Talk:Luna Lovegood/Archive 2

Xenophilius

There is information regarding her father on her wiki article. I suggest he be merged to the minor Harry Potter characters section as there isn't even a coherant Xenphilius section (given that he has been redirected here I assume he is a stub article when completed alone?) I'll add a suggestion to merge on the main page.

I created an article section for Xeno in Minor Harry Potter characters. Lord Opeth 01:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to add an external link I have for Luna Lovegood/ Evanna Lynch. IT is a fansite, and I know we are not suppost to pu them on Wikipedia, but I think there should be one or two. What do you think? here is the link: www.freewebs.com/frenchdb

Thanks so much for asking on the talk page. I'm afraid that by Wikipedia policy, fan sites are strongly suggested against, unless they have been acknowledged by the subject. So, if J. K. Rowling or Evanna Lynch says that your site is the best site for Luna Lovegood information, then it's a different story. However, Wikipedia is not the place to gain publicity for your site. Sorry! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to use a fan drawn image as the main picture. Is it? I think it would be better to use a photo of Evanna Lynch. Anyone else agree? - ^Рэд_хот 00:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the ongoing discussion on this general topic on the Wikiproject talk page. From scanning this discussion, I think that it would be best to wait until we have photos of Lynch in costume as Luna. This is because when she is not in costume, she does not create much better an image than any other fifteen-year-old girl with Luna's general appearance. -Phi*n!x 00:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about using the picture from chapter 10 of Order of the Phoenix? [1] - chicken queen 04:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And aparently I should have read the archive first. Nevermind! :) - chicken queen 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know why Luna's picture was deleted, while all the other HP characters still have theirs??

The picture was just going to be deleted and it would show up here as a red link from there on out so it's best to just delete it now and not worry about it later. --[[User:PIrish|pIrish]Chug] 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why it was going to be deleted though...very strange, considering all the other HP characters have retained theirs.

The picture was going to be deleted out of existence from Wikipedia servers because it wasn't licensed to use. Therefore, it would have just shown up as a red link in the article and not a picture, thus, it's better to just delete them early, than let them sit as red links. --pIrish 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable...can we put up the old picture back up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.212.150.17 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Looks like someone deleted her picture again. Warner Brothers have just released new publicity shots of Luna, could we use one of those? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michelle 31a (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I know it's changed now, but I would have thought the fan art is not acceptable either. I do like the photo up of her now though. I like how it shows her radish earrings. Luna'sPatronus 21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Turnips and Radishes

Where is Luna said to have turnip earrings? I live in Britain, and I can only find radishes in my OotP and HBP (P.236 of hardback OotP: "Luna was wearing what looked like a pair of orange radishes for earrings"; p.237, same book, "Ernie might be pompous on occasions like this, but Harry was in a mood to appreciate a vote of confidence from someone who did not have radishes dangling from their ears"; p.294 of hardback HBP: "Harry was glad, in any case, that she had left off her radish earrings, her butterberr-cork necklace and her Spectrespecs."). Where is she mentioned as using turnips as earrings? Does she have another pair? Is this accidental confusion (possibly due to the mention of Stubby Boardman being hit in the ear with a turnip in the Quibbler article on the train, where she is not mentioned as having any earrings)? Or is this vandalism which has been accepted as fact? Please clarify. Michaelsanders 13:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, turnip earrings sound rather unlikely anyway. According to their wikipedia articles, turnips are at max around 20cm in diameter, and radishes at max around 10cm. So radishes would be approximately the size of a large pair of earrings, and thus make sense to Lua as a pair of earrings. A giant turnip certainly sounds impossible: it would be keep thwacking into her shoulder, be like wearing a crystal ball, and probably rip her earlobe (a turnip did hit Stubby hard enough to make him want to retire, after all). So, has Luna ever worn turnips in her ears, or is it simply blatant vandalism (or possibly fanfic leakage)? Michaelsanders 14:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the saga...Having examined the history archive for this article, it appears that the turnip reference came in with the first introduction of HBP data by user Triggy, on 18/7/2005. The user may be American/have used an American edition (since s/he also made a reference to bottle caps, rather than corks), suggesting that the American editions may have her wearing turnips. However, the comments that Luna wears radishes in American editions would seem to suggest otherwise. For the moment, then, I suspect (hope?) that it was an honest mistake by Triggy, rather than deliberate vandalism; and that it was accepted and expanded upon by other editors here in good faith. Alternately, maybe there are some editions in which she wears turnips: if so, could someone please detail, since it would be useful and interesting to note the contrast in the article. After all, there must be some reference to her wearing turnips outside fanfic: given that I, having read only the UK editions, was immediately struck by what I thought was a fraudulent turnip detail and deleted it immediately the FIRST TIME I EVER VISITED THE PAGE, surely the rest of those involved wouldn't simply have allowed a wrong detail to be accepted and encouraged for more than a year? Surely, the widespread fan babblings regarding Luna wearing turnips (google: luna lovegood turnip) can't be based upon a clumsy mistake here on wikipedia? Surely not? Michaelsanders 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, it's really late and I'm far too tired to check out my books, but if it's radish in the UK editions, there's nothing which could enhance the removal of that text from the article. Just WP:CITE it and that way it will never be removed again. If I remember (probably not) I'll check around my American editions soon. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the bizarrely prevalent belief that Luna does wear turnips (for whatever reason), I do think it is important to explain the belief as fully as possible in the article (we should give as much information as possible) - otherwise, it will leave the casual article reader confused and/or thinking that the article requires editing. You are welcome to suggest how such a section could be phrased, but I really think it should be included. Michaelsanders 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I understand your point, but I would have to draw the line and simply say that a belief of fans whether a character's earrings are radishes or turnips is unencyclopedic. As long as radishes is cited (which it is), anybody who decides to change the article will simply be reverted. If you like, you can wikilink radish and add in a brief note at the end of a relevent sentence saying something like, "not to be confused with turnips" (which you may also wikilink). However, an entire section on the confusion on some fan forums and boards is quite unnecessary. A reader of the Wikipedia article on Luna Lovegood is not going to want to read paragraphs on what some other fans sometimes confuse her earrings to be, though as I have just suggested, a sentence of even a half a sentence is good enough. Hope you understand. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I do. You claim that to make reference to the radish-turnip confusion is unencyclopaedic. I disagree. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to present as much relevant information as can be gathered in a concise, clear and understandable manner. The fact that this confusion is quite widespread makes it necessary to make an encyclopaedic reference to the confusion. It isn't an issue with a loyal fan following of two which is trying to get itself noticed, after all. It is an issue in which the majority of the online fan community appears to have got hold of a different idea, and accordingly it needs to be referred to, for the sake of clarity and to present as much relevant information as possible. Moreover, I feel that since wikipedia may have spurred (indeed probably has), or even created this turnip belief through its own negligence, it is required to set the record straight (otherwise, it is likely that many readers will be left as baffled by the exclusion of turnips as I was by their inclusion). Michaelsanders 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, just think about what the confusion is on: whether a set of earrings is made out of radishes or turnips. To tell you the honest truth, it doesn't make too much difference to me – it is a minor detail, but of course, it definitely belongs in the article to describe Luna's eccentricity. Still, the fact that some fans have an incorrect notion as to the vegetable from which these earrings are made is not important: it matters that this version, and all future versions, of the article contain the correct word: radishes. As I said, briefly disambiguating radishes from turnips (they are rather confusable, I have confused them a number of occasions myself) would be fine, but a whole section is not, in my opinion. Regardless, I've asked User:Deathphoenix, a strong user who I've seen contribute to HP articles quite often, to intermediate. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that worked so well last time...Oh well, I think I have a valid point, you think you have a valid point, so here we go down this ever-stretching road... Michaelsanders 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems like Deathphoenix has not made an edit in over three weeks, I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the third opinion request, I think Fbv is right that a brief disambiguation is all that is required or appropriate. (1) Per WP:V and WP:RS, there is no way to support the statement that many readers believe that Luna wears radish earings unless a reliable source can be found that the misconception exists. (2) The encyclopedia articles get long and unwieldy if we need to include several sentences to rebut every misconception that might exist. Thanks, TheronJ 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've added a little note that radishes and turnips shouldn't be confused. I don't think a whole paragraph about fan fiction is warranted by the fact that some people don't know the difference between one vegitable and another. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a blatantly false statement goes unedited for over a year, clearly there is *something* wrong. And if it was that easily believed, I do think it needs a proper explanation and clarification of the issue, along with references to the contrary belief having been taken up by many fans (as I said, googling 'Luna Lovegood turnip' gives quite a few results, in which most of the writers appear to believe that she wears turnips (and I would be VERY interested to know how such a confusion could arise. I don't see how people can get from the text word radish to the text word turnip. Confuse the two vegetables when seeing them, yes. Confuse them when written down, no). I admit that this is hardly an issue of earth-shattering importance in the Harry Potter Project, but I do think it is important, for the sake of thoroughness and clarity. And I repeat - if Wikipedia was showing misleading and wrong information for over a year, in the process misleading readers and other sites (that any answers data, for example), then we are required to give a full explanation of why we have now changed our tunes (and take it as a lesson for the future - to be more vigilant in rooting out wrong info).Otherwise, it does the casual readers an injustice also (it will take them all of 15 seconds to be puzzled by the turnip-radish change, and to click on the discussion page, and read all of this. But it should be in the article, in an orderly manner, not only available as our squabbling). Michaelsanders 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, Michael -- we've had not one, but two third opinions on this matter. Wikipedia doesn't need to "apologize" for any sort of error it publishes. (There are exceptions, though, when the situation is harmful to the parties being discussed.) When a "casual reader," as you say, comes to visit the page and sees that it's radishes, not turnips, any previous thoughts, whether read on Wikipedia or a fan board, should immediately be put to rest because we have cited the text as saying radishes. You seem to want to comfort the reader of the page, and that's not necessary, despite the nice gesture. We were wrong before, and we've corrected ourselves, and shown that this revision is the right one. There's nothing else to it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why simply saying "not to be confused with turnips" or "sometimes confused with turnips" isn't enough. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have read that they are dirigible plum earrings, which are like radishes. They are definetly not turnips. Luna'sPatronus 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Luna's Given Name

Her given name is actually "Luna". But who called her "Loony"? --PJ Pete

I can't find the exact textual reference, but she is called it behind her back and even matter-of-factly talks to Harry about it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh – even Ron calls her "Loony Lovegood" sometimes. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hermionie called her 'loony' to her face in the film adaptation however it was Ginny in secret in the fith book installment. AiselneDrossel 09:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think I remember it being Hermione saying "Meet Looney- I mean Luna- Lovegood." Luna'sPatronus 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Her name just a bit off?

This is just from my perspective, but does anyone else think her name sounds like a porn name? I mean, luna Lovegood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.243.51.173 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Nope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.212.150.17 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

'Love' doesnt mean 'sex', as many a sociology teacher, religion teacher, or parent will tell you. Leemorrison 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I definetly don't agree. I know or have heard of plenty of people with "love" in their last name. Luna'sPatronus 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry and Luna

Luna showed amazing respect for Harry, and Harry paid it back by inviting her as his date to the Christmas Party thrown by Slughorn. While Harry is uncomfortable escorting her, Luna shows her own insecurities openly, noting Harry is like a friend.

Harry always did treat Luna like a friend, because she not only believed his stories, but was willing to fight with him in the battle of the Department of Mysteries. She stood her ground, but in the book she noted both her and Harry could see Therstrals, and that Harry heard voices beyond the veil. It's possible that Luna will write the biography of the Heroic Harry Potter she knew if he dies in book 7.

It is further very clear that Luna has enormous respect, faith, and friendship for the people she battled alongside in the Department of Mysteries, as the paintings in her room were connected with the words "friends". In many ways, she understands Harry in a way that even his closest friends do not; especially her belief in certain quests and Harry's desire to NOT be the center of attention.

Age

In the "Background and Role in the Series" section it states that Luna is returning to Hogwart's for her seventh year (in HPDH). I was under the impression that she would have been in her sixth year. Roosellclause 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the logic behind guessing that she was born in 1981? Admittedly, I have no idea what year the books are meant to be set in, but if we want to assume that they take place in "the present", the first book came out in 1997, when Harry was eleven, which would make him born in 1986. I was myself born in 1982, and am a postgraduate student - unless the books are intentionally meant to take place in the early 1990s for some reason, and not sometime slightly closer to the present (7 books since 1997 would place this last one as taking place in 2003), I don't see why all the main characters, who are still in the magical equivalent of high school, should be older than me. I'm curious to hear the explanation, please. LordAmeth 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See Chronology of the Harry Potter stories for more information on the timeline. In a nutshell, it is based on a comment by Nearly Headless Nick in Chamber of Secrets when he invites Harry to his 500th death day party - and mentions he died Oct 31, 1492. So, if it is his 500th death day, Chamber of Secrets takes place in Harry's 2nd year at Hogwarts, when he was 12 (since he had to be 11 to enter Hogwarts, as mentioned in Philosopher's Stone). Therefore, Harry's birth year was 1980. Since Luna and Ginny are both a year behind, their birth years are 1981. Voila :) Ccrashh 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That assumption is dependent on the cutoff point of ages. There is actually good reason to believe that either August 31st or September 1st is the magic date, if you assume all students must be 11 years old to attend Hogwarts. Hermoine Granger born in September, and was 11 (nearly 12) when she started Hogwarts. Thus, Luna was either born in September, October, November, or December of 1980, or in January to August of 1981. As she did participate in the second Battle of Hogwarts, it would imply she was of age at the time (though it isn't proof; Colin Creevy and Ginny Weasley both ignored the age limit), thus likely meaning she was born between September 1980 and mid-May of 1981.

I think Ginny mentioned once that she was Luna's age. What I didn't understand was that they never mentioned that she was a year younger again, so I always thought she was Harry's age. Luna'sPatronus 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Me too, but- about the timeline. In book 7, we see that on the Graves of Harry's parents, it says "Died on October 31 1981", and Harry was 1 year old at the time, so- here you are, another clue for you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.132.79 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I believe a warning should be added to this page, as it references the death of Dumbledore at the end of the sixth book, if anyone agrees I think this should be added to the page (I'm not very experienced in editing pages, so I'll leave this up to someone else, if it's deemed necessary). Sandwiches99 03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings have been all but eliminated in the past two months. If we're not putting spoiler warnings on Deathly Hallows stuff, then the Snape-Killed-Dumbledore thing is, all the more so, fair game. Valley2city 05:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people that have only read the fifth book and are wondering about Luna might read this and have the whole next 2 books be ruined for them. They should definetly add a spoiler warning. Luna'sPatronus 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Accent

"The character is portrayed by Evanna Lynch in the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix[2] with an accent reminiscent of that used by Marc Warren playing Mr. Teatime in Hogfather" Is it just me, or do other people find this a completely unhelpful observation. Explaining something by reference to the accent used by Marc Warren playing Mr Teatime, seems like explaining the obscure by reference to the obscurer. Axamoto 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also an incredibly POV statement, the example coming totally out of left field. Valley2city 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

She sounded Irish, but is it relevant by any stretch? I don't think so. Exploding Boy 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is so relevant. Luna is too much a free-spirited enigma for it to matter what kind of accent she has. McGonagall being Scottish and Finnegan being Irish, those are remarkable and belong in the articles. We just don't have any proof of Luna being anything, except for the fact that she is likely a British subject. Valley2city 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

None Cannon reference

"a dreamy tone of voice and a faraway look in her eyes. Her hobby is to be skipping around the Hogwarts halls, and she also seems to have a liking for pudding, the British word for dessert." This was written in the description of Luna. Although i am aware that this is evident from the movie, I don't recall seeing this written in the book and I don't think the movies can be considered cannon since there are many examples of material in the movie that doesn't fit the information provided in the books.

I seem remember she does mention once in the fifth book that she is looking forward to the pudding, I think as she is looking for her stolen items at the very end. However it is not as egregious as in the movie where pudding seems to be every other word out of her mouth. Valley2city 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's a bit of an exagerration, don't you think? She mentions pudding twice in the movie -- once when she's first introduced, and then at the very end. Hardly qualifies as saying pudding "every other word". Michelle 31a

I like speaking in hyperboles... I'm just saying they hype up her affinity for dessert that we don't see so often in the books and less about her fantastic beasts. Valley2city 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, FYI, here is the only book reference to pudding: "I think I'll just go down and have some pudding and wait for it all to turn up - it always does in the end"Valley2city 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If she mentioned it twice, it does kinda seem like an obsession. Luna'sPatronus 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Life after the book series

So Luna grows up to be a magic equivalent of a naturalist, presumably studying strange magical animals. Isn't this what Newt Scamander did? If so, can we say that Luna becomes a magizoologist like Scamander? focoma 08:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research? Peacent 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, just a logical deduction. Rowling says Luna goes around the world studying and discovering magical wildlife, which is what a magizoologist does. Or are you saying that what Luna does is not magizoology but something else? focoma 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's probably better to wait for an actual statement by the author. Sorry. focoma 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Loyal to the Quibbler?

Does anyone else think it's weird to say that the Lovegoods are loyal to the magazine they publish? What does it mean? And even if it's true, so what? I propose we change Luna's loyalty to the DA and her father's to the Lovegood family, as it's clear that Luna is all he cares about, since he was willing to turn Harry in to the Death Eaters, even though he supported him. Thoughts? Faithlessthewonderboy 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't strange to have many characters' allegiance set to the Order of the Phoenix, even though they're the ones running it and setting its policy. Allegiance seems to mean that they'd value that association over most others. So, I think Luna's allegiances should be to Dumbledore's Army and then the Quibbler, as it is now. Xenophilius Lovegood's allegiance could be set to Luna (one of Ron's allegiances is to Harry rather than an organization or family), with the Quibbler as Xenophilius's second allegiance. I don't think listing his allegiance as to the entire Lovegood family would make sense, since he didn't say anything about family pride etc., he just tried to save his daughter. I'll go add her to the list.Ariadne55 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just re-read the section on allegiances and I think his allegiances should be set to just Luna herself. He was willling to destroy the integrity of The Quibbler in an attempt to free her. I don't think he has any allegiance to the Deathly Hallows. Ariadne55 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's worth mentioning here that Narcissa Malfoy's loyalty is listed as "The Malfoy Family." I just don't really see why the Quibbler should equal into the equation. I mean, it's just his business. I don't think Weasley's Wizard Wheezes are listed under Fred's and George's loyalty. And especially since it's just her father's business, I don't think it should be listed for Luna. Faithlessthewonderboy 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood purity

I appreciate that blood purity is a very important theme to understanding HP; however I think that 'Pure blood or half blood' amounts to nothing more than speculation since we are admitting that we don't now but are going to have a go at listing it anyway. I know that Luna's dad is a wizard but since we don't know her mother's blood status I don't think we should list hers. asyndeton 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. In HP the most important distinction is drawn between pure/halfbloods and muggle-borns; after all, halfbloods were still allowed to attend Hogwarts in DH. Therefore, if we can say for certain that a character is not a muggleborn, I think we should, though I appreciate that you say it's speculation. I just think that this particular "speculation" does more good than harm. I hope I conveyed that clearly, it makes sense in my head. :P Faithlessthewonderboy 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and fully understand your point. I just strongly dislike the use of the word 'or' in this instance - I feel it just goes against everything we say on Wikipedia about facts and not speculation. Perhaps some middle ground could be found for those we are unsure of? Such as 'Wizard born,' or something of a similar ilk. asyndeton 23:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; not only does it seem un-encyclopedic, it looks cluttered. And an infobox should be succinct. I like your suggestion, my only hesitation being that it means replacing the language of JKR with a term of our own. Though it probably is better; the same information in fewer words. Let's see what others think before we move on it, though. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I too prefer it because, as you said, an infobox should be succinct and not cluttered. I don't like replacing JKR's term with one of our own either but at some point she and Wikipedia will clash and one will have to be given priority over the other. asyndeton 00:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is blood purity determined by parents or grandparents? I thought I read somewhere that it was by granparent, but the blood purity page says it's by parents. If so, Luna is a pureblood, since her mother was a witch wasn't she? Or was that just something they put in the fifth movie? I don't remember specifically from the book. i ^said 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A wizard/witch has to have four wizard/witch grandparents to be pure-blood. Hence , Harry is half-blood. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna's father is a wizard; Luna's mother is a witch. Unless something specifically pops up to contradict it, she should be listed as pure-blood. This either or thing is ridiculous. And I have to say, if she wasn't pure-blood, given how everyone made fun of her, Draco or some other persecutor would surely have mentioned it in the course of the books.

Again, to be a pure-blood, a wizard/witch must have grandparents who are all magical. This is the reason why Harry and Dumbledore (among others) are half-bloods, even though both of their parents were magical. Faithlessthewonderboy 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've read somewhere that Luna said "My mother was an amazing witch." That must mean she is pureblood. Also, I heard that her mother died from a spell gone wrong, so tht means Luna is pureblood. Luna'sPatronus 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is still possible that Luna's mother was either a Muggleborn witch, or a half-blood, with one of her parents being a Muggle, which would make Luna a half-blood as far as the blood-purity folks are concerned. Don Sample 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Luna's Mother

Did Luna see her die? Or what that a convention of the movie? If not, who did Luna see die? i ^said 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really recall the film correctly, but there is no canon source that I know of that says Luna saw her mother die. Did she? Yeah, probably. But since we don't know for certain, it can't be included. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if it does not say that she saw her die. Who explains the thestrals to Harry? i ^said 08:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was Luna. There's no doubt that Luna can see Thestrals; but does that mean she saw her mother die? After all, Harry's parents died, and he wasn't able to see them. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there was an explination for that. But I don't have the book, so I can't check. i ^said 09:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean...about Harry? Well, he was in his crib at the time and probably didn't actually see his parents being murdered. Or perhaps he was just too young to grasp it; we're told that you not only have to witness death, but really understand what it means, which is why at the end of GoF Harry still can't see the thestrals. But I digress; personally, I think Luna probably saw her mother die. But we're not told that. Maybe she was at her grandfather's side when he died of dragonpox at St Mungo's. We just don't know. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere a reason from JK why Harry couldn't until OOP, and it might've been what you said. Do you have a copy of OOP and you can check the conversation about thestrals? i ^said 09:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to look up. Luna does tell Harry that she can see thestrals, and that her mom is dead, but she never says that she saw her mom die. JKR might have mentioned it at some point on her website or in an interview, though I don't think she has. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw the film today, and in the scene where they visit thestrals in a grove, Luna tells Harry that at age nine she saw her mother die while casting an experimental spell that went wrong. -- Deborahjay 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's the book that matters in this instance. faithless (^speak) 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. While in the film this dialogue's in the scene described above; in the book it's in the conversation between Harry and Luna at year's end:

Harry...had just remembered that she too could see thestrals.

"Have you. . . " he began. "I mean, who ... has has anyone you've known ever died?"

"Yes," said Luna simply, "my mother. She was a quite extraordinary witch, you know, but she did like to experiment and one of her spells went rather badly wrong one day. I was nine."

-- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, New York: Scholastic Press (2003), p. 863.

-- Deborahjay 09:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Harry's question was "Has anyone you've known ever died?" not "Who did you see die?" It is possible that Luna didn't see her mother die, but did witness the death of some stranger. Since she doesn't know what Harry was thinking about, it would be her mother's death, and not the strangers that she would reply about. Don Sample 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

While removing a dead link a load of text in the family section disappeared. Very sorry about this, I don't know what happened.90.199.58.70 11:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your edit and the text that disappeared is text that you should have got rid of when you removed the link anyway. You haven't done any damage, don't worry. asyndeton 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rolf

I've mentioned before (somewhere), that I think the name of Luna's spouse-to-be perhaps isn't actually Rolf. Being a shoddy typer myself, I've often hastily misspelled rofl as rolf, and am of the opinion that this may have happened in the transcript. Is this reasonable doubt enough to have it removed from the page? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think so. Rolf is a real name, after all. And we know Rowling likes to use unusual/outdated names, so I see no reason to doubt it. Even if there is doubt, she said it and it's sourced, so that's pretty much all that matters. faithless (^speak) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a wizard who was most likely born in the early 1980s having been christened after a Muggle internet acronym. ;) -Severa (!!!) 06:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was JKR "rofling" as she thought of Luna and Scamander's grandson. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have a reason to suspect that Rowling was collectively pulling our legs. She recently informed us that Neville goes on to marry Hannah Abbott so I see the revelation about Luna's marriage as nothing out of the ordinary. Besides, Luna marrying the grandson of Newt Scamander seems to fit, what with Newt and Luna's shared interest in magical creatures. I expect Rowling would have said that Luna married Gregory Goyle if she'd wanted to give us a laugh. :-) -Severa (!!!) 09:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indigo Child

Luna shows many signs of being an Indigo Child. Could this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue658 (talk • contribs)

No, because this would be Original Research. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Life after the book series: her children

Shouldn't it be added she also has two children with this "Rolf" person? Their names are Lorcan and Lysander as they appear in the family tree posted by Rowling herself in her site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.228.85 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned. faithless (^speak) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)