Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 10

'Hallows' section debate
As people seem to have lost track of the text under debate, I have brought the original section back down to the bottom of the article, where we can see what we are talking about .Sandpiper 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, who archived the ongoing debate. including the version of the page we are arguing about, this one:
 * Look, Sandpiper, if you're desperately willing to continue a debate which you've already lost and in which you were absolutely unable to find any convincing argument, that's you're right. However, you should then restore the actual "ongoing" debate in which are stated my most recent opinions, and not obsolete messages to which no one has replied for weeks. So, if you really want to continue it, I'm restoring the actual debate. Folken de Fanel 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What do people think about the following text?

==The meaning of "Hallows"==

When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering.". She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation amongst fans as to its possible meanings.

Hallow is a word usually used as a verb, meaning "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate". However, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the word hallows appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "All Hallows' Day" or "All Saints' Day," which is the day after Halloween or "All Hallows' Eve". Hallows can refer to saints, the relics of saints, the relics of gods, or shrines in which the relics are kept. , Since the essence of these saints or gods were often considered present at their shrines and in their relics, hallows came to refer to the saints or gods themselves, rather than just their relics or shrines. So, the hallow (relic) of a hallow (saint) is hidden in a hallow (shrine). Hallow is not to be confused with hollow, such as in Godric's Hollow.

The word ‘hallows' has been used in a number of legends to represent important and powerful objects. The Tuatha de Danaan in Ireland possessed six hallows, Manannan’s house, Goibniu’s shirt and tools, Lochlan’s helmet, Alba’s shears, a fishskin belt and Asal’s pig bones. These were guarded by four Guardians of the Hallows, Manannan, Lugh, Cumhal and Fionn. As the legend changed, the hallows became four objects; the spear of Lugh, Stone of Fal, Sword of Nuada and Dagda's Cauldron. These became the four suits in a pack of Tarot cards and took on the representation of the four magical elements, earth, air, fire and water. The coronation ceremony for monarchs still contains four ritual objects, now represented as the sceptre, sword, ampulla of oil and crown. Similar objects also appear in Arthurian legends where the Fisher King is the guardian of four hallows; the sword, spear, dish and holy grail. Earlier Arthurian legends also refer to a set of thirteen treasures of Britain.

Sandpiper 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me, though any other information found could be included as it turns up (any cited references to 'the Hallows' in LotR, for example?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, sounds good. I guess this issue didn't deserve so much time and energy wasted, after all...Just a little comprehensive effort from Sandpiper, and almost a week of fighting is over. Congrats'.
 * Just a little thing, your proposition is exhaustive as to relics hallows, it would also be interesting to cover some shrine hallows (anyone has an idea ? Stonehenge, maybe ?) Folken de Fanel 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I put this together, but as I pointed out above, I am certainly not an expert on the subject of hallows in legend. My paragraph about legends with hallows may be acceptable, but is it correct? It seemed to me that Lulurascal contributed considerably to this section, and we havn't heard her opinion yet. There is also the issue that we do not address the meaning of 'deathly', which I have seen people confusing with 'deadly'. Sandpiper 07:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as far as speculations and "hallows in HP" are concerned, i have nothing against this version. This a preliminary version of course and others can share their knowledge of literary hallows, but it seems appropriate for a de-blocking of the article...Folken de Fanel 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another comment that could probably reasonably be made about the use of "hallows". Ostensibly it suggests a religious connection, but thus far the books have been solidly secular. To my mind (pure speculation) it suggestions that "hallows" will be given its own specific meaning in Rowling's wizarding world. --Legis (talk - contributions) 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all meanings of the word hallow suggest something 'special'. But I also think the paragraph of examples shows that this is not an exclusively christian thing. Sandpiper 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

{end of section restored from archive Sandpiper 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)}
 * Sandpiper, that was me, doing a bunch of archiving. I apologized in advance in my edit summary if I archived something that was still active, but I haven't been actively following the debate and it looked to me like you had moved on to another section. My apologies. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats quite ok, I can easily understand how the central point got rather lost. Sandpiper 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

{following restored by Folken de Fanel; debate after the proposed text was marked for integration in the article, untouched, despite previous remarks on lacking content}


 * It is uncomplete and still biased (hallows are not only objects). Folken de Fanel 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're comment when it was posted below is: Well, sounds good. I guess this issue didn't deserve so much time and energy wasted, after all...Just a little comprehensive effort from Sandpiper, and almost a week of fighting is over. Congrats'.  You even go so far as to say that the article should be unblocked on the assumption that this version will be included.
 * I took that to mean you were happy with it. If you are not going to take a debate on proposed content seriously, then there is a real chance that none of your suggestions will be taken seriously. I repeat my request for insertion of this version, on the basis that that it has already been accepted by the objector, Folken. Sandpiper 09:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You should read carefully. I've already said it was uncomplete and did not cover all the meanings of Hallows, and I have mentionned the shrine-hallows. Do not try to notice only what you like in what I said. I said there were things missing, so it needs to be worked on still. Hallows are not only objects, and by only mentionning object hallows some may concider you're trying to build a point (not to mention that it could also be concidered off topic, since a whole chunk of this wouldn't even be remotely HP-related).
 * Besides, opinion is not a fact carved in stone, it can evolve with time and reflexion (and still, I insist that I had already expressed these doubts a week ago), and you have to accept that I can "change" my mind. I thought and still think it's always better than all this nonsense about "hallows in HP are arthurian relics", however now that I see the proposed paragraph I can't stop thinking that there are still some remnants of it between the lines, and that any external reader might think, from the insistence on arthurian relics, that a connection is intended between "HP7 hallows/arthurian hallows". In it's current state the proposed paragraph is not perfect. Either we are to be thorough and we describe everything that the word has represented in literature (inculing shrine hallows or hallows as saints themselves) - and it that case a dedicated hallow article might still be better since a lot of content might then seem off topic in a HP article-, or we are not to be thorough and we don't spend time on arthurian hallows. But what we have in the current proposition (a very long paragraph on object hallows and absolutely nothing on other forms of hallows) is still uncomplete and not acceptable for insertion in the article. Folken de Fanel 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that sometimes it can be difficult to comprehend the meaning of words, but your last words on the subject were it seems appropriate for a de-blocking of the article, which can only be taken to mean that anyone would be free to insert the section. Sandpiper 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My complete opinion is just above your last message. I've said all I have to say. Now, if you're not willing to listen to others' complains, that's your problem, but Wikipedia can't function like that. Folken de Fanel 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The title of the seventh book in other languages does not translate to 'Deathly Hallows', but usually to 'Deathly Saints'. Why isn't it taken for granted that 'Hallows'as Rowling means it refers to people? Curiousb0215 10:09 27 February 2007
 * Probably because no one has brought this up so far. Can you provide a list? I would observe, however, that when people have attempted to do similar things in the past - comparing translated names - somehow it all got deleted. I do see a difficulty, however. The english title relies upon the word being obscure, and indeed Rowling had a choice of three shortlisted titles. It must be extremely difficult to make an exact translation of a pun. It may be the case that the foreign titles are in fact translations of her alternatives (she refused to say what they are), so while they may be apt, and ought to be discussed, they may in fact be good titles for different reasons. Is the exact translation of the foreign title 'deathly', as distinct from 'deadly' (subtly different)? Sandpiper 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actual debate restored, the not up-to-date debate was re-archived.Folken de Fanel 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * er, no Folken. By all means restore any section you feel is important, but do not delete the section I re-posted and replace it with another while still leaving my name on it. I think the piece you inserted entirely replaced the other, which I have posted yet again and hopefully disentangled the flow of the thing so it is now in sequence. Sandpiper 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I thought we'd finished with the Hallows debate. Last time I checked, we were discussing whether or not to include any theoretical info on HPDH, since we have a "loose ends" section. Everything that was just pasted in here is old stuff from the same two people. You basically just restarted an old argument whose topic everyone had forgotten about. Sand/Folk, please don't start arguing again. Please. You all seem like pretty experienced editors, but you turned this talk "page" into a book. We're done with the hallows thing, so forget it.

I suggest that, since we just had a radical change of topic (hallows debate to sources debate), we should archive our current content. Within the Veil 10:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole and entire argument has been about the section on Hallows. People were by and large content with all the rest of the content of the article. This is precisely what is under debate, there is no other debate. The reason we are debating sources is do determine whether referencers in this particular section are properly sourced. Sandpiper 10:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Sorry, but...rrr...why is it that no one can agree on this one, little topic? I'm sure we can all agree that we need to get the protect lifted so that we can actually make the article better. Catch you all later, I'm off. Within the Veil 10:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * we had agreed, after a fashion. Folken initially started the first deletion war, then agreed to the text above, though changed his mind. However the section was inserted and no one objected. Dposse then came along and took it out again, and started the second deletion war. I don't know why no one can agree, the information pretty obviously ought to be mentioned on this page.


 * As to wanting to get the protection lifted, if you check the earlier debates you will see that a number of editors (not including me) think the page should be permanently protected until well after publication of the book. Personally, i think the matter should have been allowed to run for longer: there was hardly an edit war at all, generally people sticking to 3RR. Allowing reversions like that makes it much clearer who supports what version, as those motivated to join in can immediately join the debate by reinserting the version they prefer. The two versions were not even outrageously different. Reversion used sensibly is a useful tool to determine consensus.Sandpiper 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of signiature on this one, I can't log in. I'll sign on later.

If we keep this article locked, then how are we going to make it better? Considering that we have been debating the hallows bit for a pretty long time, it would be a waste to not make any changes that we can reach a consensus on.

And, we need to start considering archiving again. I'd rather not go past 30 sections.

Sorry again, this is. I'll sign later. Bye for now.
 * Chrisalbro (well that is what it says is your user name in the edit history), we can still make alterations. All we need to do is agree on them and then post them in a section with an 'editprotect' tag. There was a section for this, only someone archived it instead of keeping it handy. Then some admin will notice the tag and insert the edit if it reasonably makes sense. The only important info which has come up is that someone said the book length had been announced. Please note, the poster here said it was the US book length, and the US books all have more pages than the UK ones. I havn't had time to check this for inclusion, and apparently nor has anyone else. Sandpiper 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Hallows Debate; Debate on Hallows Vote
Let's just try and get a clear idea of if everyone is happy with everything. Please put your vote, along with signature and a bit more, to see if everyone is in conclusion. Let's leave this until Friday, unless it's very clear earlier that there is still a debate, and then request unprotection, if a consensus is reached. The topics I provided seem to be the most common ideas from these posts, if there's anything significantly different, please add it, but make sure it is very different. Tuvas 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I revamped the votes, since they were easily misunderstood. I removed the "No mention at all" one, because Hallows is in the title.

Everyone please participate, with a 'CONCISE' explanation of your vote. Remember, this is a straw vote, this is not binding. The actual vote should take place on Thursday, unless, as Tuvas said, we cannot reach a solid consensus.

'''DO NOT USE THIS SECTION AS A BATTLEGROUND! IF YOU STILL WISH TO DEBATE, USE THE DEBATE SECTION!!'''

Brief Definition with link to Hallow Article

 * 1) Tuvas 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This seems like the best compromise
 * 2) Folken de Fanel 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Best compromise (and in my opinion, the only possibility to end the crisis before July 21st). While the DH article itself is speculation free, the Hallow article provides enough accurate info if the readers want to form his own opinion on the subject: in that case, the reader is not influenced by any external POV, and it's the best way to avoid POV disputes in the DH article (since a choice of theories would indeed involve NPOV violations)?
 * 3) John Reaves (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Beep Beep Honk Honk 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Seems like a good way to clean up the article while still providing adequate information. Folken's reason is also good, no POV, but enough info for the reader to form an idea/opinion/theory on the matter.
 * 5) Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Following on what Folken said, the Hallow article isn't specific to this book, but instead it is about the word in general, and thus the history of the word and the ways that it has been used in literature and mythology, etc., are appropriate for that page. Don't forget, this poll isn't binding though -- Wikipedia is WP:NOT.
 * 6) GoldenIrish 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish Sounds like a good idea to me.
 * I have read the article on hallows. It strikes me that it is quite plainly a nice dictionary definition. Anyone bringing an AFD would reasonably expect that it would be voted to be moved to wiktionary, because that is what it is. It is an article about a word, not a subject. The article has no justification to exist on wikipedia, except that it is relevant to this book. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary says with regard to the kind of articles which should be in wiktionary not wikipedia: 'Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.Sandpiper 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Detailed Description of Hallows, Including Information from Non-Canonical Sources (Not Rowling, Not Books)
Obviously, though it does depend what you mean. The article did not contain a detailed description of hallows, just a sweeping summary of examples. This was largely included because people wanted a range of examples inserted. Folken became upset when I was not inclined to enlarge it further as he requested. I didn't mind it being larger, but didnt see the need for a section here to be larger.

The introduction is clearly important to include. It is a statement from Rowling that indeed the title is meaningful and relevant to the plot. This is important, it could, at least theoretically, have just been random gibberish, or at least not something which was truly vital. This tells a reader that researching the title is worthwhile, should they be interested in that sort of thing. It also tells us that this is an important issue and therefore worthy of inclusion in the article as a whole.

The statement that this has given rise to considerable debate amongst fans is really a minimalist version of what has to be included. Quite obviously this is a true statement. Now, debate here has rather made it clear to me that this section ought to be expanded to make it rather more clear what has been set on various websites. It seems likely that in the next month or two there may be others to add here also.

It is important to include a dictionary definition of hallows, such as the the second paragraph currently in the article (which no one has objected to). I certainly did not understand quite what the words meant when the title was released. It is plainly necessary to have a rundown on the word hallows generally. This is entirely in order in an article about a subject where the words in the title were not previosuly in common use. There does need to be a mention of deathly too, as distinct from deadly.

Now, the section including examples of hallows. This was not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is a comprehensive list of what anyone has come up with. i would be happy to discuss generally adding or reducing it with the intent of making it more rounded. It does not push a POV. It seeks to be neutral. Does anyone have suggestions of specific amendments to it if they feel it is not a neutral list of examples intended to illustrate hallows which have occurred in similar literature?

As i said above, I am a little bemused why people consider this list contentious. It seems to me an obvious way to tackle explaining the title to people, which is an immediately obvious thing which anyone will want to know about who bothers to look at this article. Sandpiper 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a more detailed description of some of the more popular theories regarding the meaning of Hallows, since, after hearing that there are theories, most readers would want to know what they were. Here is Wikipedia's position on NOR:


 * "No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position. WP:SR "


 * Now, I'm not totally sure if I cited that correctly (in fact, I am pretty sure that I didn't), but I do know one thing: This guideline specifically allows published theories. Here is the article's bit on Hallows, excluding the basic definition:


 * "When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering." She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation amongst fans as to its possible meanings."


 * Generally, I just think that more detail is needed. Saying that "there are theories" but leaving the reader in the dark seems somewhat foolish.  Within the Veil 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DEBATE
Just making sure that you all DEBATE HERE!

I am a little surprised Chrisalbro that as a newcomer to wiki you decided to make yor first contribution by trying to resolve a disagreement on a contentious page. That is the sort of thing I steered clear of for a year. I wouldn't have known anything like enough about how wiki works top make any sensible arguments about content for 6 months at least. It literally takes weeks to read all the policies and guidelines. Never mind setting up the trick with your name, converting it into redirects to 'within the veil'. I had no idea that could be done. Though I notice it screws up the software somewhat, and would suggest that you start using your proper user page rather than a redirect. Sandpiper 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah. Don't worry, I realized after someone finally used my talk page that my little name change thing was somewhat, well, unorthodox. I've submitted a request for name change, so sooner or later my user name will be Within the Veil. Sorry for the confusion.

As for the rest...

I don't know whether to feel insulted or not. I mean, I'm just trying to help out the best I can. This is currently the article I find most interesting/bothersome, and since I can't edit it, I'm going to go ahead and do my best to get the protection lifted.

Plus, being new has it's charms. Funny thing, when I went to your page, I noticed some rather unusual comments by a certain someone who has been arguing with you on this article for a while (*cough, folken, cough*). While people don't respect me that much yet, they don't stalk me either.

And, I have been reading all the guidelines and pillars and help pages and stuff. This is a learning experience for me, and I'm sure reading the constant bickering on this page has been one too.

I for one agree that, until the book comes out, there should be a detailed explanation of Hallows in the article. Just make sure that all views are represented, remain neutral, and all that.

Sorry for the confusion. Within the Veil 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For Sandpiper: we are not allowed to "explain" a word which has currently no explanation. If you want to do OR, do it on your own website.
 * A list of hallows, well documented or not, which does not have anything to do with HP until its true meaning is revealed on July 21st, is POV pushing. It doesn't have its place in an HP article, however it's acceptable in a general article about Hallows. Folken de Fanel 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, if you look up the official policy regarding what is allowed as an article on wikipedia (policy, not guideline, since we are being pedantic, policies are more official then guidelines), wikipedia does not host articles which are simply definitions of words. The article on Hallows is simply the definition of a word. It is immediately eligible for deletion, so I don't see the point in creating it. The reason for having the information here, is that it is information explaining the title of the book. A dictionary definition is justified in the context of an article about something, but not on its own. Sandpiper 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But as you can see also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, not a place where editors can develop OR, and not a place where unreliable sources like theories from fan websites can be used. Folken de Fanel 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it any better, Folken de Fanel. Putting infomation from the Lexicon without any credible third party publications violates wikipedia guidelines. If we can come to a consensus to just keep the two paragraphs that we have now and to leave the third about "legends" out, i think that would make everyone happy. What do you say, Sandpiper? Can we agree on that? dposse 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I'm new to this debate but I agree with dposse. requesting change! now how to do it...Quatreryukami 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, as have you, Folken: This article is about what is known now, which includes what is believed (or more precisely considered a significant possibility) by existing reputable sources. The actual content of the book remains secret and is not really relevant to this debate. Wiki articles are about the situation as it is now, not as it will be in 4 months when we shall write about the actual definitive text. Lexicon is  a reputable third party source, and indeed was recommended by the author to any fan wanting information about her books. Any encyclopedia entry on this topic would be expected to cover the title of the book and what such an obscure phrase may mean. Sandpiper 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position. WP:SR "


 * Now, I'm not totally sure if I cited that correctly (in fact, I am pretty sure that I didn't), but I do know one thing: This guideline specifically allows published theories. Here is the article's bit on Hallows, excluding the basic definition:


 * "When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering." She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation amongst fans as to its possible meanings."


 * That was all from one of my comments from yesterday. Now, we are allowed to include published speculation/theories.  Anything from Lexicon, MuggleNet, The Leaky Cauldron, and all the other sites can technically go into this article.  Now, the only problem is, what should we allow?  We are technically allowed to put any published ideas regarding Deathly Hallows in here.


 * Then again, I could be wrong. Chrisalbro 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you read that guideline correctly? It says that articles may NOT use unpublished theories, and WP:SPS states that "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.". That means, without multiple other sources that can verify the theory, it cannot be used. That is the case here. Lexicon may be a well known website, however, the theories published on that website without credible, third party sources. Using a source for Mugglenet to back up something from the lexicon cannot be done since they are both unreliable sources. Do you get what i'm trying to say here? I'm just following what the guidelines tell us. Can we at least make a compromise and keep the two current paragraphs? Can we at least get over with that part of this argument and decide what to do next? dposse 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also there's the thing about "professional researchers"...Folken de Fanel 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now, my purpose in posting the two statements was to present possible reasons for expansion of the Hallows section. I recognize that, unless the fansites are recognized as "expert sources", which they are not, then they should not be used.

Now, I'm okay with the section as it is. But what else needs to be done? In fact, if we are all in agreement, then, we can go on standby unless someone finds a new problem. For now, let's just go on standby. I think we're as good as we're going to get on the content of the article. However, we can reorganize this article.


 * I'm in agreement with you, . There's really nothing left to add to the section until the book comes out and we get the truth about what "Hallows" truly means. dposse 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Could Hallows refer to something in the Department of mysteries? SD 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They sure could. They could also refer to the late hallowed Pope John Paul II's last set of hallowed toenail clippings, last seen being held in a secret hallowed vault in the hallowed halls of the Vatican for their healing powers, even though technically he is not a full up hallowed saint yet.  Unfortunately they just will naught let us post our speculation on those wonderful toenails, or anything else for that matter. Thanks for asking though.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthering with my assertion I began to think more about the Department of Mysteries. Perhaps I'll read OoTP again to make sure but: The room where Sirius dissapears into. I think this might be what the Title is refering to. Rowling does say that the 2-Way mirror will be refered to in the book and Sirius may have the other one. Like I said I'll try to look it up SD 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, well IF you find a sentence in OoTP (or HBP or any other Rowling book, or in one of her documented interviews, or on her web site) that specifically says that the veil which Sirius fell through at the M-of-M leads to a place called The Deathly Hallows or something, then we can post that in the article. Otherwise sorry, but we'll have to wait until July, when the 7th Book comes out, to make such a statement as encyclopedic.  For the time being, it would be pure speculation, or perhaps an unauthorized plot spoiler if true, neither of which does the Wikipedia traffick in.  You might be looking for one of the many HP fan forums to discuss this?  Not here.  Thanks again for the insight though - and you may well be right.  We just cannot say so until July, unless Rowling lets the cat out of the bag before then. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Post-release mention of hallows
Am I correct to assume that the only mention of hallows in the article after the book's release will be in reference to the book and not in any historical context? John Reaves (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd assume that if Rowling uses it to mean something radically different to the traditional meaning, it wouldn't go astray. Michael Sanders 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite understand that michael.
 * I meant that if, by some unlikely chance, the 'Deathly Hallows' turns out to be a reference to Ginny and Harry's children, or to a wizarding political party, or something which effectively has pretty much nothing to do with the traditional meaning, a brief aside of what it is normally used to mean would be informative (i.e. "Traditionally, Hallows had been used to refer to sacred objects or places, etc. Rowling, however, radically altered the phrase by using it to mean life insurance..."). Since that is unlikely, however, there wouldn't be much point in any long explanation of the term outside the book usage. Michael Sanders 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * John, now that really is a crystal ball question. MY guess would be that the meaning of the title will become obvious once someone has read the book, so I imagine that at most it will be reduced to a footnote observing that Rowling had reintroduced the word into the English language. This rumpus is really about what is relevant now, not in four months time. However......while I see no point in belabouring it for inclusion at present, there are plainly influences on Rowlings work from all sorts of historical legends. It may be that she will be willing to talk about this after publication, or that others will discuss this aspect more, so 'hallows' may stage a comeback that way. Sandpiper 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover
Now that the cover art is released, they should be added to the infobox. --  soum  (0_o) 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, could someone please put it on Wiki page and then protect it again? caffolote 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is probably the only thing anyone will truly agree on. The cover has to be in the article.  I found it on Amazon. .  Sorry, can't sign in from here.  .  And don't worry, my name will be changed soon, hopefully.

Image:HPanddeathlyhallowsposterbook.jpg
 * I don't agree, just because this isn't the English version of the book, it's the American, so not technicly the final dead on offical one. By all means put it in the article, but not as the proper cover. JimHxn 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All three versions have been released. World, Adult and American... Here  are the other two —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.139.21.245 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Well I uploaded a combo pic from it combines all the cover versions World, Adult and American. Hope it will make it to the infobox - LegalEagle 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the book cover to the infobox. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we going to add the American book cover to the article as well? dposse 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the previous book's Wiki pages just includes the World version, stick to convention I guess. There is a cover page section for HBP, this could be added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.139.21.245 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

thanks for the cover.

Citation Needed
Omg. Why do we need citations for all the things in the Plot Elements section? Each plot element is from a book. Or am I being irrational? If the consensus is that the tags are not needed, I will request a change. Quatreryukami 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We are citing each of the previous books, just like you would cite a news source. We need to show we're not making up the stuff from the books. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC) For everything?!

Even things that are too obvious?! Like the life deby Harry owes to Pettigrew for example? 24.7.125.38 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Harry doesn't owe Pettigrew a life debt, Pettigrew owes Harry a life debt.  Arwen undomiel  01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you say that were obvious if you hadn't read the book? Don't forget, the people that read these articles aren't all Harry Potter whizzes who want to see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject; in fact, I'd estimate that more readers are non-HP fans. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover just came out
I would do it if the page weren't blocked, but the new covers just came out. Go to mugglenet.com if you can post it (administrators). There will be links there. Sean MD80 talk 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New cover
here it is:

Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.jpg

Joneboi 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

it just looks.....wrong. I'm not sure in what way, it just does Jammi568 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Joneboi 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he means that it looks like a Terry Pratchett novel. Michael Sanders 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or that Harry, Ron, and Hermionie look nothing like they do in any of the other covers. MelicansMatkin 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

this is actually not the correct cover. A new one was just recently released. I couldn't find a pic so just watch the clip where they show the new cover. You can see it here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammi568 (talk • contribs) 14:05, March 28, 2007


 * The cover in the clip is the American cover. The one above is the 'world' cover. Michael Sanders 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The one I put up is the "world cover" (pictured above). All the previous editions use the world cover as well. So it is right and you are wrong =) Joneboi 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a different cover for the USA and for the Adult's Edition. The cover posted is the Children's Edition Canadian cover. Armyrifle 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly. AKA world cover. Joneboi 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The U.K. Illustrators
I just realized that there is not a Jason Cockcroft article (Cockcroft was the illustrator for the U.K. covers 5-7).

Children/Adult Covers
I can understand using the UK/world cover, but should the adult cover be used as well. I think it should, as it is also a "world cover" and, in my opinion, looks neater. 86.138.125.156 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and I think everyone else on here does as well. If you look at HBP (book 6) there is a section "Editions" that contains the many cover variations. In time this article will pick up its own "Editions" section. The world cover is for the info box only. Joneboi 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection Lifted
Oh my...the protection is gone...bwahahahaahahaha!!!

Just kidding, but really, don't start an edit war. Pleeeeeaaaaaase.

I'm going to delay any suggestions until a few edits have been made. Chrisalbro, formerly "Within the Veil", sorry for any trouble my name redirect caused, 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The admins could've at least waited until the argument was settled. dposse 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is somewhat unusual...I mean, there was no real...consensus...though, most people 'did' agree on a brief mention of hallows...so, as long as no one changes their mind, we should be okay...we only need to worry about a new edit war or just vandals. Probably vandals. Chrisalbro 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since the Hallow article exists now, I think it's OK to go for the version "most" people seem to have voted for...Link to the hallow article, and leave the section as it is right now (given that it already contains ref to theories, no one should have serious ground to complain, so we should just do it). Folken de Fanel 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
Could someone please add a cover gallery in the article (Edition section) like the other articles have, since the 3 newly released covers are now available? I'd do it myself, but I'm rather in a hurry. Thanks. -- theblueflamingo  Squawk 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you who ever did it! - theblueflamingo  Squawk 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Illustrator credit
Should William Webb (designer) and Michael Wildsmith (photographer) get illustrator credits on the main page HPBooks box? They are responsible for the UK adult cover, which is just as important as the children's covers. 86.138.125.156 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the British cover at the top!
She's a british author, and the british release is considered to be the original one. Please stop switching it to the american one. I've warned User:JacksonFiore about WP:3RR on his talk page, if he keeps revert warring I'd recommend reporting him on the 3RR violation page. With the new announcement, I'd also recommend requesting at least semi page protection for a few days at WP:RPP. --Minderbinder 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, I think the other Harry Potter books all have the British cover at the top of their articles.  Arwen undomiel  23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bingo. --Minderbinder 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem? Chrisalbro 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've placed the US Version in the section covering the Jacket Book Flaps. Berserkerz Crit 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one can be in a infobox. I think there should be one of those hidden messages that kindly reminds users not to change it. I prefer the US covers myself, however, I must agree with the UK version on top. She's a British author, and the books were originally published in the UK first anyways. If the editing gets bad (massive unwanted edits, spam), then I'd would request protection if I were you. -- Anon. 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added something in there. It might be a bit abrasive if someone wants to reword it, but hopefully it'll get the message across. Daggoth S 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all the covers should be in the article (though, to maintain consistency, UK childrens edition cover should go to the infobox. However, given the awkward layout of the jacket summaries section I was thinking of something like this


 * This is just to gather feedback. Fair use images will be removed once consensus is reached. --  soum  (0_o) 08:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get the page protected until the cover art news passes?
Should we get the page protected until the cover art news passes? Please? Hopquick 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Next thing you know there'll be a section on speculation based on the images on the covers. Oh wait... there already is. How unpredictable. --Thaddius 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed that statement - it's pure OR, and no conclusions can be drawn from a cover. MelicansMatkin 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cover released on Yahoo! News! Yay! Fast  nature  dude  01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * funny, I thought we had just got the article unprotected for the launch of the new cover art Sandpiper 10:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation
I removed part of it but retained part of it as well. It is no speculation that Yahoo stated that the US Cover version shows Harry wearing a locket with a Serpentine S on it. Berserkerz Crit 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! says the adult cover shows a locket with an S on it, not the US version, nor is the locket on Harry. John Reaves (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooops sorry didn't understand it correctly. But I was wondering, where is the Adult cover showing the S on it? Berserkerz Crit 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The beads are in an S (or serpentine) pattern. Plus, a (the?) locket clearly is seen around Harry's neck in US edition. However, why do such information (even though they are discussed in mainstream media) need to be in the article. As long as anything concrete comes up, I think we should refrain from adding it. --  soum  (0_o) 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre?
Should the book not be listed as being 'Children's Fantasy'? Moustan86.10.97.187 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call this book a children's book. First murder takes place in the first chapter. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Murder and death occurs in most children's novels. Humpty Dumpty faces an unfortunate end in his nursery rhyme. Fact is that this book was written for children, hence the happily ever after ending and the fact that an adult's version was published which implies that the main edition is aimed at younger readers. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between the "Children's" and "Adult's" version, only the cover. And if you say "written for children" that gives the feeling you mean for people under 10 years, which really is not the case. I'm not familiar with Humpty Dumpty (but if it's just the first thing before the TOC, it's hardly the samething as 30 some murders, or deaths in a war.)... If anything the books are written for Young Adults or Adults, as the main characters are all 17-18 in the book. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was merely citing Humpty Dumpty as a reference. Even Snow White involves attempted murder by poison. The book "Lord of the Flies" contains a boy being clawed to death and another being crushed by a boulder and yet is still children's fiction. It is really irrelevant of the content of violence but rather more dependent on the literarry style which is in this case quite basic. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be that the original Philosopher's Stone could be categorized as a Children's Fantasy, as most of the student-characters of significant interest back then were 11 to 13 years old, and thus perhaps meant to appeal to Harry's then-age, give or take a few years. Most 16+ year-olds at the time (ca. 1997) probably did not take the book very seriously and even shunned it to avoid being associated with something so juvenile.  I remember thinking the original book read, chapter by chapter, as if was intended to be bedtime-story material: the chapters being pretty short and each being almost a mini-story within the main story.  Of course this changed over time, as did the characters as they aged, and as did the intensity and organization of the story line.  The original 8-13 year-old readers had "grown up" with Harry, Hermione, and Ron, and were already turning 20-something; and the series had "grown up" with them, so, arguably, the books, perhaps since Goblet of Fire, have taken on a much more young-adult to adult theme.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the genre is incorrect. Harry Potter, the entire series in fact, is the real world we live in mixed with magical and mythical elements, such as wands, spells, flying and ofcourse dragons and unicorns. This is identical to the Magic Realism genre of fantasy. The genre 'fantasy' is far too broad, and many people think of Lord of the Rings in relation to an example of fantasy, while it is very clear that LotR and HP, while in some respects similar, are truly worlds apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)