Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 8

Speculation, speculation, speculation
Don't create a talk page full of speculation that is as long as the book before the book itself is published - especially as much of the talk is likely to become promptly irrelevant on publication. (Not saying speculation isn't fun, or interesting by-ways explored). Jackiespeel 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that's rather the point, that the information is relevant now. It is anticipated that the prime minister of the UK will change in 6 months too, but that doesn't mean we scrub all the stuff on Blair right now. I do agree, however, that there ought to be some plan to record the fuss about the books for posterity. Sandpiper 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except though, that using your analogy, we would delete speculation about what a "Brown Administration" would do based on clues that he's given as chancellor. How is that any different to speculating about what the title of the next Harry Potter books would mean or what it would contain, based on clues given in earlier books etc. --Dave. 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Continuing the analogy - we don't speculate on what any potential Brown administration would do. We cite the speculations of others. Michaelsanders 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we, though? --Dave. 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on who you referred to by others, though I wonder if citing the speculations of others would make any difference. PeaceNT 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who were considered experts in the subject by their peers. Make any difference to what? Michaelsanders 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But not by official insitutions. Lexicon may be great fans (but not "experts") in the domain of compiling facts and doing etymologic researchs from published materia, however theories and mind-reading are not among their field of "expertise" anyway (as speculations cannot be quantified or anything, it's just what it is, guessings and bets. There is no competence at work here).
 * But it is useless to argue again about this, since a compromise seems to have been found. Folken de Fanel 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be considered an expert by official institutions to be considered an expert, merely by peers. But, to repeat, Rowling's endorsement would be a pretty strong 'official' confirmation of expertise. And the issue does matter, since you are questioning the validity of sources. Michaelsanders 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as WP rules state, "anyone can say he is an expert", so it requires some official insitutions to be qualified as an expert, because "experts" that are used as sources on Wikipedia, are scientists or professors having years and years of study behind them, which is of course not comparable to fans running a website about their favorite novel.
 * The operative word here seems to be 'scientist'. The main reason good research is nowadays only carried on by people paid to do that research is the question of resources. Time was, gentlemen would study science and pay for what they needed out of their personal fortune. Nowadays most good research comes from companies or universities, because there people are paid and financed to do the work. However, this issue concerns one of the few situations in which it is possible for nearly anyone to make meaningfull progress with very limited resources. The primary needs are 6 books and the ability to read. Then, the most useful research tool is a computer connected to the internet, which allows people to collaborate in their researches. Someone can sit in their bedroom and research this just as well as any professor can sit in his office. Perhaps the most important thing is a determination to understand your subject, and that is certainly something which the fans in question have in common. Sandpiper 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Rowling has not "endorsed" anything.
 * She did, you know. You make a better argument regarding whether she had endorsed speculation, but even there she is on record as positively encouraging people and stating they will be able to work out answers to many of her puzzles.Sandpiper
 * However, this debate has no reason to be, since speculations are not a part of the field of "expertise" of Lexicon, if they were to be concidered as "experts" at all...
 * The validity of source is no more an issue as everyone has agreed that fansites are not sources except in certain conditions.
 * This debate has no reason to be: Sandpiper has reached consensus with a version of which I am satisfied, and in which I don't find any questionable use of questionable sources (which are used in a particular way, perfectly acceptable). Folken de Fanel 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was making a slightly tongue in cheek comment on the amount of talk on the subject (there was also "much discussion" on Benedict XVI when he was first elected). Deduction is one thing, exploring the shores of speculation is another. It is also interesting to see where "logical deduction" is not borne out by events (The Economist Yearbook for 1989, published a couple of months before, which had a section on Communist Eastern Europe - already vanishing by the time it went to print being a case in point) and why such deduction "went wrong." (There is no certainty that Gordon Brown will be the next PM, until the ballot is counted.) Jackiespeel 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the proper course for wikipedia is to present the best information available. If there is uncertainty, that uncertainty should be explained as part of the content. In this case, we could explain that maybe someone will start a nuclear war, so publication will be abandoned, or theoretically Rowling could be blown up in a concerted terrorist raid which also destroys every single copy of the already existing finished manuscript, but I find the possibility of non-publication so remote as to be too trivial to include. What is more, should it actually happen that the official final book is never released you can be sure that what is here would only be the tip of an iceberg of people fleshing out an unauthorised final book.
 * This does touch on an important point, however. Wiki never writes about absolute fact. Never, never, never. There is no such thing. Every single article is speculation of a greater or lesser degree. At heart, that is why I find debates such as the one on this page so ludicrous. Sandpiper 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I thought you were reasonable...You should really be careful about what you say, moreover after your previous Godwin point...
 * Please stop saying nonsense when your frustrated that Wikipedia's principles prevent you from writing your own speculations.
 * You have to understand that Wikipedia is not another Mugglenet or Lexicon. Wikipedia is not a "fan site", it's an encyclopedic website which works with specific rules which define what can and what cannot be added on Wikipedia. If some content cannot be added, then you can nothing about it and it's useless to make endless rants. What is ludicrous is still talking about this when there is absolutely no need. You have been shown various official rules from wikipedia that specifically qualified theories as unappropriate, so you won't change anything.


 * Then you say something interesting. "to present the best information available". Well, when there is NO information available at all, it's not up to the contributors to create it. We report what is reliable, that's all. And unknown teens who have not read book 7 are not reliable source. Folken de Fanel 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think you have to understand that 'best information available' means what it says. Many people believe in Newtons laws of motion. They helped a revolution in warfare, because people could get their cannon balls going the right way. But they are nonetheless incorrect. Along came this guy called einstein and explained why. Now people are busy showing where he went wrong. We do not refuse to have an article on Newtonian motion simply because it was just an approximation. We explain it is widely accepted, gives good results, and mention its limitations (though just watch them arguing about interpretation on the quantum mechanics pages!). Exactly the same principle applies here. You should appreciate that the purpose of a good encyclopedia is to explain the subject. Sandpiper 10:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And now you dare to compare Newton and Einstein to fans of HP...


 * When there is no information available, we do not create information.Folken de Fanel 12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been following this discussion a little, and though I haven't participated and read absolutely everything, my feeling is that there is no verification for listing connections to "deathly" and/or "hallows" unless the author of the speculation (research) has deliberately linked them to the Deathly Hallows in JKR's seventh book, which is not possible yet. I think only the brief definition of the words is all that can be included without creating original research – original research because, though the speculation has been done by others and has been published, it is we, Wikipedia editors, who are drawing the parallels to the book. Just my two cents, I'm sorry to come in here out of the blue when I haven't taken part in this discussion, but it looks like you really need a third party. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that this debate is too long to be helpfull. But the centre of it is that a number of website do have articles specifically suggesting that the title refers to relics of the founders. Lexicon,Tlc I think it was, etc, etc. Then the issue is whether these people are considered reputable sources. I think they are, in fact having researched this rather a lot, I know they are. They make well balanced arguments warning people they do not know the answer, but explaining the most likely meanings and demonstrating classical references, refernces in the books, etc etc. Just what we should be reporting here, at least if we were being a good encyclopedia telling people what they want to know. I notice that they have created a combined website collecting together known information at  Sandpiper 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're not understanding the full extend of the matter, Sandpiper.
 * It is absolutely not a question of how many fans like Mugglenet or Lexicon, it's not a question of how many times people from the Lexicon have read the books or how long they've looked on the net for etymologic explanations.
 * No one except JKR and her editor have read book 7. Thus, no one has the ability to say what will happen in book 7. This would be mere divination, ie what I call "crystal-balling".
 * As the people from the Lexicon have not read the book, they're not reliable in anyway as to what will happen in book 7.
 * The people from the Lexicon might have done some good work concerning the published material of the HP mythology, however concerning speculations, we're in the domain of abstract, of mind reading, of speculation without a single trace of certainty. These people are basically trying to write the book before JKR publishes it. They are basically trying to guess what she wrote.
 * As these speculations are not based in anyway on scientific methods of investigation and deduction, but purely on personal inituitions and feelings, as trying to guess what a person will write before it is written belongs to the realm of the supernatural, nothing of it can be added to Wikipedia since these speculations violated each of the great principles of Wikipedia: reliablility and verifiability.


 * Try to understand that fans are not all-powerful, and seeing everything, and blablabla. They're basically writing nonsense, that may or may not correspond to JKR's writings (and more probably won't correspond), and in the unlikely case it would correspond, then none of the fans who would have written it could say he was right, because he would not have seen anything, it would just have been mere luck, as if he had won the lottery. There's nothing scientific or methodic, it's just guessing and good/bad luck.
 * You surely understand that we're not going to interview every winner of the lottery (or even mere players of lottery, as it's really what fans are), ask them about what will happen in the world tomorrow, and then write down everything they said on Wikipedia and present it as "likely to happen" ?


 * Well, that would be the equivalent of allowing fan divination on Wikipedia. That's why we don't have any article on Wikipedia about lottery with speculations as to which numbers are likely to be the good ones tomorrow.


 * Wikipedia obeys to certain principles of verifiability and reliablility of content, that's why whatever you'll say, as long as the rules are as they are, won't change anything.


 * Now, just to be clear, since JKR is the only one in the world to know what's in book 7, not you, not the people at Lexicon, then no one has the right to say that this or that is likely to happen in book 7. These statements are the perfect example of what Wikipedia doesn't want: mere unreliable, unverifiable, opinions. Who are you to say that one thing is likely to be in book 7 ? Who are you to say the meaning of Hallows is likely to be another thing ? Who are the people at Lexicon to say this ? Face the fact, they're no one.


 * Also, another thing: no, Wikipedia, the readers, and the contributors, DO ABSOLUTELY NOT CARE about what some unknown and unqualified people thing will happen in book 7. People do not come to Wikipedia to see fans writing nonsense about "what is likely to happen". They come here to find encyclopedic facts on HP, informations that are reliable and verifiable. If they want to see fan theories, then they go on the appropriate websites, which do not include Wikipedia.


 * I have quoted dozen of official rules, guidelines, policy, etc, which specifically state that Wikipedia is not the place to develop speculations, so we are not going to discuss this any further, there will never be any speculation on the article, and if I'm not here anymore to say so, then you have hundreds of contributors and admins ready to make the articles comply to the rules, as they are doing every day with hundreds of other articles.


 * And, given what you've just stated about fan speculations, I'm glad to still oppose to your proposed paragraph about Hallows, as it becomes clear now that, by being exhaustive about hallows as arthurian relics, and competely silent about any other form of hallows that have existed in literature, you're in fact still implying "what is likely to be" THE explanation of the Hallows in book 7. And that, I'm sorry, is in contradiction to Wikipedia's principles. Folken de Fanel 15:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To the best of my recollection, you have not suggested anything specific which you want included. If you want something added, then suggest the wording you want. I already made a suggestion for the section, and you already said it was entirely acceptable for immediate inlcusion. I don't really see what else I need to suggest. What is the point of everyone agreeing a text, only for you to turn round and change your mind when you find that no one else objects to it? Sandpiper 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, we're on the english Wikipedia, I assume you are able to read and understand english language, are you ?
 * So when I say: 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 ?) on 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC), what's the problem ?
 * Suddenly, you can't understand english ? Or is my english so bad you can't read it ?
 * No, because it seems you have perfectly understood my 1st sentence, so you should not have any problems with the second one.
 * Really, I can't understand what' you're trying to do.
 * If you're so desperate to remain deaf to any criticism wikipedia might direct at your propositions, then we'll do without you.
 * I have NEVER agreed to your proposal, I expressed my doubts about it since the beginning. It was only a good basis which still neeeded work. If you're not willing to recognize it, it's your personal problem, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
 * I have never changed my mind. Only I had doubts, which were reinforced when I saw how you tried to push your proposal into the article without taking into account any of my remarks (well, to be precise you've simply ignored my negative remarks), and how you were still trying to build your own personal point.
 * Also, do not accuse me of "changing my mind when I find that no one else objects to it", because it's a lie and you know it. I have expressed my doubts since the beginning, that you were not willing to listen to them is irrelevant. Folken de Fanel 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The English language, please. If you intend to upbraid people about their language, you should be more careful with yours. Michaelsanders 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At risk of regrettable repetition, what you said, Folken, was " 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)" Sandpiper 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Detective novels
Hi Folken. Well, what can I say. Perhaps you have read different HP books to the ones I read. Have you read them carefully? They are important source material for anyone contributiong to HP pages. Maybe you did not start your reading career on Agatha christie and the like. I was never very good at it, but the whole point of a 'whodunnit', assuming it is any good, is that you can work out the murderer before the end. That is precisely the appeal of these books. They are not simply childrens fairytales about a magical castle. They have real and soluble puzzles which were written into the plot starting in book 1. The whole point of this page is that Rowling has told us this. She has said it is a mystery puzzle, she has given loads of hints. She wants all her readers to be buzzing away trying to solve the puzzles before she comes up with the answer in 6 months time. The success of the books, her $billion success, is that she has created a book with a balance of known and unknown information. There are clearly defined facts which must reappear in the final volume. This is not an episode of star trek, where the only predictable thing is that some random aliens will be threatening and then get zapped. This is everyone sitting around waiting for the last chapter of the mystery to be delivered.

The reason 100,000,000 people are waiting on the last book is exactly because they want to find out the ending. This article is not for people who have been given a school literature essay and can't be bothered to read the book. It is for people who have already read the other books, and want to know what additional information is available. That is precisely why it is an enormously popular page. Why we are all here arguing about it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people. To tell them what they want to know. What they want to know is exactly what information is currently available about the books, a summary of what information within the books is important for the final one and what others have deduced from this. In fact, the article as it stands does not report anything of what has been deduced which is not presented directly inside the books, or volunteered by Rowling. It is a huge omission that it does not cover extended content of what readers here really want to know. However, this is wiki, and some people are very touchy about presenting controversial facts. Aside from that, readers can work it out for themselves and I wouldn't want to spoil their fun. But the important point is that it is established and accurate information about the subject. Again, I wonder from time to time how an encyclopedia which owes its existence to the work of 'fans' on the internet can have an official policy of deriding the work of exactly the same sort of people, when they are engaged in a different project. Sort of 'pot calling the kettle black'? Or rather, a self-centred claim that while people 'here' are ernest and reliable experts just spreading thir expertise in their spare time, those on other websites are obviously children or losers who have no insight into their subject and simply nothing better to do. Sandpiper 08:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * HP speculation is no less founded on logical research and deduction than many of Wiki's theoretical physics pages. The whole point of Wiki is that it should be able to differentiate between ludicrous and irrational speculation, and reasoned speculation.  As long as something is identified as speculation (like all of Wiki's philosophy, theoretical physics, and prehistoric history pages), and not presented as definite fact, there is no reason to censor it from any page to which it might be relevant.Polkawells 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, please be assured I have read the same 6 HP books than you. However, that you think you have been able to read the 7th book in a dream is your own personal delusion, and I really don't care about it. No one does, in fact.

You're perfectly allowed to create your own webpage and say to the world that you are the great genius who has worked out the HP mystery even before the final book is released. However, Wikipedia doesn't serve such purposes, and if you're trying to hijack the articles to turn them into you're personal blog about your predictions on HP7, then, no one will let you do it.

I'm going to remind you of a few basic principles of Wikipedia that you have obviously forgotten : 1) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. 

2) No original research and obligation of reliable sources

3) notability criteria guideline for fiction articles: Fiction not yet written may be considered speculation (again, not by default, but often so) which is grounds for deletion because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games, etc., unless there has already been substantial press coverage about the to-be-released item.

Wikipedia is for people who want to find accurate knowledge and information. What you're desperately trying to impose on this article, is NOT accurate KNOWLEDGE or INFOMRATION. It's SPECULATION.

When there is no information available, it's not ours to invent it.

We don't tell people "what they want to know". We tell people "what knowledge exists".

We do not create content. We report it. As as book 7 is not yet published, there's not much to report.

The article covers the plot points and questions which have been openly raised by JKR herself in the books or interview.

We talk about RAB because JKR herself has said it was significant. We mention Regulus because various sources, other than mere 14 years old fans, mentionned it. We do not talk about Hallows being Horcruxes because JKR has never explained the signification of Hallows.

There is no "controversial facts". Either they are facts, or they are not. And presently they're not. We do not know what will be the signification of Hallows in HP7, so we do not speculate about it. Period.

And finally, if you're not liking the way Wikipedia works and have always worked, no one is forcing you to contribute to it. Folken de Fanel 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an important maxim to remember when debating a point on wiki that repetition does not improve an argument, rather it tends to make it tedious. Rather than comment again on any of that I shall for the third time repeat your own comment about the section proposed to replace the existing hallows section in the article, and to end this debate. You said " 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)" Sandpiper 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "repetition does not improve an argument, rather it tends to make it tedious" ? Well, that's good if you can percieve it, because your constantly repeating altered versions of my words while conscienciously avoiding the real debate, makes all of this quite tedious.
 * I never said any of what you "quote". My complete opinion is in the previous section.Folken de Fanel 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Birthdates
Harry and Neville were both born on the same day, as it says in the fifth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I have memorized the entire series of the books so I should know. Please edit the page about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows where it says Neville was born on the 30th. They were both born on the 31st. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.123.79 (talk • contribs) (Alika)


 * Very sorry but this is incorrect. While both boys were "born as the seventh month dies", according to Rowling (see her web site), Neville was born on the 30th and Harry on the 31st.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Hogwarts Staff Vacancy?
The Potions master may also need to be replaced. Slughorn was persuaded to be Potions master in part by thinking that being closer to Dumbledore (p.73, US hardcover) would make him safer during the dangerous times of the Second War. Dumbledore, of course, gets killed and Slughorn is especially shaken (p. 627, US hardcover) at the fact that Dumbledore's killer was his fellow professor, Snape. So it isn't clear to me that Slughorn will return. If he doesn't, Hogwarts will need a new Potions master, in addition to a new Transfiguration teacher and DADA teacher.

67.100.28.123 05:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC) dlh


 * That can only be classed as speculation, I'm afraid - no details of Slughorn's future have been confirmed either way (and we don't even know yet whetehr Hogwarts will actually re-open for Harry's seventh year). --Dave. 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Point of Grammar
"Someone from Harry's class--not Harry, Ron, or Hermione, and not who most readers would expect" - in the section "Information from Rowling"

This should read "and not whom..." Polkawells 20:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, 'whom' is archaic outdated. John Reaves (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The wiki whom suggests that in formal writing (of which an encyclopedia is a prime example) whom should be used as the object form of the relative. Furthermore, the HP books are written in British English - it is appropriate that "traditional English" should be used.

Polkawells 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just my opinion. We'll leave it up to an admin. to decide. John Reaves (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm 14 and I use "whom" in everday speech. Now, it may be because I'm weird and grammar-obsessed, but that's another story… --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First of, are you sure you want people knowing your age? Secondly, "whom" is going the way of many other words and grammatical features (e.g. thou,thee, thy, thine and the meanings of "awful" and "awesome"). People have simply stopped using it, and that's what makes and breaks grammars and vocabularies.  Once something is used enough or too little, it becomes the new rule or word.  By the way, this is just a little rant of mine, I'm fine with 'whom" being used in speech and encyclopedia articles, I just don't think it will last much longer. John Reaves (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but I'm all right with it. :-) This isn't really worth time to debate over, simply a question of whether we want to uphold formal writing, which is recommended, or not. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I confused, but I don't really care enough to debate. I just was expressing my opinion. I really don't think there will be a problem with changing it to whom. John Reaves (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the edit notice. This is a usage question, and certainly does not require attention from admins. You'll have all the time to quabble over it once thearticle comes unprotected.Circeus 00:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yo for more squibling! My POV is that while 'whom' may be correct, it sounds wrong. The issue always runs through my mind when I write a sentence like that (and I did write that sentence), but on the whole most people seem to prefer 'who' in that situation. It has been there a little while now, and I don't think anyone has felt it necessary to change it. Sandpiper 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whom is technically correct and I think it should be used more often but in this case isn't it a quote from Rowling herself? If it's a quote then it should be repeated exactly as she stated it, which is with Who rather than Whom.Simondrake 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is an exact quote - and I had thought it was, too - then it's not in the given source (which, for that matter, doesn't mention Hermione either). &mdash;Cryptic 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the original interview is "But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint", thus avoiding any use of the relative. If the reference in wikipedia intends to quote, it should use quotation marks, as the original is clearly grammatically incorrect. Alternatively, it should be ammended to the correct form (i.e. - "whom" should be inserted), as there is no justifiable reason to use incorrect grammar out of choice. Polkawells 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a direct quote. All direct quotes are (or should be) in italics. In the original Rowling allows a follow up guess about about who it might be, and specifically eliminates Ron. Thus the original in its entirety is rather too long. As to always using 'correct' grammar, no not always. Rowling certainly doesn't when she speaks, but more to the point nor does anyone else. It is not our business to talk down to readers. But to make my position clear (starts his sentence with a but!), I wouldn't bother changing it either way if I read it in an article. Sandpiper 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "All direct quotes are (or should be) in italics." -- No, all direct quotes should be in quotation marks. Whether 'single' or "double" quotation marks are used, they are the correct formatting to indicate that given text is a direct quote.  --ΨΦorg 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see... her quotes are currently quoted and italicized. That's kind of an odd style to use, and it goes against the Wikipedia manual of style, specifically MOS:ITALICS.  Even if other Harry Potter websites put JKR quotes in italics (I don't know whether they do or not), they should not be italicized in on Wikipedia.  --ΨΦorg 20:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On a page like this, where there are really rather a lot of quotes, it does make them stand out so someone can spot them easily Sandpiper 10:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Always using 'correct' grammar": Clearly Rowling doesn't always use perfect grammar in speech; and indeed nor does anyone else. However, it is equally unlikely that she would intentionally use incorrect grammar. We have object and subject forms of the relative for a good reason. Admittedly it would be difficult to misinterpret this line, but grammatically this line uses "who" as the subject, and "most readers" as an archaic inversion of the object. It is the work of a second to correct it, and there is no defensible reason to retain the current mistake: perhaps "whom" will drop out of use before long, but at present it is considered the appropriate form to be used in formal English. It might even be argued that using the colloquial form of the relative is talking down to readers! Polkawells 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I recall hearing a debate about why English is the worlds favourite language. One reason is accident of history, of course, but another suggestion was that English has largely dispensed with endings and genders, and instead relies upon context for meaning. Whom does appear to come into this category, of an unneccesary change of ending. Sandpiper

Everyone, GET A FUCKING LIFE! Nobody gives a fuck if it's 'who' or 'whom'! We know what they mean! Go outside and get drunk, n' stop worrying about grammar on the bloody net! Lots of love, the Grim Raper

Highlighting
Will whoever is going through the discussion highlighting words they fancy please stop. This is corrupting the record as it was originally made and is not helpfull. Sandpiper 10:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved plot elements
Snape is NOT defense teacher; he teaches potions. Or did i forget something? Quatreryukami 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why yes, you are... Snape took the role of Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher in book 6 - Dumbledore, with Harry, convinced Horace Slughorn to be the new Potions instructor.  --Reverend Loki 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And since Snape left, Hogwarts needs a new Defense teacher.....again. Well, assuming it opens again.  Kochdude388 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you are right, i re-read the book recently. And i thought i knew everything to this point. I need to go back and re-read everything...Quatreryukami 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B.
I was trying to add some facts about Regulus Black, like the fact that Black is Zwarts, in one translation, and R.A.B. became R.A.Z., and also that Regulus had an Uncle Alphard and a Grandfather Arcturus, however the page is protected from editing!!! How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepssouth (talk • contribs)
 * You'll see that at the top of the page is the template protect. There is currently a long dispute about a certain section on the page, and to prevent edit warring, the page has been locked so that no edits can be made by anyone other than an admin. If you want to request an edit to a protected page, you should insert editprotected onto the talk page, but the information you're trying to insert is probably best kept to the R.A.B. article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Further article revisions
The article section on hallows has been amended a touch. Perhaps we ought to consider what else ought to be included. There have been two suggestions above.

Curiousb has observed that (some)foreign language editions have a title with a different meaning when strightforwardly translated into English. This smacks of something which needs a linguist, but perhaps we should have a paragraph on this.

Folken has suggested that we ought to have something more about shrine hallows.

Any suggestions for possible text, anyone? Sandpiper 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More about hallows in general, as your obviously biased edit has been added by your own insidious manipulation of my words. It was before that you should have tried to make you text better, not now that it will stay untouched for months in the article. Folken de Fanel 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki works on the principle of editors finding content they think worth adding, and then adding it themselves. If you want something added to the section, then find what you want and suggest it here. Articles do not sit in limbo with nothing added at all because all that is currently available is incomplete. People have to come up with stuff to include for themselves. The only reason this article is blocked is because you entered into an edit war here with two other editors, which simply consisted of you deleting existing content. Sandpiper 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason the article was blocked is that 2 editors entered an edit war, and were trying to reintegrate in the article blatant original research.
 * I have not deleted existing content.
 * I have corrected the article to make it suitable for Wikipedia.
 * Article do not have just anything added that has not reached consensus and that is not satisfying for wikipedia, just for the sake of adding something.


 * Well, it seemed in your message of the 4th of march that you were willing to discuss possible modifications to your proposed text. Now we can do it. That's all I wanted to do.


 * So, what I've said, is that if we have to thorough about hallows, we have to talk about all hallows that have existed. The article mentions shrine hallows (I have suggested stonehenge for that) and saints hallows, why no researching about them ? Folken de Fanel 07:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want something added, then please place here the wording that you want included. I have been requesting that you do this for some time now. It is not my place to create what you want inserted into the text, not least because there is no way I can determine what you would consider suitable. No one can agree or disagree with anything you want added untill you write it, and wiki will not sit forever waiting for you to state what you want in the article. Sandpiper 08:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We can see that Stonehenge has been featured in arthurian legends. Could Avalon be also concidered as a sanctuary ? Something I just thought of, maybe the stone in which Excalibur was stuck can be seen a a sort of hallow (ie something which contains a holy relic). These are all ideas to work on, and I just hoped you'd help me to develop these into something that can be added in the article. Folken de Fanel 11:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but exactly what do you want. Write out a paragraph as you want it included. I don't mind tidying up the grammar, but its not for me to propose the content you want. I don't object to including a paragraph about locations, but they are supposed to be examples of hallows. We would not be including them because they  feature in arthurian legends, but as established examples of hallows=location. Arthurian legends are mentioned so far because they contain examples of hallows=revered object, as do the other legends mentioned. The relevance of Arthurian legends per se to the plot of HP is another issue, and I don't think we want to go there. Excalibur could be a hallow=object example, but we already have lots of those. I think (stonehenge=where druids worship) is much more the kind of example you seem to want. Sandpiper 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice another ref on this subject has appeared at TLC. It seems to be doing exactly what we are trying to do here, explain possible meanings of the title. However it doesn't consider the possibility of hallows=location at all. Sandpiper. Then there is another essay discussing the connection between the hangman game used to publicise the title (The hanged man Tarot card), the statue of Hermes used to announce completion of the book (The Magician tarot card figure), and other tarot cards which have already made an appearance in book 6. 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

W.O.M.B.A.T.
This is a link on the official site. What is it? This is probibaly irrelivant here but...Quatreryukami 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, you might benefit from reading the Lexicon's entry on the WOMBAT. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx. Quatreryukami 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Page archiving
Right now this talk page is nearing 300 kb. Is the first really long section, with six subsections, okay for archiving? It seems to me that the discussion has moved to a new section. If so, I'd recommend moving that section to its own archive page, that alone has to be just about 2/3 of the bulk of this page. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do. John Reaves (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The last word "Scar"
When I first heard when author of HP J.K. Rowling revealed that the last word of the book was "scar", I was quite curious. Does anybody have an idea about the ending? In other words, what will happen? I am very tempted to say that its possible that Harry Potter will actually lose his scar...thus showing the 'relief' or 'release of tension' in the book. - Tobias 3/5/07
 * Hi Tobias, thanks for your thoughts, but please see the templates at the top of this page: Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the potential content of Deathly Hallows. These talk pages are about improvements to the article. You might want to bring your idea to a fan forum. Best, Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Size
Didnt the article somewhere mention that the book will be the size of the Encylclopedia of Brittanicca.
 * No, and it's highly improbable too. Rowling has mentioned a few times that Order of the Phoenix will likely be the longest book of the series. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Plese add lv:Harija Potera septītā grāmata‎ thanks Xil/talk 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...newcomer with a small contribution...
Heh...this has probably occured to everyone, but I'm often the last to think of everything (I haven't even read Book 6. Those jerks yelling "Snape kills Dumbledore" took away the mystery). But it seems pretty obvious that the "Deathly Hallows" have something to do with either a) The horcruxes.  C'mon, wouldn't they be important talismanic thingies?  Hallow = Horcrux.  I know it's an original thought, so it can't go in, but still... b)  The arch in the Department of Mysteries. Rowling SAYS that the magic mirrors that Harry and Sirius had are still important. So the arch and mirrors will have some importance. But really, the horcruxes probably have SOMETHING to do with the title. I called it. I'm not reading the book until a while after it comes out, so I have even more reason to speculate. Hope this helps a little. Chrisalbro 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. After I looked up the word horcrux popped into my head right away. Great minds think alike, eh? MoChan 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Chrisalbro, glad you've got this idea. But I'm going to have to ask you to keep discussion pages (or "talk pages") to discussing changes to the article's content, not discussion on the general article topic. However, if you'd like to share this idea, I'd suggest one of the many fan forums online if you haven't discovered them already! Best, Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This rather illustrates the difficulty of the debate above. People expect this page to present information about the title of the book. Hallow= horcrux is not an original thought, it is already a documented one, fast becoming an old one, and ought to be in the article. There is a point at which something becomes a laughing stock by denying the obvious. Sandpiper 09:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hallow=horcrux is an original thought, because it has never been suggested by any person involved in the writing or publishing of HP.
 * It has absolutely never been documented (unless fans attempting mind-reading on JKR is concidered a "document", which is NOT the case.
 * It will NEVER be in the article. It's all original research and you're not allowed to do it.Folken de Fanel 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from a certain point of view, this does relate to the article, as it could be brought up in the article (if another source has stated it). At least in my opinion

Yoda921 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Yoda
 * Well, since no source reported it, it will never be in the article. And when I say source, I mean source, not kids attempting to read the mind of JKR. Folken de Fanel 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Page length etc
In view of the length of this talk page can it be partially archived, with a summary thereof - and probably again in eary July.

Putative last sections for the article page (mid and late July): "Pseudo-leaks and similar release of information in the run up to actual publication" and "Comparisons between speculation and the book-as-is." Jackiespeel 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore's Watch
I believe Dumbledore is dead; JKR has said so. Why is it then that many fans expect him to turn up in book 7? Why did JKR say that she "was having trouble with Dumbledore?" It has been suggested that Harry will merely interact with his portrait, but I think that there is more to it than that.

We do already know that Dumbledore is a Time Traveler - does he not say in PoA that he "always finds it best to retrace [his] steps?" This indicates some longtime experience (pun intended.) Further we have seen his magnificent watch - no ordinary timepiece, and no ordinary time turner either.

I submit to you that Dumbledore has indeed traveled to the future and seen his fate, that all we have seen in Book 6 has been arranged by him for Harry's benefit and that he willingly accepted his own death to protect Harry or save Harry's life. Further, Harry will meet Dumbledore in Book 7, possibly at Godric's Hollow, and will finally give him the explanations we all seek.

76.176.201.250 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ___B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a___ Wayne B. Hewitt    Encinitas,  CA
 * Hello, thanks for your theory. It is very possible, but original research is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. I'd recommend suggesting your theory to a fan forum. Thanks! --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sales" Section Removal
On 6 May, apparent vandalism resulted in most or all parts of this article being removed. Most parts were restored over the next few days, but the "Sales" section has, apparently, never been restored. I suggest that the "Sales" section be restored to this article, using the version in place as of 6 May (with, perhaps, some updates). Fragesteller (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to boldly do so if you think it is the right thing to do - there are no article priority owners or anything here. Just copy (from the "good" historical version edit box) and paste it back in (to the current version) or something in the correct spot.  Is it sufficiently up to date though?  There should be a reliable primary source for this sort of thing, and there certainly should have been one provided before.  It might have been legitimately deleted as unsourced or original research if there were no reliable references to defend it.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)