Difference between revisions of "Talk:Harry Potter"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
::I won't put it back personally, but I won't revert if anyone else does. I'd still like to see some context to show that it was of much significance. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)
 
::I won't put it back personally, but I won't revert if anyone else does. I'd still like to see some context to show that it was of much significance. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
::P. S. Did you know that the Onion has a ''print edition?'' We were at an airport, either Milwaukee or Madison, and someone actually came around through the airport ''selling them.'' He wasn't getting many takers. I couldn't believe it was really ''The Onion,'' but it was, and when I saw it was I bought one and said loudly "Oh, I'd be delighted to pay $2 for ''The Onion,'' I read it on the Internet and I love it, it's so funny" Some heads turned around and he sold a few more copies. I do hope the people buying it knew what they were buying..." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:49, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 15:49, March 4, 2007

The Onion

I question this material:

These claims were conflated and exacerbated by a piece in the satirical newspaper The Onion purporting to interview children who had become involved in satanism and witchcraft after reading the Harry Potter books and could now cast spells.[1] [2] Rowling has denied such claims.[3] The mainstream media has not taken this claim seriously.[Citation Needed]

The Onion is a stitch and a lot of people love it, but I doubt that it was an important influence in the Harry Potter phenomenon. The (very good) article cited to support the sentence "Rowling has denied such claims" says nothing about The Onion or about claims that readers of the books learned to cast spells. I haven't bothered to check the history to see who added this, but I suspect a leg-pull. Dpbsmith 21:45, 3 March 2007 (EST)

The Snopes reference particularly mentions the Harry Potter article and asserts that it was circulated as evidence. See the reference in the section you removed. JoshuaZ 02:36, 4 March 2007 (EST)

"The books have even been accused of promoting witchcraft."

Wow, that's pretty deep! --BenjaminS 10:45, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Maybe I was wrong. I hate it when that happens.
I checked the Rowling reference but not the others, my bad.
I'm not quite ready to put it back, though, until I'm convinced it really was influential. The Onion piece appeared in 2000. And Wikipedia's Controversy over Harry Potter article says that "Since 1999, the Harry Potter books have sat atop the American Library Association’s list of most protested books, with some American churches banning the books altogether." So The Onion was clearly satirizing a controversy that was already in full swing. How much influence did the "Dear Christian" email really have in amplifying it?
I won't put it back personally, but I won't revert if anyone else does. I'd still like to see some context to show that it was of much significance. Dpbsmith 10:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)
P. S. Did you know that the Onion has a print edition? We were at an airport, either Milwaukee or Madison, and someone actually came around through the airport selling them. He wasn't getting many takers. I couldn't believe it was really The Onion, but it was, and when I saw it was I bought one and said loudly "Oh, I'd be delighted to pay $2 for The Onion, I read it on the Internet and I love it, it's so funny" Some heads turned around and he sold a few more copies. I do hope the people buying it knew what they were buying..." Dpbsmith 10:49, 4 March 2007 (EST)