Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Archives

• /Archive 1: original research complaints; unfounded theories
• /Archive 2: speculated release date; plot speculation; questions to be answered by the book
• /Archive 3: references; fake titles; more speculation; failed requested move
• /Archive 4: real title; questions about "hallows"; trimming of speculation
• /Archive 5: cited fan speculation; real release date; the meaning of "hallows",
• /Archive 6: long debate on inclusion of speculation on the meaning of "hallows"'
• /Archive 7: article length, some {{editprotected}} requests; continuation of above debate on "hallows"
• /Archive 8: continuation of above debate; minor article questions
• /Archive 9: continuation of Hallows debate

I archived the page. Ahem...

Just so you know, it was me who archived the page. Sorry if this bothers you. Please just continue debate in the Hallows Debate section. The most recent arguments are as follows. Within the Veil 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'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. --Fbv65edel / ☑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 Within the Veil (talk · contribs). 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!! Within the Veil (talk · contribs)

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. Fbv65edel / ☑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#DEMOCRACY.

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! Within the Veil (talk · contribs)

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)

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. [1]. Sorry, can't sign in from here. Within the Veil (talk · contribs). And don't worry, my name will be changed soon, hopefully.

File: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 [2] 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 [3] 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).

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)

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. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New cover

here it is:

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)

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: [4]

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 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). Within the Veil (talk · contribs)

Summaries

Seeing as how most of the article is speculation, the official jacket cover blurbs released today should have a place in the article. Hopefully an admin can add this, or else unprotect the article - 2 weeks is a very long time for such a high traffic article.

"Harry has been burdened with a dark, dangerous and seemingly impossible task: that of locating and destroying Voldemort’s remaining Horcruxes. Never has Harry felt so alone, or faced a future so full of shadows. But Harry must somehow find within himself the strength to complete the task he has been given. He must leave the warmth, safety , and companionship of The Burrow and follow without fear or hesitation the inexorable path laid out for him… In this final, seventh installment of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling unveils in spectactular fashion the answers to the many questions that have been so eagerly awaited. The spellbinding, richly woven narrative, which plunges, twists and turns at a breathtaking pace, confirms the author as a mistress of storytelling, whose books will be read, reread and read again."

and

"Harry is waiting in Privet Drive. The Order of the Phoenix is coming to escort him safely away without Voldemort and his supporters knowing – if they can. But what will Harry do then? How can he fulfil the momentous and seemingly impossible task that Professor Dumbledore has left him with?"

Taken from http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9653. GrahameS 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)