Talk:Ron Weasley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edits

Okay, I understanding editing pictures and punctuation and information (and sources), but why were all of the information boxes changed and shortened? I thought that they were pretty good and gave you a good indication of the original characters, from the books, regardless of their movie counterparts; ie, birthday, hair colour, eye colour, etc, including their full names written in their house colours.

Could someone kindly tell me why it was changed? If there is no good reason, can someone change it back?

Is it better to change all the Rupert's picture to the drawings else from the book?

There are serval reasons

• 1. Rupert is not equal to Ron. readers might mix up easily.
• 2. The look of Rupert as Ron have a gap difference between Year1/2 and Year3/4.
• 3. Ronald Weasley is a character from a Friction book. No reason to post a real Image to show us "it is Ronald Weasley."

Please agree with me and post your comments on this . ^^

--Mmlcs36 14:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, I think we can have pictures from both the movies and the books in the article, unless you are going to seperate the article into a film version and a book version, which I don't think will be a good idea.--Azathar 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

These are the same reasons for not using Hermione's pictures! At least tweak the sentences a little more.

You cannot indiscriminantly scan and post copyrighted images from a published book and post them on the Wikipedia. The creator of the illustrations in the books, Mary GrandPré, owns the copyright, and receives royalties from the sale of those books, as well as any further Harry Potter related artwork created be her based on the books. Posting of such artwork (which could lead to unauthorized distribution and sale of copies of the images, without proper royalty payments) could constitute a copyright violation, and subject the Wikipedia to lawsuits. However, posting of low resolution Public Relations photos of actors, and in some cases film screen shots as released by the Studio (Warner Brothers), may be allowed in limited qualtities as "Fair Use" images (see also: Wikipedia:Fair use).

If it could be arranged (with proper permissions from GrandPré and the Studio), the ideal solution would be for each of the Harry Potter "character" articles in the Wikipedia to be illustrated with one of Mary GrandPré's images, with one posed film PR poster image, and no more than one easily recognized screen shot from a film, featuring the actor doing something "important", and preferably one that has been released for distribution by the Studio. Screen shots taken off of someone's VHS or DVD copy, or from a broadcast, are usually pretty flaky and unclear. --T-dot 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but if you look at every artical of a character from a book, they always use the acters picture to show them. Never have the book drawings been used because of copyright.Wild ste 08:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes?

Could there be a "Memorable quotes" section? Ron's got a lot of those. :) I wonder if that'd be okay.

--14 October 2005

I think that would be best suited for Wikiquote. Why not create a Ron Weasley article over there & stick {{wikiquote}} at the end of the article here? --WhyBeNormal 05:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Timid friend"? "Bombshell"?

The comments on the alleged further divergence between the novels and the films in terms of the characterization of Ron and Hermione are well taken, but the section on the GoF posters sounds like speculation and personal opinion. What about Ron's poster denotes timidity? The interpretation of Hermione's poster as a "bombshell" sounds biased, as well. I googled "ron+timid+hermione+bombshell", thinking perhaps those were indeed the terms being used by the film's marketing campaign, but the most prominent link I found was the article's own. I'm removing the paragraph, unless someone can back up the "timid" label with a source.--RicardoC 13:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hermione may be physically attractive, but bombshell is more indicative of someone's personality: flirty, sexual, popular, irresistable to men. Hermione in all incarnations is none of these things. --Harlequin212121 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for "cleanup"?

The article doesn't look bad to me... does anyone feel that it needs a lot of cleanup? If not someone should remove that tag - I already removed reqimage and attention as blatantly not true. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it seems to be organized explicitly by book, in a way that Harry's and Hermione's articles aren't. It would be nice to have the article more like a biography, stating events year by year. Currently, it doesn't always even emphasize Ron's contributions. I'm rewriting the beginning to reflect this approach more. -- MatthewDBA 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Canon evidence?"

Is there canonical evidence for the color of Ron's eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.8.105 (talk • contribs)

Yes, if you count JKR's statements outside of the books as canon, as I do. From her interview with TLC and MuggleNet this past summer:

MA: What color are Ron's eyes?

JKR: Ron's eyes are blue. Have I never said that, ever? [JKR covers her eyes.] --Fbv65edel 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First image

That first image of Ron is really hideous, I'm in favor of removing it and moving one of the other images up to its place. Thoughts anyone? --Hetar 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI I have changed the image now. --Hetar 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI someone changed it again and it's still HORRIBLE

I agree, I don't know how to change it, but somone who does should.

"Ron in the films"

This section seems quite POV to me. No references are given for anything in the section. The books show him to have a basically lower intellect than Hermione, a larger reluctance to go adventuring than Harry, and a greater insecurity about his own station in life than both of them. And, of course, as the section currently points out, he is the likely part of the trio to provide comic relief. I think this comes across in the films in the same way. To me, the difference between the two is that all these character traits don't happen in exactly the same places, or in the same way, as the books – not that the films have him notably mis- or differently-characterized. CzechOut 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example, demonstrating the many flaws of the section: In the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Ron's role is further decreased. In the original novel, Ron's role was fairly small, but the film-makers created several gags involving Ron, who is often portrayed as puerile and dimwitted, in contrast to Harry and Hermione, who are presented as sharper and more adventurous. First, the passage is internally contradictory; Ron's role can't be both "further decreased" and have several film-only gags added. The net result is that Ron has an expanded presence in the film over the book. It's entirely the author's opinion that Ron is "puerile and dimwitted" in the film; another explanation is that he's sometimes the out-of-time Hermione's first contact. Thus he's naturally "confused" in several scenes, as even Harry is shown to be. Also, is Ron really anything other than less "sharp" than Hermione and Harry in the books? Didn't he do comparatively less well on standardized tests, according to the books? Some kind of actual citation needs to be given here for that. This whole section just reads like an essay, more than it does like an encyclopedia entry.

One of the biggest clues in this direction is the overuse of the word seems. Any time that verb appears in a sentence, one has to ask the question "Seems to whom?" And, with these paragraphs at least, the answer is invariably, "the author(s) of this section".

It would, I think, be helpful to the section were it organized entirely differently. Insted of trying to prove that Ron is different in films than he is in the books – really the first step on the way to original research – it should probably be written as an exploration of the controversy over his treatment in the films. Take that perspective, and the section can then easily be made more appropriate, by citing various sources that are both happy and unhappy with the way the character comes across. – CzechOut 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single source for this section. As such, I have removed it. --Hetar 02:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a "for the record" - Ron's OWL grades are the same as Harry's with the exception of Defense Against Dark Arts, where Harry did so spectacularly. For examples of Ron's diminished status (instead of decreased role) in PoA the movie - the biggest is the Shrieking Shack scene wherein Hermione, not Ron, delivers the line "If you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill us too!" - in the book, that line is Ron's while Hermione is all pale and gasping in fear. I do think a section covering the differences in Ron's depiction in book and movie (far more of a buffoon instead of a brave person in the movies, IMO) would be nice. I could find several places that have the differences clearly marked out.

Ron in the books

Er...must we include "Harry Potter and the" in all the book titles? Everyone reading this page knows that's how the titles start. Plus, it takes up space and looks crowded. VolatileChemical 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My vote? Yes. They are the proper titles and if they become abbreviated the article is no longer a proper article. Besides, not everyone reading this will have read all the books or know right away which book is which. Not everyone has read Harry Potter. Shocking I know, but true. ;) MagnoliaSouth 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What I find especially annoying is all the super-fanatics posting shorthand versions of the titles: PS (or SS), CoS, PoA, GoF, OoTP, HBP - just maddening. --T-dot 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ron's destiny?

Someone I know has suggested that Ron might die in the last book. This might happen...after all, he dosen't get as much attention as Harry does, and this jealousy has still not dissapated. Perhaps this will lead to his undoing, and it fits with the fact that in action epics, the main character will be betrayed by someone he trusts. But i doubt it, what i am, however, sure of is that HE WILL BE WITH HERMIONE GRANGER. That is, if they are not together already.

Well nothing will be put up until the book has been released.Wild ste 08:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article, "It is revealed that Ron dies in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." Can anyone confirm this? --Must WIN 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The Helena Bonham-Carter character killed him (I don't know her name as I don't read HP). As per the "photo" release of the book. VonBlade 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. He's alive, and he's had kids with Hermione at the end of the book. 208.101.140.76 04:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Deathly Hallows

Someone just dumped a HUGE amount of content in this section, in the form of a gigantic wall of text. Please help edit this

Also, this part from the Relationships section about Hermione is skewed: "when Harry reminds them of the war going on around them, almost as if to get revenge on Ron for banning him from kissing his sister, Ginny." There is no way to prove this through the text of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.13.169 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

"Ron, who is one of seven kids and not particularly gifted, receives little attention..."

Who says he's not particularly gifted? POV. 70.53.2.222 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find the book on BitTorrent and it is very clear about Ron's Fate.

ron is alive and you couldent have confirmed it becouse the book was not released when you stated that.

Content Removal

"This gesture, along with Harry’s approaching 17th birthday (the age of adulthood in the wizarding world), and the implied closure of Hogwarts, symbolizes the loss of any remaining childhood innocence within them. Together, they are ready to face Voldemort."

This sentence was at the end of the HBP section. I felt it made the plot summary read more like a review, and it added no factual information. Unless there is opposition, I propse that it remain deleted. See: WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#OR
John Reaves 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• Ron's Patronus is a Jack Russell Terrier; J. K. Rowling claims this is a sentimental choice because she also owns a Jack Russell. [1]
• Ron is arachnophobic, stemming from one of his childhood incidents in which Fred turned his teddy bear into a giant spider. Incidentally, Rupert Grint, who portrays Ron in the films is also arachnophobic.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Professor Slughorn mistakenly calls Ron "Rupert". As his film portrayer is named Rupert Grint, this could be seen as an inside joke on the part of the author.
• In the early stages of making the Harry Potter books, Ron's surname was the only one among the trio which Rowling never decided to change. She has stated that Ron has been "Weasley from start to finish".
• Ron's favourite Quidditch team is the Chudley Cannons, although they have not won the cup since 1892. This explains why his room is painted bright orange, because it is the colour of his hair.
• At the age of five, Ron was nearly tricked into making an Unbreakable Vow by Fred and George.
• Ron has a knack for insulting ghosts, such as Nearly-Headless Nick and Moaning Myrtle, which he does regularly, much to the chargrin of Hermione.
• Ron writes in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them that he used to have a pet Puffskein until Fred decided to use it for bludger practice.

---

• Incorporate this into the article.

John Reaves 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done this 86.130.95.3 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already in its own section, that's why it was removed. See WP:TRIV. John Reaves 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fictional character

Why should fictional character be linked? I think it is safe to assume people know what 'fiction' means and what 'character' means. John Reaves (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about this, I was just thinking that if you were ever going to link to that article (which you should because articles are meant to be linked to, not just there for the search button), you would link it there. Just a thought, I don't really care if it's not there, I just felt it was appropriate. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about the linking. Let's leave it. John Reaves (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix2.jpg

Image:Phoenix2.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 Wikipedia: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 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin

Ron is modelled after a certain Sean Harris, a schoolmate of JKR. He also had a Ford Anglia model 105 car in which JKR learned to drive and that car was included in HP2CoS. You can see him meet JKR here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPlcGUVBnWA

I think this should be included, as Ron is one of the very few charaters in Harry Potter series, where JKR admits the likeness is based on a real-life person. The only two other such cast are Hermione Granger (young JKR herself) and Gilderoy Lockhart (modelled on a real person but JKR refused to disclose). All others are 99%+ imaginary as she said. 82.131.210.162 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ron Weasley's Wand.jpg

Image:Ron Weasley's Wand.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 Wikipedia: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 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture move

Some one needs to move the pic of ROn from SS or COS captioned "young ron" it is currently next to the Prisoner of Azkaban section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix2.jpg

Image:Phoenix2.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 Wikipedia: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 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hermione Text

Firstly, this needs some clean up to get rid of repetition and awkward phrasing, unfortunately I can't get in to do so, so if someone with access would fix this section up a bit?

Secondly, could you please add a line or two about how Ron and Hermione's relationship is foreshadowed in the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Weasley? They have a loving but argumentative relationship, and given that that is how Ron has learned to relate to women, his and Hermione's bickering is obviously going to lead to an attraction, at least on his part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.201.98 (talk • contribs)

I think it would be hard to do that while keeping a neutral point of view. Recall that until Half-Blood Prince, many readers believed that Hermione would end up with Harry. If you can find a good citation, great, but be careful to avoid original research.--Max Talk (+) 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reluctance to accept death and the Elder Wand

Can something be said about the Ron's reluctance to accept death that shows up in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? He tries to make a case that Mad-Eye Moody is alive after all the evidence points to his death, and suggests that Dumbledore is still assisting them long after being killed. There doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the article. Also, we might also want to mention something about his attraction to the Elder Wand, and his shock when Harry rejects it.--Max Talk (add) 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find something mentioned by a reputable source, go for it. But it has to be cited. Otherwise it's Original Research. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the rules, I just was wondering where this would fit in best, and how it would be phrased. I will of course provide citations.--Max Talk (+) 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is really all that noteworthy, as his belief in this case was incorrect, and not really pivotal to the plot. If Ron had suspected that Snape was a stand-up guy all along, that would be noteworthy. Remember, while we want to be concise in what we add, we also need to keep the article brief. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Considering the theme of Deathly Hallows is death, and that one should not fear it, doesn't Ron's denial say something about his personality?--Max Talk (+) 18:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Pidwigeon

I think we should, it would fit very nicely in this article. Judgesurreal777 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article of Pig is really short and useless in an encyclopedia. Lord Opeth 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron is Human

This article seems to act as if Ron is stupid and cowardly. He's not. I think he's only human. He doesn't have the most talent, he's not super-brave, he isn't perfect(pureblood but blood traitor). He is, I believe, as close as JKR brings us to normal people(normal thoughts, not normalcy meaning w/ or w/o magic)-tourjourspur 75.4.96.252 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Eddisford

With all due respect your impassioned beliefs, we don't use those here. There is a policy that governs this: no original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this article say anywhere that he is stupid? I can't find it. He's given a lot of goofy moments in the book, but also a lot of strong moments, such as the Chess game, "Weasley is our King" in Quidditch, and of course, the locket horcrux. I don't know that this article treats this in an unbalanced way at all... Wrad 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit more pointedly, Ron is NOT human - he is a fictional character in a fictional story in a fictional world. This hearkens back to an argument that someone has made recently on one of the other Potter article discussion pages (I think it was the one for Dumbledore) wherein the idea that we treat these characters as real, live people is utterly unencyclopedic. You think Ron is real, and that's fine; it's what keeps psychotherapists in BMWs and cravats, but it has no place here, and there should be zero tolerance for this sort of blurry line Bag O' Crazy™ that makes people explore storm drains in a pointy hat and whatnot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)