, Snape, et al. Just as Hermione, despite being born in 1979, is in the same class as Harry and Ron, born in 1980.
 * You're right about Rowling saying herself that math is not her "strong suit", but the guiding principle of this wiki is that her word is law, therefore we should only point out when obvious mathematical discrepancies occur (like with Bellatrix's Hogwarts years, as you mentioned) or make estimates when we haven't been told outright. Oread 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did the '17th' part of Sirius's death date come from. I only ask because the book states (in the Daily Prophet article, at the beginning of chapter 38, "The Second War Begins") that Sirius died either very late on a Thursday, or early on a Friday morning. And looking back to the 1996 calender, June 17 was a Monday. I know JK isn't always accurate with these things of course. So has she stated somewhere that the 17th was his death date despite the discrepancy?--Nia River 09:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Appearance
Shouldn't there be a section devoted to Sirius's physical appearance, like there is for other characters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.180.40.142 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, it could be added, but is not absolutely necessary. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Err... It doesn't matter if they're exactly necessary. It isn't absolutely necessary for the other characters. (I'm being kind of cheeky) Prissymis 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sirius' Death
In the article it says that Sirius was killed by an "unnamed spell" from Bellatrix. Now, I could be completely wrong, and in that case I'm very sorry for writing nonsense, but I think I remember that Bellatrix used a Stunning Spell on Sirius. I don't have the book at the moment so I can't check, but I'd be glad if someone could do it, just to make me feel better, because I'd like to be sure :-) Thanks! Kayanna89 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The book does not say what Bellatrix used --Lupin &amp; Kingsley 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I do understand that the books take precedence, I suggest changing it to: Sirius was struck with an unnamed curse (the movie version used the Killing Curse) and pushed through a veil in the Death Chamber, to his death. In the abscence of facts from the book, shouldn't the movie be used to supply additional information? --24.252.73.5 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the fact is that there is information in the books, the spell was red. The killing curse is green. Therefore, saying it was Avada Kedavra is completely against the books and would be against what this wiki is about. --Silverdrama 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the movie she distictly says Avada Kedavra and the spell is also green, in the book it is described as red so who knows.

I can see why some people think it was a red curse. But actually, the book clearly states that Bellatrix throws a red spell at Sirius, but it misses. Then she throws a "second jet of light". It is this second spell, with no colour given, that hits him and sends him into the veil.--Nia River 09:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Colour?
Why is Sirius' profile box coloured that orange colour? As a former Gryffindor, shouldn't it be Red like those of James and Lily?


 * Harry Potter Wiki created some new infoboxes after a community discussion that can be read here. We've changed Sirius' infobox because Sirius was an adult during the Harry Potter series. After he left Hogwarts, he was defined less by his House, and more by his affiliation with the Order of the Phoenix. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f (Owl me!) 02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

um..
u know that website with the handwritten 180 sometthing word story yeah which website is it on


 * If you're looking or searching for another HP site, Try to search on this page: -->>> Harry Potter websites <<<-- . -- ÈnŔîčö Hallows.svg(Send me an Owl ) 04:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they were referring to the short story that JKR wrote for charity last year. The original hand-written document used to be viewable online at Waterstoneswys.com, but now that it's been released in a book, they've taken it down. You read a transcription of it here. &#x2605; S t a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 11:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Death
I don't know if I've completely missed something, but I'm not sure where in the book it says that the veil in the Department of Mysteries is a barrier between the world of the dead and our world. I've read that part of OoP countless times so I'm nearly positive I haven't missed it, and I'm confused. Could somebody help me?? Quidditch Lover 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that statement is almost confirmed on the Tale of the Three Brothers, where it says that the middle Peverell was separated from his lover with something like a veil. I think this is where they took ~the information from. -- <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="navy">Seth Cooper <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="silver">Owl Post  00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In OotP, it is only implied that the veil is connected to the land of the dead, because, of all the DA members who go into the Death Chamber, only Harry and Luna are able to hear the whispers, and they are also the only ones besides Neville who can see Thestrals. But JKR confirmed in an interview that the veil is "the divide between life and death." <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 01:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wand?
Is the oak wand that is mentioned in the article fannon? I´ve never read about it.--Rodolphus 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that the "15 inches Oak, phoenix feather" information was fanon. Unless it was based on the prop used in the film, which is 15 inches long, judging from the replica sold by the Noble Collection. I removed it, anyway. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
Did Sirius Black Kill Muggles? If Not Who Killed The Muggles? User:Bongo2009


 * Peter Pettigrew killed the Muggles and framed Black. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 14:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
In the Department of Ministries when Harry and Sirius are attacking Lucius Malfoy. When Harry disarms one of the wand's does Sirius say "nice on James!". If not what does he say? --<font face="Verdana" color="FireBrick">Bongo2009  <font face="verdana" color="FireBrick">Talk 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One, there is no Department of Ministries, and two, I believe you are referring strictly to the movie. I haven't read OotP in quite a while, but I don't think that scene was portrayed in the book the same way.

Question
In the Department of Ministries when Harry and Sirius are attacking Lucius Malfoy. When Harry disarms one of the wand's does Sirius say "nice on James!". If not what does he say? --<font face="Verdana" color="FireBrick">Bongo2009  <font face="verdana" color="FireBrick">Talk 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he calls him James. It's supposed to represent the fact the sometimes Sirius forgets that Harry is not his father. Jayden Matthews 08:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Snuffles Article
I reckon we should have a "Snuffles" article because i know it is Sirius but it is the dog, to muggles the dog is just a stray dog so we could do a article explaining who and what it is? if you agree i will be happy to recieve a prefect badge, thanks --<font face="Verdana" color="FireBrick">Bongo2009  <font face="verdana" color="FireBrick">Talk 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Snuffles is still Sirius. It's the same person, so we don't need a different article.-- Matoro 183 [[Image:Ravenclawcrest.jpg|20px]](Talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, asking for a prefect badge makes you less likely to actually recieve one. Jayden Matthews 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
In The Prisoner of Azkaban, when Sirius got attacked by Remus Lupin, he probably was biten. Wouldn't that make him a werewolf? Or, does it not effect him, since he's an anamagus?--Darksaber501st 23:45, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * As a dog, I think he was safe. As Lupin explains in the Shrieking Shack, werewolves are only dangerous to people.  -- <font face="Gisha" color="red">Cubs Fan  <font face="Gisha" color="white">(Talk to me)  00:33, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought, thanks.--Darksaber501st 00:41, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Padfoot
Did anyone notice that in The Order of the Pheonix, Sirius's animagus form looks way different than in TPOA, where it looked almost wolf-like?

Well in TPOA remeber Sirius looked shaggy and waxy (as he was in Azkaban) so maybe it realies on your human appearance to change your animagus apperance. Since Sirius was more nourished in OoTP then he would become more nourished as a dog.

Picture
Cool picture, however the other one like I to.--Station7 13:49, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Sirius's Death (continued)
Okay, I started another section for the same topic just to allow easy access to those who wish to reply. I have a theory about the spell that claimed Sirius's life and I think that it may be able to be contributed to the article if worded correctly. As we all know, in the Order of the Phoenix book, Sirius is struck by an unknown spell whose light colour remains ambiguous. We can deduce that it wasn't the Avada Kedavra (as shown in the film) which is said to cause instant death, but rather some kind of curse that causes a slightly less accelerated death. As such, I think that the spell was a curse that literally stops the heart beating or otherwise disrupts its function. Sirius was said to be hit directly over his heart afterall. He may have died due to something akin to a heart attack or cardiac arrest. Your thoughts?--Yin&amp;Yang 12:30, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Dumbledore was hit "squarely in the chest" by a Killing Curse and was thrown from the Astronomy Tower. For all we know, Bellatrix could have cast the Killing Curse and thrown Sirius to the Veil. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 13:02, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the Harry Potter Wiki:Canon discussion page, Sirius definitely died slower than what the instant effect Avada Kedavra was known for. This means that the Killing Curse is ruled out. I still think Sirius was killed by a magical attack on his heart.--Yin&amp;Yang 13:13, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * What establishes that it was NOT the Killing Curse wasn't so much it's effect on Sirius, but rather Harry's reaction afterwards. Harry saw the spell hit Sirius. He saw Sirius fall through the Veil. If it had been the Killing Curse, he would have known right away that Sirius was dead. But he didn't. At first, he thought that Sirius was still alive behind the Veil, and that they could reach him if they went in after him. It took Lupin telling him, and the realization that Sirius wouldn't have left him there when he was calling for him before he realized he was gone. As this DOES create a contradiction between the events depicted in the book and the movie, the existing canon policy still applies - <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus 14:37, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I replied to your post on the Canon page for this matter as well so please see it to save me having to re-write the same thing. Basically, we are both correct in what determines Sirius's death. Firstly, Sirius did not die instantly from direct contact with the spell and secondly, as you said, Harry would have known straight away if Sirius had been hit.--Yin&amp;Yang 15:02, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

The Curse didn't kill him! Read the info on the Veil that he fell into. I t says the The Veil is the barrier between the land of the living and the land of the dead. The curse just made him fall into the Veil, and he was brought to the world of the dead.

Yes, the curse killed him. The veil just removed his body from the scene. It mirrors and foreshadows the death of Bellatrix which has remarkable likenesses.--Yin&amp;Yang 22:08, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the point I'm trying to make is that while there may not be enough in the books to say for certain what spell it was that hit him, I believe there is enough to say it was NOT Avada Kedavra. Therefore, the policy regarding conflicts between book and film canon still applies, and the current statements of it being an unidentified/unknown spell is still valid. - <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus 13:38, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I once had a similar debate with Seth about whether or not Bellatrix was present at the Battle of the Astronomy Tower. I was saying that because Bellatrix was no where to be seen in the books at that time, she couldn't have been involved in the Battle. Seth replied that she might have been elsewhere in the Hogwarts grounds, but then surely, as such a major character, Rowling would have included her in the mix regardless of where exactly she was positioned in the school. What I really don't like about the policy is that, for people who have not read the books, yet want to know the full Rowling story, there is no consistent recount of the books in this wiki without it being related to a film.

In Bellatrix's case, say a film fan is to watch the HBP film and not read the book, (and please don't say the 'not our problem line' because as we can see from the many Potter related forum questions, that not everyone has). They decide to research everything on this wiki to get a deep idea of the books. They then try to talk to a friend (who has both read the books and watched the films) and recount the overlapped story of, for example, the way Bellatrix storms into the school and smashes the Great Hall while an ongoing battle is happening hundreds of feet above. The friend says, "what the heck are you talking about? Bellatrix would NEVER pass up a chance to kill some Order members - it just isn't in her character. In other words, overlapping the versions is misleading to an outsider. No one talks about the Harry Potter story from a combined universe perspective; they either stick to the films or the books. Does that make sense?--Yin&amp;Yang 14:03, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as the film's version of Sirius's death is not canon, we can abide by the next higher canon tier: the video games. In the video game, Bellatrix shoots a non-verbal red-coloured spell (as the only red-coloured spell in that video game is Stupefy, I would say that's highly probable she cast that). -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 21:20, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Stupefy? Seth, Sirius was killed not stunned by the spell. It was a double whammy where the spell killed him (I believe by stopping his heart) and then he was really gone when he fell into the world of the dead. There was no pushing force from the spell, he just arched backwards. Some people think this whole mixed canon thing is unimportant, but that couldn't be further from the truth. This type of contradicting event is unecessarily prevalent throughout the wiki and can provide very misleading pieces of information. Don't you see why a wiki combining the universes like this is inconsistent? Please think this through. I don't mean to sound pushy, but you can't deny what I have said about Sirius's death, Bellatrix's appearance in 1996 and Ollivander's wands (on the Harry Potter Wiki:Canon). There is nothing insignificant about these issues; they are major by-products of a confusing overlap.--Yin&amp;Yang 21:36, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but how do you know Sirius was dead before he went through the Veil? For all we know, he might have been Stunned and then fell behind into the Veil (which caused his death). -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 21:56, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't find any source that says the spell itself killed him. As far as I'm aware, the spell pushed him through the veil, to his death. Hence, Harry's belief that he would climb back through. Jayden Matthews 22:00, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Read the chapter ending of Sirius's death (Beyond the Veil). It implies strongly that Sirius was dead (or dying) before he fell through the veil. Also, Bellatrix had the exact same reaction when Molly Weasley struck her in the chest with a spell (which I have sneaking suspicion to believe was the same spell Sirius was struck with) in DH, and we can safely say that there was a strong likeness between her death and that of her cousin's. She had no veil and yet was quite dead on the floor of the Great Hall. If Sirius was stunned, then he wouldn't have still had his eyes open and his smile still stretched wide on his face as he fell through the veil. Stupefy brings instant unconsciousness, like Avada Kedavra brings instant death.--Yin&amp;Yang 22:12, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Stunning somebody causes him/her to lose consciousness, causing him/her to fall (i.e. Umbridge falls on top of the balaustrade in one of the Ministry's courtrooms when stunned by Harry in DH13). Sirius's death is quite similar to the effects of the Stunner, as he wasn't thrown backwards, he simply fell (the book even says he sank) into the Veil. "It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall. His body curved in a graceful arc as he sank backward through the ragged veil hanging from the arch...". -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 22:59, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yes but his eyes were wide in shock and his smile hadn't "died from his face". The stunning spell is a straightout K.O. In such case, Sirius would have just looked as if he'd fallen asleep and fallen into the veil. Rowling specifically noted Bellatrix's death and it is almost exactly the same as Sirius's; both were killed by a spell to the heart, both were laughing at the time, both had expressions of shock in their eyes as they were hit and both fell back slowly into death. That is why I am sure that Molly used the same spell to finish Bellatrix as the latter used on Sirius. It makes sense more in reality rather than in-universe; again another note for the still ongoing debate.--Yin&amp;Yang 23:09, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * That settles it, then. According to the canon policy, neither the films nor the video games are correct in this matter, and the spell remains unspecified. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 23:18, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

What happened to "an omission is not canon"? The book still fails to label the spell i.e. it is unknown which means that a film or game would take priority, right? The spell name is omitted. By your logic and the logic of the policy, Bellatrix was definitely not present in the Battle of the Astronomy Tower in '96 because the book does not specify her presence. You're providing support to my side of the argument about the policy without knowing it Seth.--Yin&amp;Yang 23:30, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I know very well what I'm saying and no, I'm not supporting your side in any way.
 * An ommision is NOT a statement. Then, the canon policy states we must abide by the next higer canon tier if, and only if said tiers are canon. However, in this case, the other canon tiers (film/video game) are non-canonical (for the reasons above discussed), we cannot possibly consider them to "fill up the gap" the omission left. As for Bellatrix and the Battle of the Astronomy Tower, nothing in canon directly contradicts her presence. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post!  23:42, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Well according to the game, the spell Bellatrix fires at Sirius is red, right? That doesn't mean that the spell was the Stunning Spell. So while Avada Kedavra and Stupefy are cancelled out, there are still countless unknown spells that the red light in the game could have been. Now, the spell is unknown in the books, an omission, but even saying that the colour of Bellatrix's spell (based on the game) is red is filling the omission's gap even though we don't know what the spell was.--Yin&amp;Yang 00:09, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, sure, the colour is red according to the Canon Policy. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 00:15, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, while I still would rather the 'unknown' explanation (that would come from my policy proposal), according to the current canon rules, the spell is red; even though this comes from a game (which mainly focuses on the player's experience rather than a strongly held-together storyline). Seth, how do you feel about the games being considered as canon? Don't you agree that they aren't exactly the best sources of informtion? Please don't relate it to the policy, I want to know your thoughts.--Yin&amp;Yang 00:24, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the games are a good source of single pieces of information (as one can free-roam everywhere and look at everything in different POVs), but not as good to describe the Harry Potter story as a whole as they present loads of game-to-game discontinuities (not to mention the huge differences in multiple platforms). -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 00:36, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad to see we agree on that. Yes, the games are excellent maps of film-Hogwarts but, like you said, there isn't any really strong connection to the books. So, I assume you also agree (again, forgetting the policy) that the films and the books are in fact, separate things altogether? That Rowling was perfectly right about them not interlocking or overlapping? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I just want to hear (for lack of a better word) your true and honest opinion on this.--Yin&amp;Yang 07:19, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I always considered the films/video games/books to be separate things. I do, however, consider them all as part of the Harry Potter universe. Perhaps they are not part the of "book-only-universe", but are part of the overall Harry Potter universe (the one that encompasses films, books and video games). -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 12:01, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes they are all called 'Harry Potter', but other than that, their similarities are surprisingly few. I am very glad that you accept the books as something that can't be overlapped with the films or videogames because they are all indeed separate. I don't mean to make this sound like an interview, but one last question. If you had begun this wiki, how would you have imagined it to be set out in terms of canonical policy? I guess what I'm saying is, would you have written the policy the way it is now if you knew that such an overlap of the separate versions would occur? Do you honestly like the way things work now (even with the several inconsistencies)? I've gotten the impression lately (though I could be entirely wrong) that the only reason why some people oppose my argument is because they think it is too late for a change even though they agree with my overall argument about overlapping versions. If you feel this way, please let me know. If so, then the only problem is how we could make a change to the wiki without involving "too much work". If you disagree with the idea (not the process I've proposed of making changes), then I will leave it at that.--Yin&amp;Yang 13:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * While I aknowledge and respect your point of view, I do not agree with you at all. Sorry. I am very happy with the canon policy since the time I joined the wiki. If one follows the current policy, there are 100% no inconsistencies (as the stuff that contradicts the books is non-canonical, and therefore not "overlapped" with the rest of the articles). -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 01:36, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I respect your point of view as well, but I must insist that what I have said about the policy in the case of Ollivander's wand style and Bellatrix Lestrange's presence at the school in 1996 still remains a little contradictory. Still, I said that I would leave it at that and so I will. By all means, though, we could start a discussion on the Ollivander or Bellatrix article so that we can work out the kinks. It's up to you.--Yin&amp;Yang 03:02, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Sirius is hit with a curse that kills him outright. Right? He then falls backwards through the arch, a smile still on his face. The why could'nt it have been Avada Kedavra? Jayden Matthews 13:43, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I covered that already. 4th comment from the top of this section, related to pages 806-808 of OotP (Scholastic ed.). - <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="4" color="FF8000">Nick O'Demus 13:50, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I've made an article which, I think, is the closet we can get to abiding by policy on this matter. Jayden Matthews 14:20, November 20, 2009 (UTC)