Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

What about the rumours that Voldemort kills Harry but dies also as they share blood?

PENIS be changed before the book is actually published. In fact, it's been about five years since that interview, so it's probably been changed already.

Could in the most recent interview with rowling on the leaky cauldron website.

She has planned this far ahead since she has stated numerous times that she has outlined in detail the story for all 7 harry potter books. In addition she has stated she has written the final chapter already since it is an epilogue of sorts, however it is likeley to change.

Cho's Daughter?

Folks, please keep in mind that this Talk page is for discussion of the article, and is not intended as a general forum for discussion of the series. If you have sourced evidence to bring to the table, please do so, and if you wish to discuss the content of the article, please do so, but please keep on focus here. Thanks.

Re-org

As the page got larger the division into 'fact' and 'speculation' made less sense. Instead I separated out the statements made by the author outside the book from the rest then divided up the speculation into strong statements made at the end of book 6 and the facts known about each of the remaining horcruxes.

The Dumbledore speculation should be removed from the general additional speculation section and given its own section.

Snape

Could the author or another like-minded individual please rephrase that last few sentences in Snape. I am utterly confused as to the meaning of the phrases

"One curious fact that requires explanation is that Dumbledore trusts Snape despite all evidence. This could be explained if Snape was merely just fulfilling his end of the unbreakable vow, and Dumbledore needed him to help Harry. But this would only come at the end of book 7 while it is clear that Dumbledore has had a powerful reason to trust Snape since he first renounced Voldemort. Applying the principle of least new mechanism did Snape make an unbreakable vow to Dumbledore? If Snape had refused to take in Book 7 his cover would be blown."

Fix'd. --Geg 19:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone enlighten me...How did Snape get into Slytherin if he was half-blooded?

You do not have to be a pure blood to be a member of Slytherin - look at Tom Riddle. He was a half-blood, and one of Slytherin's prefects (presumabley, seeing that he became head boy) --Stretch 01:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Snape's Unbreakable Vows

• Snape's Unbreakable Vow made for saving young Draco Malfoy and completing his mission to Narcissa Malfoy
• Severus Snape is the world’s most accomplished Occlumens, i.e. he can hide his feelings & memories that contradict the words spoken. The only reason for any person, let alone the tallest wizard of the day, Albus Dumbledore, to trust him could be an Unbreakable Vow.
• Another Unbreakable Vow made to The Dark Lord, the reason he trusts him, at all other Death Eaters shock. This could also be the catalyst to such a binding vow made to a non-worthwhile Lestrange's, if it was only repeating the original vow.

For which side Professor Snape is on, should be gauged from which of the two wizards, Albus Dumbledore or Tom Marvolo Riddle is more intelligent to get a better vow from Severus Snape. -User:Atif.Hussain

The Prophecy

I strongly disagree with how the prophecy is written as a conundrum on the Rumors section. It says "neither can live while the other survives". Not "neither can live if one survives". "While the other survives" indicates that neither will be able to live while their opposite survives. However, the way it's explained there seems to point it more towards neither being able to survive if one lives: meaning if one lives, that one must die soon anyway, which is no where close to what the Prophecy actually says. --Geg 17:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the interpretation is bogus. I think though that further discussion is required. In particular the prophecy strongly suggests that there is a strong form of ethereal bond between Harry and Voldemort. So far the only mechanism we have heard about is the horcrux. The death of Dumbledore appears to close the door to the introduction of significant additional magical paraphenalia. This strongly suggests to me that Harry's scar is an accidental horcrux. Harry cannot live while he carries part of Voldemort's soul in his scar. Voldemort cannot 'live' with his soul split in pieces.

However, an act of murder is required to create another horcrux, and Dumbledore implicitly said that Voldemort had intended to create one by killing Harry, but Harry lived. This would appear to contradict this theory. Travisritch 15:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This interpretation is further reinforced by other statements made by Dumbledore. In particular the statement that the only reason that the prophecy will come true is that Voldemort acted on it and attempted to murder Harry. I do not think it likely that Harry himself is the Horcrux since it would imply that Voldemort has taken over his body.

I think it is possible that while the "Neither" of the prophecy refers to Harry and Voldemort, "the other" refers to a third party. This could mean that if a third person (possibly Dumbledore) remained living, then "neither" Harry nor Voldemort would survive. This could support the idea that Dumbledore's death was no accident.

Do you think Snape thought that and acted along the prophecy that way? Or the unbreakable vow could have fulfilled the prophecy?

Perspective

Please, to all users, do not insert statements such as "I think that," or "J.K. Rowling would never do this" in the main page. Doing so takes this article and turns it from a thinly-veiled excuse for Harry Potter fan-speculation to run rampant in wikipedia and turns it into an outright discussion board. Please save discussion and your own interpretation/thoughts for this talk page, and leave statements - other than very strong conjectures and confirmed facts about the book- off the main entry. jglc | t | c 20:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Just like to add that people should also refrain from editing lines just because it contradicts their own personal opinion/predictions, and in the process display inappropriate behavior (i.e. calling people scumbags in the main article). As jasonglchu said, this is not a fan forum.

More Original Research

I'm cleaning out all the original research from the article. It's simple. Anything in here has to be a confirmed fact or a theory originated elsewhere. Our thoughts aren't notable. Anything non-cited is going away. If you want to add speculation, put it in with a note that it is a theory perpetuated by so-and-so. I.E. if you are just theorizing that Hagrid will die, don't put "There is a possibility that Hagrid will die. It would serve to completely demoralize Harry." However, if you find a well-written argument say, "Some fans, such as NAME HERE, have theorized that Hagrid would die. They argue that ..." Then put a citation in the reference section. This is necessary to keep the article from becoming a rumor mill/discussion board. Superm401 | Talk 03:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm basically supporting the comment above. 03:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with your points, and more. My expectation for this article, as a piece about a book in the future, would definitely be lower than for articles about existing books, but I agree with you. Seeing the level of speculation being added here had me throwing up my hands. The best type of information to place here is, obviously, information given by J.K. Rowling regarding this book. Speculation and rumours should DEFINITELY be kept to a minimum. "Some fans such as NAME HERE", well, NAME HERE isn't necessarily notable, so I don't know if it passes the Wikipedia:No original research policy. I'd probably accept official editorials posted in, say, The Leaky Cauldron (one of Rowling's favourite fan sites) or other similar sites, but I don't think I'd want to include some idle speculation from HarryPotter7298 on the Leaky Cauldron forums. "Some fans, such as HarryPotter7298, have theorised that Dobby is the next Chosen One." --Deathphoenix 04:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

True. I would have hoped that was implied. I said the theory should be well-written. I would add that it should be from a knowledgable and somewhat notable source. Superm401 | Talk 04:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Another example of an appropriate source could be a Harry Potter Lexicon essay. Superm401 | Talk 05:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful! --Deathphoenix 05:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Superm, thanks to you, this article is once again manageable. Great job! --Deathphoenix 05:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well you could have raised the issue on the discussion page first. Most of what you deleted is merely a list of the plot elements that have been conspicuously left open at the end of book six. It is not speculation to observe that at the end of book six there are four remaining horcruxes that must be destroyed before Voldemort is killed. The edits you removed all sumarize what is known about the four remaining horcruxes based on citations to the original text itself. On the other hand what you left is mostly unsupported speculation and wild theories. It seems to me that you are doing the exact opposite of what you claim to be doing and using the NOR as an excuse.

Deductions about plot elements of Book 7

(Plot spoilers)

More information will be given about what happened at the fight between Lord Voldemort and Harry's parents (as fragments are scattered throughout the previous volumes).

Harry returns to his uncle and aunt (as he says he will), goes to the wedding mentioned in the Half-blood Prince and visits his parents' graves. (Not necessarily in this order.) The meaning of Dumbledore's remarks about Dursley made to the latter's parents will be revealed.

It's pretty clear he was referring to the extreme way Dudley's parents spoiled him. Superm401 | Talk 18:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

The remaing Horcruxes will be revealed as will the identity of R.A.B. (who may be dead/have destroyed the the Horcrux obtained).

There will be a final conflict between HP and Lord V.

Harry would likely have at least one conversation with Dumbledore via his newly placed painting. From past conversations with other ex-Headmasters' paintings, it stands to reason that Dumbledore could clear up a lot of confusion should Harry simply ask his painting. Gudlyf | Talk 15:00, September 21, 2005 (EST)

Also:

There will be a lot of speculation about what will happen in the story, a few leaks in the run up to publication - and the actual story will be quite different from all the speculation.

Add to the above list as appropriate.

Harry will also have to learn occlmency and get his apparition licence as well. Harry1991

The section on what happens if Hogwarts is re-opened

I think that this entire section is irrelevant and always has been. Anyone who has got to book 6 knows what the routine at Hogwarts is. The last chapter of Book 6 plus the fact that wizards come of age at 17 are clearly intended to prepare the audience for the probability that Book 7 is not centered on the Hogwarts term. Too much space is spent telling us about items that are almost certainly irrelevant.

I think Hogwarts must re-open because of the pattern of the books, the knowledge Harry needs to defeat Voldemort, the foundation of Harry's life (and the books), and, lastly, the fact that Dumbledore's portrit is there and other things reside there. --Cameron 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very likely that Harry re-visits the site of Hogwarts, possibly more than once. However the last chapter of Book 6 makes it quite clear that Harry will not be a student there, nor will Ron or Hermionne. Even if Hogwarts is open the question of who is head boy or girl or who teaches potions, transfiguration or the black arts is unlikely to be very significant to the plot. Nor is Harry likely to be very bothered by what he scores in his NEWTS.--66.31.35.185 20:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, you believe Harry when he says he is not going to go back to Hogwarts and will do his mission alone? Harry has said (and done) some pretty irrational things in the past, but, in the end, he ended up doing the thing that made more sence. Just one example: when Harry decided to never go to the Dursley's again, did it happen? No. That did not make sence. He is still a kid and espically when something of significance, espically death, comes along he ends up making odd decisions, as we all would in that kind of position. I think the majority of people here remember some time when they said 'I will never love again' or 'I will never enjoy life again', but we did after we got over what was bothering us. Just because Harry said he wasn't going back to Hogwarts (at a very depressing and troubling time, I might add) dosen't mean he won't.--Cameron 23:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he never sais he would never go back to the Dursleys. But that is beside the point in this interview JKR said essentally that Harry was not going back ... I woudl paraphrase but its better to just cut and paste:

An error in the above last entry - he distinctly states he is going back to the Dursleys (as Dumbledore said he would have to before he was 17). It is Hogwarts that is the ambiguous destination

MA: You said that during the writing of book six something caused you fiendish glee. Do you remember what that was?

JKR: Oh, god. [Long silence as Jo thinks.] What was it? It wasn't really vindictive [laughter] – that was more of a  
figure of speech. I know what I've enjoyed writing – you know Luna's commentary during the Quidditch match? 
[Laughter.] It was that. I really enjoyed doing that. Actually I really enjoyed doing that.

You know, that was the last Quidditch match. I knew as I wrote it that it was the last time I was going to be doing  
a Quidditch match. To be honest with you, Quidditch matches have been the bane of my life in the Harry Potter books.  
They are necessary in that people expect Harry to play Quidditch, but there is a limit to how many ways you can have 
them play Quidditch together and for something new to happen. And then I had this moment of blinding inspiration. I 
thought, Luna’s going to commentate, and that was just a gift. It’s the kind of commentary I’d do on a sports match 
because I'm — [laughs]. Anyway yeah, it was that.

So that pretty much kills the idea of Harry going back to hogwars s a student (unless he gives up Quidditch and does not go to games). However, Voldemort is obsessed with Hogwarts and GInny is not of age so she has to go back ..... I thikn Harry will find himself back at Hogwarts in the next book but not for most of the book and not as a student. Dalf | Talk 23:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

When I first read that question about what made JKR laugh, I wasn't convinced by her answer. I mean, I think what she said is almost certainly true, but I was not convinced she actually told them what had made her laugh fiendishly. However, there seems to be quite a lot of loose ends to write a book about and be worrying about it being too long, without writing another quidditch scene. So I can easily imagine a howarts year, but with Harry either not playing, or the times when he does simply being rapidly passed over.

Above someone has put what I think is the answer to your question, that Harry goes back to speak to Dumbledore's painting and possibly find a horcrux. Also as another idea would lily and james be at hogwarts when voldemort came to see dumbledore? Graham1991 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Endless speculation

I can see that there are going to be reams of archives before even the name of the next book is announced.

Possible Titles Error

Harry Potter and the Quest for the Centaur is on the list twice. Should it be changed or is there a reason for both of them.

oops...never mind. I see it has an S on one of them.

Readability

I do not believe the current version of the page is unreadable. Please explain why you do and we can come to a mutually agreed-upon layout. Do not revert without discussion. Superm401 | Talk 16:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

1. It has no paragraphs.

Fixed.

You've unfortunately seem to have added the paragraph randomly, without any thematic division. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

2. It includes information that are irrelevant or very well-known or have nothing to do with the issue at hand -- examples: "a deceased headmaster of Hogwarts" as description of Albus Dumbledore and "who have harassed him his entire life" accompanying the Dursleys. This helps crowd the text even more.

Context. Not everyone reading this has read the rest of the series. Some will have forgotten key things. You don't assume someone reading already understands the topic.

That's what links are for. Calling Dumbledore "a deceased headmaster of Hogwarts", as if that even approaches describing his role in the books or his relationship with Harry, or as if implying that *that's* the reason Harry will follow his wishes (because he's *a* deceased headmaster)... that's downright amusing. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

3. It more than once repeats the refrain: "If Harry's plans are unchanged" or statement to that effect. Isn't once good enough?

Yes. Fixed.

Unfortunately now it's not even clear whether this clause applies to the whole paragraph following or only the first sentence. Aris Katsaris 20:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

4. It mixes in a haphazard and chaotic manner the immediate plans of Harry with guesswork about what will happen to Hogwarts school and its students, depending on the Governors' decisions.

Yes. Just like the book will.

So you throw away the whole idea of division-by-topic? That's where the whole issue of clarity comes in. The significance of the shift in setting is different both in kind and in magnitude than any single specific event that will take place. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

5. It doesn't follow any sort of reasonable sequence, either of importance or of timeline -- We're told about seemingly insignificant elements like the Apparition test or the Bill-Fleur wedding before we're told about the Horcruxes and the final confrontation with Voldemort -- and only after we're told about this conlusion we're then told about the visit to Godric's hollow. So, what's the exact sequence you were trying to follow here?

Fixed. It is now pure chronological order.

6. You are mixing motivation, supposition and possible consequences in an unorganized manner (e.g. about killing Snape, or whether he'll be isolated from the rest of his friends) Even if he doesn't go back to Hogwarts that doesn't mean he won't be in contact with the people there. And Harry never actually stated that he'll kill Snape. Aris Katsaris 17:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's now almost solely plot with some context.

So, are 6 reasons good enough? In short your synopsis jumps incoherently in theme, location, time, and the people it refers to, having neither sense nor sequence. I can't find a single way in which it was better than what came before.

Now that I've told you six reasons that I hate your version, could you now tell me the ways that you found the *previous* version to be deficient, so that you had to change it? Aris Katsaris 17:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It was a bunch of lists and didn't follow the style manual.

1. "A bunch of lists" is not a reason.

2. As for it supposedly not following the style manual: a) you'll have to be more specific than that (which part of the style manual *exactly* was it not following) and b) you should have noticed the very first sentence in the style manual which says "The following rules do not claim to be the last word." You on the other hand are using it as your one and only argument.

Lists are perfectly fine for when someone has discrete pieces of information which cannot be sanely merged in a single paragraph. What we know of Harry's plans are in essense composed of a checklist of discrete items. And thus, it's as a list of discrete that's we should largely describe them. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

This argument is the most telling - we know only a handful of disjoint facts, and if the pattern from all the previous books continues, we only will know disjoint facts until it is actually released. —Cryptic (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Superm401 | Talk 18:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, here's a seventh, eighth and ninth reason:

7. You include linguistic details (like the last word being "scar") in a section that's supposed to be about plot details. The last word being scar isn't a *plot* element.

Removed.

Removed to where? My preferred version *did* include this bit of information, it just didn't claim it was a plot element. Now you're just *removing* pieces of information for no reason whatsoever. I'll be reverting this whole thing again. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

8. You combine without distinction elements that come from authorial statements with elements that reader have inferred from the 6th book.

Why shouldn't I? I cite sources, and information is information

Once again you don't seem to understand the whole issue of dividing things-by-topic, for greater clarity. Hasn't it crossed your mind that some people who've read the books but may not have followed JKR's interviews may be interested in having a separate list of things that JKR revealed about the book? They know already what *Harry* plans, they just don't know what JKR plans. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

9. Your section "Key Elements" is meaninglessly titled. Aren't all the previous bits we mentioned (horcruxes, Godric's Hollow etc) key elements also? It seems you're using this section to insert everything you couldn't find a place elsewhere, and you didn't even know how to call it.

It's now miscellaneous, but you're right. Do you have a better idea that follows Wikipedia style guidelines? Superm401 | Talk 18:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, return it to the way it was. The most clear division-by-topic I can imagine is the following:

1. Indications in the Sixth Book about what's to come.

1. Situation with Hogwarts, and change of setting. This comes first because it's the most important thing, which indicates the huge change in change and events.
2. Harry's plans, chronologically. Because once again it's the cleaner division

1. Indications by the author of what's to come. Which comes after the previous, because the pieces of info here are disconnected and vague

Namely how it was before. I can think of no cleaner and clearer division. Your "Things I can stick together/Miscellaneous things I can't stick together" isn't a clean division. Aris Katsaris 20:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

So, nine reasons this far. Aris Katsaris 17:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Aris Katsaris on all counts. —Cryptic (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I'll respect that, and cease changing this article. However, I don't feel it's appropriate for Wikipedia in its current form. Hence, I am changing my vote for this article to delete. Superm401 | Talk 21:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Vote changed back to keep. Superm401 | Talk 14:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

licence/license

I'm not gonna revert again, because then I'll be breaking several guidelines, but since it's a british book, it really should be the british spelling: licence is the noun, license is the verb; so they will get a licence to apparate. Apologies for being a grammar nazi :) 9cds 21:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm the one who should apologise. (note to self: Microsoft Word's spell checker is an idiot) I checked onelook.com and the Oxford English Dictionary (after I had already reverted) and you are entirely correct, so I'll go self-revert now. My apologies! Hermione1980 22:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Spellcheckers can be a right pain :) American English has them both as license, which is a nice way to confuse everybody :p 9cds 22:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Grr, ain't that the truth. Why can't we all spell everything the same way? <--note: this is a rhetorical question Hermione1980 22:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

An Author's Statement

The article states that the author has stated:

1. The choice between what's right and what's easy will be a pillar of the plot in Harry's last 2 years at Hogwarts. [3]

My first reaction is that it should say "last year" instead of "last 2 years" since this is about book seven. However, Harry apparently won't be at Hogwarts at all in book seven. I don't want to change it in case it's a quote. --1pezguy 02:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It seems these are being deleted entirely. Is there any good reason to? - 9cds 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

(My) short answer: No. (My) long answer: This is the only statement I have a problem with. This is the first time I've read this particular page, so I don't know what the trend has been. From this discussion page it looks like the consensus is to keep the statements as a general principle. I deleted two statements because they were verbatim copies of two other statements minus citations. It looks like someone made some minor error while adding citations. --1pezguy 02:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

JKR has talked about people learning magic late in life. In early interviews she said that a character who is non-magical would preform magic late in life under stress and that this is a very rare occurrence. That must have been 68.32.206.174 was referring to. I could find quotes on QQQ or Scoops if someone really wants them. Cmouse 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers

How can there be spoilers about something not published yet? Simple - she's said things about what happens in the book, not to mention that this page spoils the previous books no end. David Arthur 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• While I understand what you're saying, that's stretching the definition of "spoiler" it a bit. As the book doesn't exist yet, there's nothing to ensure that that's actually what's going to end up in it. I'm not going to have a heart attack if it goes back in, though. And I'm always happy when someone uses the talk page instead of reverting! ^_^
  brenneman^(t)(c) 23:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There are definitely spoilers for other books - not book 7. I'm putting up the 'other books' warning again. Seems the most appropriate thing to do. Jam2k 11:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Outstanding questions" section

Okay, I can't really think of a nice way to say this, so I'll just say it. The "outstanding questions" section of this article is getting a little... well, riddikulus. Are some of these questions really all that outstanding or notable? I'm really stuck when I see some of these questions—they make me want to throw up my hands in exasperation. Can we enter into a discussion about what to remove (or how to determine what is not notable enough to keep in), or should I just give up and stop looking at edits to this article, just so I don't go insane? --Deathphoenix 12:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll be glad to tell you about a question that can be discussed :-). Will we see a ghost Dumbledore?. In Book 5, Nearly Headless Nick made it clear to Harry that a dead person becomes a ghost only when he does not want to face death (or... well... something like that... I don't remember). But Dumbledore was not like that, we all know it. So I don't think he will become a ghost. Of course this is strictly my view only... be glad to share your opinion on this.Jam2k 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Statement

Hi. I read somewhere that JKR has said there will be no new characters in Book 7. But it's not under the list in the article. Please confirm this.Jam2k 11:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Numbered list for Outstanding Questions

Wouldn't it be a better idea to number the outstanding questions list so that it would be easier to refer to them and discuss in the future?? Just a passing thought :-) Jam2k 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then again it may be construed as giving a particular question precedence over another——which may spark another round of "spirited discussion" regarding which question is more important and in what order they would be. There are people who are that meticulous, I'm afraid say. --Chinfo 09:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

His mother's eyes

From the "Statements by the author about book seven" section: It is very important that Harry has his mother's eyes, and that her wand was good for charms. Well, this seems stupid. Does anyone have an evidence that JK Rowling actually said that?

I recall seeing that quote attributed to JK Rowling under the 'Book 6 & 7' section on Muggle.net. Unfortunately, they've updated their site and and seem to have removed all quotes and known facts about Book 6 in favour of a section dedicated to book 7 --Stretch 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

From "J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999"

"Hi, I really like the books and we already learned a lot about Harry’s father and I was wondering ‘Are we going to learn a lot about his mother?’ JKR: Yeah, you will. It’s ---- yet again ---- you won’t find out ---- OK, in Book 3 you’re absolutely right. You find out a lot about Harry’s father. Now the important thing about Harry’s mother, the really, really significant thing, you’re going to find out in 2 parts.You’ll find out a lot more about her in Book 5, or you’ll find out something very significant about her in Book 5, then you’ll find out something incredibly important about her in Book 7. But I can’t tell you what those things are so I’m sorry, but yes, you will find out more about her because both of them are very important in what Harry ends up having to do."

This came from a radio interview Rowling did after the release of PoA. On madamscoop.org it was summarised to "The fact that Harry has his mother’s eyes is very important to a future book." --Stretch 04:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Outstanding questions"

I have been bold and taken the liberty of removing this section. Wikipedia is not a fan forum. Hermione1980 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Cmouse 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

... and my sanity has been restored. --Deathphoenix 06:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Good thing you did that... or we would have had a lot of discussions and arguments reagarding the questions and their validity etc etc... U r right... Wikipedia is not a fan forum :-)Jam2k 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Then what is it then?

It is an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is. Hermione1980 18:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I know it's an encyclopedia, but can't we put our own opinions and see what other people think?--Daniel O 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

About what's going to happen in the future books? No. Sorry. That's called speculation, and that is not tolerated in Wikipedia. There are several forums available through fansites; The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet both have forums that I hear are excellent. I reiterate what I and others have said on this page: Wikipedia is not a fan forum, and any comments not directly related to the article and how it is written or should be written will be removed without discussion. Hermione1980 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A hypothetical question

Speculation removed. Hermione1980 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorporating an interview into the article

Does anyone want to insert the information about Book Seven included in this interview or its original form in the recent (printed) issue of Tatler? (To my knowledge, the former is excerpts from the latter but I'm not sure.) See also this page. Adam78 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Section: Direct evidence in Half-Blood Prince

I added a clean up sign to this section, its very hard to follow and the information is repeated several times. Raemie 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore dead?

Speculation removed. --Deathphoenix 14:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate Hermione1980's comment: Wikipedia is not a fan forum. If you want to speculate and question, please bring it to a fan site. Me, Hermione1980, and a few other people are getting pushed to the edge of simply reverting any edits that ignore our pleas. --Deathphoenix 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Best spoilers ever for book 7

Long bit of speculation removed.

How many times do I have to say this? Wikipedia is not a fan forum. If you want to talk about your theories, crazy or otherwise, take it to a fansite. We don't want it here. I apologise for sounding so frustrated, but it's very annoying when I keep saying these things over and over and nobody listens. Hermione1980 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hermione1980

Hermione1980, I asked the Wikipedia Bootcamp where I can put my own opinions and they said I can put it on the discussion pages, and not being rude or anything but I'll like to be able to do that because Hermione1980 keeps on deleting everything I put down. Again not being rude but I would rather no one delete this so that Hermione1980 can reply.--Daniel O 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Being one of the people agreeing with and doing what Hermione1980 is doing, I'd like to make a response as well. The discussion page is a place for putting down what you think should be inserted in the articles. Our main problem with putting idle speculation on these pages is that we have had tonnes and tonnes of discussion in times past that idle speculation is unencyclopedic and inappropriate for Wikipedia. We've even inserted <!-- comments --> explicitly stating that speculation has no place here.

If you add a comment in the discussion page saying "Dumbledore's coming back, and Sirius Black too, because they both died under the full moon and we know that the full moon has magical powers.", that's speculation and is treating the discussion pages like a fan forum. A slightly better way of phrasing this is "I think this article should include information that Dumbledore and Sirius are coming back because they both died under the full moon and we know that the full moon has magical powers." Unfortunately, we already have lots of text sprinkled in various places that fan speculation has no place on Wikipedia. Therefore, people have already been warned, and they should therefore not be surprised when their comments are removed.

The best thing to do is to make a suggestion that is cited from a reputable source (our general consensus is that the citation has to be a real news source or one of the official Harry Potter web sites (see Harry Potter#External links for a list of these official sites). So the best way to suggest an addition to the article is to say "I think this article should include information that Dumbledore and Sirius are coming back because they both died under the full moon and we know that the full moon has magical powers, according to Emma Watson, whose theory is cited here: http://www.example.org/some_news_article.html " If your piece of speculation doesn't have this information, I think it can be safely deleted.

I apologise if this seems harsh, but we've already place warnings about fan speculation in many, many places, and we still see nothing but idle speculation and discussion on these pages. These talk pages are for discussing the article itself, and are not for general chit chat and "Hey guys, what do you think of this theory?" That sort of thing is for a fan forum, where they love to talk about this sort of thing. I really don't see what's wrong with contributing to a fan forum, because I can pretty much guarantee to you that if your suggestion is speculation that isn't cited anywhere, it will not be put into the article, and therefore you will have wasted your own time (not to mention the time of anyone reading your suggestion). Just my two cents. --Deathphoenix 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, the Bootcamp probably misunderstood your question. I haven't a clue how it was worded, but if you simply asked "Where can I put my own opinion about something?" they would have thought you meant "my own opinion about the article". Again, bluntly, that's all we care about, is the article and how to improve it. We don't give two hoots and a holler about what you or anybody else thinks is going to happen in book seven. I'm not removing what you put because it's you putting it, I'm removing it because it's not wanted. I've been backed up by other editors here, and frankly, I'm getting tired of all the miles and miles of speculation here. If you want a more appropriate place to post speculation on talk pages, I'll point you to a Harry Potter-specific Wikipedia-like place where that's allowed: the Harry Potter Wiki. I've also pointed to the Leaky Lounge and MuggleNet's forums (which I don't have a direct link to, sorry). There are loads of places that are more conducive to theory-posting than here. If you seriously want people to notice what you've written, take it there. We really don't want it.

And in the future, if you're going to complain about me, at least have the courtesy to notify me on my talk page so that I can address your concerns. Cheers, Hermione1980 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh and I'll make sure I don't put any rubbish on Wikipedia.--Daniel O 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The stuff above is not precisely accurate. Wiki has a self-denying ordinance that it only includes stuff which is considered worthwhile in the outside world. This usually means showing that some accepted organisation has already thought it worth publishing somewhere else. So, for example, if there is a respected literary magazine presenting a discussion about what must be in the next book, then it would be acceptable for wiki to report what that article had said. But as you can imagine, there are quite a few views on what might be in the next book. There are a number of websites which are considered respected sources of information on Harry potter, but as far as I know they also have only stuck their necks out a relatively short way. The best you can say for most of the hot topics which will undoubtedly come up, is that we don't know for certain which way JKR will jump. Popular theories are usually mentioned in articles where they are relevant, by way of reporting that they are hot topics of debate. Sandpiper 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you complaining about Hermione1980 or not?

No offence Hemione1980, but I don't like what you do deleting everything I put on countless occaisions. I want to put up a vote if Hermione1980 should stop doing what she is doing.

I'm going to reiterate three things I've already said.

1. How many times do I have to say this? Wikipedia is not a fan forum. If you want to talk about your theories, crazy or otherwise, take it to a fansite. We don't want it here. I apologise for sounding so frustrated, but it's very annoying when I keep saying these things over and over and nobody listens.
2. I'm not removing what you put because it's you putting it, I'm removing it because it's not wanted. I've been backed up by other editors here, and frankly, I'm getting tired of all the miles and miles of speculation here.
3. And in the future, if you're going to complain about me, at least have the courtesy to notify me on my talk page so that I can address your concerns.

I have pointed you to the appropriate policy pages, I have pointed you to more appropriate venues for your speculation, I have been backed up by other editors. And if you're going to complain about me, by all means, complain about me. But don't do it on this page. If you think I am acting in a way that does not behoove me as a community member, file a request for comment on me. But I refuse to discuss my or your behavior on this page any more; it is just as irrelevant to the article (which is what we're supposed to be discussing on this page) as the speculation you post. Hermione1980 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if Daniel wishes to file an RfC on you, be sure he marks me down in the RfC as well, because if he has a dispute with your actions, then he also has a dispute with my actions. --Deathphoenix 05:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to jump in here a bit, but Hermione1980 and Deathphoenix are absolutely correct to remove speculation from both the articles and the Talk pages. The intent of the encyclopedia is a whole is to provide a balanced, accurate, cited reference work. Unfortunately, there's not really enough effort on editors parts to ensure that assertions of articles are properly cited and fact-checked. Unfortunately, if we were to remove all of our non-cited articles, we would have very little text left, especially in the Harry Potter sections. That being said, I still fully support the removal of uncited text, especially material of a speculative nature. We are interested in what is true and noteworthy about the Harry Potter series, and about the upcoming Seventh Book in particular with this article, not in speculation as to what they plot may or may not contain. Again, Facts! Facts! Facts! Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to interrupt the raging battle of the immortals(metaphor=administrators) with the two cents of a mortal(metaphor=honest wikipedian) but it would seem that we can't have a vote like said before, since Hermione1980 was promoted to her current position by Zeus(already annoying metaphor=Jimmy Wales) and any complaints about Wikipedia's admin staff should go to him insead of impugning them on wikipedia's talk pages! --Iamdalto 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the last thing I put on this particular heading was "Thanks for everything, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh and I'll make sure I don't put any rubbish on Wikipedia". People are saying I put down something to do with a vote, but I put nothing of the sort. Just because I started complaining about Hermoine1980, doesn't mean I've carried on complaing about her! Thankyou.--Daniel O 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with what you wrote as quoted, but what we are commenting on is this post that you made after your quoted post:

No offence Hemione1980, but I don't like what you do deleting everything I put on countless occaisions. I want to put up a vote if Hermione1980 should stop doing what she is doing.

We already commented on it previously, and you accepted that, but the above post seemed to indicate that you wish to continue with your dispute. I'm sure that's not how you intended it, but realise that singling out one person as a heading name in the talk page of an article probably wasn't the best way of pointing out your dispute. Rather, you should have brought it up semi-privately on her own user talk page. I would consider the matter closed now, and I strongly suggest that you do the same. If you still have a dispute, I suggest you make a comment to me here and I'll see if I can help or explain things somehow. --Deathphoenix 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Currency?

I recently removed the US dollar value for a price in the article, and it was reverted ([1]), citing WP:MOS. I can't see anything there that indicates that the US currency should be listed - it only says that it should be listed for "less familiar" currencies, and I think that the pound hardly constitutes a "less familiar" currency. Does anyone have any input on this? Thanks, Aseld ^talk 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning for reverting it is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mos#Which_system_to_use . It's under units of measurement, so it's a bit of a stretch to apply it to money, but I think it's appropriate. As an American, I have no idea what a pound is worth, I've never had the need to use them. So, adding these few characters greatly improves the quality of the article and the usefulness thereof. I think there would be a problem if is only said the US value, or if it listed it first, but as a small addition it's quite helpful. Darkage7 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But why US? Why not, say, the currency of China or India, two of the most populated countries in the world? Say I'm Indian, and have no idea what a dollar or a pound is worth - should my currency be listed? Just because it's convenient for one person (you) doesn't mean it's necessary or desirable. If one were to carry that reasoning a little bit further, why not list conversions to all currencies? The reader of the article can easily convert to any currency with a quick Web search, which would give the current exchange rate, not the exchange rate in some year that no one can even find out without going back through the page history. Aseld ^talk 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument to include the American dollar figure is two-fold: first, as the largest English speaking country in the world, more Americans will view this page than any other nationality and second (and perhaps more importantly), more copies of Harry Potter books have been sold in the United States than in any other country. faithless (^speak) 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're reasoning is somewhat flawed. We should have the US currency because it is the most common currency in the world when it comes to comparisons (which is I presume why the MOS recommends it). However there is no evidence that more Americans will read this page then any other. Many people choose to read English language articles even if English is not their first language and there are a lot of non-first language speakers in the world, way more then the number of Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm just going by WP: MOS. (And, in case you were wondering, the English Wikipedia is primary used by English speaking people, so the currencies of the largest English speaking nations are listed.) Darkage7 (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Darkage7 is correct. You can read Wikipedia:MOS#Currencies. It says:

• In country-specific articles, such as Economy of Australia, use the currency of the country.
• In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars (US$123).

Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies, and thanks for clarifying. Aseld ^talk 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The best book i read was "HARRY POTTER" no book interest like that. the words were greater "I AM WILLING TO READ A SERIES OF BOOKS LIKE THIS AGAIN" JK ROLLING (SUMUDU) how many page in this book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.16.217 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)