Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Unnoted Spoilers

It was apparent that there was another "order of the phoenix", but was scrapped later and entirely rewritten. However, there are clues from the scrapped manuscript that may be reused, including that the Dudley that bullied harry is the person that could have been very powerful because a person's power potentially increases as he/she does not perform his/her first spell until later years. Second, it was rumored, at least in the scripped copy, that Lily was indeed Voldermort's offspring, sort of illegitimately produced with a normal human. That was all I think.

Any proof? The original of the scrapped edition or something would be nice. Otherwise I think it would just be fan speculation. - Redmess 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited fan speculation

PeaceNT recently removed my addition of the 7/7/07 theory. This would generally be acceptable, something I myself would endorse -- I am strongly for the removal of fan theory stuff. However, I chose to cite this theory with a reference from the New York Times, which goes on to suggest that this date is very appropriate for the release. I don't personally subscribe to this theory even, and had it been something like "BOOK 7 IS BEING RELEASED 7/7/07" I would have reverted it immediately. But suddenly the case is very different when the NYT talks about it. I'm just reporting the facts here, and I feel this is important and well verified enough to merit its mention. (Please note I'm on vacation with limited access to internet and may not be able to respond quickly.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in having a fan theory cited. Being mentioned by NYT doesn't mean the theory has to be true or notable. If you notice, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/weekinreview/31bosman.html has clarified the matter by using the word speculation. NYT simply stated a popular speculation, not suggest that this date is very appropriate for the release. And even if they do, it's still a fan theory that remains unofficial. Feel free to mention it when the info is officially confirmed. Until then, please don't add more theory about the release date. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand, I'm not doing this because I like the theory in any way -- for one thing, she can't finish the book by then. But if the theory is notable enough for the New York Times to publish, still classified as speculation, but important enough for them to mention nonetheless, then it's important that we do the same -- mention that this was widely speculated upon for some time. Otherwise, I think the Bloomsbury editor who "hopes" for it to be released next year should also be removed. Didn't get too much out of the words "hopes" and "likely." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NYT only mention the theory for its popularity, this is not as remarkable as you think. Fan theory is not supported here, no matter how widespread it is. The question of release date was done a few days ago you could see that topic "7/7/7 release" in this talk page for more details. Thank you. Hope you enjoy your vacation PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a one sentence mention would be fine, especially with the ref. If there are facts to back up the theory, it seems appropriate. Popularity seems to be a factor for inclusion of theory in many articles. Take a look at all of the theory at Regulus Black. There is the beginnings of a debate at the talk page, please comment.John Reaves 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the theory being included because it's thought to be true, it's the fact that the theory is relevant to the topic to which we are reporting on. There is a slight difference between saying "A popular fan theory was 7/7/07.[ref]" and "Fans think that 7/7/07 will be the release date.[noref]" WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:OR would both prohibit the second one, as it's an unpublished theory. Suddenly the NYT publishes the theory -- not saying that they side either way with the theory, but they publish it -- and it doesn't fall into that not allowed by those policies. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else have anything to say on this one? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's out there and there is reason to think that plenty of people are discussing it, the fact that the theory exists (together with a explanation of what the theory is) should be included in an article. If a reputable (I think, anyway: is it the New York Times or New York Post which has the bad reputation) newspaper reports on the theory, I'd say you were venturing towards POV by NOT reporting it in the article. Michaelsanders 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration, I would agree that we can mention that there have been rumours circulating for some time in support of a possible release date of 07/07/07 for "Book 7", with Verifiability provided by quoting the New York Times article as a Reliable Source, to avoid Original Research claims. However this should be provided ONLY in the main article under Writing progress section and made very clear that this is a "popular candidate" for a release date, and not by any means a hard target. It can be mentioned along with the traceable and documented quotes attributed to the publisher-gal's "hopes" that the book would be published in 2007, and Rowlings atatements that she planned to get the writing underway in 2006. The 07/07/07 date should NOT however be included in the "infobox", because the infobox by its very nature is a summary of the facts - and there is no room to spell out all the NYT quotes and conditionals that make it clear that this is popular speculation and not by any means a hard fact. In general, I rather prefer the approach of carefully controlling and closely fencing off in proper "rumour corrals" the hard to ignore and "necessary and hardly avoidable" stallions of speculation of this nature, held tightly in the barnyard fence to keep them tamed, horse-broken down with carefully worded explanations of pedigree, rather than letting the wild speculators keep insisting on throwing opinions in just anywhere in the article like so many feral horses and mustangs running around loose and breeding uncontrollably in the bush. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been trying to say: not that the theory has anything to it, necessarily, but the fact that there is a popular theory, now cited by the New York Times. (Michael, hehe, the New York Times is one of the most reputable papers in the world, if not the most; the Post is… well… ;-) ). Nice linking, by the way, T-dot. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, I read the Guardian. Michaelsanders 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section go now that the release date has actually been set? --Lulurascal 15:39, 3 Feb. 2007

Promotional Cover Art

Please Note: I have included promotional cover art for the UK version of the book, as seen on Amazon.co.uk - Hpfan9374 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Costco.com has a different promotional image. Search for the book title or type "11175034" into the search dialog. Here is a link to the picture - Davandron | Talk 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read a bit further up the page? I am about to remove it and tag the image for deletion like was doone with the other! It serves no purpose! Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Davandron, thankyou for pointing out that, though for all previous books it shows UK cover art, as this promotional artwork is designed to mimic the UK cover, while Costco.com's is designed to mimic the American covers. Hpfan9374 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Flutefluteflute, I see your reasoning for deletion, though isn't a promotional cover, better than no cover? Hpfan9374 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the person further up the page who says it serves no real purpose. Do you agree with that fact. I agree it would be nice to have an image but I don't think there is any point when the final book will not have that cover. Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hpfan, thanks; I hadn't looked at the WP's entries for the other books so when I saw the current "promotional cover" topic I thought I'd leave a note for you dedicated editors that there was another promotional image in case it was usable. - Davandron | Talk 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fawkes

I've seen this a couple times now, on this page and others, so I thought I'd start a section on it here on the talk page. My understanding is that there is no confirmation on Fawkes being dead, that at the end of HBP the only hint at him being dead is the ambiguous thought of Harry's that the phoenix had "left Hogwarts" or something similar. Am I missing something? Is there any canonical reason to believe that Fawkes is actually dead? Scharferimage 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What you saw is a piece of inaccurate information added by an IP, which has already been reverted [1]. And no, for your question, his death hasn't been verified in the canon. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I figured. Thanks. Scharferimage 06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you keep referring to Fawkes as a "he." I think nothing was ever said of "it's" gender. Moonwalkerwiz 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Fawkes is referred to as "he" in the books. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Again with the premature Release Date?

Everyone please: Amazon.com, BarnsAndNoble.com, Borders.com, and Your Local Bookstore are NOT reliable sources for announcing a release date. If you do a Google or Yahoo news search for NEWS ARTICLES on the release date, all the legitimate sources say the date is unannounced - even articles posted online in the last few hours. Just because Amazon.com posted a target ordering date of March 31, 2007 means nothing. Bookstores like this put a target date to try to get pre-orders, so they can gage demand and plan their own ordering volumes, and they are under no obligation to deliver anything. When a truly legitimate release date is officially announced, it will be widely reported and Verifiable by Reliable Sources such as Rowling's web site, her Publisher(s), and the news media such as the BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum. The Wikipedia is not a "breaking news source" reporting the latest gossip - the Wikipedia is intended to be at least a semi-reliable source, where claims are easily and unambiguously verifiable. Even if March 31 is "true" and somebody knows it to be a fact, that is still not sufficient until it is clearly verifiable. Please, please resist the primal urges to jump up and post the latest gossip and material you hear about or find online somewhere from unreliable sources, as was recently done in this article here. Without an independant Reliable Source as described above, it shall be disallowed. Rules are Rules. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even notice that everything had been reverted? There's no reason for a rant like this. I decided to wait for another source. Calm down. John Reaves 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - but clearly we need everyone else to learn the lesson from your example. This was not directed at you - it was directed to everyone. I have seen the revert wars, on this and other issues, and therefore see an obvious need to re-establish the Rules of Engagement, for all prospective editors to see. Perhaps You may have missed the previous discussions where an anonymous bookstore worker also claimed to have an exclusive scoop on the story? Anyway thanks for your efforts and reversions - it brought to light (again) the issue at hand. No offense intended - you were simply the latest "victim" of an ongoing hoax. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what you wrote was pretty informative. I wasn't aware of Amazon and other's tactics. John Reaves 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the ASsociated Press

BC-APNewsAlert,0038 LONDON AP - J.K. Rowling says Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final installment in the series, will be published July 21.Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. AP-NY-02-01-07 0718EST

Too much change, too fast?

I have been looking at this edit to see whether it was good faith or not, as there was not comment and a large chunk of text removed. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails. I am tempted to revert it and ask that if anyone wants to reapply this edit it be done in smaller pieces , but most of all that it be discussed first here. Seems that many interesting tidbits were removed, even the ones that had citations to this interview or that one. Anyway, it is not my article, just one I ran into yesterday while on RC Patrol, so do what you will. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Born on July 30th?

In the Wiki article, it says that Harry was born one day after Neville, who was born on July 30th. However, I thought they shared the same birthday. I'd edit it myself, but I've kinda been scared into not editing things anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.234.172 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure whether or not it's considered canon, but Rowling's website has a desk calendar, and on that it identified Neville's birthday as 30th july and Harry's as 31st July. --Dave. 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rowling clearly stated that Neville was born on July 30 and Harry on the next day. See http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84. Thanks for not making the incorrect edit based on what you "thought". We try to keep things on the Wikipedia verifiable from reliable sources and avoid original research and speculation, unlike some of the Harry Potter Fan Sites which you may have been reading. If you have something to contribute to the Wikipedia, then please by all means do so: we welcome encyclopedic quality edits by newcomers. Be Bold! - just make sure you have a reference to a reliable source, or it might get reverted. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B.?

Can we/should we include in the plot details list of rumors that when the 6th book was translated to multiple languages, Regulas Black was the only name who's initials translated correctly as well? Whether or not this actually means it is 100% Black for sure is still debatable, but this information seems like it would fit in well. Brett 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave this to the R.A.B. page, and only include an idea here. Tuvas 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time treavel? Or incorrect date?

Can somone clear up when the referance to 2010 was made as teh article states March 2007.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.208.77 (talk • contribs)

Can you clear up what you're referring to? There's no mention of either 2010 nor March 2007 in this article… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Why does this title need a pronunciation guide? And why were the accessed dates removed from some of the sourcing tags? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized how pointless it is, I'll delete it. I don't know about the dates. John Reaves (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie?

[2] I can't find any other reference to this movie, including on All Movie Guide. Brian Jason Drake 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because this is far too crystal ballish to know anything. IMDb is user-submitted, like Wikipedia, but without references, unlike Wikipedia. Thus we cannot say anything about a movie until more details are heard -- which probably won't happen until HBP is in at earliest pre-production. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Meaning of Hallows

This was added by an anon user, and removed by an editor because it is OR. However, it is such excellent speculation I have decided to move it here, to the talk page. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever since the release of the title for book 7, many people have been speculating about the meaning of the title. Hallow is a word usually used as a verb. It means to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate. However, in the title, it appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "All Hallows' Day" or "all Saints' Day," which is Halloween. Hallows can refer to saints, the relics of saints, or the relics of heathen gods, or even holy relics. One place we can find hallows is in the grail legend. In the Grail legend, the Fisher King is the guardian of the four hallows, which include the Grail itself, the serving dish/or stone, the sword/or dagger, and the spear. Many scholars have since identified the connection of these four hallows with four treasures of the Tuatha de Danaan, which include a chalice (Grail), a baton or wand (spear), a pentacle (serving dish), and a sword. There has been much speculation about whether the grail legend might play a part in the final Harry Potter book. Many Harry Potter fans have seen a connection between the four founders of Hogwarts, their relics, and the four hallows in the grail legend. We know from the books that Gryffindor's relic is a sword, Hufflepuff's relic is a cup (chalice), and Slytherin's relic is a locket (pentacle). Thus, it has been suggested that Ravenclaw's relic must be a wand or staff. We also know that Harry Potter must find four horcruxes, and that Voldemort wanted a relic from each of the four founders. These are interesting connections, but only the final book will prove or disprove this connection.

Interesting speculation, while I'd agree it's too OR to go in the article. Do we even need a paragraph defining the word? Even the part that remains seems to go into OR with the grail stuff. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I told the user to cite his sources, after that it can be reworded and surely incorporated somewhere. John Reaves (talk)

There are sources now, but none of them back up a connection from the grail to Harry Potter. The sources either define hallows or just talk about the grail without reference to HP. As it stands, making a connection between the two is OR. We need specific references that make this comparison or the section needs to go. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The source to Lexicon's essay back up the connection between the grail and Harry Potter (The Grail Hallows and Harry Potter is the title, and the other source is four founders and the magician cards). --Lulurascal 16:39, 30 January 2007

This section, "The meaning of hallows," has got to go. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; Wiktionary is. Hallows should be linked as [[wikt:hallows]] in the lead. I would have removed the whole section but the link to the Lexicon's essay is legit, and I'm not immediately sure where to put that. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And the wictionary link is already at the end of the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, it should probably be more prominent, but that takes care of that. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it should not go. Wikipedia might not be a dictionary, but it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles always define the word that they are discussing. The word is pertinent to the subject matter (as it is in the title) and should be discussed, especially since many people do not know the meaning of the word in question. It should also be noted that dictionaries don't usually have a defnition for "hallows" as a noun; this is an old english usage. You have to go beyond dictionaries to find the meaning of hallows when it is used as a noun. For this reason, the word should be discussed, since Rowlings seems to have carefully picked this word. --Lulurascal 16:49, 30 January 2007

Maybe it should remain as the meaning pertaining to the title of the book but be a little less dictionaryish (is that a word)as well as less verbose. I am surprised however that no one has mentioned that it might have some relation to Godric's Hollow. I'm sure the Hollows in the title of the book is supposed to have more than one meaning. Jay--Feb 2, 2007

The connection between the title and Godric's Hollow has been made over and over again. As has the point that the title is HALLOWS, not HOLLOW. A hallow and a hollow have no connection. Michaelsanders 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just an idea, but thanks for being a dick about it. I'm sure your interpretation is the only correct one. But, FYI, in literature things that often have seemingly no connection are put together to get different or multiple meanings. Such as Deathly Hallows which basically means Fatal Saints. That is counterintuitive since saints are traditionally not known as being fatal but rather thought of as being good people. The same can be said for a title like "Heart of Darkness" because it can have different interpretations and meanings and was intended as so. BTW, one of my undergrad degrees is in English Lit and I do also have a Master's degree so I might know more than you think. Jay--Feb 2, 2007

Oh, I see. So obviously, the title 'Heart of Darkness' actually means 'Hart of Darkness', involving the effects of deer poaching in the Congo? Michaelsanders 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's all keep our cool here. It's not about which interpretation is "correct", nor who has degrees in what, but on what information is veriable from sources. "Hallows sounds like hollow" isn't really a connection that editors here should be speculating about. If a reliable source has written about a possible connection, feel free to add it with a citation. But we can't do original research here. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, maybe "Heart of Darkness" wasn't the best example. How 'bout "Waiting for Godot?" Yes they're waiting on a guy named Godot but it's obviously God that they are waiting on. Sometimes words and meanings are changed or mispelled on purpose in order to make a point. For instance the title and the whole meaning of "Catcher in the Rye" is based on Holden's misunderstanding of the true words to the poem. Get the point? Or are you going to continue to be an obtuse jerk about it? Jay--Feb 2, 2007

I just had to insert this, because I recently did some light editing on Waiting for Godot... Beckett insists that Godot is NOT representative of God. That if that was what he meant, the play would have been titled "Waiting for God". :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I expect that 'Deathly Hallows' has more than one meaning. And maybe it will be connected to Godric's Hollow. But this is not only speculation - which doesn't matter in the context of a discussion - but it is speculation based on a vague similarity between two words which have no common meaning. 'This sounds or looks a bit like that' is the lowest form of considering titles. "Catcher in the Rye" - well, 'Catcher' could be "cashier", so obviously the title is connected to the wealthy family. "Waiting for Godot" - ooh, maybe weights are involved somehow? So, yes, maybe the book title has something to do with Godric's Hollow. But when your sole reason for thinking that is that you can't spell Deathly Hallows ("I'm sure the Hollows [my italics] in the title of the book is supposed to have more than one meaning"), it really isn't much of a literary argument. Michaelsanders 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, quit the name calling, it's not acceptable on wikipedia. If this is a case where words and meanings are changed or mispelled on purpose in order to make a point, that needs to be pointed out by an external source, not an editor here. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If he's gonna be a dick about it, I'm gonna call him a dick. He'd rather elude the obious point (or maybe he doesn't understand it) by relating Catcher to cashier because he can't admit that others might have a valid opinion. As for it not being cited or encyclopedic; this whole article is speculation since it's about an as yet unpublished book. But I'm sure Micha Elsanders' opinion is the only one that's correct, because I know that I'm not as big a Harry Potter geek as he is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk • contribs)

This whole article is cited, that's what's important. Some is fact, and yes, some of it is speculation. But it is speculation done by reliable sources and cited to them, not speculation on the part of wikipedia editors. It doesn't matter "whose opinion is correct", what matters is who is following WP policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You claim to have an undergraduate degree and a masters. Why, then, you seem to think that hurling insults is an adequate way to behave is beyond me (as is why a grown man would be adding juvenile nonsense to a discussion page for a children's book). Michaelsanders 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you were being a dick. You said "The connection has been made over and over..." yadda yadda yadda, yes you're the expert on all things Harry Potter and no one else has anything new or worthwhile to say. Maybe if your response had been a little more understanding and less self important then, I might not have felt like hurling insults no matter how true the insult is. I tell ya, you people are waaaaaaay too self involved here.

It has been made repeatedly. Look in the archives for this page. And I fail to see how you can complain about self-importance, given your rhapsodising about your many qualifications, and your remarkable insistence that titles are chosen based on trivial similarities rather than deeper meanings. Plenty of people have worthwhile things to say - considerations of the meanings of 'Hallows' or comparisons to previous titles or references, or whatever. But simply repeating what has already been said because you think it is important, despite the fact that it suggests you cannot spell, and is a fantastically simplistic idea based on flawed understanding of titles (I note that you were wrong about 'Godot=God') - that is not worthwhile. It's not even as if you are suggesting any relevant reason for a connection between 'Godric's Hollow' and 'The Deathly Hallows' - you simply based it on a spelling error. Great. Michaelsanders 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I see we have a subject of some debate. It seems to me entirely reasonable to include an explanation of what Hallows are, not the sort of word I use in conversation much, in an article about HP and the deathly ones of that ilk. My own problem was that the section sounded strangely familiar. I hope no one lifted it from somewhere? Sandpiper 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh My GOD! What a mess. This is all speculation. The page on the Goblet Of Fire doesn't define the word goblet or that fire has evil connotations. This section is totally unnecesary and is clearly original research. Using weasel words like "Some people think the title means...." would be just as bad because it is unciteable, the referance you could put for it would be this talk page. Defining the word hallows because some people think it means hollow and need to be corrected is fair enough, but a long rambling discussion on how literature often uses words that are similar to imply an inherant connection so therefore there might be a link between Godric's Hollow and the Deathly Hallows... That is clearly speculation.Simondrake 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, funnily enough I have occasionally used the word 'goblet' in conversation, and the word 'fire' definitely within the last month. I am not certain that I have used the word 'Hallow' as it is used in the title, er, ever. That is the first reason why it might be considered appropriate to explain it now. The second is quite obviously that the only part of the book so far released for public reading is the title. So including some analysis of them seems appropriate. Sandpiper 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little out of hand, nasty, and uncivil. Please be considerate to others, even if you disagree. It should be noted that while some of the section is speculation, it is cited speculation, and that is what is important. The encyclopedia article is not reinventing the wheel, just stating how others reinvented the wheel. In addition, most of it is actually literary analysis of what has already been written by Rowling (such as the connection between the four founders and the four grail hallows, this connection was seen before the title came out, and further confirmed by her wording of the title). Nevertheless, the point is that it is cited by reliable sources (where the reliable sources also cite their work). The previous responses here were why I thought this section necessary. Many people (educated people as well) do not know the meaning of hallows. It's not unless you have studied grail legends and old British and Irish legends, that you really understand the term and where it originally comes from.----Lulurascal 13:42, 2 February 2007

I agree. There should at least be an explanation of the word hallows. - Redmess 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Set

July 21 2007. I don't have time right now to rework the article, but we now have reliable sources. Bloomsbury.com and Scholastic.com are probably the most reliable. Please keep it tight folks! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems weird. The release of HP5 movie will hurt HP7 book sales or vica versa. On would think professional publishers do not make such mistakes that could cost into 100 millions. Please double-check the info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

See - this illustrates the problem! Well meaning editors who have "appropriate" release dates set in their minds, and insist on holding to their theories and "common sense", refusing to accept the public facts from numerous reliable sources. Just exactly which marketing principle would suggest that close release dates for the book and the movie would be a "mistake" that would cost the publishers hundreds of millions? Why would the movie and book sales hurt each other? Co-marketing suggests a synergy - a symbiosis - a convergence as it were - that each would drive up interest in the other. Here is some opposite speculation: it could be a billion-dollar summer for Rowling, her publishers, and Warner Brothers. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked, it's totally legit. I'm a bit surprised they're so close together. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also at JK Rowlings' site under http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=97. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.83.25.151 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I have the email from Bloomsbury quote:

"'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' by J. K. Rowling will be published around the world in the English language on Saturday, 21st July 2007." -- 65.61.193.89 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was on Newsround (News show for kids by BBC) today.--Andy mci 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

US Cover

I just got an email from Barnes and Noble about a pre-order. Can we use that cover image? image -Searles2sels (PJ) 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a cover. It's an advertisement. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was a sweet new dark cover. Ah well, thanks. -Searles2sels (PJ) 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Its just a picture, not a cover. It in no way follows the style of the other covers.--Andy mci 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested semiprotection for this page for a couple days, meaning that anonymous users and new users won't be able to edit it. Hopefully if it's granted it will cut down on the adding and reverting of info already in the article. We'll see what happens. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that the release date is official, exactly what else on this page do you feel needs protecting? That is, what needs it more than every other page on WP that is vandalized on a daily basis? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. The protect only blocks IP and new users (I believe those registered less than four days), regular editors can still edit. Hopefully those who have been here will read before editing. I notice there's also been a fair amount of vandalism at the main Harry Potter article, anyone think it needs a similar temporary semiprotection? I assume we may need to do similar things when the movie and book are released, I can just imagine all the HAGRID KILLS RON!!!1!!1!! spoilerspamming the articles will get. Requests for protection can be made at WP:RPP. Anyone here when the last book was released, how bad was it? I'll probably stay away from wikipedia entirely for a week or two before the book's release until after I've finished it, people will be set on blurting spoilers everywhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm contemplating the same. You have to assume the HP SuperFans and trolls are going to go absolutely bonkers, starting on July 20th if not sooner - running wild and naked through the wiki-streets, leaving little piles of doggy-doo-poo everywhere. It will be a race - a competition for them - to post as many outrageous spoilers and plot details as possible. Meanwhile the legitimate HP Project editors will likely be in hiding for several days, reading and re-reading the text to absorb it properly, before they dare to come out to battle the trolls and set the facts straight. This problem alone would be a very good reason to place the entire set of HP articles on at least some sort of semi-protection from anonymous edits for perhaps a week or so, starting at noon on July 20th. Properly registered editors can still add (and then be accountable for) their edits; and various anti-vandalism robots can be designed and set up in advance, and let loose to run on auto-pilot on July 20, to beat down the most outrageous of the trolling vandals, at least until the legitimate editors can properly prepare themselves to take on the trolls without having the plot spoiled in the process. I think this event will prove to be one of the worst for the wikipedia - a true all out DEFCON 1 battle for several days. As to comparisons to Book 6 - we are STILL battling the Dumbledore-Snape spoiling trolls, and it was just awful for several days that summer. This one could be orders of magnitude larger. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it might be hard to get admins to agree, it would probably be good to propose a plan ahead of time, and include a LOT of pages. Unfortunately I bet there will be plenty of spoilers posted even on completely unrelated pages as well (was there any of that with book six?). Might want to do it even earlier than July 20, the movie is on the 13th in the USA and a couple days earlier in other countries. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The movie isn't really sensitive information though, we have a pretty good idea what the plot will be and who dies. But I agree, I am not likely to be having a look anywhere here untill I'veread it, and while there will likely be a couple of copies around, I'm not going to get to read them first. Sandpiper 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Charity books

I find this sentence to be a bit ridiculous:

However, she has said that an encyclopedia of the Wizarding world based on her copious notes may be published in the future, possibly for charity similar to her two other Harry Potter charity books.

The term "two" has nothing to do with Quidditch Through the Ages. The term "other" has nothing to do with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Brian Jason Drake 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should say something like: "...possibly for charity, as she did with her other two charity books, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Please feel free to make sensible changes of this sort which improve the article. If the person who posted it the other way objects, then they can feel free to discuss it here and explain why they think their way is better! This is how you reach a proper consensus. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned that I changed the sentence myself at the same time as posting that comment. Brian Jason Drake 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing Progress

I wonder if the "Writing progress" section should just go away now. Most of the information in it is rather dated and no longer of any real interest. The Airport Fiasco may be of some interest to keep, perhaps in a trivia section, but the rest seems forced and breathless "news as it happens!" cruft. The only reason for having it in there in the first place was because we wanted to have SOMETHING there in lieu of a firm release date, a surrogate as it were, something more encyclopedic than the date speculations posted at the fan forum sites. The section simply provided some sort of reliable evidence that the book was being written mostly during 2006, and was expected to be released in 2007.

By the way - where are all the bookshop owner assistants and stock boys who had absolutely reliable "inside information" from their suppliers that the book would come out on 07/07/07 (due to the "magical nature of 7"), or 3/31/07 because Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com posted that target date for pre-orders, or 07/14/07 because the riots were on 07/07/06, or on JK/Harry's "birthday" on 07/31/07? Funny - I don't recall anyone insisting that they heard it was 07/21/07. Wherever those folks are hiding now, I hope that now they can understand and respect why it is that we refused to allow them to post their speculations and false gossip here. Even if they had guessed right, or if JK had told them directly herself, it would not have been appropriate to post that information until it came out publicly. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard it from a stock boy in Stockholm who heard it from a buzzard in Bulgaria who heard it from a pelican in Peru who heard it from JK herself that the the date would be 7/21/07 because the 21st was three times as powerful as the 7th. 67.88.29.58 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 Done John Reaves (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, help!

Hi! I've just read this article and I must tell you that someone edited it writing nonsense; here it is:

"harry potter 7 is going to be about Ron, Hermoine snd Harry Potter eating horcruxes. They discover that Dumbledore did not die...he only passed away.Then they discover a horryfying discovery to discover...VOLDERMORT IS A GIRL!!! AHHHHH!!!!"

Perhaps because I didn't sign in, I'm not able to edit that part of the article, so someone help me! Edit it and cancel those stupid news! Thank you very much 87.24.15.6 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Your Italian Hades

Thanks. The main article certainly needs a major cleanup and rewrite, to bring it up to date and to mop up the remaining fan cruft, speculation, and occasional trolling vandalism. As an open-edit system, the Wikipedia sometimes becomes vulnerable to immature vandalism by trolls who are begging to be fed, especially on topics of particular interest to children and adolescents. Please feel free to register yourself with a proper login ID, and start to boldly make some sensible edits, and join the Wiki Project as a productive member to guard against such vandalism and to "keep it real". Due to the recent rampant vandalism and unexplained reversion battles, this article may have been temporarily disabled from editing by the administrators. Please feel free to contact an administrator, or in particular the individual who disabled the article from editing, with your concerns. Thanks for the alert! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Add release date!

Could somebody add the release date, July 21st, 2007, to the article? It would make it more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halleedwards (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Wait, hang on...getting out my wand...waving it around...saying the magic words...*POOF*. There it is, in the article, in two places! And what's really amazing is that I went back in time and added it before you even asked. Isn't that awesome? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're good! Now while you're at it, could you please add the title of the book somewhere into the article, I think it's important to mention somewhere what the book is actually called. ;-) (I'm not the only one flashing back to the identical spree of redundant edits we suffered back then, am I? Why do people think it's a good idea to edit an article without at least giving it a quick readthrough first?) --Maelwys 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry's death

My question revert's to the fact that it is widly spread that Harry Potter will die in the seventh book. i wonder if that is true just out of curiousity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.65.49.221 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Nobody knows but Rowling, and I don't think she's about to spoil something like that. You'll have to wait until July 21st to find out, sorry. --Maelwys 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We will find out on July 21, and if so you can bet that it will be posted then, and not before. We do not deal in "widly spread" rumours and gossip here in the Wikipedia. That is what the fanatic sites are for. The Wikipedia only allows neutral and verifiable facts taken from reliable sources, and strongly avoids speculation, rumours, gossip, and fan theories on what might happen in the unpublished book. We also do not use weasel wording to try to make something we heard about somewhere seem encyclopedic somehow by shifting the "blame" to unnamed sources. Please feel free to share your thoughts and questions at one of the many HP fan forums - see the Harry Potter fandom article for some examples. --T-dot (Talk |

contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

First off, this article is very good; it's informative and cites all its sources.

I don't have an account. Could you make the following edits, o ye kindred soul with editing powers?

1. Remove the line "She has said that the scene between Professor Remus Lupin and Harry speaking on the bridge was especially important, yet not deliberate" when talking about the Azkaban movie. She never said that, or at least not in the article it cites.

Checked and reference does not cite this sentence, so I've removed it as per anon suggestion SeanLegassick 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

2. I was going to suggest adding that J.K. Rowling finished writing the book on the 11th January of at room 652 at Balmoral Hotel in the 'Writting Progress' section, but that's gone now...

Cheers.

Rowling did say she was statled by elements which had got into the movie because of future events, or something to that effect, in the interview with her included on the published DVD. I'm not sure she explained exactly which scene she meant. Sandpiper 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, feel free to refer to the DVD and cite it directly. The previous version cited an article which didn't contain the information. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted cite of Rowling's online diary

I just reverted an edit by 82.206.131.163 as follows:

Trivia

oN fEBUARY 6TH 2007,J.k Rowling stataed in her official website that Dealthly :Hallows is her favourite and its a wonderful way to finish the series.

Obviously the edit needing improvement to stay, but it seems like an interesting point and I've verified that she has said this at her online diary. The precise quote is:

"While each of the previous Potter books has strong claims on my affections, 'Deathly Hallows' is my favourite, and that is the most wonderful way to finish the series."

However I can't see how to reference this properly, as she seems to replace the old text with the new each time she updates the diary, with no permalink.

Any ideas?

You could always take a screenshot of the diary quote and have it hosted online (like on Photobucket or the like). Provide that as an external link to follow along with the reference, but don't make the image the reference itself. The correct reference would need to be Rowling's site. Even though it might change, that is why all website references need an "Accessed" date. This makes it clear that, though the website may have changed, the information was there and accurate at the time and date the web page was originally accessed. The screen capture will just provide readers with a visual image to go along with it in the event of the change. Sage of Ice 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already added this tidbit in the introduction, and referenced it. ---Lulurascal

recent deletions

I just reinserted some of the stuff pruned from the article recently. This mainly seems to have affected the section on ongoing plot. While I did not think it sensible to put back half of what had been removed, we do need to have a section which states the straightforward bits of what has to happen because of events already begun in the last book. It may seem obvious to say that Harry has to fight Voldemort and destroy his horcruxes, but the article would be seriously incomplete without explaining this very basic part of the plot. Sandpiper 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible error in summary?

Where the article has it that Dumbledore

says that just as Voldemort cannot die while his soul fragments remain, Voldemort cannot kill Harry because he used Harry's blood (which carries the ancient magical protection his mother gave to him through her sacrifice years before) in his resurrection

--can someone with the book before them confirm this? Because if that's the case, then the final confrontation between the two was a sham - there was no way that Voldemore could've killed Harry then, either. Don't want to get into a discussion of the book per se, just don't think this is accurate. --Andersonblog (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what that says is correct. Jammy (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)