Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Fake versions

It might be interesting to add information about the fake versions of the book that have circulated on the internet. At least one of them is actually quite long, and almost had me fooled (except for its very racy content, which seemed out of place in a children's book). 168.209.98.35 00:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Interesting - but do rumours hava a place in WikiPedia. Should this link to Meta until the book is released or info substantiated ? -- Chris Q 13:25 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC) Yes. -- Tarquin 11:00 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) I assumed that all of this nonsense will be replaced by actual content once someone who shall remain nameless finishes the book that she has been writing for the past three years. I hope she's working on it and not on wiki articles... --Dave 03:11 Jan 5, 2003 (PST) "prefect" links to the wrong sort of prefect -- Gcs

Well, no one's prefect :-) Uncle Ed

Spoiler

If people are going to put info from the book in, such as who dies, could they put in a spoilers notice for people outside of their timezone, at least for a day or two? -- Jim Regan So who did die? Evercat is not reading the books...

The consensus on the net is Sirius Black. I'm only 227 pages in, so I can't say for sure. Just occurred to me to flip to the back :) Yes, it's Sirius. -- Jim Regan 15:04 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Delivery service

Odd thought: why would Amazon expect the USPS to store something until a specific date just because they write it on the package? Is this a service that the USPS provides??? If I write a letter with a notation "Do not deliver until Christmas" on it, should I expect the USPS to hold it till then? Without payment of an extra fee? hmmmm..... --- Someone else 04:32 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it was an attempt to avoid J. K. Rowling's wrath when the Post Office /did/ in fact deliver the packages early. I mean, what an absurd concept. I didn't mind one bit, though. Bwahahaha! Phil Bordelon 04:44 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Questions

From the article, placed here in case anyone wants to field these. -- goatasaur 04:26 2 Jul 2003 (UTC) Open questions:

• about the plot of Order of the Phoenix:
  • What did Dumbledore do in the time between his leaving Hogwarts and the fight at the Department of Mysteries?
    He may have spent time in 12 Grimmauld Square, extracting information from Kreacher [Chances are he was working behind the scenes with the Order]
  • What did Dumbledore and Fudge talk about before Dumbledore´s return to Hogwarts? [perhaps just the story of what transpired in the Department of Mysteries earlier that evening]
• about the prophecy:
  • Who was the spy who overheard Trelawney when she made her prophecy?
    • Severus Snape
  • What is the meaning of the words in the prophecy born to those who have thrice defied him ?
    • it would mean that both Harry's Parents and Neville's Parents defied Voldemort three times.
      • For the Potters, these could include efforts against him at Hogwarts, their defense of Harry from him, and they were in the Order of the Pheonix...possibly they could have escaped him some time then.
      • For the Longbottoms, these could include efforts to excape the Death Eaters, and ?/?
  • Did the recorded Prophecy match Dumbledore's memory of it?
    • I don't see any reason why not.
  • Did Neville Longbottom actually succeed in hearing a part of the Prophecy that Dumbledore does not remember? If so, will Neville remember(!) it?
• about Harry´s parents:
  • Why did Lily change her mind about James and marry him?
    James was only 15 at the time he was harassing Snape. However he matured and stopped showing off as he grew up.Or, because when Snape said:"I dont need help, you filthy MUDBLOOD!" then, she might have desided, that James wasn't a bad person after all.
  • What exactly happened on the day Lily Potter died defending her son?
    • Can you be a little more specific. That's like asking what "exactly" happened on September 11th.
• other:
  • What makes Dumbledore trust Snape?
    Dumbledore is skilled at Legimelency and he is obviously more skilled at it than Snape therefore abling Dumbledore to detect if Snape has had any interaction with the other side
  • Is the Ministry of Magic really researching life after death?
    More than likely - death is a major theme in the series
  • Dumbledore says Sirius died in the "Death Chamber-" is this the Ministry of Magic's take on state regulated executions? If so, would Sirius have died by simply falling through the curtain, even if Bellatrix's curse hadn't killed him?
    • There's a rumour saying Sirius will play an important part in book 7.
  • When Harry and Luna Lovegood speaks at the end of the term, what does Luna mean when she alludes to the thought that she'll see her [dead] mother again? Does she know how to communicate with the dead/ channel the whispers they heard on the other side of the veil?
    • I think she means she beileves she will go behind the veil when she dies as well and, therefore, get to see her mother again.
  • Is there more to discover about Aunt Petunia's ties to/knowledge of the Wizarding world? Does Dumbledore's howler message ("Remember my last...") simply refer to the letter he left with Baby Harry 15 years ago, or did they/do they have communication in addition to that letter? And, if the howler's voice belonged to Dumbledore and Harry realizes this at the end of the book, why didn't he find a familiar trace in tone when the howler exploded in the Dursley's kitchen?
    • There's a rumour that in the next book (or the last) that a person who had previously shown no magical ability will use magic late in life; this may be Petunia.
    • According to JKR, the "Remember my last" phrase means that Dumbledore sent other messages to Aunt Petunia before the letter that came with Harry.
  • Why wasn't Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) in this book at all? What is he up to?
    • I solemnly swear he is up to no good. (haha.that's good)
    • He might still be caring for Voldemort, like in the fourth book, rather than going out on "field missions" like the other Death Eaters.

-well...actually, in the third book, Harry saves Petigrew, which creates the unbreakable bond between them...so Petigrew must have decided to back away for a while, seeing as he ows his life to Harry...my guess..(luvhp)

Mistakes

At least five mistakes found in Order of the Phoenix [1] -- Jim Regan 22:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most are quibbles, but the first (Harry sees thestrals only at the beginning of his fifth year) bothered me initially on reading the book. "My" solution was that the death that Harry witnessed that permitted him to see them was in fact Cedric Diggory's (at the end of the fourth year), not that of his parents, on the basis that an infant who has no clue what's going on can't really"witness" death. I do think that's correct, and that the link has rather garbled JK Rowling's explanation. -- Someone else 17:37 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rowlin's explanation does seem strained... I always, more or less, assumed the images Harry saw of his parents murder were visons, and that he was actually laying in a crib where he couldn't directly see the murders. :Pkroll 18:11 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was Cedric's death that caused Harry to see the Thestrals because he was old enough to comprehend it, and he was affected by it in a different way than by the death of his parents. When his parents were killed, Harry did not know what was happening, nor did he have memory of it until he dealt with Dementors. However, Cedric died in the Goblet of Fire, and at the end of that book, Harry took the horsless carraige back to Hogsmeade station after Cedric had died, and didn't see the Thestrals. JK Rowlings explaination for this is that Harry was still in shock at that time, and only after months of dwelling on Cedric's death, and accepting the finality of it, did the Thestrals become visible to Harry. Apparently they are only visible to you after you have witnessed and mourned a death. On this note, could it be possible that some people - like Voldemort, who have witnessed many deaths, but have no love in their heart, might not see Thestrals? MM 8.17.05

If I recall correctly, Harry did not actually witness his parent's death; all he saw was a flash of green light. His parents were out of sight when they were killed. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that he couldn't comprehend them, unless that's what Rowling said. bob rulz 14:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

the only error in the book I spotted was that when Harry and them were cleaning up Grimuald place, he stated that "Snape would have called this cleaning, but harry-" ect. But the book was pointing towards the refernce being more towards Sirius, when Snape had not been mentioned for several pages.

FitcisiousOddwobble

How could Trelawney have know that Snape was evesdropping when she was in the middle of her prophecy trance? Trelawnley should not remember Snape at all! Either Snape heard the whole prophecy, or the prophecy was delivered halfway, Snape interrupted, then Trelawney resumed/repeated from the beginning. See HBP chp 25 seer overheard. Turidoth 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the book at hand, but I think that Snape only caught the last part of the prophecy ("the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord will be born as the seventh month dies"), meaning that he had enough info to make Voldemort target Harry, but didn't know everything. It is possible that Trelawney saw snape after she had given the prophecy. -Phi*n!x 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

from Trelawney: he one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies...and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not...and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies... Trelawney's article actually mentions this inconsistency.Turidoth 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Actually we get the story of Snape intruding from Trelawney but the fact that the easdropper was found HALF WAY THROUGH was from Dumbledore. This maybe part of the plot, the difference in stories, so u can't really call it a mistake. Newboy123 23:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet versions

I'm pretty sure someone posted some of the book to alt.fan.harry-potter a day or so before the official release, it should be findable via google. --Imran 22:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I can say it was definitely on #bookz on undernet the next day - they even set up a separate #pottermania channel to deal with the demand -- Jim Regan 05:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Vietnamese translation

Your information on Vietnamese is out of date. It was published in 22 weekly instalments between 21 July and 15 December 2003.

MSNBC article on unauthorized versions

Hey look! I got on the news! (Cough) Sorry, please ignore that. An external link in the article about the spread of pirated versions of OotP seems to be broken - it leads to the MSNBC main technology news page. If someone who's better at it than me can find the right news bit the link should be corrected - if not, deleted. -- Kizor 12:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Review

I removed the review by the Commmunist newsletter from the article, and indeed deleted the whole "Review" section. This is clearly misleading, almost purposefully so, and insinuates that the book promotes Communism or is condoned by the Communist party. -Librarian Brent 03:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obtuse phrase

I have removed the baffling jargon "programmatic non-interactive education" and a sentence which was presumably linked with it. I'd be surprised if one person in a hundred years has any idea what this means. If it deserves to be here, which I doubt as this is not an academic journal on educational theory, it needs to be (briefly) explained or else wikilinked to an article which does so. Calsicol 08:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It roughly means that Umbridge and all her Ministry friends were using a school programme that was, indeed, preventing them from learning, at least at a praxis level. I uderstand the use, but I also understand it adds nothing there. Maybe writen in a different way, elsewhere, perhaps it was acceptable. Good thing you did when you removed it. Jotomicron | talk 10:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Easter Egg

I found this in eeggs. It says:
Look on page 125 at the bottom. The quote is:
"No, no, I'm sure it's fine," said Mr. Weasley, holding the receiver above his head and peering at the dial. "let's see...six..." he dialed the number, "two...four...and another four...and another two..."
The number they dial is 62442. If you look on a standard telephone, there are letters underneath the numbers. What five-letter word would JK Rowling use for the Ministry? MAGIC! JK Rowling would use the best word for the job, and she did. Trivia about this MAGIC telephone number. In the UK, the number 084500 62442 is the number to hire a magician from the Magic Circle.The Magic Circle Headquarters

• This sort of annotation tid-bit is what the Muggles' Guide needs. Please add it to the page dealing with the relevant chapter. Uncle G 15:55:54, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Further uses for this Easter Egg: If you go to JK Rowling's official web site, (jkrowling.com) there are many interesting facts and articles to read, but there are also some hidden surprises. If you enter the phone number for the ministry of magic - 62442, on the cell phone on the desk and press enter, you will be treated to a rough draft page from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone that has a never seen before plot line that was abandoned early in the editing process.

Synopsis

Please, folks, feel free to wail on my "synopsis." It's probably about ten times too long, but it's a difficult book to summarize, and I'd rather people have to trim and reword rather than have to pull out the book and look stuff up constantly. Of course, you're welcome to do that too, obviously. [I realise that feeling free to wail on my synopsis is a given on the Wikipedia, but I want to decare a full-on Open Season on it, so to speak.] Phil Bordelon 20:36 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over when I'm finished reading the book--I'm only on p.438, so it'll be tomorrow. -- Jim Regan 21:46 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Phil Bordelon 22:00 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I changed a couple of small things here and there, which you may wish to look over - I'm not sure my changes sit well enough. Brilliant summary—I'm glad I waited to finish the book before even glancing at it! -- Jim Regan 06:14 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So far, I think all the edits have been improvement on my original prose. It was one of those "feverish hurry" things--I knew that if I didn't motivate myself to write the synopsis, RIGHT NOW, I would never write it, so I let grammar and spelling be damned (and if you know me well at all, you know that 'let[ting] grammar and spelling be damned' is far from normal) just I could get something out there. I very much appreciate the compliment nonetheless. In a day or so I'm going to rereread it and try to tighten it some more.

It looks like everyone else who edited the synopsis found only little nitpicks too. I'd say that was an endorsement :) -- Jim Regan 19:19 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. And yes, it was me with the previous comment. Now to summarize War and Peace . . . or not. ;) Phil Bordelon 22:48 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

Hey I was thinking that perhaps the plot section could be merged into Harry Potter (plot) for the articles of the books. Some of the book articles have more lengthy plot summaries than the plot article, some less lengthy, and I'd like to try and make that more consistent. Any opinions? EvilPhoenix 03:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to see that a more consistent. As I noted on the plot talk page, "the idea to write a general idea of the plot in the plot page and to have the long summaries in the individual articles seems good. I think this page is too long and not very well devised, because books are not equally described." But if the idea is, on the contrary, to have long summaries in the plot page, then I'm for it too. I'd only like to have consistency. --Jotomicron | talk 10:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The plot pages have been deleted, so that brings us back to all plot summaries being on this page.Sandpiper 16:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the Goblet of Fire talk page, do we need both a plot synopsis and a detailed plot synopsis? People can read the section they need, or all of it. It's a waste of space and duplication at the same time. May I delete the top version and combine the two. Eragon fan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I've deleted the detailed plot. Some anon (22:18, 3 May 2007 76.189.76.207) reverted my deletion a few weeks ago. See my post below. ~MDD4696 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the synopsis too long?

Is the synopsis too long? Couldn't it be a bit shorter, more like the H-BP one? It just seems that if somebody wanted a brief overview of the plot, they might be put off by something that would take at least 5 minutes to read. --Whiteheadj 08:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've been thinking the same thing; however, although I have plenty of "snippets" of time to devote here and there, I haven't had the full uninterrupted time it takes to slap on a {{inuse}} and actually try and pare down the article like we did with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince#Plot overview. Perhaps you could give it a go and bring it down to the same ballpark number of words? --Deathphoenix 13:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's certainly longer than those of the other books. It could be made shorter. Conversely, it would be good if the full annotation of this book in the Muggles' Guide were broken up by chapter (the redlinks are ready and waiting) and made longer and more detailed, with cross-references to the individual chapters for the plot elements therein added to the Guide's topical index. I encourage you to work on both. Uncle G 15:40:42, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• HBP synopsis is pretty weak and definitely needs beefing up. Those need bringing up to the detail level of this one. The plots on wikibooks are proposed to be immensely long and divided by chapters, so a decent description of the book all in one place is badly needed here. Sandpiper 01:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Was just looking at it. As articles go this one is not immensely long. It would be quite possible to have both a short plot description and the longer one on the same page, satisfying everyone. Sandpiper 01:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• And further to my last post, I have now created at least a first-pass summary of the longer plot description. I remain of the view that both the shorter and longer versions can co-exist in this one article, though I think the longer one would probably need sorting a bit to co-exist comfortably with the short one. It might be possible to do some adjustment so that the longer sections included the added facts not mentioned in the short version, without repeating things already mentioned.

Some of the things i have left in the short version could also be reduced further, if it is to remain as an introduction to the longer version. On the other hand, if there was an insistence on keeping a short version only, then I do not think it should be shorter than it now is. Some of the other book summaries are too short for long books. Sandpiper

removed section

I've removed the following section, as it is unsourced and uncited. If there can be some citation provided for this section, it should go back into the article.

---

Miscellaneous remarks

• Some view this book as a commentary on the repression of free speech. Umbridge's punishment of Harry for talking about Voldemort and the banning of the edition of The Quibbler containing an interview with him support this.
• Some also consider that there are strong parallels between the wizarding world in Book Five and pre-World War II Europe. In both instances, a great war has already been fought. However, the loser of the first war has been regaining power and building an army. The evil ruler embraces an ideology that can be seen as racist (many of the supporters of Voldemort are obsessed with maintaining the "purity" of wizard blood). Many respectable and powerful citizens fall under his sway and accept his ideology. However, those in the Muggle world are unaware of the evil that is gathering, while those in the wizarding community are constantly fed placating rhetoric by the press (The Daily Prophet) and The Ministry of Magic. In a parallel with Adolf Hitler, even though Voldemort and his followers are obsessed with purity of blood, Voldemort is a half-blood himself.

---

Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

Shouldn't the images of covers only be for the English versions of the books since this is the English Wikipedia? I think that the Brazilian cover should be moved to the Portuguese page and the French cover to the French page. -Phi*n!x 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry Potter#Foreign language cover images. Brian Jason Drake 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(now moved to Talk:Harry Potter/archive 4#Foreign language cover images) Brian Jason Drake 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Gurg ?

Pages for The Gurg and Gurg redirect here, but I can't see any mention. -- Beardo 22:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) the title Gurg is the Giants leaders title. User:Dursley

Sirius's death

In the article it says that it was the curse from Belextrix that killed him, when it was actualy going through the veil that killed him ("His eyes widened in shock", if he was dead his eyes coulden't widen) 58.172.36.4 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (added by sources unknown) Belextrix killed him by knocking him through the veil Sirius's death is undoubtedly, regretable...and unfortunately, the last member of Harry's family he had left(besides the Dursleys) but whay I dont understand, is why Kreatcher, (house elf) betrayed Sirius, and joined with another wizard family, if in the sixth book, Harry owns Kreatcher, and asks alot of him,you would think we would again, betray his master, but, he doesn't...why is that? And if you've never read the books, Harry thinks that Tonks(another member to the Order of the Pheonix) is in love with Sirius, when really, she loves Lupin....(former Professor) cute, ain't it? (luvhp)

(1) We don't know that Kreacher has not/did not betray Harry. (2) Not sure where you get the speculation about Sirius and Tonks from, but this isn't really the place for discussing rumour. --Dave. 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

re: (2): Please see HBP ch 29 ... And the meaning of Tonks's Patronus and her mouse-coloured hair, and the reason she had not come running to find Dumbledore when she heard a rumour someone had been attacked by Greyback, all suddenly became clear to Harry; it had not been Sirius that Tonks had fallen in love with after all... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to explain that my point is that it's not relevant to OoTP, but to HBP - there's nothing in OoTP that relates to Sirius/Tonks. I should have made that clearer. --Dave. 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's true. As OoTP closes, with the Hogwarts Express arriving at King's Cross station, Tonks is standing with Lupin, and her hair, which arguably indicates her mood, is described as bright bubble-gum-pink ... gleaming in the sunlight. She was clearly not especially mourning the death of Sirius at that particular time; a point apparently missed entirely by Harry. Obviously something happened after that (ie: Lupin refusing to, well, whatever; unrelated to the passing of Sirius), that caused Tonks's depression and "mousy-coloured" hair. So yes there is nothing really that connects Tonks and Sirius (in Harry's mind) until HBP. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Along the lines of when Bellatrix killed Sirius. Sirius saw the curse coming and couldn't stoop laughing. If you think this is rediculus then ponder on this. A KILLING curse KILLS people on contact. Are you trying to say that Sirius was jumping backwards towards the veil when the curse KILLed him??? User:broncofreak12321 Correct me if im wrong, but didnt he get hit by a torturing curse (i cant spell it sry) which blasted him into the veil? IRCarlos (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple information!?

When was this book published? WHO WAS THE AUTHOR!? This article is massive, but is missing fundimental information! --83.67.100.40 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes section

• This can be either incorporated into the text or left out. John Reaves 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Notes

Professor Dumbledore's full name is Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore. The Death Eaters captured at the ministry were: Lucius Malfoy, Nott, Jugson, Rodolphus Lestrange, Antonin Dolohov, Crabbe, Rabastan Lestrange, Walden Macnair, Avery, Augustus Rookwood,and Mulciber. Lord Voldemort and Bellatrix Lestrange were also at the Ministry, but they escaped. This list includes most death eaters who we know the names of, though Narcissa Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, and Goyle are all missing (and likely a few others as well). Bold textCrab ?? book 4 look it up i'm pretty sure its there. User:broncofreak12321

Inconsistencies in grammar and/or word use

"...Back home, Harry receives an owl letter stating he has been expelled from Hogwarts for performing magic underaged magic." Note the usage of the word "magic" - it is evident that someone had typed "...performing magic" and that someone else had wanted to correct that mistake by typing in "underaged magic", but inadvertently left the first phrase, "performing magic", alone. Since most of my edits have been of this nature so far, I thought I might just highlight this. --Starry maiden Gazer 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Now - is there a reason why you felt you could not fix the very-obvious typo in the article, rather than going to great trouble to document it on the talk page? Just wondering... --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, T-dot. The reason why I had to bring it up on the talk page was because, at the time, no user was allowed to edit the page. --Starry maiden Gazer 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Detailed plot out of scope

I've removed the entire detailed plot section from the article. The plot synopsis is sufficiently detailed to give readers a general idea of what the book is about, which is all that we are supposed to do. Wikipedia articles are not a replacement for reading the actual book itself! I can't stress this enough. Newbie editors don't seem to understand this. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not if you are unclear about the kinds of articles that are appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks. ~MDD4696 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

two plot synopses

Someone has added an entire synopsis from a non-wikipedia source (I am pretty sure). But regardless, There are now two full plot synopses in the synopsis section. I have taken the initiative of deleting the first because it is not original to wikipedia. If anyone disagrees with this, then I have labeled my edition 'large extraneous synopsis deleted' and they can revert it. G.bargsnaffle 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Guesswork

In the translation section "The German translation of this book is 151 pages longer than the English version." Well, OK. But we can't tell from the referenced links if that difference is due to language issues or typesetting. Actually, they come from both, but if the book is typeset in a different way than the other edition it is being compared to (and what would that be? British? American?), knowing the difference in page numbers is completely irrelevant. I was not too bold to remove it, but I think the quoted passage should go. 201.81.246.134 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image and name vandalism

User 312one keeps on changing the font colour of the title from orange to green and on a more serious note keeps on changing the image from the British version of the book to the American one. I have changed it back twice but soon the three revert rule will be violated. For consistency the British one should be used, which I'm sure is why it was there in teh first place. asyndeton 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I have now reverted 312one's edits four times. asyndeton 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge in inquisitorial squad

The article is a regurgitation of the plot of order of the phoenix, and has zero notability outside of the book. Judgesurreal777 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, should be merged in there.Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Smokizzy (talk); 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge, or I would say, just stick the most important information from that group somewhere, without creating a section for the Inquisitorial Squad itself. Lord Opeth 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Black's relationship to Bellatrix Lestrange

Lestrange is mentioned in the article as "sirius' godfather. This is a complete fallacy. For a start, she is female, secondly, i believe she is his cousin. i have edited the article accordingly. dodgeman666 23:35, 30 August 2007 (GMT)

dodgeman666 Bellatrix was origanally related to cissy malfoy. Cissy and Bellatrix were origanally Blacks. Bellatrix married Rodolphous Lestrange. So Rodolphous could have been Sirius's godfather. User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 02:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He was talking about Bellatrix, not her husband. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Godfather" father as in a guy. User:Dursely

Spoiler

There is no need to have a SPOILER ALERT in the plot summary. The fact that it is a plot summary necessarily implies there are spoilers. I am removing it. Stanselmdoc 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Dumbledore's Army

This merge royally sucks. The article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix provides just a few sentences worth of information on the subject; furthermore Dumbledore's Army appears and plays a vital role in the seventh book, not just the fifth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5465465 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"gurg" redirects here - why?

Just a small thing I noticed. The word "gurg" redirects to this article but there's no mention of "gurg" across it. Might anyone remove it or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbledygookie (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Might be something Grawp says in the book. Or, it could just be a random error. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history it was originally an article stating this this as a term used for the cheif of thwe giants. --70.80.168.204 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Magical_creatures_(Harry_Potter)#Giants is a much better redirect. Changing it now. Thanks. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait - I cannot change the redirect. Gurg is a Protected Redirect. Need an Admin to do it. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Y OK done. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Gurg is the title of the leader of the Giants. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Links

Add a link to the film adaption. --tjrfs 22:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are links to all the books, film adatations, games, and soundtracks in the Rowling HP series, located in the {{HarryPotter}} information box template at the bottom of the page. This template is (or is supposed to be) placed on all the respective pages. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cho?

Where did Cho Chang go? 122.161.21.134 (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Did she go somewhere in the first place? --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Reactions" section

Why doesn't this article has a "Reactions" section, like the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article? If my memory serves me, the critic wasn't so good with this book as with past books.

A section of this should be added. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Longest book in the series?

Is it REALLY the longest book? Can anyone give me the number of chapters of every book in the series? Thanks. you're not colorblind, it's colored this way. Or maybe you are. Misteryoshi 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Check the infobox, it lists both page numbers and chapters.68.60.111.239 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

US Book count

Can anyone confirm which one is real, and maybe what the wrong one comes from. This edit is the first one to add a US book count, [2] and from my brief look through the history it didn't change until [3] and after that It had stayed there until now [4]. So which one is the right one, and where does the wrong number come from? — chandler — 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing words

Section "Plot", second paragraph, I think some words are missing: (...) and must face a disciplinary hearing. While the expulsion is quickly revoked, the hearing. But sorry, I'm not fluent enough in english to rewrite the sentence ^_^ Pascal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.81.218 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hi. I see this article is up for a Good Article nomination. I don't have the time to devote properly to it, but I did have some thoughts after a quick browse that might prove helpful in getting the article up to scratch:

1. Antepenultimate is a great word and should be used more often.
2. One of the refs is broken. Improper use of template, perhaps?
3. Is the computer game an adaptation of the film or the book? I suspect the former, but the article does not say. Also, what year was it released, and there are some issues with date formatting.
4. I feel the plot summary needs work. It seems to include many minor points, while the reputedly important aspect of Sirius' death is almost bypassed entirely. A careful think about what are the important parts of the plot to get across, rather than simply parroting every incident, might work better.
5. The prose in the bit about the Czech translation doesn't read as well as it might.

Best of luck. GDallimore (Talk) 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary has been trimmed down a ton since I started working on the article, and I feel the information included is the bare minimum required. This is due partly to the length of the book, and that much of the minor details included are very important in relation to later books in the series. I'll have to take a look at the bit about Sirius' death and work on it. Also, I fixed up the ref problems and the film section. Thanks for the quick review, Malinaccier (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary is a lot shorter in comparison to pages of the other books. It doesn't explain how they even got to the climatic situation. 78.149.114.165 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

review initiated

In my initial read, I found some awkwardness and redundancy in the plot summary, which I fixed, and I also found some places without the ndash and the nb space thingies, which I added it. Overall, however, the article leaves a very good impression. It is thorough, nicely done, illustrated, and covers the topic.

who is Marietta Edgecombe?

In checking the citations section, I noticed there were several web links that do not have consistent title links. (footnotes 29 and 30) This should be done.

Another issue, before I do the formal assessment: is muggle.net a reliable source? It looks to me like a fan site, which would probably not qualify as a reliable source. ummmm, so convince me, or cite the material from elsewhere...or....?

just a few thoughts....--Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a very nice article. I have some general and specific comments related to those above.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   it is nicely written, generally smooth, and the sections flow nicely. There are still some rough parts, and a few typos. I suggest that you or someone go through it again and make sure that you've found them all.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   muggles.net...I've not seen an explanation of that. Consistent footnote formatting especially in the weblinks...?

   I've replaced the muggles.net sources with reliable ones and fixed references 29 and 30. Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   here is where I have the most issues. While the article is nicely done, I'm wondering if the plot summary is too long. It feels too long and the article could not stand alone without the other articles, or at least not with a great degree of sense. (btw, it is a criticism I have of the other articles as well, so I'm not picking on you, just pointing this out.) It looks like you've included a lot of detail that may not be necessary for the general summary of the plot. After all, someone could actually read the book, right? So it would seem that there should be a sense of "the story so far" (one sentence summaries of each book), and then the summary of this book, perhaps 2-3 paragraphs, and then where this book fits into the sequence of a couple of story lines. Does this work?

   I'll work on it in my sandbox. I've already trimmed the plot summary down quite a bit, but if I follow your guidelines I may be able to do even more. Keep in mind, however, this is the longest book in the series, so it will be tough to cut it down :). Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Malinaccier (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   there is still a lot of editing going on, and some of it from anonymous iPs, and it looks like "tweaking" and various other editing helps, so not an edit war entirely, but also not clear from the edit summaries what has been done. I'd like to see someone take charge of the editing and finish it up before I make a decision.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'd like to see someone take charge of the editing and possibly someone else deal with the links and cites if necessary, finish it up before I make a decision.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on vacation right now, so it might be a while until I can get to the article. Thanks, Malinaccier P. (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. Very nice trimming of the plot summary. Now it really is a summary.

Backround Plot

I have removed this section detailing the background leading up to this book. Anyone who wishes to have this information can read the synopses of the other pages, there is no need to repeat it here. -- Sage1314 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation stuff

Gosh, is it just me, or are the disambiguation links at the top of the article verging on the absurd? I would say in the case of the postcode area or the baseball simulator that those respective disambiguation links could be make into branch articles without cluttering up the top of this article. I would be bold, but it's evidently been through a GA process without it being brought up. Rob (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090905172651/http://www.ala.org:80/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/awardsgrants/childrensnotable/notablechibooks/ncbpastlists/2004notablechildrensbook.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/awardsgrants/childrensnotable/notablechibooks/ncbpastlists/2004notablechildrensbook.cfm

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. 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/20090606023823/http://www.mugglenet.com/books/index.shtml to http://www.mugglenet.com/books/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429093544/http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/awards.asp to http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/awards.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309051050/http://www.iasl-online.org/files/jan03-knapp.pdf to http://www.iasl-online.org/files/jan03-knapp.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003600960&imw=Y
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://games.ea.com/harrypotterandtheorderofthephoenix/features.jsp?platform=ps2

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Expansion on any negative reviews?

At present, under how the book was received, we have "Most negative reviewers were concerned with the violence contained in the novel and with morality issues occurring throughout the book" - but this only cites one review by Focus on the Family, which doesn't seem far-reaching enough to make a statement on what "most negative reviews" criticised the book for. If anyone knows of any negative reviews either from the time, or perspectives after its publication that are verifiable, it might be an idea to expand upon this section with some of those. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Kitchen scene at order headquarters

I was just watching Order and in the early part they are all sitting at the kitchen table. On the wall behind them are China dishes. Dose anyone know if they have the Black family crest on them? Is there a possible close up on the decal on the plates? TYA 108.84.201.95 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)