Talk:Muggle

RFD discussion

Single author's use only? --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Muggle and Muggles, they are used only concerning the world of Harry Potter, as far as my research has been able to determine (books.google) - [The]DaveRoss 02:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep: The term has spread into the media, where I encounter it with some frequency. While the terminology isn't stabilized yet, I predict that Muggle will become the Potter-o-phile equivalent of Trekkie/Trekker and Whovian. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I've heard this used out of context. Keep and R-F-what, Q? if you like. DAVilla 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on w:Muggle metions several other usages, and notes that the term appears in the OED in 2003. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but I seem to recall a blanket(ish) prohibition on "Harry Potterisms" due to lack of independence. Can someone please clarify en.wiktionary.org's stance on this class of word for me? --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You like to think in such absolute terms. DAVilla 09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're willing to reject a word accepted by the OED, but here are cites not written by Rowling:

• 2004 — Rachel Tiplady, Newsweek, "'Harry Potter' technology could be coming your way" (9 Jun)

  Back in the world of muggle science, New Zealand researchers have found a way to add detailed 3-D talking animations to books.

• 2005 — Lev Grossman, Time Magazine, "Love Potions and Tragic Magic" (17 Jul)

  It's a curious fact about Harry Potter's magic that it doesn't really look all that hard to do. You wiggle the wand, you say the words--"Lumos! Expelliarmus! Accio Car Keys!"--and if you're not a Muggle or a Squib, if you've got the right stuff or the midichlorians or whatever, you're in business.

Can you find another quote like the first (2004 Newsweek)? That shows strong independence, the whole out-of-context thing, whereas the second (2005 Time) is more specifically talking about the Harry Potter series. DAVilla 09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more quote that leaves me confused (note date!):

• 1933 — Time Magazine, "Hot Ambassador" (12 Jun)

  Windy, muggle-smoking Louis Armstrong has never had patience or skill to build an orchestra of his own.

How does one smoke a muggle? Ah, I see muggle has a diffeent definition. --EncycloPetey 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, from Wikipedia, "In Zap Comics No. 0 (published 1971), a reference is made to a spliff, referring to it once as a muggle." Without explaining the use of the word, the article also makes reference to Raggedy Ann in the Snow White Castle (1946) and The Gammage Cup (1959, Carol Kendall). DAVilla 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I'd phrase my opinions on what genre-specific words are worth keeping and which are not, but I can provide examples. (I've had a start on cleaning the Science fiction category, so the ideas are pretty fresh, but coming up with reject examples is not as easy as the keepers. Thank goodness for Wikipedia). You can see that current practice differs a bit from my opinion. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Genre	Accept as entries	Reject as entries
Star Wars	Jedi, Darth Vader, droid	Naboo, R5D4, landspeeder
Star Trek	Vulcan, Starfleet, transporter, shields	Tholian, warp core, matter stream
Hitchhiker's Guide	Babel fish, H2G2 (barely)	Vogon, Pan-galactic gargle blaster, infinite improbability drive
Doctor Who	TARDIS, Dalek, Whovian	sonic screwdriver, Sontaran, UNIT
Harry Potter	Muggle, Harry Potter, Hogwarts	everything else

Keep. It appears in the Jargon File, as the opposite of the hackish sense of wizard (a Python muggle is someone who isn't a Python wizard). -PierreAbbat 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From w:Muggle:

Nancy Stouffer wrote a 1984 book called RAH (later retitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles) which featured a race called "Muggles". She claimed that she owned the trademark for the word muggle, and sued Rowling and her publishers. In 2002, the case was dismissed.

It was proven they were forged documents. There is no such book, and she certainly didn't create the race of muggles; nor ever even use the word in print form. sewnmouthsecret 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We may have to adjust the etymology. DAVilla 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the BBC [1], "Muggle has appeared in different old English forms in the dictionary before. In one entry, a muggle is 'a tail resembling that of a fish'. It's also been used to mean a young woman or sweetheart."

Clear keep, though it should pass through RfV. This one has "escaped the lab" as we used to say. Given supporting cites outside of Rowling, it passes independence. Actually, independence is a bit slippery here since you could plausibly argue that someone writing muggle assumes the reader has read Potter. But ... it also "appears in a well-known work". I've never been crazy about that rule (it predates me), as it also lets in every other coinage in the Potter series regardless of whether non-Potter fans use it, but it does at least get around the slippery area in independence. -dmh 05:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

wah??? The Webster's New Millenium Dictionary of English lists muggle as an ordinary person with no skills[2]. It lists the eymology as being from the 1920s. Why is there a debate at all? JK Rowling used the word in the sense listed there, but in the context of magical skills. Since the word was archaic, it ended up being applied exclusively to her works. Don't you people try dictionary.com? Even if you can't copy the information you can at least verify whether something has legitimacy or not. — This unsigned comment was added by 206.174.3.88 (talk) at 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

True, but you're talking about the word muggle; this conversation was about the word Muggle. Here on Wiktionary, we are sensitive to capitalization. --EncycloPetey 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Muggle, as only one citation had the uppercase (which wasn't independent) and all the "keep" votes (so far) seemed to mistakenly think this was an RFD for muggle. (My personal opinion is that both should be deleted, but that would be a separate RFD.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Here are some b.g.c. cites. Not In Kansas Anymore: A Curious Tale of How Magic Is Transforming America - Page 194 by Christine Wicker - Body, Mind & Spirit - 2005 - 288 pages Every Time You Hear a Bell, a Muggle Has Turned Magical The magical and the muggle are separated by a river, wide and deep. I could see across, ...

English Words: Structure, History, Usage - Page 187 by Francis Katamba - Language Arts & Disciplines - 2005 - 322 pages A related snide term is muggle. This was originally a slang expression for marijuana. It was fading out of the language when it was given a new lease of life by J. K. Rowling in her Harry Potter magical children’s novels. In Harry Porter's world, a muggle is a non-magical person. By extension, muggle can be used by group members to refer to outsiders. ...

Australia and the European Superpower: Engaging with the European Union - Page 5 by Philomena Murray - European Union - 2005 Australia is a country that is an outsider, or a muggle, in the world of ... As a muggle, Australia lacks the support of an enchanted infrastructure and has ...

Sustainable Planet: Solutions for the Twenty-first Century - Page 11 by Juliet B. Schor, Betsy S. Taylor - Science - 2002 - 304 pages A Muggle would be a perfect target for the H2No campaign; a Muggle might even install remote-control operated light jazz-emanating stereo grilles in his ...

Most are not caps. sewnmouthsecret 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Muggle

The only reason I can think of this should be deleted is because of caps. Muggle is easily cited in b.g.c. and is used outside of Rowling's writings, as well as used without explicitly stating it is from the Potter novels. If muggle/Muggle is kept, which I suspect it will, should it be caps, lower, or both? Whatever is decided, I will cite both entries in their respective discussion pages to be added to the entry if and when kept. sewnmouthsecret 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On searching for cites, I found a few for "muggle", which didn't refer to the Harry Potter books and where it wasn't defined. Some were uses of the noun as adjective. I take it that "muggle" is coming into general use. I didn't yet find uses of "Muggle" like that, but there are vast numbers of uses. News would seem to be the right place to search. DCDuring 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not In Kansas Anymore: A Curious Tale of How Magic Is Transforming America - Page 194 by Christine Wicker - Body, Mind & Spirit - 2005 - 288 pages Every Time You Hear a Bell, a Muggle Has Turned Magical The magical and the muggle are separated by a river, wide and deep. I could see across, ...

English Words: Structure, History, Usage - Page 187 by Francis Katamba - Language Arts & Disciplines - 2005 - 322 pages A related snide term is muggle. This was originally a slang expression for marijuana. It was fading out of the language when it was given a new lease of life by J. K. Rowling in her Harry Potter magical children’s novels. In Harry Porter's world, a muggle is a non-magical person. By extension, muggle can be used by group members to refer to outsiders. ...

Australia and the European Superpower: Engaging with the European Union - Page 5 by Philomena Murray - European Union - 2005 Australia is a country that is an outsider, or a muggle, in the world of ... As a muggle, Australia lacks the support of an enchanted infrastructure and has ...

Sustainable Planet: Solutions for the Twenty-first Century - Page 11 by Juliet B. Schor, Betsy S. Taylor - Science - 2002 - 304 pages A Muggle would be a perfect target for the H2No campaign; a Muggle might even install remote-control operated light jazz-emanating stereo grilles in his ... sewnmouthsecret 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the finer points about quotes:

1. is already used for "muggle", doesn't quote "Muggle". ergo, no help for "Muggle", right?

Correct. I was placing all m/Muggle references in here until we figured out whether to keep it caps or lowercase.

1. is good reference material, but does it count for a use in English ?

To be determined...

1. is good for "muggle", but not "Muggle".

Correct.

1. is good for "Muggle", even though it is in quotes? What if the article directly defined "Muggle", citing Harry Potter books?

It defines it, and then uses it accordingly. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the above interpretations/assessments right? What am I missing?

I'm firstly trying to determine whether it should be at caps or lowercase if kept. Then, we have some potential uses to sort out. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I use this as a slang term for a non-Pagan without the capital - which is a new defition as Rowlings books do not touch on religion at all. If I get bored I might try and find some examples.Thorskegga 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone on our pagan forum has just used it (no tip off honest!) as follows: BTW tattooists- the good ones anyway, like individual work-it gets boring doing off the shelf designs for muggles! Please note - no capital here either. Thorskegga 00:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Cited with attributive use. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)