Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Possible way to resolve Hallow issue

I'm kind of a latecomer into this dispute, but I have a possible suggestion. Why don't we create a page for the word Hallow, that contains all of the information as pertaining to the word, and leave this page somewhat as was changed recently, and just add a link to the Hallow page? That way if a person really wants to know all about the word Hallow, they can do so, but it doesn't lead into speculation from this article. Tuvas 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's also what I thought, currently, making such long paragraphs about arthurian legends and hallows in it doesn't seem directly relevant. If the issue of what are hallows in general has developed in such a way, it can deserve it's own article, so that it wouldn't appear out of place in a HP article. That was one of the thing which bothered me in the recent article proposal, that it tried too much to be an essay about arthurian hallows, while there was not much to say yet in the context of HP 7. A seperate article is a possibility that we have to think about, besides, others had already talked about it...

It would allow people to really develop their knowledge on hallows in general literature without being seen as trying to build a point as to HP7...Folken de Fanel 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see we are arguing in circles. The immediate difficulty is that the only reason people are now interested in what two months ago was a word no one had ever used, is because it has now been used in the title of this book. This is the one thing we definitely know about the book, and it ought to be explained as an integral part of this article. As someone suggested above, we ought to be mentioning foreign edition titles too, since they seem to have subtly different meanings. But in 5 months we will know exactly what the title means in the context of HP, and at that point an article specifically on possible meanings of 'hallows' will revert to being simply a long winded dictionary definition. Its importance exists solely in the context of this article. And we ought to have a passing mention of 'dethly', too.

Folken, your page says you are from France. Do you know what the french title is? Sandpiper

In that case, we should have to seriously research examples of hallows in literature, if we want to give the reader an idea about something he may not really know. I still wonder if some wouldn't argue with this being off-topic, but whatever.

There is currently no french title (I think on this one, the editor won't dare to propose anything until the book is released and the translator can find the definite answer). There are however many debates among fans as to how it must be translated, as the question of "what is a hallow" is raised from the beginning. There are the 3 main versions which are like "the mortal saints", " the deadly relics", "deadly shrines" and so on...

Looking at the interwiki links in the article, it seems there are several other countries which have already translated the title, yet we still have to know whether these are official titles, but I don't speak these languages so... ^_^

Folken de Fanel 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, HP7 contributed to make an almost unknown word quite popular. The word Hallow will remain in the popular culture, and many children who are not used to such archaic vocabulary will be introduced to it. So I think reducing the impact of "hallow" to HP only might not be the best way to handle it. I still think it has now earned its own entry, and having lines and lines about what hallows are in context unrelated to HP might appear more suitable in a true article...Given that we would have to write hundreds of lines, not related to HP, to thoroughly explain what is a hallow, i think it has met the requirements for its own separate article.

Because you have to realise, what is a hallow in general, and what is an hallow in HP7, are really 2 different issues. And mixing the 2 (ie trying to relate what we found about arthurian relics with what will be a hallow in HP) would generate some OR issues...

In fact, hallows in HP7, concerns only what we'll find in book 7. And we can't deny that even though really interesting, all that thing about relics or shrine still doesn't come from HP7...We still need to think about it, because explaining "hallow" is not easy. Folken de Fanel 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One additional point is, no one will be able to edit the article until this dispute is resolved. I think this is the best compromise that can be created, which will include full information about the word Hallow, just not on the HP7 page. Right now the only thing we know about the HP7 use of the word hallow is that JKR won't reveal the meaning of the title because it would ruin the book. That much can be included. Anything else should either use a inter-wiki link. Wikipedia isn't the places for guesses, and while it's quite hard to do such a thing with an article like this, I would dare to say that this article is almost entirely factual. The bit about hallows is interesting, but I think it belongs to another article. Those of you hallow experts might consider creating such an article. When HP7 is released, then the article can be improved to add HP7 relevant information. Tuvas 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would not be possible to write an article like this without making a general explanation of the title. Frankly, I have to agree with the person below, that once I have read a general explanation of what hallows actually means, then the general meaning of the title also becomes obvious. The difficulty is that the words used are unfamiliar to people, not that their actual meaning is contentious. It is a pretty obvious encyclopedic duty to explain the meaning of words being used in the subject of the article. Now, Rowling very likely will nuance the meaning, and she has been giving other explanatory hints by publicising the title with a hangman game, and by writing on a statue of hermes aka the magician tarot card. But all we need is something like we have above. I see no reason why we need a huge article on possible meanings, nor do I really see where the content for such an article would come from. The choice of material above is already limited by what is available. Folken has still not been able to find any substantiation for his general suggestion to expand it.

Folken was happy with the version above, but suggested what i take to be a small paragraph expansion about the word hallows being used to mean locations. We now have two references from respected sources on the topic of HP which substantiate the version of the article which he removed. (Lexicon and TLC both have articles on the subject, maybe mugglenet do too), plus others generally illustrating the use of hallows,and I have to say I consider them entirely reasonable. The references discussing the title meaning are in particular acceptable because they are not making contentious statements, rather are reviewing possible meanings in a general way which we could be doing ourselves. It is entirely reasonable for us to report the current view on these sites as to the specific meaning of the title, alongside our own general one, and this will become more necessary as publication date approaches. There will no doubt be much more written about the precise meaning elsewhere by that time.

The word hallow will remain in popular culture. It will have a simple, specific meaning (very probably=horcrux), which will hardly merit a mention except in the context of HP. This feels exactly like the debate over the HBP. Great to debate beforehand, but a dead simple two-sentence explanation at the end of the book. Sandpiper 09:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to write an article like this without making a general explanation of the title, because "hallows" existed before JKR and HP.

"Obvious" is a personal and biased judgment, which concerns only you. And Wikipedia isn't based on the "obvious", but on the "verifiable".

The difficulty is that the words used are unfamiliar to people, AND that their actual meaning is contentious. It's a fact that no one knows clearly what the word will actually mean, it's a fact that it has several slighly different meanings...

We don't write about "obvious" meanings of thing we don't know ANYTHING about. We can only talk about hallows in general, NOT in HP. Which explains why a seperate article is technically a better way to handle it.

I'm not talking about a "small expansion". I never did. I will be "happy" about the text when, and only when there will be content in EQUAL LENGHTH about each of the possible meanings that are reported in dictionaries, and when you'll have completely dropped any attempt to hijack Wikipedia in order to make it your personal blog where you want to explain to the world how you solved the "obvious" mystery of HP (which means it's highly probable the article will never be unblocked before next July).

Otherwise, it's blatant OR, POV, and attempt to build a point, which is forbidden on Wikipedia.

I have found substantiation for my general suggestion to expand it. That you don't want to see it is not WP's problem.

But it's only you who are not able to find any substantiation for your biased and "obvious" edits.

There are absolutely no respected sources on the topic of HP which substantiate the version of the article which I removed. Unless you have forgotten, original research is still banned from Wikipedia, and I merely reverted blatant original research, which will never, EVER appear again in the article.

No. It is absolutely not reasonable for us to report the current view on these sites as to the specific meaning of the title, as they are not reliable sources. We do not report unsubstanciated theories and fan divination. No one is able to read the future. No one has read HP7. So no speculation.

There is absolutely no need of OR in the article, as no one is interested about it and no one comes on Wikipedia to read book 7 before it is published. Folken de Fanel 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is interested in book 7??? ??? ???? 20:35,Sandpiper 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is interested in theories about book 7. It's book 7 which interests millions of fans, not "what some think will happen in book 7". That's why we're writing about "book 7" and not "what some think will happen in book 7".

If people want to read these things, then they go on the Lexicon or any fansite, but they know Wikipedia isn't the place for that, so they don't look for that on Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I'm doubting that you're poll includes a significant enough study group from which to make such assumptions. There is, from what I can tell, a decent number of people that are interested in learning what they can expect from the upcoming book, but are only interested in the more reliable pieces of information, and not the endless speculation one gets at the many fan sites. --Reverend Loki 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's basically what I'm saying. Folken de Fanel 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, what you are saying is that no information on any of the sites written by experts on the books is sufficiently reliable to be mentioned on wiki. Which is, of course, entirely wrong. Sandpiper 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that every reliable information has to be on Wikipedia, whereas mere speculations, totally unsubstanciated personal theories written by mere fans that have absolutely no expertise whatsoever on the subject (the most qualified persons to speak about book 7 are those who have read book 7. Have these persons read book 7 ? No.) and who are just making guesses and attempting to read the future, are not informations in any way and that they have no place on Wikipedia, as it was clearly stated in WP's rules and guidelines. Folken de Fanel 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

wiki is not a source of reliable information, rather it is a source of accepted information. There is no exact information about what is in book 7, you are correct, because it isn't published yet. What there is, is a lot of information about what, in general, ought to be in the book. This comes from the unfinished story so far, and Rowlings helpfull hints. We 'know' a lot about the book. It is not necessary that any of this will actually appear in the book, though I would be greatly surprised if it does not. We are only reporting what people expect, not what is there. This article does not rely in any way on the currently secret actual content of book 7. Sandpiper 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Locked from editing?

I obviously missed something, but why is the page locked? Why can't it be edited? I'd like to know the reason for the protection. ARSNL 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you'll notice above and at this archive that there is a dispute regarding the inclusion of certain information in the article; namely to what extent we define "deathly" and "hallows" and what people have interpreted those words to mean. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Professor Snape

Just a few questions about Professor Snape and Dumbledore. Does anyone else think that Professor Snape and Dumbledore had planned to kill him(Dumbledore)? We all know that Dumbledore had a crazy mind and, seemed determined to prove that love was stronger than evil. I think that it was planned to kill Dumbledore because he intended to protect Harry,just as Lily potter sacrificed her life for Harry and because of that Voldemort couldn't touch him. Well, Dumbledore did the same thing so is Voldemort unable to touch him now? Mamamia2 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mamamia, I suppose your theory is very possible, but unfortunately talk pages on Wikipedia are not for discussing the subject of the article, but rather the content of the article; i.e. improvements to be made, etc. I suggest you take your theory to one of the many fan forums out there on the web. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I would like to join this debate. If you are arguing over the meaning of Hallows then let me set you strait. Voldemort's army really worships him, right? Well Hallows means to make holy or to greatly respect someone. Voldemort's army practically made Voldemort holy and they greatly respect him. So feel free to comment on mypiece of information.GoldenIrish 01:47, 16 March 2007

GoldenIrish, Please sign your posts. Anyway, as your theory is also plausable, this could be considered Original Research and this is not the kind of thing that you should put on the Fan Forum. If you can present some hard evidance, then we might consider. Untill then, thanks. Quatreryukami 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "hard evidence" means evidence that has been discussed or reviewed in a reliable source, rather than by yourself, as otherwise it would be original research. Thanks! Voretus 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I thougt you guys could maybe use it for the article but I guess your right, I need some hard evidence. If you would like to post the cover of the seventh book in the article you can copy it from www.mugglenet.com Please note I am unaware if this is the real cover or if it was just made up. I'm still a little new to the wikipedia editing community.Thanks.GoldenIrish 21:21, 14 March 2007

I don't think the actual covers have been released yet, but we need to know whether it is real or not before it could be included. Most likely the publishers will release it first in their advertising. Scholastic have just announced the start of their sales campaign Sandpiper 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't wate till the 7th book comes out! I really think that Voldemort will kill Harry 1 because of the the prophecy and 2 because that's just what JK Rowling would do 69.76.166.34 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)harryfan101

Harryfan101, please back this information up with a reliable source other than "thats just what J.K. Rowling would do" This section debate is used to discuss what information should be in the article and what information should not.Thanks.70.240.148.161 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

Unresolved plots

"We will be learning more about Harry's parents and how Harry got so much money in Gringott's Bank "

didn't Sirius Black explain this in Book five before Harry went back to school? I believe he said he spent most of his teenage years at James' parent's house who were fairly wealthy, then he moved into an apartment when school ended. I cannot cite the page, only that it is in OOTP when the Black Family Tapestry is found and Sirius reveals his past with his family. There seems to be no mystery to me how the money got there as the Potters are dead, their money went to a young James, and then to Harry when Voldemort killed James and Lily. If I must, I can cite the page number and quote it, I just dont feel up to it unless I must. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.89.133.126 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

thanks for pointing that out. I agree, there is not much mystery about his money. Rowling said she made him rich because she was poor and thought it would be nice for Harry (or something like that). I've taken out the whole point. Sandpiper 02:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archiving of this page.

A while ago I was asked to set up automatic archiving of this page. Now yet another person asked me to stop it (As if something was wrong with it). Can you please arrive at a consensus? Thanks, Миша13 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading a while ago that article talk pages should not be automatically archived, although user talk pages may be. I personally don't think automatic archives are good, either, as they're stifling to discussion. Voretus 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, the talk page discussion was moving so quickly, that I thought it would be more beneficial. I didn't know this was something that consensus was really necessary on. If we're against it, that's fine with me. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot just archived some random comments 5 days after they were made. Now, as it happens they weren't important points, but I personally frequently leave it more than 5 days between looking at a page of no special interest to me. So 5 days later they come back, and their comment has just disappeared without trace??? Thats nice, then. Aside from that, some pages have comments on them which remain important months, even years, later. There seems to be a trend to rapidly archive ongoing debate, which is not helpfull. The only reason to archive pages is if they get too big. Sandpiper 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Book 7 editors???

I would like to know the usernames of anybody who plans on editing this article after the book is published thanks.GoldenIrish 21:20, 14 March 2007

(Golden, if you add four tilde ~ signs in a row to the end of your edit, it sticks your name in aoutomatically)Sandpiper

Ever? or immediately after? Sandpiper 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can edit a page whenever they like. Obviously, the page will face a lot of vandalism in July. We'll just have to deal with it and warn those users who make bad edits, and try to sort them out. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... but who wants the job of moderating, monitoring and deleting all the inevitable plot spoilers, which will be planted all over the Harry Potter articles like so much horse manure, and having the plot spoiled for them in the process. A corps of careful HP researchers are going to be needed to rapidly but carefully read and re-read Book 7, and probably reviewing the previous books for hidden clues, before orderly revisions are made. I've been wondering if most of the related HP articles should be totally locked down, perhaps from a few days before release to a few days after, and then after the moratorium expires, restrict editing to registered wiki-editors only (no anonymous, no newbies, no first-time sock-puppets) for the next few days after that. This will give responsible editors time to carefully read and absorb the book materials before all hell breaks loose from the armies of vandals and trolls, but also from the well-meaning HP fans and youngsters who do not know (or don't care about) the rules of the Wikipedia. I'm not sure how bad the X kills Y!!! vandalism spoilers were after Book 6 was released, but I would guess we will have it back ten times worse with Book 7. Whoever is "moderating" the articles in those first few hours or days won't really know what is verifiable, what is "true", and what is OR and POV, and won't be able to do an orderly update until there has been time to read the book(s) thoroughly (again). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I am talking immediatly after the book is released. T-Dot I completely agree with you on the editing restriction. You should put an editing lock to all anonymous newbie users. The article vandilism with book 6 was bad and book 7's vandilism will be hell. I started this section because I know we will have lots of vandilism problems so I was wondering who's going to be one of the editors that reads the book 10 times and then writes the article. It will help sort out the vandilists.70.240.148.161 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

You don't need to read the book 10 times to edit the article. While I agree with restricting use of editing this article shortly after the books comes out, any stipulations above that would be ridiculous. I agree with locking all HP articles down for awhile after the books are released.. then slowly making our way down the protection ladder. Disinclination 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely70.240.148.161 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

The HP pages will absolutely need protection. Believe it or not, "spoilers" have already been posted here and the release is months away. Definitely semiprotection for most if not all starting before the book is released (because spoilers will be leaked early like last time). But there's only so much that can be done, even seasoned WP editors will post inappropriate stuff, and even if all HP articles were completely protected, there will still be mayhem in the talk pages, just look at what broke out just from the announcements of title and release date. Sadly, the only way to avoid all the mess will probably be to stay away from wikipedia until you've read the book - hopefully some people will be able to finish it quickly and get on here to keep an eye on things. --Minderbinder 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I got books 5 and 6 at midnight, and finished them a little after breakfast the same day. I'll try to help out however I can. Arwen undomiel 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Minderbender. I'll finish the book as soon as I can after it is released. I'm getting it at midnight. I'm with undomiel, I'll try to help.GoldenIrish 01:39, 16 March 2007

Us true wiki users will finish the book in a heartbeat. We can clean up the crap the vandals leave before spoilers are spread.GoldenIrish 01:43, 16 March 2007

Hey GoldenIrish, this is just a side note, but I'd recommend you create an account under the name "GoldenIrish" if you want to be signing your posts with that user name. It's really easy, just go to the top right corner. But otherwise, I must ask you not to sign your posts with a username which isn't yours – or anybody's – right now. Thanks! Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thought - we Americans will be lagging several hours behind our British cousins in our ability to acquire and study our copies of Book 7, since they officially go on sale a minute after midnight (local time) on either side of the North Atlantic. In fact, apparently they go on sale at 0:01 BST (UTC/GMT) in all English-speaking countries EXCEPT in the USA, which must wait until 0:01 local time (EDT, CDT, MDT, PDT, etc.) [1]. More punishment for the "Sorcerer's stone" fiasco and the "Iraq thing" I suppose. Anyway we'll be depending on the British and other European and English-speaking editors to get a head start on making appropriate edits, with proper spoiler warnings, and keeping an eye on things like vandalism and trolling initially, until the Americans can join in the battle.

There is also a strong possibility that some bookstore(s) somewhere in the world will receive a batch of the books in advance, and "accidently" release a few copies several hours or even days before the event, as has happened before. I am not really sure how we should address that, since the "bootleg / black market" edits will contain unverifiable spoilers for everyone else who did not get an early release copy. This is why I am thinking we should consider locking down the articles a day or two ahead of the release date, and even sooner if there is news that copies have been leaked, and immediately if there are edits being posted that are indicative of an illegal leak of the book's plot elements. I am not sure if the Wikipedia policies and guidelines address the legal ramifications or the appropriateness of posting "bootleg" materials that have not been officially released to the public yet, but have been essentially "stolen" from the publishers and distributed illegally ahead of schedule. So I'm just not sure what the proper course of action is... --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing is I'm not sure how compliant with policy it is to lock a page in anticipation of an upcoming event which may cause repeated vandalism. You can ask, though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fbv, I tried to create an account under GoldenIrish and it said cookies must be enabled to have an account. One question: What the hell are cookies? Do they hurt your computer? I also suggest we put the editing lock on immediatly because vandals will probably destroy the articles as soon as the book is released.Thanks.GoldenIrish 21:27, 16 March 2007

Cookies are a small coded data package that web sites that you visit store on your computer, in order for them to identify you in the future (if you accept the cookie). They are usually harmless, or are at least intended to be, but they are used to identify you so you are no longer anonymous. Basically Wikipedia will store your ID on the computer where you log in from, and every time you visit the site, that cookie acts as a sort of ID card which says "Hi I'm (your screen name) and this is what I want to do: ...". See HTTP cookie for more information. Anyway you need to enable cookies in order to log into most web sites. If you are using Microsoft's Internet Explorer (standard on most PC's other than Macintosh), then try selecting (menu) Tools-Internet Options-Privacy (tab) and reduce your Privacy level a notch or two, until Wiki's cookies are enabled so you can log in. If you are using Mozilla, try selecting Tools (the menu), Cookie Manager, and "Enable cookies from this site". Netscape and other browsers have similar cookie tools under Preferences - use the Help menu and search for information on allowing cookies there. If you still have difficulties, then we can take this offline in an instant messenger system like AIM or Yahoo if you have that installed. More useful information about logging in at Help:Logging in and Wikipedia:Username policy. Good Luck and Welcome Aboard! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!!GoldenIrish 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

I know i'm new to this thread/post/wiki or whatever but I'd love to help if I am needed when DH comes out. I'm in the same boat as others, I will have the book by midnight EST and have it done between eight or nine hours later. I know the brits and everyone will have a jump on me when it comes to time or whatever but I would be able and willing to help edit the page, if anyone needs help. As for locking the pages down for a while in order to keep them from getting trashed- I think its a good idea as long as its only the other articles and not DH. There will be little or no reason to change the other articles so I'm going to go as far as saying that they could be locked down as much as two months before the release to limit spoilers and vandalism. I know thats probably extreme though. They should at least be locked a few days before and after the release. As for the DH page, I think it should be edited a few hours after the release because people who can't get the book right away are going to come to wikipedia looking for info on it and wiki should have it for them. Curiousb0215 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the main bias with this train of thought is that of the 6 billion people out there in the world, the only ones with the intellectual capacity to actually write anything relevant, non-vandalist and encyclopedic are the couple of dozen fans who are editing this article now.

Please accept that people with other interests, who don't spend 12 months out of the year thinking about Harry Potter, can actually produce a couple of coherent and relevant sentences about the book when they finish reading it. You can't dismiss comments from someone simply because they haven't spent the previous year hanging on flimsy he-said/she-said threads (pun intended) on message boards, while looking at candid photos of Daniel Radcliffe.

Do put things in perspective and avoid giving yourself a faux intellectual authority and expertise which you don't have. 83.132.99.20 12:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

deathly hallows cover

Does anyone know what the cover's going to look like? If someone does, they should add it in since you can edit it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.134.49 (talk • contribs)

Not yet. When it is released, someone will post it, and then editors will review the source for reliability and authenticity. The black cover look that is being circulated and shown at places like Amazon.com is a temporary template. A new look is shown here and attributed to Borders, but it is uncertain where that came from. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw a red cover of the book on mugglenet.com [2] This cover is on the homepage with a countdown next to it. The deathly hallows cover under the books link is the black one. I think the black one is a piece of rubbish. Mugglenet.com is also the site that wrote the book what will happen in Harry Potter 7. I haven't read the book but I heard the predictions are pretty good.GoldenIrish 22:23, 15 March 2007

cool. thanks.

Yeh I've herd of that book I might by it, it sounds good. Yes GoldenIrish I've been to that site too and I think that's what the cover's going to look like but I'm not sure.69.76.166.34 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)HarryFan101

Ok, this is getting off topic, and Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss theories and opinions. Sorry. Arwen undomiel 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tarot history

While I'm all for trying to find out what the hell Deathly Hallows means, the problem is with the particular sentence that the symbols of the Hallow guardian became the symbols of the tarot is NOT a definate history of tarot. One thing has to be clear: that the history of tarot is rather scewed, even amongst tarot readers. It has several "births" in a multitude of regions (including the tarocchi game in Italian). The way the sentence is worded now, seems to claim that tarot card symbols originated in England. I think this needs to be fixed, because right now, its biasing history (or a lack thereof). Disinclination 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I know this has been a bit touchy, but this is wiki: we are open to contributions, especially if you know something about it. Sandpiper 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is this, which appears to be by the mysterious Arthur Edward Waite hallows...in the tarot. Mr waite seemed to associate them with the Arthurian grail hallows, and while King Arthur may be popular in england, I think I recall that the stories existed through Europe by that point? The point of the explanation here is not to be definitive about Tarot, but to note that at least one explanation of the tarot suits is from hallows. But, as you suggest, I have yet to find an explanation of their source which is definitive. Sandpiper

While I have no evidence of this my theorie on the meaning of hallows is the 1st paragraph from the top of the some suggestions.(above)GoldenIrish 22:28, 15 March 2007

If there is definative proof that Waite took those symbols for his deck (The Rider-Waite or the Waite-Smith.. whatever you wish to call it), the Waite deck is a relatively modern deck. Several decks precede it, including the Marsellies and Thoth decks. I'd rather re-word it to say that it may have been a point of reference for Waite (and the various artists who worked on the Rider-Waite deck) to create his own deck's four suits. If anyone is not pleased, just revert it, or try to help make it better. Disinclination 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediate Edit Lock

To avoid vandilism I suggest we immediatly set an edit lock on ALL HP articles. This might stop vandilists while wikipedia is vulnerable with everybody reading book 7. Any comments???GoldenIrish 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

Hey GoldenIrish I would like to become a member how do I? I read your artical about what are cookies? I found it quite funny!69.76.166.34 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)HarryFan101

Yes I agree with you GoldenIrish we don't want any vandilist.69.76.166.34 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)HarryFan101

...Is there a GoldenIrish fan club I'm unaware of? Because quite honestly, this is not the place for any of this...discussion. Anyway, about the edit locking, if you were going to do it to "protect" people from reading what happens in Book 7, it's not neccessary, as we could just slip in a spoiler warning. If you're talking about just stopping the vandalism, it also wouldn't be neccessary for all articles aren't get vandalized enough and shouldn't be locked just because of their association with Harry Potter. Kochdude388 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandilisom wouldn't start untill a couple of days after or before the 7th book came out Kochdude388. Also vandilisom and spoiler warnings are way different!69.76.166.34 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)HarryFan101

The vandalism will happen all the time, regardless of Book 7's release - its just part of life. But I took GoldenIrish's statement to mean that he wanted the page locked for spoiler purposes. Kochdude388 23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is quite specifically we editors. It's quite likely that a large chunk of serious editors will decamp from wikipedia (or at least the Harry Potter pages) whilst they're reading the book, in order to avoid the equally likely blitz of spoilers which they would inevitably see when reverting. So our choice is either for each editor to abandon the project to chaos until he or she has read the book (in which case, the project will effectively collapse in the first few days), or for the articles - ALL the articles, tbh - to be completely locked down until the hubbub has died down. Michael Sanders 23:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't have to lock down all the articles, would we? Like, what about the other six books and the five movies? Are those included? Kochdude388 00:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem, because those articles are just as likely to get "Voldemort in the drawing room with the lead piping" scrawled on them, and consequently editors who don't want to risk seeing such spoilers in the process of removing them will avoid doing anything with them. Thus, chaos. Michael Sanders 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Harryfan101, please, when your on the discussion pages for Harry Potter, then only talk about Harry Potter, OK? Now if you want to know how to become a user then go to the discussion on my user page. Click on my name hilighted in blue at the end of this page. I will explain there. Anyway, I have another solution for the spoiler/vandilism problem. We just let the vandilists do what they want. Right now this article is about what "might" happen in book 7. This article will be changed completely after the release of the book. So we scrap the vandilism, put the lock on, and voila, we have a decent harry potter 7 article. Any suggestions??GoldenIrish 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

At this point in time, there is no need to protect, or even semi-protect the page from any editing. Protection should only be instituted when it is absolutely necessary, and at the time that the book is released. Also, protection has to be applied for, and will only be granted if there is a really good reason for protection. MelicansMatkin 01:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. By the way does anybody knwo how to create contents for your userpage. If you do then please tell me. Thanks.GoldenIrish 15:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

There will be a really good reason to protect major Harry Potter articles once July 21 rolls around. Those major articles will include Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry Potter, Ron Weasely, Hermione Granger, Lord Voldemort, etc. I agree, however, that we don't need to protect the pages until it gets very close to the release date, and even then, minor articles probably might not need to be protected. Arwen undomiel 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you dont want to know the ending of the book, just dont read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.134.49 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:PROT. The policy specifically says:

Semi-protection should not be used:

• As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. …
• To prohibit anonymous editing in general.

It is contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia, to have all users contribute, not to "block out" those editing anonymously. Of course, this article may face heavy vandalism in over four months, but there's no need to be talking about it now. Once the vandalism has occurred, we can deal with requests for protection. But under no circumstances will this page or any other HP article in its present state be protected now. There is no real need to continue this discussion unless you have questions about policy. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROT also says:

Temporary semi-protection may be used for:

• Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses.

I'm not saying this justifies it, I'm not even saying it is the best idea; I agree we should wait, but... Arwen undomiel 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, we should wait until nearer the time to decide. But really, what do we think's going to happen, if half of us are too busy reading the book to pay attention to wikipedia, and the other half are refusing to look at any HP articles on their watchlist in case some idiot has scrawled a crucial plot twist across the cast list for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban? The first few days will see a regular staff of about 3, and the articles will effectively collapse under the weight of idiocy, leaving us to spend the next few months trying to remove the traces of vandalism inevitably left behind by such a vulnerable period (rubbish gets left behind just by a night when there aren't enough people paying attention. What will be the effects here?). What will probably happen, if the articles aren't fully protected, is that over-harassed responsible editors will simply take the simplest path, and revert back to the most recent trusted edit, which will make any serious additions pointless, and will not be foolproof anyway. Also, in terms of WP:PROT, I'd counter with WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules): "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" - and, as I have pointed out, leaving the pages open and unguarded at such a critical time would give a serious knock to maintaining wikipedia. Michael Sanders 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I plan to protect this article and the OotP film article a few days before (if not sooner) the respective release dates regardless of whether or not vandalism has occurred. There's no doubt it will be needed. John Reaves (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To Arwen: I don't disagree the pages should be semi-protected; I disagree they should be semi-protected now. In addition, I'd suggest further talk of "what's going to happen" be moved to WP:Harry. One possible option is to "assign" editors to certain articles to watch in-depth. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am (hopefully) saying this once and for all--I do not think we should protect the articles now. There. That discussion is over and done with. I do like the idea of "assigning" editors to certain articles, however. Arwen undomiel 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it will happen, due to wikipedia policy. I'd give over 90% chance that the release of HP7 will be on the front page of wikipedia when it is released, in the news section. That will mean a couple of things, one of which is the page can't be edit protected. It will also mean that lots of non-HP people will be looking at the page, keeping vandalism down. Also, there are lots of HP users, I bet even just the time zone difference in releasing between Australia, UK, and US will be enough to make sure there are some people who don't have to read the book everywhere in the world (Either the book isn't released or they have finished it). However, I would like to add a suggestion. Perhaps we should archive the page right before the release (Maybe a day?). I think it might be pretty cool to have an archive of the page pre-release. Tuvas 05:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. If you click the "permanent link" link in the sidebar the day before, you'll get a link to that version (the version right now is http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows&oldid=116178291). John Reaves (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's only Today's Featured Article that should not be semi-protected. Other pages that link from the main page may be protected, as it says at WP:PROT:

Semi-protection should not be used: …

To prevent vandalism to the day's Featured Article except as discussed at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack, though more leeway should be given with these than with most articles.

It will be in the "In the news" section for sure but I think this makes an exception for the "under attack" clause. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to get off the fence on this one and express a view. I understand why people are arguing that the articles may be vandalised when the next book comes out, but the fact of the matter is that the minute the new book is published, these articles will be totally WRONG. To say that no one can insert the correct facts into an article which is patently incorrect is a pretty extraordinary step for an encyclopedia. It may be that the edits will be of poor quality, because they are by inexperienced enthusiasts, but that is not normally considered a good reason to prevent editing. I don't see any reason to think that there will be more malicious interest than good faith interest. Certainly, more bad edits in total because of interest in the subject, but it has to be accepted that when the known information on a particular subject has suddenly gone out of date overnight, then people will want to change it, and quite honestly should be trusted to change it. If the articles are inaccurate for a week, well then they are. But that is exactly what they will be if no edits are allowed. Sandpiper 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallows original research.

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

In the title, the noun 'hallows' is coupled with the adjective, 'deathly'. 'Deathly' may have the same meaning as the similar adjective 'deadly' (likely to cause death), but it also includes a possible wider meaning of somehow relating to death.

WP:OR#No_original_research

• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

The above paragraph violates that part of the OR guideline. Please, leave it out of the article. I'd rather not have to protect this article again due to people adding their own analysis or interpretation of published facts. dposse 01:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And the information has been published by a reliable source, namely the Harry Potter Lexicon, and is simply being reprinted here. It is not OR. Why, when this issue has actually been settled, do you want to start it up again? I'm reverting it again. Please restrain yourself from starting another edit war because you want to overturn consensus. Michael Sanders 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but i do not believe that i saw a link to the Lexicon as a reference. Would you mind showing me where the Lexicon link is? dposse 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See ? Unlike Michaelsanders said, I'm not the only one who is opposed to these biased edits (and unlike Michaelsanders said in his edit summaries, there was absolutely no consensus reached about this paragraph about Arthurian hallows. As soon as the article was unprotected for other reasons, he added his text while I had specifically been opposed to it and I had pointed out it was biased and needed changes).

So, no, Lexicon isn't a reliable source. They are reliable as far as published material are concerned (they are a very thorough, complete collection of references about books 1 to 6, they do good etymological research, etc). However, when dealing about personal theories about a still unpublished book, they are as unreliable as every fan on earth, because no one has the power to see the future. No one has read book 7, so no one can be "reliable" when speculating about it's content.

Besides, I already said it, this whole bunch of text, who is exclusively centered around arthurian hallows as objects only (while the Oxford Dictionary cited in the article specifically states "Hallows" has also a meaning of "saints" or "shrines"), is biased and is trying to build a point.

It obvious, any reader not used to the debate about Hallows, and who'll read this paragraph, will automatically associate hallows with objects, because of the insistance of some editors on putting forward hallows as objects. We really don't need all this POV-pushing in the articles.

We don't know what hallows mean, period. Besides, I can't see what myths from Arthurian legends and tarot cards and all that would be really have to do in an HP article...

I also note that Michaelsanders is again involved in an edit war. Michael, you should try to understand that so-called "consensuses" (and I insist, there was no consensus in this case except the one you made up all by yourself) are not equivalent to an article protection. We still have the right to change the article if we think the edits (whether established through consensus or not) aren't fit for Wikipedia.

Also, systematically favoring blind reverts (while hiding being so-called "consensuses" which aren't), instead of any form of justification, debate or discussion, just isn't the way to work on Wikipedia, Michael. Folken de Fanel 13:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Source 9 - the Lexicon essay on 'The Grail Hallows and Harry Potter'. It should probably be extended to cover the removed section, but it is there, and so it is sourced.

As for you, Folken - give it a rest. YOU AGREED TO THE TEXT AS IT WAS PRIOR TO THIS LATEST PROBLEM. It was agreed to by consensus, by ALL of us, YOU INCLUDED. Until one person took it upon themself to ignore what had been going on here and remove it. And, what is more, I have NEVER 'added' any text on hallows. I reverted when the agreed text was flouted. That was all. I even let you and Sandpiper have your silly little tarradiddle when you decided that the text you had agreed to didn't suit you, prompting you to revoke your agreement, and have that whole farce before the two of you agreed to the text - as it stood in the article until last night. So stop stirring the pot. My method is if a controversial text has been agreed upon, to keep that version, and make the editor justify his alterations. Yours, on the other hand, is to ignore the consensus even you come to. So stop it.

I don't remember agreeing to this text anywhere, I've always said things had to be improved, I've said it again recently. I've stated my complete opinion and I'm not going to repeat it just for you, since you're not willing to even read it.

Your talking about Dposse, and it's obvious he doesn't need your permission to edit articles on Wikipedia, if some previous edit don't respect the rules. And that your so-called consensuses are not equal to a permanent article protection. Folken de Fanel 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the text is sourced, I expect it to be returned, so we don't have a repeat of the last month. Thank you. Michael Sanders 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Folken de Fanel is completely correct in everything he said. The Lexicon might be a reliable source if it was discussing things about the past books. However, this infomations about the Hallow seems to be nothing but a fan created opinion, which violates every wikipedia guideline. Yes, this infomation is sourced, but only for the fact that these legends were true. You have no reliable sources that state that this has anything to do with the book. Basically, you're fishing for a meaning to the word by bringing up every little thing that could have something to do with the word, which brings me the wikipedia guideline WP:OR#No_original_research which i quoted above. I'm not sure why you cannot be happy with the two paragraphs we have now and just leave this infomation behind. I mean, the book is coming out in a few months.... dposse 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

However, this article is about information currently published. Lexicon et al are writing articles based upon existing available information from the existing published books, and Rowling. You may wish to write an article about what is actually in the final book, but people here have written an article about what is expected to be in the final book, not what is. That is why there is a big notice at the start of the article, saying it about a future event and thus must be taken with some caution. This article will be changed utterly when the actual book appears. It will no longer be a list of what experts in the field expect, based upon the known information so far, but will be based upon exactly what happens in the book. It will almost certainly be totally rewritten. It is a fact that there is already informed interpretation of the meaning of the title, based upon the general meaning of the words, literary precedents as to how they have appeared in other literature, and how this may fit with information within the existing books. It is not OR as defined in the quotation above. I understand Lexicon were even thanked by Warner bros. for their assistance in creating the films. Sandpiper 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Book 7 is not yet published. So speculating that it will contain this and that plot element is already original research.

The meaning of the title is blatant OR, this has been undisputably established. . Groundless interpretations, synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and oriented and biased personal researches are OR. Folken de Fanel 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Folken has said it well while being brief. Yes, this information has been published. Yes, by respected third party sources, such as the Lexicon. Yes, other people have done considerable work trying to predict the meaning of the title or what the Horcruxes are. But, the information is still original research, by all parties writing such essays because it's on a yet-unpublished book. Even though their work has been published, it constitutes original research by speculation. We extend this speculation by printing their thoughts on the title. Once we've read the book and the title is clear, somebody's theory may be right. But we'll inform Wikipedia readers of what that theory is once it's known, not as soon as some people think they've figured it out. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FBV, I think what you have just said is that in your opinion the material does not fit the criteria for OR as defined for wikipedia (see below). The only real issue is whether Lexicon is a respected source, which everyone agrees it is. Everything in any article on wiki was or is original research by someone. It just isn't original research done by wiki editors themselves. wiki reports the work of outsiders. Sandpiper 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sandpiper, I explicitly said it was OR: "But, the information is still original research … Even though their work has been published, it constitutes original research by speculation." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not just his opinion, it's fact. Everything was quoted below, you just have to actually read it.

The only real issue is not about Lexicon only. It's about how certain users have made oriented and biased personal researches, researches not even related to HP.

As for Lexicon, the issue is not whether it is a "respected" (is this a way to avoid saying "reliable" ?) source or not. The issue is whether it is a reliable source or not, and it is not.

Wiki doesn't report just any work. It reports what is in reliable sources.

Folken de Fanel 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some of you might be confused regarding what is and is not OR as it pertains to Wikipedia's policies. The policies, if I may sum up, simply state that Wikipedia is no the place to post OR - in other words, Wikipedia should not be a Primary or Secondary source. At the crux of the matter is if there was a reliable citation. If there was, then the paragraph's presence in this article is in keeping with the concept of Wikipedia as a tertiary source. Once there is a citation, the argument moves away to being one of OR, and one of Reliability. Yes, the citation may be full of speculation, but that's OK - we're allowed to report on that, too, as long as it is reliable. If you doubt that such speculation ever has any value to Wikipedia, consider some of the other articles that are rife with even more such speculation - such as Extraterrestrial life, Time travel, and String theory. The main differences between those and this the relative importance of the subjects (which is a subjective argument anyways, and not very meaningful as long as the subjects importance is above a certain level of Relevance anyways) and that those three are of a scientific bent. To those who would argue that such speculation is OK in a scientific article but not appropriate in a literary one... I just poked over to the article on Moby-Dick, published long ago, and found examples of learned speculation there as well. It just happens to be well cited, speculation that did not originate from Wikipedia. --Reverend Loki 17:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Because people here need to revise just what Original Research is - taken from WP:OR:

• "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

• Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

• "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

• An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

   ** It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   ** It introduces original ideas; [Emphasis on 'original' - i.e. not before seen]
   ** It defines new terms;
   ** It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms [Again, new meaning not before seen];
   ** It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   ** It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   ** It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another."

We all know what is OR. I have myself quoted these criteria more than once before. As you put it, the crux is the source, and its reliability. OR doesn't disappear as soon as there's a source. It requires a reliable source.

Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources :

• " A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
• "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. "

"2. Professional self-published sources

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one."

As we can see here, we all know what's the problem with OR: it's the source. We also all see that not just any kind of source can be used, otherwise WP will lose much of its interest, if anyone can post every single theory that has been written on any fan website.

What I've quoted shows us that what defines the reliability of the source, is mostly in fact-checking. How could any one (inclding the Lexicon) be able to fact-check theories about a book that is not yet published ?

The problem remains the same. I have explained it many times: even if Lexicon is well-know for being one of the most complete encyclopedia about already published material, their theories (despite certainly being better formulated than most of fan theories) remain groundless speculation, without any mean of checking their relevancy/accuracy, like any other theory on the web. Because it concerns unpublished material that no one can check ! It's like trying to predict the future, it's like lottery...

Concerning the currently debated paragraph, I think no one can question it's OR, because as I've said, it's a personal research from the part of an editor (even though it's made of various sourced and checked elements), which favors one possibility over the others. Synthesis of facts to advance a position. Folken de Fanel 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken, you continue to miss the point. The references cited are all discussing facts contained in the existing published books. These source facts have been checked, and indeed are checkable by anyone informed enough to be writing articles here on the subject. The 'research' element comes in connecting references within the books to references from other literature. The sources do not even then particularly speculate about book seven, merely drawing the conclusion that the hallows of the title may refer to relics of the founders. It is irrelevant whether this is correct. It is only relevant that someone has drawn this conclusion, in fact now a number of someones. There is even another article which drew the same parallel between founders/relics and these legends dating from last year, well before the title was announced. Lexicon has a good reputation for fact checking. As I mentioned above, it has been used by Rowling and Warner bros to check facts from the series. It was Lexicons speculative timeline for the series which was adopted by warner and inserted into their films. (This was discretely asserted on the Lexicon website last time I looked, together with an observation that no one had threatened to sue yet.)

I don't miss any point. When will you realize that your opinion and others' about "what hallows might mean in book 7" is not fact contained in existing published books ?

Elements that have been artifically connected, because of the editor's point of view, and not because of firm basis or facts, consistute OR and unacceptable source.

Well, what firm basis have they to know what hallows means ? none.

It is relevant whether this source has any ground for its speculations. It has none.

Well, have Lexicon fact-checked the accuracy of their theories with book 7 ? No.

Stop talking about things that have nothing to do here (the timeline).Folken de Fanel

Lexicons views are certainly not 'fringe' or 'extremist' (The words you highlight, website and publications, are not the important ones in that sentence). They do not rely on rumours (thankfully we don't have any rumours yet), and while they certainly do rely on opinions, it is their respected opinions which are exactly what and why we are reporting it. They are certainly not questionable, in the sense of claiming anything which is unreasonable. However, if you wish to wikilawyer this, I would point out that the last two sentences of the definition of questionable sources simply expand on the definition contained in the first sentence. Lexicon does not qualify as a questionable source on any point in the main definition.

The words I highlight, website and publications, are the important ones.

They do rely on rumours.

"Respected" opinion ? I don't particularly "respect" their opinions. They are as respectable as I am, as any fan is. They are a complete encyclopedia about the 6 already published books, fair enough. That, however, doesn't make them "superior beings" able to "see the future": they do not see the future more than I do, and their opinion is no more valid than mine. It's all opinion, guesses, with no certainty of fact-checking on any side. I can make theories as "respectable" as theirs. Because every single fan in the world in in exactly the same condition as is any contributor to Lexicon, as far as book 7 is concerned: we know nothing. In this case, if we accept Lexicon's theories for whatever reasons, we will have to accept every single theory on any single message board in the world. Which is not the aim of Wikipedia.

And please, once and for all, stop talking about "respected". It really is irreleveant to the discussion. We're talking about reliability. Folken de Fanel

You persist in bringing up the issue of self publication. This is not relevant. Lexicon no doubt publishes stuff which it originates, but it is no more self-published than is the Times, Guardian, or any other national newspaper. Self publication means that the originator of the material is personally responsible for its publication. These websites have teams of editors by now, an established reputation for accuracy which they guard and maintain. They do not claim to be right, they are merely pre-eminent in leading and reporting developments in the research into the books. Traditionally, Lexicon has probably been the most 'encyclopedic' of the websites, only hosting material which it is confident of.

You continue to miss the point. Your talking about pre-existing material. We're talking about still unpublished material. That they are a good encyclopedia concerning book 1 to 6, doesn't mean they have supernatural powers that allow them to see the future, and to read book 7 before it's published.Folken de Fanel

Finally, I would comment that this is ridiculous. This is a massive row about frankly sensible comments made by informed people about a forethccoming book. They do not claim to be correct, merely make reasonable observations about the most likely meaning of the title. I have seen nothing, anywhere, to suggest that they are factually incorrect. The version of the 'hallows' section which was in the article, if anything seeks to go overboard advancing alternative explanations to those suggested by Lexicon. A much more straightforward rewording might be on the lines of Lexicon suggest that hallows refers to relics of the founders, possibly now converted into horcruxes, and no one has reasonably suggested anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) Again, who are to say these explanations are "the most likely" ? You see, that's exactly the problem with you. Not only you want to mention these theories (they have been and they still are in the current version, so no problem), but what you're really trying to is to impose these theories, to develop them and to say they're "the most likely". I repeat, who are you to decide which theory is the most likely ?

Really, you make me laugh, at the beginning you were saying all this stuff about Lexicon "not claiming they're right", and now you say we have make these theories content of the article (and not merely sources) because they're "the most likely" ?

You see, that is where your original research begins. You're gathering various sources for theories, various facts about arthurian legends, and then you're synthesising all this material in order to advance a position: that Hallows are the horcrux, and that it is the correct interpretation. That's really what is behind all your manipulations. You do not merely want Wiki to mention these theories (that's already done), you want to WIki to mention they're true, just because you personally think they are.

But again, that's not what Wikipedia is for.

We have already mentionned these theories in the article. But we won't make these theories content for the article. We mention them, but we don't develop them. It's not ours to decide which is the "most likely" or not. It's not ours to say what is probably going to be the meaning of "hallows". We just report available information, and in any case, we have no right whatsoever to create information, because we're simply NOT the authors of book 7.

By the way, this mentionning of theories is already original research, because there are countless theories about the meaning of hallows, and if we're only picking one among all the others, then it's original research (biased presentation of certain facts to advance a position).

Well, do we have any mean to know that they're factually correct ? No. Because no one can fact-check the content of book 7.Folken de Fanel 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for proving us right, Sandpiper. You're right when you say, "they certainly do rely on opinions". You see, that is exactly what we're saying here. "Observations" made by the Lexicon, a fan created and run website, is speculation and thus original research. It is factually inaccurate because it has no basis in fact. It's someone's opinion, it's not a verifiable fact. If we allowed this, what says that we cannot take infomation from the editorals of Mugglenet? They claim that they are "World Famous" after all! I mean, if they are world famous, they can't be wrong...right? dposse 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I love the Lexicon. I use it every day and was an active member of its forum until about six months ago when my posting declined due to school. I still visit every now and then and quite a bit during school vacations. So I am not, in any way, shape or form, denouncing the site.

The difference between the article Reverend Loki referred to is that they do not pertain to information which will be revealed in four months' time. Unless science has a sudden breakthrough, we won't know about time travel on July 21. We will, however, know about what "deathly hallows" are. What they do mean is already known by JKR and her publishers. To try and guess what they are would, in the clearest sense of the word, be speculation. Speculation = no, whether it's from a fan site found in the back corner of the Internet, or from a best-selling book 500 pages long. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is completely wrong. If we write about time travel now, we write about what is believed now. If we write about God, we write about what is believed now. If we write about Tony Blair and the war in Iraq, we write about what is believed now. It may be in any of these cases that something will happen in July which will change utterly what is believed now. Right now, we write what is known now. This case is no different. Right now, it is believed by the best informed opinion that hallows refers to founders/horcruxes/etc, so thgat is what we say now, and we cite where this is explained at greater length. We should, however, also give a general explanation of the term hallow, because it was previously not in common use. Sandpiper 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Length announcement

[3] 784 pages for the US/scholastic version. Too bad I can't add it because of the page block. --Minderbinder 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We can add it later, after this argument is settled. dposse 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on getting and documenting the Reliable Source on the information. The lockdown was initiated by John Reaves - you might leave a message with him and see if he'll lift it. I was rather astonished that editing the article was disabled over a petty reversion war over OR and 3RR argument, but so be it. The lockdown should not be for more than 24 hours. If the "offenders" persist, then they should be blocked for 24 hours, not the article. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of the protection was to prevent the petty edit war from turning into a major edit (as we've seen so many times before). John Reaves (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems this is not an issue which went away when the article was blocked for a month last time. Is this becoming an excuse to bar any editing of this article, as people have requested above? Sandpiper

Figure out a wording to mention the length and propose it under the template below. --Minderbinder 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I am resolving this template for now as it seems there is no edit proposed. Feel free to add the template again when consensus favors a particular edit to the article. CMummert · talk 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use: Harry Potter goes green

• Scholastic (2007-03-20). "Harry Potter Goes Green". Comingsoon.net. Retrieved 2007-03-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

WikiNew 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Errors

• I don't care about the politics surrounding this article, but there's a "`A" below the Harry Potter Series template on the bottom of the page. It looks silly. :) Sarysa 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done John Reaves (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit

The following passage appears in the Unresolved plot elements from previous books section. Either revert "is allowed" back to "entitled" ([4]), or make some other change so that it is grammatically correct.

Harry comes of age (for wizards) when he turns 17 on July 31, and is therefore is allowed...

Brian Jason Drake 06:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the offending "is" in the sentence. Harryboyles 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection of sections

On a related (but probably not appropriate here) note, it would be great if we could just protect the The meaning of "Hallows" section so we wouldn't have so much disruption caused by such a small section. Brian Jason Drake 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection only applies to full articles, not sections. If this were implemented, there would be problems, eg If I changed the section title, the protection would be gone. Harryboyles 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I'm an outsider looking in. I like Harry Potter, but none of the books would make my top 5 of all time, and only 1 of the movies would make my current top 10. I do however have a pair of post primary school degrees and so I've had to read an encyclopedia article or two in my day, even one or two on famous books. This page doesn't look like those at all. I won't point fingers because I can't, I didn't and wouldn't bother to see who changed or added what when, but some people here appear to be more fan then encyclopedia editor, and other people seem to care more about their side of an arguement then the overall picture of this article in the context of what Wikipedia is. So I'll kick this idea out if this is desired to be more then just a fan page. Find a good, competent article writer from another more traditional, less modern fan based book. Someone who while knowing of the story of the Harry Potter books and has read the books isn't quite so personally commited to them. Then let them rewrite this article from the ground up and lay the foundation of what should be in. It's just an idea to clean things up a bit. Either that or someone asking J.K. on her webside to show up and do it. That would be unlikely but pretty definitive. [Thursday, 2007-03-22 T 19:36 UTC].

What you must realize is that Wikipedia is an article that anyone can edit, so if J.K. Rowling wanted to, she could come in and edit that Harry dies, Voldomort lives and Ron gets married to Cho if she wanted (Dont get any ideas!). While your suggestion is great, I'm sure this is not the place to put it. Have a good one. Quatreryukami 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What you all must understand is that this article is currently (insert nice adjective for "not good", because all I can think of is "it stinks"), and our main goal should be to improve it. I agree with both of you. We do need a competent editor, one who is not completely obsessed with Harry Potter, as all these guys seem to be. I am not that editor, but that editor is out there somewhere, just waiting for us to ask him to edit this page (so that he can say no). Also, see my comments below, I have specific complaints regarding this article. Within the Veil 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, I thought it was pretty good. The difficulty with what you suggest is that anyone wishing to verify everything in the article for themselves will have to spend a lot of time doing it. However, this is one of the very best sourced articles I know of. Sandpiper 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why we wikipede

It seems to me clear that we have, to put it bluntly, got too far up ourselves. We have entirely lost the purpose of writing an enyclopaedia. This isn't the Harry Potter wiki, or a fansite where we can write in-universe, and a place where we only include whatever Rowling has said. This is an enyclopaedia, where we are meant to give full and comprehensive coverage to everything on this subject. Which we are not doing. And it's creating damaging atttitudes thoroughly at odds with wikipedia, and actual misunderstandings of how it works. For example: "Actually, Sandpiper, I explicitly said it was OR: "But, the information is still original research … Even though their work has been published, it constitutes original research by speculation."" That is not wikipedia Original Research. Original Research is, quite specifically, the Original thoughts, views or developments of the editor ('Original' means new or never before seen). Speculation - please understand - is perfectly acceptable - even welcomed - in wikipedia. Provided it is sourced. Actually look outside Harry Potter, or Dragonball Z, or the other pages where you can delude yourself that there is a fixed truth that can be nailed down. There is no such thing in history, or science, and we should accept that there is no such thing in literature, because people always have opinions and speculation on motives and plot, and always publish them. And then we write it up. That is how we write an encyclopaedia article - a mixture of hard fact, cutting-edge theory and learned opinion. The fact that DH is coming out in 4 months is irrelevant. It could be coming out tomorrow, and it wouldn't change our task, which is to make our articles as fully comprehensive about their subjects as possible. This article is on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Then we write about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - when it was written, how it was written, why it was written, reactions to it, opinions about it. That is how we write an encyclopaedia article. Sorry, but speculation=yes, provided it is properly sourced. And if you can't grasp that, I suggest you take a crash course in writing for wikipedia, or go and work on the Harry Potter Wiki, or somewhere pleasantly 'in-universe', where you can rely solely on the regular morphine drips of information from Rowling. That, however, is not how we write articles here. And if anyone can't grasp that, then I suggest you make the most of your time here - you will no doubt be jumping ship once DH has been published and written up here, and the in-universe gravy train comes to an end. Michael Sanders 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is not a collection of groundless fan speculations just for the sake of it. Wikipedia is not a personal website in which editor are allowed to develop their personal thoughts (and developing selected theories and presenting them in a favorable light because certain editors think they're the "most likely to be true", even though there absolutely no mean to fact-check this, is personal thought, and thus original research) : it's not a blog.

There are absolutely no theories on Wikipedia, except the one that are fact-checked and presented by reliable sources, not merely fans posting on message boards or on their personal websites.

Now stop playing these little games, and stop trying to change or to bypass the rules of Wikipedia: that many contributors, more experimented than you and more familiar than you with the rules, tagged all these things about hallows as OR is the proof you're really missing the point. Folken de Fanel 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, I'm afraid. No offence, but you're making your complete lack of wikipedia experience outside computer games and manga - where, as we see here, it is possible to delude oneself that one can grasp a certain truth - blatantly obvious. You're right to say that "Wikipedia is not a collection of groundless fan speculations just for the sake of it." - rather, it is a place where speculations by experts in the field are written up in an encyclopaedic manner in order to give as through a recording of the subject as possible. "Wikipedia is not a personal website in which editor are allowed to develop their personal thoughts" - quite so. It is a place where one presents sourced information on a subject. You, on the other hand, are developing your personal thoughts that only information directly from the books can be represented in these articles. "(and developing selected theories and presenting them in a favorable light because certain editors think they're the "most likely to be true", even though there absolutely no mean to fact-check this, is personal thought, and thus original research)" - no, we give as broad coverage to all mainstream views, and significant minority views. Your opinion of whether it is 'most likely to be true', or 'no way it can be true' is irrelevant - if it is in the ether, and sourced, it is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, and should be included, to show the predominant streams of thought about the subject. That's why there is an article on Love's Labour's Won - a Shakespeare play no-one is quite sure ever existed, but which has an article on what the most prominant experts in the field have argued about the subject. And, I repeat, 'Original Research' is the canvassing of ideas or theories on wikipedia that have been seen in no other mainstream source (since then they can only be explained by the editor explaining that s/he invented it, since they can't explain where they got it); if they have been seen and can be correctly attested as having been seen outside wikipedia, they are not Wikipedia Original Research. Even if it's rubbish scribbled by Stephen Hawking on the back of a napkin, provided that rubbish has appeared in mainstream sources. Again, as you would understand if you had any knowledge of non-fan articles in wikipedia. "There are absolutely no theories on Wikipedia, except the one that are fact-checked and presented by reliable sources, not merely fans posting on message boards or on their personal websites." There are a multitude of theories on wikipedia. Those that are unsourced, we remove. Those that are sourced, we keep. You really need to understand that - if a respectable, mainstream and trusted website such as the Lexicon says something, it is appropriate as a source. It is not necessarily true, just as 'Catherine de' Medici plotted St Bartholemew's Day' or 'Evolution' or 'Hamlet was mad' is not necessarily true. So what? An encyclopaedia aims to inform - it aims not to shove 'a truth universally acknowledged' down the reader's throat, but to make them aware of all aspects of the subject. Again, as you would know if you had the slightest degree of wikipedia experience outside screaming 'only I know about this anime, so don't question me'. "Now stop playing these little games, and stop trying to change or to bypass the rules of Wikipedia:" - little games. Of course. You refuse to read the rules and understand how wikipedia works, and I'm playing little games? You refuse to understand that articles are not aimed at the truth, but at the full range of information, and I'm playing games? You wilfully misunderstand the rules governing inclusion of information and Original Research, and I'm playing games? "that many contributors, more experimented than you and more familiar than you with the rules, tagged all these things about hallows as OR is the proof you're really missing the point." - of course. Two anime and computer game fans, who have never gone beyond fan editing to 'Saint Seiya' and '24 (season 5)'. And FBV, who rarely edits outside HP-related articles and Narnia. So, three 'fan-editors' who have never had to sufficiently understand the manner in which wikipedia works. Is that meant to be persuasive? Folken, actually read around wikipedia. Look at the rules, look at the articles. Understand how it works. Only then should you come back and either hammer away at your own perversion of the rules - try asking an experienced admin of what they think of those, by the way - or keep in compliance with wikipedia's style of operation. Michael Sanders 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No. You're wrong. No offence, but you're making your complete lack of wikipedia experience outside HP and french kings (where any one is questionning your edits anyway) - where, as we see here, it is possible to delude oneself that one can grasp a certain truth - blatantly obvious.

No, i'm not presenting any personal thought, I'm merely reading Wikipedia's guidelines, contrary to you.

No, you don't give as broad coverage to all mainstream views. You select the theories you agree with, and make them content of articles. While you totally forget any other theory. You're selecting what you think is "mainstream" views, with no proof of it.

Experts on Shakespeare have made various fact-based researches, which is not the case of groundless theories.

No. OR is what comes from questionable sources.

You really need to understand that - if a non-respectable, non-mainstream and non-trusted website (as far as theories on unpublished material is concerned) such as the Lexicon says something, it is not appropriate as a source.

Finally, if you don't agree with the rules of Wikipedia, or if you don't even want to read them, just leave. Because if you expect that by intimidation, personal attacks and insults, you're going to remove any opposition to your blatant attempts at OR, then you've already lost...Folken de Fanel 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken, while I don't always agree with michael as to content, I have to agree with his understanding and explanation of the 'rules'. Wiki is not about absolute truth, which is something which does not exist. It is not acceptable to dismiss a website as trivial and unreliable without demonstrating why this would be so. Rowling has recommended Lexicon, warner bros has commended Lexicon. People who use it respect it. Show me someone who is disagreeing with it. If you feel it is unrepresentative, then produce some references to anyone respected who is disagreeing with their analysis and we can included them as well.

If you want to read a website which has a really excellent coverage of every possible theory about Hp, then read red hen [5]. She has extensive coverage of all sorts of things, and is highly informative. Yet I do not use her as a reference, because she is self published, on her own website. (though she is also published in print). She is an example of what is meant by self-publication, though it is not really true to say her work does not get peer reviewed, because I know she is more than happy to discuss anything by email, and does regularly incorporate corrections and new information as it arises. At a guess, I would say she has about 1000-10000 times (word count) more content about the last book than is in this article. Sandpiper 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a worthless editor because I only edit Harry Potter- and Narnia-related articles? And apparently people who edit these articles have no understanding of how Wikipedia works? And thus I have not read the policies or simply see through them? And thus all 7500 edits I've racked up, that primarily, as you pointed out, pertain to these articles, have all been against Wikipedia's policies and goals? Come on, not only is this completely false, but it's really childish use of personal attacks. This goes for everybody: can we please stop attacking what subject areas people edit and move on with it?

Anyway, I think this discussion has gotten to the point where we need to bring it to RfC. I'm creating a discussion below. This has gone just far too out of hand. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, Wikipedia is clear as to what is a reliable source. It's something that "is not self-published", that has a "fact-checking process", that doesn't "rely heavily on personal opinions".

Simply, as far as theories are concerned, Lexicon isn't in this category. Because their theories rely on personal opinion, and are not fact-checked (who could check the content of book 7 ? -> unreliability). There no concrete element, outside Lexicon's personal opinion, that Hallows are related to arthurian objects.

And I've already said it: see the Lexicon as "experts" if you want. It won't change the fact that they're not in their field of expertise, as their theories on HP7 are as unreliable as for any other fan in the world. They have no expertise about book 7, which is not yet published. Lexicon has been praised for being a complete encyclopedia about already published material.

JKR never said that "their theories are always right". It's not for theories they have been praised, but for their main content: a collection of references and facts from the books.Folken de Fanel 09:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that while you guys obvious have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and obviously aren't new (like me), you really need to stop. This has become nothing more than an argument between two people who are obviously both (just a little) nerdy, calling each other nerds. I cannot remember which pillar of wiki-ness this is breaking, but I'm pretty sure there is one that says not to insult each other. Stop whining and try to come to a consensus.

Sorry, I know I'm new and I have no right, but still, this is pathetic.

Anyways, just wanted to say that while a list of unresolved plot elements makes sense for a book that hasn't come out yet, there should be no theories in the article. Take out the stuff about the Weasleys' life debts to Harry, because it's not canonical, as an HP "nerd" would say. Also, Petunia is mentioned in the list way too much.

Again, sorry, I'm new and I know nothing, but still. The article needs editing. At least come to a consensus on that.

Within the Veil 16:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to comment, however new they might be. This may sound nerdy, but it is an important general point, not simply about HP. Wiki does carry wild theories. wiki does carry speculation. Read some history of science and you will see todays wild theory is tomorrows 'fact', is the next days mistake. Wiki just reports what is believed now, that is the general principle. If you look at english literature in general, you will find many texts discussing books. These are all theories. Many are about books by long dead authors where there is absolutely no hope that the authors actual intentions may ever be revealed. In this particular case, the authors real intent will be revealed in 4 months, but the principle is exactly the same. If respected sources have made comments about the texts, we are entitled to quote them. As to weasleys life debts, if you check the history you will see they only crept in quite recently, and no one has had a chance to remove them. The argument is specifically about the meaning of the announced title, and various sources which have commented on this, but as I said, it is one example of a very important general point. Sandpiper 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone here seen the article on Homo floresiensis? Built entirely upon speculation and original research. However, since the speculation and original research is not made by wikipedia editors, it's fine. Michael Sanders 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that the primary source for this infomation is an unreliable source and we have no other "credible, third-party publications" to back this infomation up, per WP:RS#Self-published_sources. The article you are talking about has multiple third party sources that are credible. dposse 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Homo floresiensis is a topic where no one knows what it actually is, but scientists have a good idea. The content of Deathly Hallows exists, and is known by some people. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, when writing an encyclopaedia article, whether the content is known to some people or not. Masonic secrets are known to some people, but we still have articles on them - based on all kinds of information (including surmises from 'The Magic Flute'). And scientists don't have a good idea - there's a lot of debate about whether such a 'sub-species' is even possible. Michael Sanders 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaks

Did anyone else notice Radcliffe being interviewed on Tv, and saying Rowling had told him the ending? Not helpfull, perhaps, but shows she is comitted to the films remaining tue to the books despite inevitable cuts. Sandpiper 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of published theories concerning what "Deathly Hallows" are

This is a dispute about whether or not to include in the article published theories concerning what the "deathly hallows" referred to in the title of the book are. 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(This RfC has been listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media.)

See also: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows § Hallows_original_research.

Statement by editors previously involved in the dispute

• These theories are clearly speculative, as they are about information on an unpublished book. The people who write these theories, whether "experts" or just casual fans, cannot be definitively be writing about the plot of the book, and thus this is a blatant violation of WP:OR, whether cited or not. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• The theories are speculative in that they discuss possible inclusions in a forthecoming book, but they are speculations by reputable sources external to wikipedia and as such are properly reported here. The fact that the book itself has not been published yet is not relevant. (though once it is, obviously the article will change to reflect the actual book) Sandpiper 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• The paragraph in question violates WP:OR#No_original_research and WP:A. The paragraph has sources, however, these sources are either from an unreliable fan created website or the sources verify only that these legends were true and nothing else. There are absolutely no reliable sources that state that this has anything to do with the book other than a fan site, the Harry Potter Lexicon, which fails WP:RS#Self-published_sources. Yes, the Lexicon is a well known website, but without "credible, third-party publications", the Lexicon is not a reliable source. The paragraph violates WP:OR#No_original_research because the paragraph introduces speculation and "introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." dposse 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments in response to RfC

• • Came here from RfC. I've not seen what information precisely the parties to the dispute are fighting about. However in response to the point above, surely anything reliably sourced is by definition not original research in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Isn't that one of our basic principles? AndyJones 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC) That's just my 2p worth, and I'm NOT watching this page.AndyJones 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Please see the long discussions at /Archive 6, #'Hallows' section debate (at this section is the exact text which is the source of the dispute), #Hallows original research. and #Why we wikipede. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless debate?

One, the advisory statement at the top of the talk page reads, "This is not a forum for general discussion of unsourced or speculated potential content of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unless it relates directly to the article. Any such messages will be deleted." Ahem. This is a contradictory statement. "Discussion of unsourced or speculated potential content" cannot relate to the article because the article MUST REST ON A FOUNDATION OF REPUTABLE SOURCES! Sorry, but could you please change that to "THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION OF UNSOURCED OR SPECULATED POTENTIAL CONTENT OF HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS. ALL MESSAGES BASED ON SUCH MATERIAL WILL BE DELETED." Just not in all caps.
Okay, back to sourced nonspeculated subjects. Petunia Dursley's possible role in Book Seven is mentioned at least twice in the article. Combine the two references. In fact, reorganize the entire section on the loose ends to be tied up in Book Seven.
The bit about Ron, Arthur and Ginny having life debts to Harry is purely speculative. Only Peter Pettigrew is actually confirmed (by Dumbledore in-book OR Rowing out-of-book) to have any life debt.
Within the Veil 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you might have confused the Wikipedia with a fan forum or blog web site or something? This is not a discussion forum, nor a blog page. We can discuss the posting of verifiable facts from reliable sources, with a neutral point of view, but not original research and speculation. If you are new to this, then I can understand your confusion. The article was blocked from editing, because certain editors engaged in an edit reversion war over matters involving speculation and original research. Proposing to add more of it is not going to help get the article unblocked. Please feel free to discuss your theories and such at an appropriate fan forum - see Harry Potter fandom, but here in the Wikipedia we can only deal with the solid verifiable facts. Widely-held and well-documented speculation may have a place in the article - but only in a brief summary fashion, with a link to the external source where the speculation is discussed. Hope this clears things up for you. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I honestly couldn't resist the speculation, but I will remove it. However, the actual suggestions still stand. The speculative stuff ("Harry will go back to the Dursleys" and "Arthur/Ginny/Ron life debt", among others) needs to go. Within the Veil 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, wait a minute - if you actually read the Half-Blood Prince, then surely you will recall that Harry told Ron and Hermione: "I'm going back to the Dursleys' once more, because Dumbledore wanted me to..." (p. 650, Scholastic edition). That said, it might make sense to clarify the article to say that Harry said he would be going back to the Dursleys'. Nevertheless, you must be careful not to declare certain things as "speculative" that "needs to go", just because you might have missed it in your reading, or forgotten about it because you only read it once when it first came out or something. Please, please check your facts before participating in editing, we do not need another confusing edit reversion war. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You caught my meaning exactly. He SAYS. He also says that he will not return to Hogwarts, but the article(s) relating to the topic all either say that he a) will not return to Hogwarts, or b) he will and go on to explain what he will do there (NEWTs, career choices). Those editing the article (obviously not me, I'm not knowledgable enough about the books or the writing of articles in general) need to pay more attention. Also, please, please do not fall into this seemingly universal habit of making snide references to people not being "experts" on the books. No one, except maybe Rowling, is an expert. Not until the last book comes out and all the obsessive HP fans have had a chance to read and reread it (more than likely dozens of times) will there be experts. I read the fifth book twice, and Book Six lost all its charm and mystery when those "x kills y" carolers ruined the ending for me. Sorry if I'm not enough of a Harry Potter zealot for all of you.

Sorry, I didn't mean that, I'm just angry. Don't take any of my rudeness seriously, I truly respect the dedication to Wikipedia's high standards that you have all shown. Good luck. Within the Veil 17:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid people have been mucking about with the text, and I'm not spending the time to hunt out exactly who'se done what. However, the issue is exactly that Lexicon, recommended by Rowling as a source of information, with a good reputation for accuracy, etc, etc, are carrying an article which discusses the possibility that hallows =founders relics, and the relation to horcruxes. It is not so simple as hallows=horcruxes, but I have to say that if the majority of individuals do believe that, then that in itself makes something noteable enough to be mentioned here. It is incorrect to argue that nothing can be included unless the author says it. Frankly, that is nearly arguing that we should only cary self-published, unverified, sources. Anything noteable, by anyone, may be included in any article where it is relevant. This whole article is informed and sourced comment on what is expected to be in the book. Not what will definitely be in the book. What is believed will be in the book. This is entirely proper, as I note a few people have commented. Sandpiper 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

¨Please note that JKR has never recommended the lexicon for being "a source of information/theories", for being "accurate in their theories", etc. Everything that JKR said absolutely didn't concern any of their theories, but only their encyclopedic content as far as already published books are concerned.

Keep that in mind, and beware of people trying to say that "since it's Lexicon, this theory is true" (or "most likely to be true", if you want to play on words). Lexicon is Lexicon, that is, a website run by fans who do not have any exclusive info about the content of book 7. Meaning than their theories are no more likely/plausible than any member of any message board.

Please also beware of this kind of contributors who think that their own personal opinion would be the "general consensus". If anyone claims that a certain theory is "believed by the majority of individuals", then he would have to thoroughly prove it. But it's not because one contributor think something, and has a great opinion of himself, that he can pretend to speak for the whole fandom.

And finally, under no circumstances (whether it be contributors having a high opinion of themselves and trying to impose their own personal opinion in the articles in the guise of citations from websites, or anything else) will we violate the WP:OR and WP:RS: that is, we won't allow unreliable source such as personal and unsubstanciated fan theories and self-published essays, or any source qualified as unreliable (blogs, etc).Folken de Fanel 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken, I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't understand this, or are deliberately being perverse. No-one is saying "since it's Lexicon, this theory is true". What is being said is, "since it's the Lexicon, it is reputable enough to be written here". Rowling has given it an endorsement as an authority. Therefore, when it says something about Rowling or her work, we DO NOT say "so that must be true"; we DO say, "the Lexicon says this" (A.C. Bradley asserted that Queen Gertrude had been having an affair with King Claudius prior to the death of King Hamlet. Bradley being a highly respected and authoritative Shakespearean critic, we don't say "The Queen had an affair with Claudius before her husband died." We DO say, "It was asserted by AC Bradley that the Queen had an affair with Claudius prior to the death of King Hamlet.") And give no value judgements of our own, but let the sources speak for themselves.

Well, Michael, I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't understand this, or are deliberately being perverse, either. No one has said lexicon was "reputable" as far as theories are concerned. They are reputable in the sense that one of their aim is to be a thorough encyclopedia about already published books. However as far as their theories are concerned, their aren't and can't be "reputable", because they haven't read book 7 and they have no confidential info on it. In these conditions, any fan on Earth can produce an equally "respectable" theory, and Lexicon is no more plausible/likely to be true, than anyone else.

Also, do not compare mere fans attempting to see the future, with "highly respected and authoritative Shakespearean critic". You're obviously being "perverse" (to quote you) when you say the 2 sources are equal in quality. Folken de Fanel

"Lexicon is Lexicon, that is, a website run by fans who do not have any exclusive info about the content of book 7. " Yes, but Rowling has acknowledged that the fans/experts who write there are worth listening to and their opinion can be taken as an 'authoritative opinion', as opposed to a bloke in the pub.

That's your personal opinion that "the fans/experts who write there are worth listening to and their opinion can be taken as an 'authoritative opinion'". But I can't find a quote from JKR which would say such things. If you can produce a clear quote for these claims, then you should do it.

By the way, even if she had said it, it still wouldn't be enough to present the Lexicon theories as true (as you try to do in the articles). Folken de Fanel

"Please also beware of this kind of contributors who think that their own personal opinion would be the "general consensus". If anyone claims that a certain theory is "believed by the majority of individuals", then he would have to thoroughly prove it. But it's not because one contributor think something, and has a great opinion of himself, that he can pretend to speak for the whole fandom." Is that a personal attack on anyone? Regardless, the Lexicon being endorsed by Rowling, it can be taken as 'speaking for the whole of fandom'. Or, at least, the mainstream. Personal opinions, yours or mine, are irrelevant. What matters is that we use sources in line with wikipedia policy to write articles.

Well, you seem to like "perverse" argumentation, do you ? First, you're taking a fabricated quote from Rowling, then you're still altering it to represent the currently debated point... Folken de Fanel

"And finally, under no circumstances (whether it be contributors having a high opinion of themselves and trying to impose their own personal opinion in the articles in the guise of citations from websites, or anything else) will we violate the WP:OR and WP:RS: that is, we won't allow unreliable source such as personal and unsubstanciated fan theories and self-published essays, or any source qualified as unreliable (blogs, etc)." I despair. If you're not going to read the rules properly, and grasp what they mean, no matter how many times you are told, then I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. So I summarise - WP:OR is the writing on wikipedia of information that cannot be found on any other mainstream source in the public domain. If it is published, or on an acceptable website, it is not WP:OR but authorial OR, which the WP rules do not care about. As for WP:RS, that is of course more tricky, and needs to be considered case by case. All I can say is that a) refer to Usertalk:T-dot for my summarisation of the reliability of Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? and b) if an endorsement of the reliability of the Lexicon by Rowling herself is not enough, I would like to know what is. Michael Sanders 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're only proving you're not reding the rules (or at least that you had a "perverted" reading of the rules). Because the OR rule specifically states that OR is something which can't be attributed to a reliable source. I don't know if you have problems with your eyes, maybe they have been "perverted" in order not to recognize the word "reliable". And lexicon isn't reliable because it's a self-published source with no fact-checking, relying heavily on personal opinion etc. Thus, if you cite something from an unrelibale source, you're doing OR. Folken de Fanel 17:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is the situation as I see it:

1) There are various small parts of the article that should be removed/edited ("Harry will return to Little Whinging" to "Harry plans on returning to Little Whinging" (in fact, perhaps the bits on Little Whinging and Godric's Hollow should be combined), consolidate the various Petunia predictions, do 'something' with the Hallows bit, and reorganize some of the "loose ends" discussed in the article. Right now, the article just reads like a random list of statements and rumours regarding Book Seven's contents.).

2) The article is currently protected from editing.

3) To edit anything,

a)the protection must be lifted by an administrator, or

b)the administrator themselves must do the editing.

4) For the protection to be lifted, we all have to come to a consensus.

5) The people who caused all this are currently (hopefully) asleep at some point of the day.

6) If they are gone, and we have come to a consensus, we should just get an administrator to lift the ban while the obsessive types are all resting from a jolly day of edit warring and petty insultery.

7) I'm just kidding, but we 'do' need to do something about all this.

Mainly, I'm just confused as to how to improve the article while it is protected. I know the various reasons 'why' it is protected, but I'd like for the protection to be lifted, if only long enough for a brief but needed edit session.

Oh, and how does one contact an administrator, anyways?

Within the Veil 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that last time the article was locked for a month, most people concerned in the debate were of the opinion that the article was pretty good as it was, so no real issue to change anything. In general, the principle is that an admin will lock a page if irretrievable war has broken out there. I don't see that this happened on this page at all, but some people are jumpy about this article. I suspect that the issue might have resolved itself by now if people had been left undisturbed to continue editing. The way to contact an admin is to leave a message on their talk page. I might suggest trying the person who locked the page, but hunting for an admin is not something I have ever needed to do. Sandpiper 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem...

Alright. I am entirely new to this debate, but even I am getting bored here. Is the article locked because of the Deathly Hallows Definition Debate, or for another reason? I agree that this article is an important one and should be protected from vandals, but basic edits (punctuation/spelling and for speculative/redundant content) need to occur or the article will never reach its full potential.

I ask because there are simple problems with the article that could be solved if the protection was removed. (Mainly, the Petunia references should be consolidated). Also, quick question: Does it say anywhere in the books that the various Weasleys mentioned in the article owe life debts to Harry? I understand the Peter Pettigrew reference, but I honestly can't remember any specific references (either in-book or by Rowling herself) to the Weasleys' life debt(s) to Harry.

Furthermore, "This article or section contains information regarding scheduled, forthcoming or expected future book(s). It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available." Considering that we apparently don't allow speculation here, and that this article is locked, than why is this template being used? If I'm wrong, please tell me.

Sorry, I'm just frustrated by the lack of coordination/consensus on this article. Within the Veil 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why editing the article was blocked, please review the main article's history leading up to the block, and the arguments above, lead primarily by MichaelSanders, Folken de Fanel, John Reaves, and Sandpiper to name a few. Some other editors (including T-dot) chimed in from time to time as well. Personally I would not have recommended blocking the article from editing, but rather the participants who engaged in a reversion war over original research and (externally sourced) speculation, disregarding the three-revert rule. Eventually a couple were blocked for a day or two, but I think their "penalty-time" is over, (or nearly so). In any case, if you have some specific improvements in mind that can be copied and pasted into the article by an Administrator, (not just general comments about the woefully inadequate content) then please post it here with a request to add it, and where you want it put. Thanks, and by the way, welcome to the Harry Potter Project, feel free to join. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with wiki carrying speculation...just so long as it is someone else's speculation. It is only speculation by people actually writing wiki which is discouraged. I take it the tag exists precisely because any article about a future event will inevitably contain speculation, and this is to warn readers. I agree, if it it does not mean that, then it is entirely pointless. The minor difficulties with the article are the sort of thing which happens all the time. People add stuff, others sort it out. We are just in the middle of a hiatus which it seems likely will persist until after publication. At least, that seems to be the preferred option of a number of editors. The objective seems to be to keep any 'breaking news' out of the article. While I am inclined to agree that it might be best (if only for legal reasons) to keep any unauthorised early releases of the actual book out of the article, anything else written about it by third parties is fair game for inclusion. Sandpiper 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this. I had the impression, in looking over the extended arguments, that Granger's Deathly Hallows-related work was basically posted on his blog page, where he published his theories on (ergo self-published speculation, and possibly disallowed as a reliable source); and then he also published a book on similar HP-related topics. If he indeed published a book with relevant material suitable for posting in the HP articles, and it has been (or can be) critically reviewed, and it contains high quality deductions based on the canonical Rowling materials, then I believe this is the sort of material that we can report on in the articles. I still insist that it should be segregated into in separate sections within the article - perhaps with titles like "Fan-based theories and critical reaction". We can expand the articles (and improve the overall relevance and quality) to include Granger's therories, not as canonical in the HP universe, but as verifiable logical deductions quoted from a published source (reliable or otherwise), keeping a neutral tone and POV, by stating again that this is Granger's work, and not Rowling's. It is original research on the part of Granger, but not us, so we can post it, just as we would report on any other new research efforts regarding, for example, particle physics or curing cancer. We need to take care not to sound like we are promoting Granger's work - thus pushing a POV agenda, but we also do not want to sound as if we are "in opposition" to Granger's views. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fan-based theories" is a little red flag for it being an OR section. I understand that these theories exist and it would not be wrong to write, "So-and-so's theory that xs are Deathly Hallows….^[1]" However, the theories have been published by the Lexicon, which, in this context, is no higher than anyone else. It is respected for its reference sections; that does not include its future sections. Anybody can do that. The one compromise here I can live with would be a sentence or two along the lines of: "Fans have spent the two years between Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows speculating the outcome of the series; popular theories are that the deathly hallows were (whatever) and (whatever).^[2]" with a newspaper source or the like. (The New York Post has started doing some sort of Harry Potter special where I'm sure they've mentioned these theories.) Otherwise, though, it is POV to include a specific theory over another (which is different than on, for example, a scientific article, where theories gain widespread support). But don't explain the whole theory as if you were explaining the solution to an intricate math problem. Just say what it is. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't true. In order to get any sensible answer about a question it is necessary to understand what is known so far. The essence of what is in this article at present is information extracted from the existing books (and Rowlings existing comments). On the basis of this information it is possible to make deductions about what must be in the next book. Some of these are uncontroversial- Harry will appear in it, for example. But these become increasingly controversial, and people argue about them here more, as the deductive logic becomes more complex. But what happens on these sites is that people have been debating these books for 5 years or more, and have whittled down the arguments to what is accepted as the most likely course. This is all based upon a sound knowledge of the source material, and in fact is a quite extraordinary amount of work. Rowling was certainly staggered when she first discovered how much her books were debated. I am afraid that I would absolutely not consider an article in a newspaper, however prestigious, as a better source for HP information than Lexicon. It just isn't: read them. If the new york post did run a series, where do you suppose they would look for information? Guess. Rowlings website perhaps, then the places she recommends? Lexicon, mugglent, TLC, Hpana...Google's recommendations? They might well write their article slightly at a distance, explaining that fans on the internet thought this and that, but that is where they would get their information and what they would include. Most likely, what they will be including as the publication date becomes closer.

The people running these sites are now professional researchers on the subject of HP, and are supported by the contributions of thousands of people researching the books. You forget the scale of the publishing event this is. 12 million american copies? If only 1 in 1000 people are seriously interested, that is still 12,000 researchers working on it, and nowadays they have full access to the collective work of all the others published on the internet. People still seem not to understand what a revolution the internet is. It destroys traditional conceptions. Don't you recognise what you are contributing to here, a fan scrapbook called wikipedia which has itself revolutionised the availability of knowledge? Sandpiper 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael and Folken and Sandpiper (etc).: The rules for writing articles about fiction are discussed at WP:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and at related articles linked there. Please step back, and take some time to study those policies and guidelines at your earliest convenience. The policy on writing about fiction states: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". Mr. Granger's work would qualify as sourced analysis, I believe. I agree that Granger's work is speculative and original research, but it is NOT original research or speculative for us to discuss his analyses in the articles, with proper sourcing for verifiability. He is not just any fan, so this does NOT open the door to just anyone posting their original research. The Wikipedia policy not only ALLOWS us to present critical analyses of works of fiction, it essentially REQUIRES us to do so, to make good articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am all for literary analysis by John Granger or whoever else. However, he has no source to analyze, because the book hasn't been released! He has his own idea on the books, based on reading and analyzing the past six. That does not make a literary analysis, nor do (in response to Sandpiper, above) the 12,000 researchers who have been in this field for five years. Do not think that I do not appreciate their work, or do not frequent these sites enough to have fallen in love with them. I do. But despite being "professional researchers on the subject of HP," as you say, they cannot possibly know what J. K. Rowling has written. This is not comparable to professional scientists studying the creation of the universe, or whatever, because Rowling's work is written. Guessing the content of something already existing, which is to be released, is blatant crystalballery. Guessing the answer to something which is absolutely unknown, however, is a different story. Please recognize the difference between analysis/speculation/theories on this book and analysis/speculation/theories on the creation of the universe, or evolution, or life on Mars. (BTW, there are no legal ebooks of HP online.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem...just adding my bit...If people are analyzing the Harry Potter universe and making theories based on their analyses, does that count as crystalballery? Considering that they are only using information that comes from the books themselves and statements by Rowling, such theories would not be guesses as to the content of something "absolutely unknown", would they? For example, in this article, as it stands, we state that "the quest to identify, locate, and destroy Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes will continue," and that "Harry will have his final battle with Lord Voldemort by the book's end." We don't know that this will happen. For all we know, Harry dies in the first chapter and Voldemort becomes Queen of England. But, because the vast majority of evidence within the series and from Rowling, we can safely assume that these events will occur. We should not maintain a double standard by witholding equally assumable information from the readers of Wikipedia. Within the Veil 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK well, as I said before, somewhere in all this mess, the argument over Granger's works would seem to be intractable, with neither side giving an inch (or 2.54 cm for you Canadian and Euro-editors), so either we must ignore Granger's analyses (which are based on the material in the previous 6 books, along with Rowling's interviews and other canonical materials, with admittedly "crystalballish" projections into the 7th) and therefore continue to deny their admission into the HP articles, or leave the aticles locked down wherever they tend to appear. I do not have a horse in this race, I am only trying to help us come to a consensus based on a reasonable interpretation of the holistic intent of the Wikipedia, not sticking on selectively chosen rules. Probably going to set back my hoped-for RFA for months, just for stepping into this muck trying to help pull the wagon out. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the wagon you describe is in fact a train, and that the muck is the Silv'ry Tay. I'd have concur with your statement that neither side will give an inch, since every argument that someone starts seems to evolve into a massive free-for-all debate. We need to focus on how to make the article better, and to make the article better we need to unlock it for editing, and to do that we need to reach a consensus. And I am certainly not a strong or experienced enough Wikipedian to do pull this train out of the Tay. It'll take all of you to do it. We need Consensus. Within the Veil 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not sure where T-dot gets the impression that I am a primary participant/instigator in the arguments. I think I've made about four comments in relation to the subject of Hallows. John Reaves (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Tay one of those renowned Highland rivers where they make Scotch Whisky? I think I'll jump off the mired wagon and fix myself a drink. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to address both your inquiries: John, since the unofficial boundary between casual observer and instigator is five comments, you are officially now an instigator; T-dot, the Tay is a river prominently featured in The Tay Bridge Disaster, a poem by William McGonagall that chronicled the events of December 28 1979, when a train with roughly 75 passengers collapsed during a windstorm into the Silvery Tay. The poem, widely hailed as the worst poem by the worst poet in the English language, is hilarious despite its subject matter. I suggest you all Live Search it (I dislike Google); it might lighten up your day.

On the actual topic at hand, we need to reach a consensus, and while whiskey might actually mellow the spirits of some of the more hardcore contributors to this debate, I hardly think that it will help in the long run. Within the Veil 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

page numbers

harry potter has 784 pages! It is true I found it out on a website called mugglenet.com

Yeah, we know. dposse 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for the Petigrew "life debt" thing

Well I don't know how to cite things, but I figured I'd give you a heads up. It was Chapter 22 page 427 (American version) of PoA. I'm not sure Dumbledore specifically means it as a life debt but he says (to Harry): "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt.... When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them...and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." All those "..."s were in the print, I wasn't skipping anything. So yeah, cite away, cause I don't know how. Ch. 22 p.427 of PoA.--Beep Beep Honk Honk 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern was not over Pettigrew's (probable) life-debt, but whether Ron, Hermione, and Arthur Weasley (and perhaps others) owe Harry a similar life debt as well, for the sundry times that Harry did things resulting in their lives being saved. The Pettigrew life debt is fairly widely accepted as canonical, based on the material you quoted. What is uncertain is whether he will actually be forced to (or willingly) redeem that debt at some point in Book 7. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well I thought that maybe the reason for the "citation necessary" box was that it was unclear as to whether or not the statement is/was true. Guess not. How would I cite that, provided someone doesnt beat me to it?--Beep Beep Honk Honk 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Even I, a casual reader, remember Dumbledore's little speech on life debt. My question is, whether it can, or should, be interpreted to mean that the various people whose lives Harry has saved all owe him a life debt. Considering what I see in the citation above, it could be. But is that speculation? I can't decide, someone else needs to, preferably one of this talk page's many "regulars." Oh, and...um, citation guy...make sure you sign with four tildes...es?...like this: Within the Veil 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the interpretations are indeed well researched, thats the problem! If I'm not mistaken, thats WP:OR and shouldn't be in the art. Although, it might be an exception, as an unresolved plot point. Quatreryukami 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article about Hallows

I've created an article about the word Hallow. Please feel free to add any information there that is important to the word, especially as used in any works of fiction. Perhaps a currently brief, but to be expanded article about how it is used in HP7 could be included, but I think that might be better placed until after the book is released. I'm just trying to come up with a compromise solution here, so that the article can be unprotected and fix some other issues which are more pressing. Hope this helps! Tuvas 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the article. Um, I'm new, so I probably shouldn't have done this, but I edited it to mention, not mention, the various occurences of "Hallows" in literature. Since I could only think of one book, I put Harry Potter down as one. Um, check it out. If I did anything wrong (I just put the name and date down, but I might have the same wording as in this article. If I do (I'm about to check), then I'll change it. Um, also, can someone cite it or give me a link to a page on citations. Thanks. Within the Veil 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this article, even with the content that was previously debated here. As long as this article (the HP: DH one) has nothing more than the current version (maybe slightly arranged to avoid redundancy) + a link to the hallow article, and as long as the hallow article keeps this kind of strictly informative focus (and that it continues to develop to include other forms of hallows in its main paragraph, etc) and does not turn into a "post your speculation here" article, I think there's no problem with DH any more. In my opinion, of course, and I'm waiting for the opinion of others like Dposse and Fbv65edel... It also depends on what others may want to do with it... Folken de Fanel 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, when this article is unlocked it will have to be kept under constant guard by non-obsessive editors good enough to spot rumors when they see them. Within the Veil 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The hallows article only contains text which was taken out of this article. In fact, I think it is rather smaller than the text which was once agreed to be inserted in this article. So by all means, if you say you agree that the 'content previously debated here' can be put back, then let us put it back directly and stop arguing about it. (it also needs a paragraph mentioning 'deathly')Sandpiper 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was clear in what I said. I agree with the hallows article, and if I have nothing against the "previously debated" content, it's because now it doesn't apear as a synthesis trying to prove a point as to what hallows in HP7 are.

It's a relevant part of a general article about hallow, not trying to push a POV in the context of HP7. The placement is everything.

I won't say it again: what I (and others) don't want is that kind of text in the HP article, because it is too obvious it's here to prove a point. In a general article the text is no more harmful.

That's my final position and attempt for the building of a consensus which would unblock the article. That's the solution, in my opinion: your text will definitely be on Wikipedia, simply not in the DH article. This seems to be a satisfying solution for everyone: both sides have what they wanted. Folken de Fanel 11:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - I made some neutralizing adjustments to the introductory part of the Hallows article, based on information gleaned and available from any standard English dictionary (I used a Webster's, which happened to be nearby). This was based on some of the earlier comments that suggested that the only reason that the Hallow(s) article even existed was because of the name of Book 7. I added that there is an adjective form (hallowed) and about Hallowmas (AKA All Saint's Day), which is preceeded by Hallowe'en, which is most precisely shortened from All Hallow Even, even though many sources alternately state the derivation is from All Hallow's (or Hallows') Eve. In any case, I think it is perhaps slightly more neutral now, and not seeming to lead up to or support the HP-connection, except in passing. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Okay, this is to find out exactly what it is we are arguing about, and how the problems we have can be solved.

My bit is, we've got a growing page on Hallow, so we don't have to be as detailed on that; the article is currently disorganized and needs to be unlocked and edited for style, content and grammar; when the time comes (week before/week after publication), the article should be locked; we need to archive the talk page again; and we just generally need to come to a consensus and get this article back on.

On archiving this talk page, only one of the archive sections has more than 30 entries. I say that we should definitely aim for a limit of 30 before archiving. All we need to do after archiving is quickly restate the question (I'm not even sure what the question is anymore) and everyone's opinion.

How does everyone else feel? Within the Veil 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should do one of those "for more information on..." things with the section on what a Hallow is. Also the "Informaion from Rowling" section is a tad messy. Just clean it up a bit.Beep Beep Honk Honk 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't write this article without having a section here talking about the title. It is the only definite thing known about the book. The section as it was last excised was only 4 paragraphs, was not excessively long (nor is the article) so there is no reason it needs to be elsewhere. The only reason we have an article on hallows is because Rowling chose this title, and it has to be explained in the context of the HP books. There is little point having a section discussing the meaning of hallows in the catholic church (for example), when this is a secular book with no mention of religion. Thus we need to point out how the title applies to the HP world Sandpiper 07:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can explain to me why such a section should not be here, because the only reason I can see is one attempting to prevent the spread of known information about the book. Sandpiper 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We are done talking about the hallows section. No one has talked about it but you and Folken, and since one of you has miraculously calmed down, the debate has moved on to another topic. Now, you just tried to twist my suggestion, that we restate our current question to further advance debate and come closer to a consensus, by going back to something that for the last day or two, only you have seemed to really contest. We have a hallows article, we'll have a little tidbit in this article on the general meaning of hallows, and at some point we might explain some of the possible meanings as applied to HPDH. But we do not need to restart that argument right now. You almost set us back two days. I know I'm new, but I was not going to let another 'hallows' war start.

On the topic at hand, including expert/HP nerd theories here could either improve the article or completely ruin it. I suggest that we all agree on which ones work in the context of a Wikipedia article.

I also suggest that we archive this talk page again. We're nearing 30 entries, which has only been surpassed here once.

I also suggest that we contact an admin to lift the protection on the article so that we can put some of these changes into motion; wasn't it John Reaves? I think it was.

Sorry, sandpiper, if you have a problem with my deletion of the repost of the old argument, just put it back and I'll be fine. Just wanted to make sure that you understood why I did it.

Let's try to reach a consensus by...Friday, perhaps? Within the Veil 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have re-re-re posted the section as you suggest. Both times the article has been blocked has been over the section on hallows. That is what we are arguing about. Referencing has only become an issue as it relates to whether the section in question is acceptably sourced. The remainder of the article has been trundling along in more or less the same form for a year without too much difficulty. Sandpiper 10:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that we really don't know what hallows in HP7 are, and that it is not ours to say what it "will certainly be" to the readers. In the HP7 article, we would only give official and relevant elements from JKR, while the hallow article will permit any reader to go further if he wants: he'll be provided with accurate info about what hallows have been in history/literature, and if he cannot wait for the actual book 7, he'll be free to form his own opinion on the subject.

What I don't want however is that we would force the reader to speculate and provide him only with the selected and favorite theories of the contributors. We can mention that there are theories, simply by saying "some have build theories here", but as I see it, formulating these theories would already be forcing the reader to concider these theories, while he can have the choice to read or not these theories: if he wants to read them, he goes where they were formulated. But going further than that would indeed be pov pushing...Folken de Fanel 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try and narrow down the article to simply facts that we know (unresolved plot points, returning characters, etc.). While we do want to give the reader the most information possible we don't want theories and specualtion running rampant. Maybe a "Speculation" or "Major Theories" section? Beep Beep Honk Honk 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Names in Epilogue

Rowling, on her website behind the door, provides middle names for four and only four of the children introduced in the Epilogue: James Sirius, Albus Severus, Lily Luna, and Scorpius Hyperion. I see little stylistic reason in this context for including middle names only for the first three (Harry and Ginny's children) and omitting that of the fourth (Draco's son). She clearly had a reason for including this name: presumably, to make a connection to the "astronomical" naming theme in the Black family line (i.e., Draco's mother's family), since Hyperion is both a mythological figure and one of Saturn's moons. Fragesteller (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything I think the middle names should be excluded, as they are middle names and not double names. They are James, Albus and Lily — chandler — 22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to boldly add Hyperion if you think it is justifiable (and I tend to agree that it might be). Rowling deliberately provided the Potter middle names, and in doing so showed how far Harry had come to terms with certain key characters in his life, in a very touching and profound way. Folks sometimes name their children out of deep respect and high honor to those folks that were of extraordinary and profound importance (or from ancestral family names). Thus the James + Sirius, who were arguably Harry's Father-figure role models, and Albus + Severus as his Hero-Mentor-Teachers, and Lily + Luna for (perhaps) the strong Female/Mother-figure (although I might have suggested Lily Hermione instead, if it is a bit obvious; but she didn't ask me, and perhaps Harry/Rowling was saying something about Luna's come-from-behind don't-count-her-out most-improved-female role or something, whereas Hermione was always rather strong and assertive). Anyway the Hyperion connection is perhaps a little more obscure or possibly trivial (we did not have a previous character named this to my knowledge), but certainly the astronomical theme is a historical Black family naming scheme, even if Rowling did not really explore or explain that very thoroughly either in or outside of the books. What I find rather interesting is that Draco chose to snub(?) his (Death Eater) Father's side of the family, instead honoring and taking on his Mother's (née Black) side for the naming theme of his child, which may actually be the important take-away from the Scorpius Hyperion name. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)