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
• /Archive 10: end of Hallows debate, release of the covers
• /Archive 11: more talk of the covers, image questions

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

I think some discussion on the matter of the films article being redirected to this page is needed. There is info about the film from reputable sources (See [1] & [2]). --RockerballAustralia 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the extrapolated date for the release of a hypothetical film version of DH is Summer 2010, unless Warner Bros. chooses to accelerate the HP production schedule. Similarly HBP is anticipated to be late November 2008. Any speculation outside of what Warner Bros. has officially announced would be highly suspect, and probably disallowed - WB has not said much about HBP yet, much less DH. We are not required to report on the ramblings of folks at low-credibility news ragsheets who know less about the subject than most of the semi-respectable information gathering depots - like the Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron. I expect that when there is sufficient notable information available at the usual sites, and WB has at least acknowledged the intent to produce the film, then we can start an article on it. Until then - probably not. Thanks for asking though. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this will be made a film; in fact, it's been confirmed that the actors will return. But see WP:NOT#CBALL. With information only that those three actors will return, and David Heyman back as producer, it's such little information for something so far in the future that it just doesn't meet the guidelines for the existence of an article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in apropriate to redirect films article being redirected to the Book, because anyone who wants information about the book would not type (film) in their search for the article. So, if they get to films article, it is obvious that they want information about the film and it's production, not information about the book. Even though there is little known at this point, there is more than nothing, and the artlicle should reflect the known details. -12.218.155.57 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that if someone types …Deathly Hallows (film) they're looking for the film and not the book, but the film is too far in the future for it to be an article now. Consider that pre-production is only just beginning on Half-Blood Prince. By redirecting the film article to here, we're saying that they're such little information about this for it to be a real article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think there is enough to have an article, but even if there isn't, a better redirect would be to the article Harry Potter (films); and whatever is known about the seventh film should be included in that article. -12.218.155.57 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it should be a redirect. It should better be deleted, for now. --soum (0_o) 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, probably the best place to post the bits and pieces of info on the hypothetical DH film might be at Harry Potter Films, until it can grow well beyond a 2-sentence stub on when it might be targeted for release, and who might be returning as actors and crew. Perhaps the redirect should be sent there. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect should be sent to Harry Potter Films. After both the release of the book and the availability of more information about the film, then a separate article should be created. Tuyvan 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I think the DH film qualifies as a verifiable, widely interesting, noteable, almost certain to take place (money has already changed hands), preparation already in progress, not a member of a recurring sequence (eg 2012, 2016, 2020 election) and is entitled to an article under the terms outlined in not-a-crystal-ball. It may not be a very big article, but since everyone out there knows perfectly well there is going to be a film, inevitably people will keep trying to create it. Even if it is little more than a redirect referring people here for likely plot inclusions, it seems to me a lot simpler just to create it as an article. Sandpiper 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As most of the discussion on this page suggests, I have added a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) link to the template, and changed the redirect of that page to Harry Potter (films). Please DO NOT undo these changes without posting here first. As for the article, I also feel that there is enough information on the film to constitue a separate article. It not, we could try adding a Film section here, and change the template to redirect there. Lutherjw 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - and if anyone wants to expand on the scant information posted on the Deathly Hallows (film) entry at Harry Potter (films) as a sort of a stub-section, I think that would be fine. The current format of the (films) article includes some history, especially of the early films, along with some basic information like release dates and such. The latter films are basically just listed, along with links to the main articles for each of the respective films. In the case of Deathly Hallows, until there is enough reliable information to post beyond a stub, I think we can break with the convention at the (films) article and allow a special section for what little information we have (confirmed returning or new cast and crew members, pre-production information, locations, etc.) as it comea available. I agree there is no sense in denying what is known (and can ve verified with reliable sources), but having a separate "full article" on the DH film, but presented as a two-line stub, seems to me to invite more vandalism and trolling, along with the honest-to-goodness good faith edits from the kids that heard something from a blog page somehere, and have just GOT to be the first to post it in order to inform the rest of the world. Once the (films) section for DH grows to resemble the HBP film article, then it is ripe for converting to a separate article. I guess however we will have to watch out for back-door editors who may try to create and build surrogate articles like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - The Movie". Oops - did I just feed the Trolls? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholastic interview - further HP books

I'm sure that most people would agree with me that the phrase "she doesn't plan on further Harry Potter books" refers to Rowling's current plans. This can only be justified using an interview from 7 years ago if you also provide evidence that her plans have not changed since then. Lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. The quote says it all:

At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book. (emphasis added)

I have already edited the article in the past over this issue and been reverted. Brian Jason Drake 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your point. Certainly she is free to change her mind, and may do so (if the money ever runs out) or not. But using definitives like never would not be a true statement. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? She has said it many times that this book is the last one. On her own personal website, she stated "I always knew that Harry's story would end with the seventh book, but saying goodbye has been just as hard as I always knew it would be. Even while I'm mourning, though, I feel an incredible sense of achievement. I can hardly believe that I've finally written the ending I've been planning for so many years."[3] That's from the author herself. How you can argue with that or speculate about it on an encyclopedia is beyond me. Anyway, you cannot add speculation to this article, we can only report what we can verify. For now, what we can say is that JK Rowling has no plans to write anything after the series except for, perhaps, "an encyclopedia in which I could have fun with the minor characters and I could give the definitive biography of all the characters." [4] dposse 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that she plans for this book to be the last. I am disputing the use of interviews from so long ago to justify such statements. We should at least add a better (more current) reference alongside the Scholastic interview. Brian Jason Drake 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you two. The most recent one is the blog entry she posted on her website. We'll use that. dposse 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the blog entry as a reference. Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that's nice, but her comment from her website is already quoted in its entirety as the last entry in that section. Has been throughout this discussion. Does no one read the articles? Sandpiper 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that shouldn't necessarily stop us from referring to it! However, I am happy with the current state of that section. Brian Jason Drake 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

There has recently been a good deal of edit warring on this article, including at least one violation of the three-revert-rule. Note that the rule prohibits any one editor from reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, no matter how the reverts are spaced out within the 24 hours. Not also that any change that effectively restores a prior state of the article, or re-inserts or re-removes disputed text counts as a revert, even if done in conjunction with other edits. Note also that edit warring is a very bad idea even if the 3RR is not technically broken. Please try to come to agreement by some means other than edit warring. I have closed a report on the 3RR noticeboard with a strong warning, because the reverts involved stopped 2 days ago. But further violations of the 3RR are likely to result in a block for any and all editors violating the rule. Thank you and happy editing. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship?

There is zero mention of the british tabloid press leak (widely reprinted worldwide in newspapers) which says in HP7 namesake hero Harry Potter will have to give up his magical powers in order to stop Voldemort and save his friends from "eternal darkness", whatever that means. This is highly significant info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

A tabloid is probably not a reliable source. By the way, how exactly is it censorship if no one has even heard of this supposed article? Give a link and we'll consider it. dposse 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hem Hem Hem. We should not even consider this (key word: Tabloid!). If you can provide a reliable source, then we can consider it.Quatreryukami 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that newspapers aren't the most reliable of sources but I think you're underestimating the quality of the british tabloids. The Times, the most respected newspaper in England (Unless you're a Telegraph person) now comes in tabloid form and if you ignore the sensationalist overly-conservative anti-labour propogands in the Daily Mail that's not a bad paper either. Of course the Sun, Star, Sport and anything with topless chicks on page 3 is not to be trusted. On another note, the information may not be correct but if it's in a newspaper then it might gain widespread recognition, even though it's false, it's good to know about it in advance incase it does become worthy of note- noting that innacurate rumours were being spread in the newspapers as 'fact'.

Sign your post man. Anyway, I don't know much about the british papers, I'm an american, so sorry bout that. Quatreryukami 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids can be accurate sources - sometimes. Occasionally. Rarely, even. Show us a link! Our local paper usually picks up on absurd British stories, but I haven't heard of this one over here in AU. Daggoth S 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the hurry to put such info even if it is true? The book will be out in a few months. Let people enjoy reading the book and finding out for themselves what will happen. Berserkerz Crit 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume this is censorship. None of the top fan sites, usually quick to report any information, had any story about this. None of the three papers in New York (I just searched) had anything about "eternal darkness" recently. If you tell us where you found this, we may decide to put it into the article, but it sounds highly unlikely -- not for censorship, but because Wikipedia does not carry rumors. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I did notice, however, that at least one website was adopting a spoiler policy of not posting anything unless it was from a cast-iron source, and officially released. This might not include newspaper reports. I would suggest that Harry is likely to lose at least one magical power if he kills Voldemort....his link to Voldemorts mind. (well, I hope so anyway. Haunted by Voldemort?). That may sound like a daft quip, but it is not necessarily: I don't know where this report is supposed to come from, but a quip like mine might get blown up into a story, 'Harry loses powers'. Sandpiper 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagenumbers of UK version based on wrong rumours

Although the number of 608 pages for the UK version of DH can be found all over the Internet, it is based on wrong information. Bloomsbury have never confirmed the number of pages. The source of this rumour is probably an erroneous entry on amazon.co.uk which has been copied by numerous other sites. The number 608 should be removed from the article and it is perhaps worth mentioning that this unconfirmed information is based on a mistake. AberforthD 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Leaky and Mugglenet reported when the covers were released, that they confirmed the 608 page count with Bloomsbury somehow. That's good enough for me. Daggoth S 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaky reported that 608 first turned up on a bookseller's website[5], and the number was then confirmed with Bloomsbury on the day of the cover release.[6] There's no link to a Bloomsbury announcement or anything , but I don't see how we can remove the info from the article when there's nothing in the media (that I can see anyway) saying "Amazon probably got the number wrong". Daggoth S 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think the statement of 608 pages is too strong given the weak basis of our sources. I don't want to cast any doubt on Mugglenet's or Leaky's sources, but I can hardly see how a statement on their site that they checked with Bloomsbury can be taken for an authorative confirmation. In my opinion there is still no official confirmation of the UK pagecount and the article should reflect that. I propose to formulate it as follows: "The book will be 784 pages in the US edition and is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition". AberforthD 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Horcruxes

There were seven pieces but two got destroyed, weren't there? Simply south 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

His soul was split into seven pieces. Six were used to create horcruxes. The 7th piece was the one which never left Voldemort's body. We assume this one "was destroyed" (at least as far as we of this plane are concerned) in the incident in which Harry received his scar. At least, if I am interpreting this all correctly (haven't re-read HBP since it came out). I also assume that one horcrux was "used" at tis point to bring Voldemort back in diminished form. We are also led to believe that Tom Riddle's diary was a horcrux, and was destroyed in Chamber of Secrets. Then there is the ring that Dumbledore found and destroyed. So, 3 horcruxes down, 3 left (which, including the soul piece that is Voldemort's current incarnation, still makes 7). We know one of them is an amulet. That leaves two unknown, one of which may be that giant snake (but we don't know for sure). So, there you go. --Reverend Loki 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong... That's the same thing I thought at first, but after re-reading it, it states that Horcruxes act like anchors, they keep the soul here. So Voldies soul wasn't destroyed in the incident at the beginning of the series. That piece can't be destroyed until every other piece is destroyed. So the correct count is, two down, 4 to go (The soul in Voldies body isn't a Horcrux). Tuvas 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's right. Harry has to find the horcrux's and destroy them before he can attempt to take out the seventh and last piece of his soul, which is in his body. dposse 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up you two. --Reverend Loki 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK BUT IF U THINK ABOUT IT HE SENT A SPELL TO KILL HARRY IT WAS REDIRECTED BACK AT HIM SO IT KILLED HIM AND WHO KNOWS WHAT HE DID TO SPLIT HIS SOUL INTO SEVEN PIECES IT COULD IF INVOLVED HIS OWN DEATH IN ORDER TO SPLIT HIS SOULWHEN HE DIED AFTER ATACKING HARRY I WAS PROBABLY LIKE (SUPER MARIO) WHERE HE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A NEW SOUL PIECE AND AUTO MATICALLY DESTROYING A HORCRUX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.246.176 (talk • contribs)

The guy at the top is right, Harry has only 3 Horcruzes to destroy then he can attack and kill Voldemort. Voldemort made 7 Horcruxes. When Voldemort attacked Harry as a baby, he sent a killing curse at Harry which deflected and hit him (resulting in the scar) killing Voldemort, but one of the horcruxes replaced his soul, keeping him barely alive. 1 Horcrux down, 6 to go. Then the next one was destroyed when Harry destroyed the Riddle Diary in "Chamber of Secrets." 2 down 5 to go. In "Half Blood Prince," Dumbledore destroyed the black ring belonging to Voldemort's grandfather. 3 down, 4 to go. And then the one Harry and Dumbledore went to get in "Half Blood Price," but had already been taken by the mysterious "R.A.B." Well R.A.B said he destroyed it anyway, so that means that one is gone as well. 4 down, 3 to go. Well he might not have accomplished it, but that would mean its 3 down, 4 to go. One of those anyway. So the 3 are: possibly the snake, the other piece of jewelry from Borgins & Burkes, and a mysterious one. Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.183.122 (talk • contribs)

No, sorry. If you look in ch. 23 Horcruxes in the book Half-Blood Prince, roughly halfway through, Harry asks Dumbledore: "He made seven Horcruxes?", and Dumbledore replies: "... no Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body." Dumbledore goes on to tell Harry in the following pages that, with the destruction of the Riddle Diary and Marvolo's Ring, what remains are four: the two "probables" - the Slytherin Locket and the Hufflepuff Cup Horcruxes, which Riddle stole from Hepzibah Smith; and then two uncertain ones - "something of Ravenclaw's or of Gryffindor's", and perhaps Nagini, as Dumbledore explained to Harry. While Dumbledore could have gotten it wrong, this is the ONLY source we have for canonical information from Rowling, and we will not know the "truth" of the matter until July 21. There is no basis whatsoever for the occasional claim from some speculators that Voldemort "lost" a portion of his soul when he first attacked Harry. Quite the opposite. Voldemort's "body" may have been destroyed, but his soul fled to a Forest and resided there, to be found by Quirrell (Book 1) with Voldemort's "body" becoming a face on the back of Quirrell's head. After the second disasterous encounter with Harry at the end of Philosopher's Stone, Voldemort's soul fled back to the Forest, to be found again later by Pettigrew (Books 3 and 4), and placed first into the crude baby-like creature, and then to his "current" form, reformulated with Pettigrew's assistance, from his Father's bone, Pettigrew's hand, and Harry's blood. The point is, the soul goes on, whatever happens to the body: the remaining soul "in his body" or otherwise, lives on until all six fragments stored as Horcruxes are destroyed. Please feel free to read the books again before July 21 to get properly "caught up" with what we "know". --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are rumors that perhaps Harry himself is a horcrux. Evidence that suggests this includes the fact that Harry Potter can see what Voldemort can see (such as the scene in which he kills the gardner at the Riddle house)and feels his thoughts and emotions. Harry also has the power to speak parseltounge and see through the eyes of Nagini, Voldemort's snake and possible Horcrux. Should Harry himself be a Horcrux then there is the taunting question of how he is to go about destroying a piece of Voldemort that lies within himself. Perhaps suicide?~~ 9:55 May 6, 2007

Thanks - but this is all pure speculation and unsourced original research, which does not conform with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We can post what Rowling said, and possibly what a renowned expert in Horcruxes and English Literature might have to say, but beyond that, sorry. The many Harry Potter fan sites and blog pages absolutely rejoice in such speculation however, and expound on it - perhaps you can present and debate your theories there? Thanks again! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B is proboble to stand for Regulus Black, Sirius Black's brother that was once a Death Eater and first mentioned in Harry Potter Book Five. Regulus is said to have not been an important Death Eater, but obviously he knew about the Dark Lord's horcruxes. Noone has mentioned what happened to him however. May 6, 2007

Right, and these things are discussed at the respective articles on R.A.B., Horcruxes, and Regulus Black - at least to the extent allowed. If you have some notable, reliable, verifiable, and neutral information that does not constitute original research to post there, then please feel free. Thanks! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there has been lots of talk about Horcruxes. Now, I would like to point out, ==Harry is NOT a Horcrux!!==. Lots of people think that the spell rebounded and made Harry a Horcrux. JK Rowling has confirmed that this is NOT the case. I would also like to point out that there is a fake version of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows has been released. Having downloaded and read some of this fan-fiction version, merely speculation of what COULD happen, I have realised that this is not correct as it supports the "Harry is a Horcrux theory." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -x-Bekah-x- (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I doubt that. Harry will kill himself, and survive. That's a huge hint if anything. RedKlonoa 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Leak?

See also: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows § Leaked_Table_of_Contents

There have been leaks of the book apearing on torrent websites. Are they real?71.206.136.69 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the book. If there was any evidence to suggest that the leaks were real, you'd see it on the fansites and the news pretty quickly. Brian Jason Drake 08:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the "leaks" are not real. Like Brian said, if they were real, you'd hear about it on the news or at fansites such as MuggleNet. dposse 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing since it is leaked no one truely knows if it is real or not. also that is why the fansites are not posting that information, because they don't want to post non-accurate information. Mamamia2 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the ToC (as well as a "leaked" version of the book) is clearly faked, fan sites like MuggleNet and HPANA have very strict anti-spoiler rules, so leaks that are real but not "authorized" would not get reported there :(

accually the one chapter I read was fairly good. If it is fake I hope that the person who wrote it would become an author. Though, i have read some leaks that are just stupid.

Please sign your comments. I would expect both the news and fansites to report the existence of a real leak, even if they don't report the location or content of such a leak. Brian Jason Drake 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This book is a prime target for leaks, and Rowling would be very upset if it was leaked by fansites or media outlets, so it would be hard to tell what is real and what is not. Of course Rowling can afford to pay for people she can trust, so it also makes it hard to leak, thus I am skeptical, but not dismissive, of any stories of chapters being leaked, let alone the whole book JayKeaton 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I happen to have a copy of the whole book on hand. Apparently someone linked the whole book, found the PDF file on 4chan (http://www.4chan.org/). Really highly doubt it's a fake leak, especially when there is 659 pages of it (not 608 like many say, and also this is not including the pictures) and all too well written to be just a fake copy. RedKlonoa 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RedKlonoa, it IS a fake. Someone up there said they had the exact same thing. If you get around page 120, when Harry is at Godric's Hollow, he encounters Wormtail, who confirms he is a Horcrux. Now, if your "real copy of the book" says that then it IS A FAKE!!!! And not only that but just because it is 659 pages doesn't make it real. If I had a Bible and another book with exactly the same amount of pages, that doesn't make it the Bible, does it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.233.118 (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't say that at page 120. Sorry, but you failed to prove it fake. Btw, I'd think 658 pages is more than 608 pages, while you say opposite of what I believe here. ("If I had a Bible and another book with exactly the same amount of pages") RedKlonoa 15:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Time of release for the US is incorrect

The article states that the US version will be released at 00:01 local time. This is incorrect. The reference to Rowling's site only states British Standard Time for the UK and other English speaking countries in the world. It does not specify the time for the USA. This might be a simple omission but in any case the release time cannot unambiguously be derived from that source. However, Bloomsbury's site does state that "Sale of the book in all time zones is embargoed until 00:01 BST (British Summer Time) on Saturday 21st July 2007." [7] (Click on "News" then "Publication announcement" and scroll to the bottom). This means that the book is released at the exact same moment all over the world, including the USA. AberforthD 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The info comes from Rowlings own website. It says Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be published on Saturday 21st July 2007 at 00:01 BST in the UK and at 00:01 in the USA. It will also be released at 00:01 BST on Saturday 21st July in other English speaking countries around the world. I agree this is perhaps not as clear as it might be, but it says in the USA it will be released at 00.01. I take it this means local time, since it takes the trouble to say that elsewhere it will be released at 00.:01 UK time. I don't know quite what that means for Canada? Sandpiper 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But have you checked out the reference I gave above to Bloomsbury's site? It is as clear as it can be.AberforthD 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the reference. This may just be referring to the Bloomsbury edition of the book, which is not published in America. I can't imagine that they'll break the tradition of a midnight party just for the last book, where people in Los Angeles would be lining up to get the book at 5pm and people in New York at 8 pm. The last three books have had midnight parties, seems weird to change it for this one. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will definitely be released at midnight here in America. I checked here and on several other reputable websites. All sources say that Deathly Hallows will released one minute after midnight in America and all english-speaking countries. Arwen undomiel 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was forgetting that the USA is so big. Yes, multiple time zones woiuld account for the slightly odd way the US entry is phrased by Rowling. I agree that Bloomsbury are not likely to talk about when a different company is publishuing a book. Sandpiper 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that JKR doesn't want to release the book before it's been released in England anywhere, meaning places like Australia. But after it's been released there, I assume that it will be released at 12:01 everywhere else. Just a guess. Tuvas 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you have to admit that it would be a tad unfair if her own home country didn't get the final book first. I would imagine that the books will be released at midnight all over the world, so some countrys will get it before others (just like the previous releases). Wild ste 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Oft-Made Edits, and What We Can Do About It

This is to those who have been watching this page for a while. We've all seen a few edits come up a few times too many, to be corrected yet again by whichever of those standing vigil catches it first. The example that comes to mind right now is the horcrux issue - every so often, someone comes along and wants to change it to 7 instead of 6. But there are more. To this end, I ask you: would it be helpful to create a brief list of these commonly modified facts? Something we can point to, or that might catch a new editor's eye before they make that change. Maybe something we can add to the top of this talk page. We could even include non-rendered comments in the article near these facts, pointing to the list.

Secondly, if it is worthwhile to make such a list for this page, what should we put on it? What bit of info have you had to revert back to correctness one too many times? Or maybe just seen reverted time and time again?

Just throwing this out... --Reverend Loki 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times that someone has helpfully tried to change the cover graphic at the top of the page to the U.S. version, although that has been slowing down recently. The info/debate on that subject has been moved into archive, and I've been toying with the idea of restoring the beginning of it to here, for much the same reasons that you describe. (I also inserted a hidden comment next to the graphic refering to the talk page on the article - it's still in there.)

Other than that, and the 6/7 horcrux thing ... I haven't seen anything that really sticks out as being constantly inserted/reverted. Just general speculation and vandalism. Daggoth S 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think for now there is no need to create a list, maybe when there is more traffic as we get closer to D-day, we should reconsider it or even protect the page. Lizrael 14:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this has already been discussed, but why wouldn't the American cover be the graphic at the top of the site? There are probably more American readers who come than British (just because of population numbers). This is just my idea, I don't know if it has anything to it. -MSauce 66.191.101.26 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because Rowling is a British author, and the book is a British publication. Also, every other Harry Potter book article utilizes the British cover. MelicansMatkin 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been discussed at length and we reached a consensus: the British cover is the "official"cover and it stays to ensure uniformity. MelicansMatkin summed it up pretty well, but I would like to point out that a lot of Harry Potter fans read this article; their nationality is irrelevant. Arwen undomiel 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Two people (don't make me say the S word) have been repeatedly adding links to "teaser" lists from web forums over the past day or so. I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning somewhere on here that leaks, teasers etc shouldn't be linked or mentioned on here unless there is clear evidence, I would say cited by the media, that they are verifiable. (Of course, there's a message just like that on every "edit this page" dialog, but people tend to disregard that particular one.) The top of this talk page spells it out for discussion on the book's contents on here, maybe we could re-word it for the article itself? Daggoth | Talk 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, all of these revisions are starting to get annoying. If the same people keep persisting despite everything being said not to include them, perhaps using the edit test templates would be more useful. MelicansMatkin 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Other registered titles

This section is for debating including other titles trademarked in ways relating to Deathly Hallows. Please keep commentary to the commentary post, and include a signed very brief comment to the survey section. Thanks! Tuvas 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Okay, this seems to be the current editing war, let's talk about it. I've seen it posted/removed at least a half dozen times, and I'm not really looking. Should we include the other titles that were trademarked, or not? Let's just settle the discussion here, and that way we avoid an edit war. Tuvas 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not, unless we report what representatives of JKR said about it: that they were "never contenders for book 7" and just "a few spares to keep the fans guessing" (things that, strangely, certain editors are trying to hide from the readers).

Also, why would we cite only 2 titles ? Dozens of titles have been registered, it is POV to cite only 2 of them (implying they are the right ones).

But anyway, since the 2 other titles for book 7 were never revealed, and since JKR said she wouldn't reveal them before publication, I think it's perfectly useless to have any selective mention of other titles, since it would only bring POV conflicts (why mention some titles and not others, who are some editors to decide that certain titles are relevant and likely to be the ones, etc). Since we don't know, we don't know and that's all, we don't try to push our POV on the subject, since there really is nothing substanciated to include...We don't know'...Folken de Fanel 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, what on earth are you talking about? The text you object to, under the section (Meaning of Hallows) discussing the use of the title, is as follows: "Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts HallowsTwo additional titles were registered at the same time as the actual title, but it was later denied that these had ever been possible alternatives." All of that is sourced. It is relevant to state that two titles similar to the genuine title were registered, particularly if sourced. It is relevant to state that the titles registered at the same time as HPDH were not the possible titles to which she alluded as existing, particularly if sourced. There is also no problem with using web-based sources as additional sources, provided that they merely support the main source on which a contention in the text is based, rather than acting as the main source themselves. Michael Sanders 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does the source says about it ? Folken de Fanel 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it is clear now, from Sandpiper's recent revert, that it is not a contents problem, but merely a personal problem. He's obviously disturbing the articles just to express his hatred for me.Folken de Fanel 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Moving swiftly along, since copyright information is publically known and traceable, there is no need to refer in the text body to who precisely stated the titles were copyrighted and when, since there is no need to emphasise that they are the assertions of a particular writer - it is a piece of sourced public domain knowledge. So a simple reference is just fine - no need to state specifically who said what if the matter is not controversial (which this isn't). Michael Sanders 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't know where this 'we sometimes register a few spares' comes from. But I suspect it is WP:SYNTH: an editor mixing two published sources (a published list of titles and a published quote about creating spares) to create the novel and original position that the referenced titles were 'a few spares' never intended to be used. Unless it is specifically stated, or suggested, in sources, that the relevant titles were 'spares', or whatever, the quote cannot be used there, since it implies a POV. Michael Sanders 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're wrong, because this matter is particularly controversial. Remember that JKR "declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication", and that representatives of JKR specifically intervened on websites to say that certain titles "were never contenders for book 7".

In this context were dozens of titles, each stranger than the other, have been registered since 2002, and where the author specifically refuses to give the other 2 possible titles, any assertion that some titles "are likely to be the ones", just by looking at a list on the net and without further argumentation, is of course a controversial statement, and needs to be properly attributed to its author.Folken de Fanel 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't controversial to say, 'The Meaning of Hallows: meaning is unknown; Rowling registered two similar titles in 2003-2004'. I mean, really. Michael Sanders 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is controversial to say "these are the titles JKR was going to use", when earlier, there is a quote from her saying she won't reveal the titles before publication.

Besides, dozens of titles were registered (and not by Rowling), not only "hallows of hogwarts". Folken de Fanel 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to remember this particular policy only when it's convenient for you, I don't rememeber you respecting it on the R.A.B. article. Thus, just in order to avoid pointing out to your heratic behavior too severly and humiliating you in front of many people, I'm going to close my eyes on what you just said, and we're going to forget you ever dared to mention WP:SYNTH here.

In the RAB article, the assertions were attributed to the published author (the man responsible for the synthesis, and thus out of wikipedia's interest). Here, you are making your own case that the titles were not intended to be used - POV, Synth, and unnecessary. Michael Sanders 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the RAB article, the assertions were not attributed to anyone and were mainly the speculations of one editor.

I am not saying anything, the representative of JKR said it. Where in his quote did he say that "hallows of hogwarts" etc was not included in the registered titles ? Folken de Fanel 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the quote is specifically "often registered a few spares to keep people guessing", which is exactly the case for "Hogwarts hallows" etc, because even if you personally think these are the right titles, they were just registered by a company, nothing more, and they are no more different than any other titles registered. Folken de Fanel 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Folken, it isn't controversial to say "two titles similar to this title were registered by Rowling a few years ago." It is controversial for you to venture your personal opinion that they are 'spares' to 'keep readers guessing'. All we are saying in the article about this is that 'two similar titles were registered in 2003-2004'. No-one is venturing any further than that without visibly sourcing it. What is it that you are failing to understand here? Michael Sanders 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes michael it is controversial to say that these titles are the ones.

It is not my personal opinion, it's what the representatives for JKR said.

You are venturing further than that without visibly sourcing it.

Why are you trying to add comments made by representatives for JKR on these titles ? Folken de Fanel 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think there's been enough of this debate going on. Why don't we try taking a compromise, of simply removing all references to other things that have been trademarked, except for the reference that JKR had chosen two other possible titles? Then there's no debate, and no controversy. Studying the issue further just simply let me know that there isn't enough publicly available information to really say anything on the matter. I'm going to go ahead and remove the statements myself. If a compromise can be met, in the mean while, then we can change it, but please be polite. Tuvas 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, there's simply not enough info yet to allow such suppositions.

The the best way is not to mention this at all. The subject is very controversial anyway (dozens of titles have been registered since 2002, including "Peverell Quest", "Wand of Gryffindor", "Ring of Destiny", "Elder Wand" ...Hallows, even if it's a rare word, wasn't created just for HP7 and the people at Warner could have thought about it by themselves in 2003. After all, some scholars have noted arthurian influences in HP, and hallows had as much chance to appear in HP than a "Wand" or a "Ring") and we know that for the majority of these titles, they're just spares...So you see, there's just too many flaws in the argumentation.

It's simply too POV to present such controversial info if we have no more details on it.

And thus, such controversial material will inevitably bring POV issues, as we've seen here. In my opinion, if an issue is too controversial and has not enough different (and reliable) external sources, it really shouldn't be mentionned. We have simply not enough insight concerning the various registered titles.

As I have said to Tuvas, the book is out in only 3 months, in no time we'll have all the answers we're looking for, so it really isn't worth it to fight for weeks on such uncertain details.Folken de Fanel 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with the possibility that Warner invented the 2003 titles purely as spares, and I do not think that interpretation is inconsistent with the article as I left it. Sandpiper 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is simply WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to specifically say that they were spares without sourced claims that such is the case. Michael Sanders 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Read what I write. I'm saying representatives for JKR said they registered spare titles. It doesn't mean hallows of hogwarts is necessarily a spare title, but it doesn't say it is necessarily an authentic title. However, hiding the fact that hallows of hogwarts is found among a long list of obviously spare titles, and hiding the fact that WB have admitted they often registered spare titles, is POV because it hides the possibility that hallows of hogwarts could be spare. Folken de Fanel 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is relevant, is sourced, is interesting, is an aspect of behind-the scenes real world information about the books, and deserves to be in the article. It is regrettable that Folken has recently sought to remove a number of points in a number of articles which have for a long time not been considered controversial. Sandpiper 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea what representatives said about the titles. All I know is that there exists a mugglenet news item which states that three titles were registered at the same time, one of them Deathly Hallows, and goes on to say that 'a representative of Jo' has denied the two other titles were ever real possiblities. The item then mentions a number of other titles which have been registered. The point though, is that the article does not say that the representative also denied all the other titles registered recently. More yet, nor that the rep denied others registered in the past. I have no doubt that many of them are dummies simply intended to confuse, but I have no way of knowing whether they all are. Nor does anyone else here, unless they have found a better source. There are other online sources which also discuss alternate titles which have been registered. All Langford does is also include in his book another list of titles, this time from 2003-2004. His book was published before the real title was announced, so it makes no comment on the similarity of the final title to two old ones. Amongst the list are the two I included in the article. They are included because they contain the same unusual word, Hallows. Whether they were real possibilities or not, I have no idea, but they certainly existed. Langford reports that they were registered by Seabottom productions, a company having the same address as a british agency normally used by Warner Brothers for registering trademarks. I take it that an enquiry at the trademark registration office would confirm that they had been registered. I see absolutely no reason why the article should feature Langford's name in the text more prominently than any other reference is mentioned. While I would regard his book as a competent coverage of the more widely held views about the last book, I see no reason to advertise it for him smack in the centre of an article getting 10000 hits a day. (though maybe that's just us all reading it). I have already explained most of this to Folken on his page.Sandpiper 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the text back. It is ridiculous to remove a sourced reference to Rowling having registered similar titles in the past. If you think it doesn't 'flow well', rewrite so that it does, but don't remove the text because one editor is indulging in absurd little crusades. Michael Sanders 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuvas, it is not OR to note that similar titles have been registered before, particularly when the titles are as distinctively similar as are these. It is not OR that they are similar. I am not attempting to imply that these are the alternative titles, but their existence is a fact. But in response to Folken's contention, it is indeed OR to definitely state that they were not possible titles. Sandpiper 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed OR.

Sooner or later, you'll have to actually read what I write. I've never said these titles were not the ones, just that we have no mean to now and that's very weak for inclusion on WP. Folken de Fanel 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not Point of View to say, "This is the title. Rowling registered a few more just like it a few years back." I suggest you read the text, Folken. No one is supposing anything, or making any controversial statements. The article simply says, under the section labelled "Meaning of Hallows", that the unusual word was used before. The only person who thinks it at all contentious to say, "'Deathly Hallows' wasn't the first time Rowling used the word" is you, Folken. Stop being so ridiculous.

"...the book is out in only 3 months, in no time we'll have all the answers we're looking for, so it really isn't worth it to fight for weeks on such uncertain details." What marvellous logic. Shall we put the articles on evolution up for deletion, on the basis that "it really isn't worth it to fight...on such uncertain details"? After all, the answers to that will be revealed eventually, right? Michael Sanders 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, there's absolutely nothing interesting and "behind-the scenes real world " about all this. It's merely fan speculations. We don't know what the 2 titles are. No. We really don't.
Warner have registered a number of titles since 2002 and they have admitted most of them are spares. I see nothing "behind-the scenes real world" in this.
This is merely a pretext for some editors to include their opinion and speculations.

Michaelsanders, you have to understand that just saying "it's not me" is not good sourcing. This is an over-controversial matter with not enough sources, and moreover you're removing info which would provide a more neutral view to the matter. This really speculation for the sake of speculation. It brings too much fights and POV and OR concerns for too little benefits.Folken de Fanel 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, how many times do you have to be told, you are the only person suggesting that the two 'hallow' titles are the 'alternate' titles to the book. Quite frankly, you're talking unadulterated codswallop. It is not controversial to say that two titles similar to the chosen title exist, and it is not OR if there is a source. It is simply a point of interest which adds to the article. Are you following so far?

The number of titles that Warner or Rowling or whoever has registered is irrelevant. Most of those don't contain the word 'Hallows', and so unless there is specific reason to mention them (e.g. the two fakes registered at the same time as DH), it is irrelevant (and possibly POV) to mention them in an article on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. Following?

It is not 'fan-speculation' to say that two titles containing the word Hallow were registered. That is a matter of public record, which will probably be available to the public by means of the Freedom of Information Act. Understand?

It does not matter if the 'Hallow' titles are spares or not. First of all, there is no specific source claiming that they are or are not. Second of all, the article is not claiming anything of the sort. It is simply pointing out that, in fact, two similar titles to HPDH had been registered previously. A simple point of interest, more worthwhile to this article than guessing games about the Order of the Phoenix picking up Harry from Privet Drive. So stop being so ridiculous, actually read the text you are whining about, and go and do something constructive - since, for the past week or so, all you have been doing is reverting these few articles and whinging about everything. Stop it, go and do something useful, stop complaining that everyone hates you and demonstrate that you are at all useful to wikipedia. Michael Sanders 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are the only person suggesting that the two 'hallow' titles are the 'alternate' titles to the book. Otherwise you wouldn't mention it.

there is specific source claiming that they are or are not spares.

The article is claiming they are the 2 titles. By "forgetting" to say WB do register spare titles sometimes, you are forcing the POV that the titles are necessarily the one and that there's no way they could be mere spares.

for the rest, it's you who are doing nothing but reverting these few articles and whinging about everything.Folken de Fanel 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all CALM DOWN!!!. That's referring to just about everyone whose posting on this subject! Please refrain from Personal Attacks and Avoid Personal Remarks. Secondly, here's a quick view of the views I'm seeing forming from here.

1. Including phrases that were trademarked at the same time
2. Include titles that have some similarities with the real title.
3. Simply ignore anything that there is to do with this subject.
4. Include every possible topic there could be.

Okay, and I'll admit this is my opinion, but I'm trying to stand in here as a third party. Here's what is known:

1. The two "titles" that were registered at the same time were actually only trademarks, none of them had any reference to "Harry Potter and...". That includes Deathly Hallows, BTW, it's only the phrase Deathly Hallows that is trademarked, and not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[8] (About half-way down). In fact, re-reading this bit, it seems like there's quite a few more things that were trademarked at the same time, more than just the two "fake" titles that we've assumed.
2. There really were two titles of Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows that were trademarked. However, while it can be reasonably assumed that these have connections to the title Deathly Hallows, it would be OR to assume such a thing. Even if there was a source for this claim, making it is nothing more than speculation, which really doesn't belong here.

Also, please read WP:DR for information on handling a dispute. Given the large number of disputes coming from this page, I think it could do everyone a lot of good who edits this article frequently (I'm including myself in on this one) Tuvas 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Okay, just to make sure we are all clear who has what position, let's all just put in a quick survey. This is not the final decider, but is meant as a tool. Please keep your comments very short, save anything else for the comments section above

Include Hallows Titles

Opinions on including references to titles registered containing the word Hallow

1. Daggoth | Talk 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Don't see a problem with existing text stating two similar titles. Other titles should not be included.
2. Berserkerz Crit 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Relevant, related and sourced.
3. Michael Sanders 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) It might be a point of thoroughness to include the titles registered at the same time, but I don't consider it massively relevant. On the other hand, it is sheer madness to not reference an author's previous use of an uncommon term, particularly if it is a matter of public record. Michael Sanders 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: how do you know it's really the author who previously used the term ? Folken de Fanel 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Include other titles registered at the same time

Specifically, Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil.

Include other titles and Hallows titles

Voting for both of the above.

1. I know I'm in the minority, but if the titles can be properly sourced, and relevance proven then go ahead and add them. But only then. Quatreryukami 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Arwen undomiel 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) If the titles can be properly sourced, I don't see a real problem including them in the article; it is interesting and somewhat informative. However, if it were a choice between the two, it would be better to have just the Hallows titles.

Include none of the above

Don't mention any other titles by name

1. Tuvas 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC) There doesn't seem to be evidence enough to support anything else.
2. Folken de Fanel 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)No evidence enough (we don't even know which titles are spares and which are not), besides saying two similar titles were registered, when talking about the 2 other mysterious titles JKR thought about, is OR (more particularly a synthesis to advance a position). All this is too speculative.
3. Reverend Loki 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - Unless a definitive source comes up and reveals what the alternate titles that were actually considered are. Otherwise, this is really just telling us a few of the book titles we won't be buying in July.
4. dposse 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - Unless there are more reliable sources that state this to be true, per WP:SPS, the infomation should be left out of this article. I understand the desire for speculation for something like this, but an encyclopedia is not the place for it.
5. Simondrake 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - It's just silly, the page is full of fully referencable but utterly irrelavent junk anyway, like long rambling analyses of the different dust cover colour schemes. This is going too far, there's been discussions about the title for years and frankly, no one cares anymore.

Can I please point out that the only person claiming that these are 'possible titles' is Folken de Fanel. As it stands in the article, all that is being said is that there were two titles registered a few years ago containing the little-used word 'Hallows' - which is relevant to this article. That is not remotely speculative. Michael Sanders 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If the registered titles are mentioned right after the mention of JKR's 2 other titles, it's obvious the aim is to imply the registered titles are the ones. So please stop with your bad-faith and your false accusations. Folken de Fanel 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

Please explain other possible courses of action.

1. Comment: After trying to stay out of yet another FolkenSanders war, I have some thoughts for the subject of alternate titles. I think it would be encyclopedic, interesting, and useful to have a short section entitled Evolution of title, with two paragraphs. If we can find proper sources, the first paragraph would state that because Book 7 was one of the most anticipated serial books in modern times (cannot think of anything similar off hand), for youth and adults alike, there was widespread speculation on the title. I think the Mugglenet, HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, etc. might be a reliable source for fan-speculated titles, and we can mention perhaps 3 or 4 of them. We do not need a comprehensive list, just a very few notable and interesting ones. We might even be able to find some in the massive archives for this talk page, with sources even. If we have any quotes from Rowling denying this or that title, that would be a great finish to that paragraph, otherwise state that there was "no comment from Rowling". The second paragraph can document the alternate titles that were registered at the copyrights and trademarks offices in the UK and/or US at roughly the same time as Deathly Hallows, most especially if the Deathly Hallows title was co-registered with the "alternates". We would need a bulletproof source for these alternate registrations. If there were other alternate titles registered before the "final group of three" or whatever, then it might also be interesting to include those less notable alternatives. Finally, if Rowling ever owns-up to the last 2 or 3 titles she "kicked around in the shower" before settling on Deathly Hallows, then those can be listed with a link back to her website or interview or wherever it showed up. She might not be willing to reveal those alternates until she goes on the "Deathly Hallows Book Release Publicity Tour" or whatever in mid-July. That information might warrant a third paragraph if she comments at length on those titles she actually had planned to use at some point. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be highly interesting, however, there isn't any evidence to support an evolution of the title section... We simply don't have any information, except for the fact that two other titles were considered, and the possible phrases that have been trademarked. Tuvas 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how these things happen, isn't it. I first inserted the two titles heart of ravenclaw and whatever it is because Folken was grousing about incomplete information and wanting to cite mugglenet. I don't mind not mentioning the specific titles, but I think we should mention that three titles were registered at the time 'deathly hallows' was, and also that someone said the other two were dummies. It is an interesting point about how these things are done and a teeny bit of real world history. Sandpiper 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't see your point, titles were just created to "keep people guessing"...I see no interest in this, nor "real world history".Folken de Fanel 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you failed to notice the numerous rules against 'in-universe' writing, or the demands that articles include more than plot-summaries? A history pertinent to the publication of a notable book is relevant in a non in-universe encyclopaedia. Michael Sanders 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is nothing pertinent to the publication of book 7 with fake titles, besides, others have already noted it would be of no use to mention them...Folken de Fanel 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No others have noted it would be no use to mention them. What Reverend Loki and dposse say is a problem about finding a source that says that the two other titles were alternatives to Deathly Hallows, which is not what the point of including the two titles would push. Including the other two registered titles with the word Hallows by Warner Bros. is only to show that in the real world, Warner Bros. registered other book titles with the word Hallows at the same time as Deathly Hallows. That's it. Geez. Berserkerz Crit 13:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is just the sort of real world incidental information that 'officially' we are supposed to include. User:Sandpiper 10:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One possible alternative is to simply state that several other titles were registered, and simply leave it to the user to decide if they were possible titles. We could reference several of the fan sites and such that have done this kind of research. That way we aren't posting speculation on WP, but at the same time, we are posting stuff that's true. It's simply crazy to consider posting every title that's been possible on this page, but there's nothing that's wrong with linking it to an outside source. Also, I very much thing we should change the name of the section, to relate it to the title, and just cover everything there is to know about the title. Right now the section is a horrible mess... How about something like this? (Note that when writing this, I didn't have time to fill in every detail, but just wanted to get something out there)

Shortly before the release of the title, JK Rowling had considered two different titles for the book. [9] The title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was released to the public from her web site, on Dec 21, 2006. (Might consider including information about the Equinox, that's something that's interesting that's not included) The name of the The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings. 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."[12]. In addition to this title, there have been several others which have been trademarked.

Tuvas 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But again, I repeat, the point is not that the other Hallows titles may or may not have been considered possible titles (unless we have a source saying such, it is speculation) - it is that it is relevant to 'the meaning of Hallows' that Rowling, or those who work with her, are on record as having previously used the otherwise little used word 'Hallows'. I suggest this:

Shortly before the release of the title, JK Rowling had considered two different titles for the book. [10] The title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was released to the public from her web site, on Dec 21, 2006. The title itself was registered on [whenever it was registered]. {? - possibly include? - At the same time, two other titles, [whatever they were] were registered; however, [whoever] stated that they had never been potential titles of the book [source].}

The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings. 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."[12]. However, the word 'Hallows' formed part of two titles - [whatever they were] - registered by Warner Bros. in 2003 [source].

Where's the problem there? Michael Sanders 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We won't reference fan speculations on fansites either, they're not reliable sources. We won't imply either that other titles with hallows might be the other 2 titles JKR has concidered. Any mention of other hallows titles (if we are to include them) won't be near the mention of the 2 mysterious titles, so as not to do OR by synthesis. Folken de Fanel 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But on my page folken, you kept demanding that the ref from mugglenet re other titles ought to be included. Sandpiper 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I kept demanding the statements for the representatives for JKR to be included.Folken de Fanel 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Section

Just in case nobody is actually reading the passage in question:

The meaning of "Deathly 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. Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows. The actual title was registered in December 2006 together with two more, Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil, but it was later denied that these had ever been possible alternatives.. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation 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. Hallow is not to be confused with hollow, such as in Godric's Hollow. Hallows can also be interperted as a "sanctuary.".

The passage doesn't speculate anything - it simply states, in response to, "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.", that "Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows." I.e. that, in relation to the meaning of the term, and its use in relation to the subject at hand, the term had prior usage. That is not controversial; since it has a decent source, it is certainly relevant of inclusion in the article on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs)

Comment: regarding my vote above, I'd like to see the paragraph truncated to these two sentences only. That way there cannot be speculation that they were the so-called alternate titles that JKR had in mind prior to revealing the actual title. I just think - given that we have a section trying to describe what Hallows means, and that it's an unusual word - that it's noteworthy that someone (the author, publisher, Warner Bros, whoever) used the same word elsewhere in the process. Daggoth | Talk 06:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently my opinion is still that this issue should be completely left out of the article. Now should the "inclusion" opinion be stronger, a better way to include this note would be in a separated paragraph at the end of the section (something like "on a side note, the same word can be found in registered titles in 2003"), thus it would not imply that the registered titles are the 2 mysterious titles (because with the actual formulation, with the mention of JKR's 2 other titles just before the mention of the registered title, it's obvious the aim of the article is to imply the registered titles are the ones). Because the thing here is not to speculate about what were the other titles, but just to note the word had been used elsewhere. Also we would have to include the "spares" quote, to be trictly NPOV.

But anyway I'm still against the inclusion. Folken de Fanel 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the section above has 'lost' the references from lexicon etc where it is seen that people are debating the meaning of the title and simple been replaced with one from the post saying that people are debating it, and nothing more. This is not adequate explanation. The section really ought to include more illustration of how the word 'hallows' has previously been used in literature right here. We should be repeating some of the stuff from Lexicon etc, but it wholly unacceptable not to show people what the debate is about at least in a link they can follow. Dagoth, including the two dummies (or at least mention of them), clearly shows people that Warner are in the habit of registering dummies. I am not sure which two sentences you mean, but I remain a firm believer in explaining everything to the greatest extent possible. Usuallly ambiguity goes away if you so that. Sandpiper 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We have voted that self-published fan theories were to be kept out of the article, so as not to influence readers. One particular and self-published fan theory on a personal website is not an account that there are "considerable" fan speculations, besides, it's merely the POV of a minority of contributors sourcing only their own little favorite theory. A national newspaper (third party, external and reliable source) reporting several speculations in an NPOV way is a reliable source accounting for "considerable" speculations.Folken de Fanel 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have said it before: if you have any reference suggesting any different theory, please show us and we can add it. If this is the only suggestion out there, then the article fairly represents opinion by referencing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I have already referenced a Washington Post article mentioning the theories about the titles, and in my opinion, a mention in a national newspaper undoubtedly accounts for the considerability of these theories. However, as per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, you are not allowed to decide by yourself the considerability of only one theory among dozen of others, just because this one is your favorite (moreover when the majority of the contributors voted against the inclusion of personally selected fan theories which could influence the readers): in short, your personal opinion concerns only you, and certainly does not deserve to be priviledgely sourced.

However if you find a national newspaper (external, third party reliable source) mentioning your theory among other theories, all mentionned in an NPOV manner, then of course you can include it.

But remember that you won't be able to add POV oriented refs to self-published theories (major violations to the main policies of WP), and that you will have to search for a valid source all by yourself. Others will not deal with the rules of Wikipedia in your place. You want content added, you make it acceptable, it's not the other way around...If you really can't find a way that is rule-compliant to include your content, then it shows the content really shouldn't be included. Folken de Fanel 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Show me a reference where meanings other than the ones mentioned are being discussed. The references quoted show a balance of possible interpretations. The washington Post article doesnt mention anything about what theories are being discussed, and is rather unhelpfull to anyone wanting more information. If you care to read the lexicon etc articles you will also see at once that these are not 'my' theories, though I thank you for your flattery.Sandpiper 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes (see, that's easy, I can do it too). Show me a reliable source were interpretations are discussed. The reference quoted certainly don't show a "balance", but only your own favorite theories.

But Sandpiper, you are free to find other national newspaper mentioning your little theory. Folken de Fanel 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I already have found ann entirely satisfactory source discussing the tiitles. Rowling recommends them, remember....? If you believe their content is biased, then the onus is upon you to show that someone disagrees with them.Sandpiper 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No you have not find any satisfactory source.

No, Rowling doesn't recommend them, and remember, she's not in "Wikipedia attribution commity", so she can say whatever she wants, and you can twist the meanings of her words in the way you want, the policies won't change.

Their content is biased, period. It's you who have to provide rules-compliant content. Folken de Fanel 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

sneak peak of the first chapter of the deathly hallows

In order to read the first chapter click here[11] it is a great refernce and a big surprise I think it is seriously the real chapter --Mamamia2 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the first chapter. Not only is the entire "chapter" filled with typos, it is not JKR's style. She is capable of better writing than that. Even if you ignored the style, the characters' attitudes in that chapter are contradictory to their attitudes in the book. Draco seems too defiant and over-confident, and I can't imagine Bellatrix caring about her family. On pg 35 of US version of HBP, she says, "If I had sons, I would be glad to give them up to the service of the Dark Lord!" Oh well, this is not the first "sneak peak" to have surfaced, and it won't be the last. Everything else is probably fake too. Arwen undomiel 01:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was kind of fun to read, but anyone who has read even a little HP can tell instantly that this is not the real thing. BeastKing89 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can find out, this is a piece of fan fiction that is readily available at other sites. It is simply a ploy to drive people to this persons site. He/she has links there to purchase the real book. He/she gets a cut of each purchase that is referred from the site. Also ad revenue from banner ads. I skimmed a part of the manuscript. If you want a love story about Harry and Ginny that is very suggestive in places, download and read. However, keep any reference to this out of the article. Tuyvan 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Its the title chapter from a fanfic titled "Harry Potter and the Secret Horcrux" (or sth). Its been around for almost a year now! --soum (0_o) 07:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrys eyes important?

- Known plot details

- Information from Rowling

Rowling has long said that the fact that Harry's eyes resemble his mother's is important:

Harry Potter author J.K.Rowling revealed this, before "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" came out. She said, Harry's eyes resembling his mother's would prove an important issue in the struggle against Voldemort. But this seems to be already fulfilled in HBP, when Prof. Slughorn reveals his Horcrux-memory to Harry because he thinks, Harry's eyes resemble his mother's. This memory clearly is the key in the fight against Voldi. Therefore, it seems, this point will be of no further importance in Deathly Hallows. I suggest you take it out =) - 90.152.137.55 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)xymx

Thanks, but you seem to be engaging in a little original research here, and doing some synthesizing of facts to try to advance a position or prove a point of view, all of which are unencyclopedic and forbidden (or at least discouraged) in the Wikipedia article. Comment: Slughorn's Horcrux revelations only suggested that he agreed with Riddle-Voldemort that "seven soul fragments" might somehow be a theoretical optimum or whatever when it comes to creating Horcruxes. To suggest that Slughorn revealed that memory to Harry only because Harry's eyes resembled his Mother's, is really stretching the bounds of credibility. Slughorn was interested in Harry for being "the boy who lived", and for defeating Voldemort several times already, not because of the shape and color of his eyes. Now - if you can come up with a reliable source, perhaps a quote from Rowling's website, or one of the books, or an interview somewhere, which establishes and verifies that the importance of the Harry's "eyes resembling his mother's" remark expired with HBP during Slughorn's recruiting of Harry (or Harry's recruiting of Slughorn) and/or Slughorn's drunken confessions, then and only then might it be allowable. That said, the fact that his "eyes resemble his mother's" has been mentioned at least in passing in most if not all of the books to date, so it would seem to be relatively trivial at this point. Nevertheless it would be impossible to say whether it is no longer of special importance, based on the published canonical evidence to date from Rowling. We will not know for sure until Book 7 comes out. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And the other way around? Rowlin's eyes statement is listed in the section "known plot details". Is there any reliable source that the resemblance of Harry's eyes with his morher's is still/again/at all an issue in book 7? Based on the cited source it sound more a wild guess that it is an issue in book 7, at least far from a _known_ plot detail. Your arguments rather support a deletion. --213.183.10.41 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know we will learn something extremely important Harry's mother in DH, so there is a decent chance Harry's eyes resembling his mother's is important. As far as I know, there is no evidence definitively proving that plot line has been resolved, so it should stay in the article. There is no reliable source saying it is not an issue in DH. Arwen undomiel 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"a decent chance" still means guesswork, even in all likelihood. Is it a "known" plot detail then? Further, concluding the eyes issue from his mother's importance sounds like synthesizing of facts, and, by the way, might even be considered not cogent. Next, if it is stated in the article that the eyes issue is a known plot detail, a source for that fact is needed, not the other way around. Sources supporting a deletion would be effectual but not required. --213.183.10.41 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I tend to agree that the so-called "known plot details" as a whole are rather dubious, not just the eyes issue. Nobody really knows for sure what Rowling has written in Book 7, other than the brief editorial comments quoted from the dust cover. For all we know she could have simply written down her 100 favorite cookie recipes, followed by 10 chapters of "HAHAHAHAHA GOTCHA YA LITTLE BUGGERS!!!". What we can do, is quote verbatim what Rowling HAS said in interviews, on her web site, and elsewhere - stating that the similarity between Harry's and his Mother's eyes is important somehow, but it is uncertain what that importance might be, or whether it will be revealed in Book 7 or was already revealed in the previous books. There does not seem to be anything already revealed, at least in an obvious sense (regardless of the Slughorn connection). It is perfectly acceptable and encyclopedic to state what we know about a fictional work (or incomplete series of works), and then state that the implications are uncertain. We cannot categorically state what we think the implications are without a reliable source. The reason to "keep" in this case outweighs the "delete", at least until the book is released to the "little buggers", who will quickly tell us if and where we "got it all wrong" or if Rowling's comments have been misinterpreted. The scary thing is, Rowling also said something to the effect that she loves all the speculation going on, and that there will still be plenty to speculate about even after Book 7. So we can speculate (or not) that the Wikipedia will be forever trapped in a maze of Potter Speculation. AHHHHHH!!! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the point: speculation. From a today's encyclopedic point of view it does not matter what might or might not be in future Book 7. The discussed section deals with statements of Rowling concerning book 7. If Rowling stated somewhere, this or that will happen in book 7, then this fact (that she stated it, not that it will happen) is true and might be mentioned, even if "this or that" finaly does not occur in book 7. Sticking strictly to that fact keeps us out of the "maze of Potter Speculation" ;-) Rowling never explicitly stated, that the eyes issue is in book 7. And it is at least debatable, if she stated it implicitly. However, I suggest keeping this citation but adding a remark that it is not clear if it relates to book 7. Like in the pet issue. --213.183.10.41 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well - the arguments that Harry's eyes have played their part already are from my side:

• JKR 1999 in the Boston interview [reference 18 main article]: Harry's eyes will prove "important in a future book" (that means, ONE book of IV-VII)

• in Book VI: Slughorn initially refuses to reveal the important memory, and can hardly be persuaded, though in very good mood because of the great profit he made at Hagrid's (spider poison, unicorn hair), being very drunk, feeling deeply ashamed and sorry for Lily's death, with her eyes looking at him through Harry. Finally, as he extracts the Horcrux memory, he is "still looking into Harry's eyes" and says afterwards: "You've got her eyes ... don't think too badly of me". (HBP p 70, p 458, 459) This yields the key to Horcurxes and to the destruction of Voldemort.

The point is: IF this is an "important part" played for eyes, JKR is refering to Book VI in [18], thus the eye-thing is no "Known Plot Detail" of Book VII.

84.20.164.37 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) xymx

It is still important. Rowling was interviewed 17 July 2005 by Owen Jones[12].

OJ: And - Harry's eyes play an important role in the books, because they're mentioned again and again.

JKR: They are mentioned again and again - and they're mentioned again in this book. And that's all I'm going to say.

which is just after publication of HBP. I take that to be confirmation that they remain important even after HBP. Sandpiper 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so =) In that interview you are talking about, right before asking about Harry's eyes, young OJ asked Rowling:

OJ: Is the half-blood prince actually dead, already?

JKR: I can't tell you. You'll know, Owen, in a few brief chapters, you'll know.

OJ: And - Harry's eyes play an important role in the books, because they're mentioned again and again.

JKR: They are mentioned again and again - and they're mentioned again in this book. And that's all I'm going to say.

That means, OJ was reading HBP at that time and "this book" is Book VI and not VII.

84.20.191.139 13:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) xymx

Comments on "Deathly Hallows" section

Okay, I've now made a signifigant change to the section, and there's a few reasons for it, that I would like to make very clear. These changes were made because I looked more into the facts than had previously been done. They are:

1. JKR stated she had been considering two possible titles, not two other titles. It's an easy mistake to make...

No, She said she had a title, then she said she thought of another, then she thought of yet a third. Some of this (at least) was mentioned in reports of the radio city book reading, when she also said Dumbeledore was definitely dead There is a cryptic quote from her somewhere about her favourite being ahead by a vowell and two consonants, or something like that. Sandpiper 21:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Theres a mugglenet news item here [13]: the information was posted on Rowlings website.

1. The phrase "Deathly Hallows" was trademarked by an alias at the same time as 5 other phrases. If someone really wants to include all 5 of these, I suppose it would be alright, but none of them are even known to be possible titles. Including only two of them is OR.

The only person who seems to believe the other two were ever real titles is Folken. the ref he gave me from mugglenet only mentions two alternates, and states they had been denied as possibles. The mugglenet report remains unclear, because it only specifically mentiones and denies the two alternates which were in the article. This may mean that the representative had in fact only denied those two. Sandpiper

No I don't believe the other two were ever real titles, contrary to you. But WP rules are what they are, and we cannot hint at speculations if we have no valid ground for it.Folken de Fanel 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand: this is a point in logic. You cannot say that the titles are false any more than you can say they are true. However, under the rules which you quote so much we are expected to collect together information about a subject,However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.

I think you lack logic. If you cannot say that the titles are false any more than you can say they are true (to which I agree), then you can't arrange the article so that it hints that it is true (which is your opinion).

When you're refering to the OR rule, please don't forget WP:SYN.Folken de Fanel 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. When including the Hallows names trademark, well, there is a certain aspect of OR. I haven't even found on a fan site (Although I haven't looked very hard) anyone who is connecting the two ideas. Perhaps it would be appropriate to simply state that many titles have been registered, including a few that seem similar, and leave it to the reader to decide?

what ideas are you suggesting are being connected? Myself, i am stating that the rather unusual word hallow had been registered by warners reps on two other known occasions amongst HP titles. My view is that most of these, maybe all, were almost certainly totally bogus. But I have not seen a ref commenting on that. I find it very hard to imagine that such an unusual word, never mentioned before in the books, could have been registered before unless there was some connection to the current title. But whether it was registered as a possibility, or maybe it was purely invented by ideas men, then somehow later rowling picked it up, i have no idea. Sandpiper 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I just thought I'd make my points a bit clearer. Please don't just simply revert back and forth, first of all, it's a violation of WP:3RR, not to mention a bad idea according to WP:DR, but it also doesn't accomplish anything... Tuvas 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a question...For the "solstice..." part, could you find more (reliable) sources to substanciate this parallel than just a self-published fan website ? Otherwise I can't really see the notability of the thing in this section. Folken de Fanel 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'll admit, there isn't a reliable source on that. If that bit is removed, I wouldn't have my feeling hurt too badly... But it is an interesting tidbit, and the quote is real, the only question is if it refered to the releasing of the title, which I doubt can be given from a reliable source. Tuvas 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting, that's for sure, but you know our opinion doesn't represent much in the notability criteria. Well, maybe it's possible to find other sources, I won't revert it for now and let you time to find it.

However, concerning my last revert, don't you think there's a little problem with this sentence: " The name of the The release of the title has resulted..." ?Folken de Fanel 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't check the statement, good catch... Next time I'll have to try and pay a bit more attention. Tuvas 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" template

I removed the template that absurdly suggested that the whole article is unreferenced. The fact is that there are currently nearly 50 external references, and many other book-related sources, liberally placed throughout the article. If there are specific areas of concern or controversy, then please use a {{fact}} template at the site of the concern. Using the global "This article is unreferenced" template as part of an edit war or dispute over reliable sources or whatever reeks of disrupting things to make a point and is bordering on vandalism. As to those involved in the reversions and edit wars over allowable content, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution and properly dealt with. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who put the template there probably missed the fact that this template says "article" instead of "article or section". I have replaced it with {{Unreferencedsect}}. Brian Jason Drake 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There does appear to be a small frequently overlooked section there that makes some general statements about the Harry Potter Series, with no references. This is because is is essentially a brief summary adapted from the main Harry Potter article as linked there - it is likely that it was felt that the facts were already well established at the main article and as common knowledge by now. Anyway adding a few references to that short section would add value to this article for those folks who don't click over to the main article for a more thorough treatment of the subject. The tag was added and changed around during an edit reversion war (and you were there!) on or around the 10th of April, over claims of Original Research within the article and section. Thanks again for setting it straight. I gather you are not interested in actually helping to find the references and improving the article though, only in posting warning templates? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite having read all the books, I only own a copy of one of the books and I do not frequent news and fan sites. I thus assumed that other people would be able to find better references than I could, and do it faster. I also don't enjoy finding references! Brian Jason Drake 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows leaked affair

How does any of that pass notability standards? There's always gonna be fake stuff with everything released, i don't see how any of it is notable. You don't even have any news storys that report this. The section should be deleted unless someone can establish notability. dposse 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't watch the history as closely as I do, the section was removed in this edit. Brian Jason Drake 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with

...saying The book is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition, 784 pages in the US edition, and 816 pages in the US deluxe edition.

We don't have any clear evidence that the book is going to be 608 pages in the UK version59.100.200.42 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk should be reliable sources for a new book set for release in the not-too-distant future. Bloomsbury is quoted as confirming the UK editions are 608 pages, and Bloomsbury.co.uk links book sales to Amazon.co.uk, which also shows The UK Children's and Adult's versions listed as 608 pages [14] [15]. The UK Special Edition also shows 608 pages [16]. The Scholastic info link in the article lists the US edition with 784 pages, and so does Amazon.com: [17] and the Deluxe Edition also shows 784 pages [18]. What I cannot find is a source for the statement that the US Deluxe Edition is 816 pages. There is reportedly "an insert" with some artwork, but this may not be included in the page count. The 816 page count might be for the so-called "large-print edition", but again I have not yet found a source for that. Bottom line, the respective Publishers and Book Sellers support the claims of 608 pages for the UK editions, and 784 pages for the US editions, so I think we can echo those sentiments as verifiable. If we all find out in July that this information is in fact not true, then we can update the page accordingly. Remember, verifiability trumps "the truth" in the Wiki-policies and guidelines, and what we can "verify" at this time is 608 (UK) and 784 (US). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hogwarts Student-Teacher

Some editors have been posting this:

• Someone from Harry's class, not Harry or Ron, and not "the one you think", will become a Hogwarts teacher. This seems to indicate that Hogwarts will indeed re-open, though possibly not until after the main events of Deathly Hallows have occurred.

The source says no such thing about Ron as far as I can see. The version I substituted included Rowling's exact quote:

• Someone from Harry's class becomes a teacher at Hogwarts, though it is uncertain who it might be. According to Rowling, "...one of Harry’s classmates, though it’s not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts. But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint. Yeah, one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts...". This also implies that Hogwarts will re-open at some point.

Can someone explain why "my" exact-quote version keeps getting reverted to an unverifiable and improperly interpreted version? If we have a quote about "or Ron", then please produce it. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen one.Keep his quote. Quatreryukami 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then I post here, does anyone read the references?. I have even answered exactly this same query before, when someone didn't believe it said Ron. The ref says:

JKR: Well, because all your kids said ‘hello’ so nicely in the background there, I am going to give you information I haven’t given anyone else and I will tell you that one of the characters, one of Harry’s classmates, though it’s not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts. But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint. Yeah, one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts, but ----

Do the kids want to guess at it, Kathleen?

JKR: Do you guys have a guess as to who it is?

(Kids shouting in background) Ron

They say Ron.

JKR: No, it’s not Ron. I can’t see Ron as a teacher. No way.

Its not Ron. Please stop taking it out. Sandpiper 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandpiper. I did actually search the original interview for mentions of Ron in the same contextual area and for whatever reason it did not show up. I'll add Ron back in, with the additional quote material. Thanks again. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way kids: This is an example of how to avoid an edit war, and properly illustrates the use of the much-more civil 1RR rule, as opposed to going after 3RR and working very hard to try to get in the third reversion just beyond the 24-hour personal time limit rule, but still constituting illegal edit warring which has brought such disgrace to some of these HP pages. Revert once, and then take it to the talk page; and don't continue endlessly reverting until the issue is resolved. T-dot was wrong, Sandpiper was right, and proper sourcing and quoting, with a civil tone, fixed the problem and made the article better. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 07:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed myself how nice this conflict was resolved. Now, if every conflict could only be resolved so nicely... Tuvas 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on solving this in such a civil manner! Martin Hinks 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

btw: "Not the one you think will become a Hogwarts teacher" means clearly it will be Neville Longbottom! (no proof possible, of course)  ;) 84.20.182.71 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) xymx

Well, actually I'm pretty sure the Neville question has come up to JKR, and the answer is, not him. Of course, I could be creating that based on the fact that I've heard Neville's name alot in conjunction with this theory, and so he's obvious to me, but... Tuvas 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything points to him: the teased underdog, orphaned, raised by his granny, big coward, linkish, showing no big magical talent & almost considered a squib, but then his first moments in Lupin's class, his big progress in the DA meetings, his heroic performance in the Ministry, where he outpaces even Ron and Hermione, ... returns to Hogwarts as an adult to help form next generations of students and guide other hopeless cases like himself ... To me this looks exactly how JKR is thinking ;) Can't wait for July! 84.20.170.152 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) xymx

Ok, come on guys, Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussions like this, even though it is interesting. (I don't think it can be Neville because everybody is expecting him to become a teacher, and JKR said it's someone we're not expecting...Malfoy, maybe?) But this is getting off topic, and Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Arwen undomiel 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Teasers Leaked?

20ofDecember over at http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=26817 has been posting teasers of DH, which he has begun reading. I have tried twice to mention this on the page, but both times the page was reverted. I think we should at least mention such an important revelation in the Potter series on this website. Don't you people know that wikipedia is like the number one place that people go to to look for harry potter stuff? I know this is an encyclopedia with standards, but we have a duty to represent all sides of the HP phenomenon, and not just the official one. And that doesn't include OR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Algiersy (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

A fansite is not a reliable news source. For all we know, its completely made up. I could go to a forum and write what I think is going to happen in a way that makes it seem as if I actually know, but that doesn't make it so. MelicansMatkin 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I reverted one of those entries. Guy On The Internet^TM isn't a verifiable source. If they start spewing out spoilers, which the media then picks up, then yes, it'd be definitely worth mentioning. But there is nothing to say that what this person is writing is genuine. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the net saying "I'm reading the book, it rox0rz!" or something similar. And I'll make an educated guess that 99% of them are full of it. If this does turn out to be a genuine leak, then we'll find out in time. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Daggoth | Talk 09:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted this one of yours, FYI. Daggoth | Talk 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question to more experty people : Is there any place that does allow potential spoilers? I know most of them are fake, but they're still fun to read while we're waiting for the last book. HPANA, Mugglenet and Leaky don't allow anything remotely spoilerish :( Thanks! 4.248.62.75 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)HP Fan

It is an interesting question why they dont. I can think of some answers. One, they do not wish to endanger their own relationships with the publishers, Rowling, etc, who do slip them bits of definite information from time to time. Two, that their business is working out the final book from what has been officiallly release so far, so just looking at the real book is in fact the end of the game and kind of cheating. Three, it might be totally made up, in fact there is quite a good likelihood of this given how many people are keen to have some fun and know enough to make up a credible last book. Now, from out point of view I don't think we should be reporting illegally acquired information (not saying this is, but generally very few people have a legal right to publish info from the book), and there is a difficulty about how reliable the information is. Then, there is the spoiler aspect. People come here reasonably expecting to learn what people think about the book, not to be given 'definite' information about it. (again, not saying this is valid, but if it were I would not want to suddenly read it in a middle of the general info about what the book may contain) Sandpiper 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they're also just trying to fulfil an obligation to (presumably) the majority of their readers, who don't want to be spoiled without having to lock themselves in a box without oxygen for 2 weeks before release. To answer the original question - not that it really belongs here - I do recall a few people on SA posting genuine spoilers 2-3 days before HBP was released. There won't be any "teasers" or unsubstantiated BS on there though, they don't tolerate that sort of thing. Daggoth | Talk 07:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i have read it voldermort kills ron and dudly saves harry life as there is fail show down at the end of the book as voldermort cannot hurt harry at the durles houe it was an exelt read! any should that be incruled in the plot bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.22.118 (talk • contribs)

Me thinks Hermione would jump into a well if Ron got killed, which would be most unfortunate, since Harry alone is no match for Voldemort and also becauee JKR is promising He+Ron will have a kid, if I read the bottom of this page correctly: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)

One - Harry's protection at the house expires on July 31st - in the summer between his sixth and seventh years. Two - the book is not released yet, and you can't have read it. Three - learn how to spell. MelicansMatkin 16:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The novel found at dhleak.info.ms seems to be geniune, it passed 91% to 97% compared to HP1->HP6 corpus when tested statistically according to Prof. Sukhotin's method. Anything over 80-85% is undeniable. But you don't need college math to see it is genuine, the chapter titles alone are enough to convince any educated HP fan that it is the original. Every part of the HP mistery is referenced there, even the opening Deathly Hallows dragon-poem can be traced back to the first year "non titillamus" motto of the Griffin house! Face it, the JKR-empire has a leak in the primary loop and if they don't patch it quick enough, they will have a core meltdown and a kind of literary net-Chernobyl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Edit Wars

Okay, we still have the constant edit wars going on now, and while they are somewhat better than before, it's still crazy. The main thing that I've noticed is the references that have gotten added/removed at least a dozen times, probably a lot more... So, I've created this part in the talk page to discuss it, rather than have it continue, and reach something we can agree to. I'm not taking any point of view at this point in time, rather, I'm going to attempt to remain impartial for now. Anyways, what I'm going to do is to add a section for each commonly- reverted tidbit, right now there's only one that I know of, but I'll leave it opened for future. Please rather than revert the change yet again, post it here. Thank you. Tuvas 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows References

This section is relating to the inclusion of references relating to the meaning of Deathly Hallows as seen by several fan sites.

Arguments to remove references

The article says "considerable speculation".

The sources sandpiper wants to add reflet only one theory, and the source used is the theory itself, posted on blogs and forums.

There was a poll, in which the majority was against the inclusion of theories explaining the title, because it could influence the reader and it was non-neutral: it was therefore decided to remove all theories from the article, and to let the readers form their opinion by themeselves with the help of the Hallows article.

What is then the point of having the same theory, using the same reference that the previously deleted content used, in the article while it was made clear that no theory was wanted here, so that the readers would not be influenced by the beliefs of one or 2 editors ? It's still a npov breach, because it imposes a certain view to the reader: why only one theory cited, if there is "considerable speculation" ?

Also, why citing directly the blogs and forums in which the theory originated ? It's the very example of unreliable sources, according to WP:SELF.

What I propose is to have only reliable, perfectly external (that is, not entirely related to the HP world) and neutral sources, and a web article of the Washington Post appears to me the best solution. The ref I added perfectly reflects the fact that no one really knows what the title means, and that everyone is trying to guess. But to develop or even soucre the theories is an attempt at influencing the readers. Folken de Fanel 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to the poll on the references, please? I want to check the history of these refs out for myself, but I've had a quick look through the archives and I can't find it amongst all the text. Daggoth | Talk 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

1. I think the issue boils down to what constitutes notable materials, verifiable from reliable sources as necessary for neutral documentation of fan-based theories, while avoiding any hint of original research. One side believes that most published materials, from recognized and fairly respectable sources (Mugglenet, Leaky Cauldron, HPANA, HP Lexicon, et al), which have been noted by Rowling, can be used as a reliable source, with the assumption that such material is continually reviewed and critiqued and updated. The other side claims that self-published sources, such as the fan web sites and, for example, the John Granger materials, cannot be used as a source or even mentioned in the articles, and that any sort of fan theories are not notable and therefore forbidden - constituting "original research". This difference of opinion has proven intractable for many weeks now, and probably cannot be settled without intervention - either through a Request for Comment, Request for Mediation, or even Binding Arbitration by the Arbitration Committee. Unofficial discussion and mediation has thus far failed to gain any traction - and has only continued to produce some fancy dancing around the three revert rule and nearly non-stop edit warring, not to mention some extremely uncivil language and behavior. Good Luck though with attempting, once again, to host a civil discussion here, or at any of the other articles effected by the edit wars. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious line

"This theory is supported by the fact that translations of R.A.B. consistently correspond to the Black name." This line appears in the discussion of the R.A.B. phenomenon. What is it supposed to mean? Translations of R.A.B. into what? Greek? I recommend deletion of the sentence unless someone can make sense of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.71.202 (talk • contribs)

I've tried to make it a bit clearer. If you're still confused, read R.A.B.. - Nunh-huh 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Insert the word "foreign" before the word "translation", and it should make perfect sense. Daggoth | Talk 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to suggest that, in versions of the book in other languages, the initials correspond to what the initials would be in other languages if the name were Regulus Black, eg. in the Dutch edition of the book the mysterious persons initials are R.A.Z., which corresponds to the Dutch name for the Black family: Zwarts (there are other examples here) --Thaddius 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably got mangled as part of the Folken-Sands edit wars, or some other raging conflict. It was meant to explain, and provide examples, that in foreign translated editions of Half Blood Prince, the "B" in "R.A.B." (or the equivalent last initial as translated) consistently corresponds to whatever translated name is used for the Black Family name (eg: Sirius Black). In some foreign language cases, the Black Family name remains the same, and so does R.A.B.; while in other cases, the Black Family name is translated to a word that corresponds to the color black, and the initials in R.A.B. change with it. This lends some credence to the theory, or at least does not contradict it, that R.A.B. is/was a member of the Black Family, and Regulus is, as Rowling said, "a fine guess". --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I don't think that one had become part of the dispute. Perhaps it will now. Sandpiper 23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if you want it...Folken de Fanel 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Release date

The article states "In the U.S., however, the book will be released at 00:01 local time, which will be 8 hours after the other English-speaking countries for the first U.S. states to reach 00:01." Surely the first states to reach 00:01 will only be 5 or 6 hours behind BST? 86.144.205.161 13:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That was probably written by someone on the US West Coast (eg: California), where 8 hours may be correct. Changed it to say: However, In the U.S., which spans several time zones, the book will be released for sale within each time zone at 00:01 local time, a few hours after the other English-speaking countries. Hopefully this avoids the math and POV problems. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)