Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 10 February 2007

This page is not a forum for general discussion about unsourced or speculated potential content of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unless it relates directly to the article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about unsourced or speculated potential content of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unless it relates directly to the article at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Template:WPHP

Novels B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note: I have removed the comment about the editions of the book, as (1) this only pertains to the British editions, and (2) releasing the book in an adult and children's edition has been precedented by earlier installments, and so is neither new nor pertinent information.

Unnoted Spoilers

It was apparent that there was another "order of the phoenix", but was scrapped later and entirely rewritten. However, there are clues from the scrapped manuscript that may be reused, including that the Dudley that bullied harry is the person that could have been very powerful because a person's power potentially increases as he/she does not perform his/her first spell until later years. Second, it was rumored, at least in the scripped copy, that Lily was indeed Voldermort's offspring, sort of illegitimately produced with a normal human. That was all I think.

Any proof? The original of the scrapped edition or something would be nice. Otherwise I think it would just be fan speculation. - Redmess 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited fan speculation

PeaceNT recently removed my addition of the 7/7/07 theory. This would generally be acceptable, something I myself would endorse -- I am strongly for the removal of fan theory stuff. However, I chose to cite this theory with a reference from the New York Times, which goes on to suggest that this date is very appropriate for the release. I don't personally subscribe to this theory even, and had it been something like "BOOK 7 IS BEING RELEASED 7/7/07" I would have reverted it immediately. But suddenly the case is very different when the NYT talks about it. I'm just reporting the facts here, and I feel this is important and well verified enough to merit its mention. (Please note I'm on vacation with limited access to internet and may not be able to respond quickly.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in having a fan theory cited. Being mentioned by NYT doesn't mean the theory has to be true or notable. If you notice, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/weekinreview/31bosman.html has clarified the matter by using the word speculation. NYT simply stated a popular speculation, not suggest that this date is very appropriate for the release. And even if they do, it's still a fan theory that remains unofficial. Feel free to mention it when the info is officially confirmed. Until then, please don't add more theory about the release date. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand, I'm not doing this because I like the theory in any way -- for one thing, she can't finish the book by then. But if the theory is notable enough for the New York Times to publish, still classified as speculation, but important enough for them to mention nonetheless, then it's important that we do the same -- mention that this was widely speculated upon for some time. Otherwise, I think the Bloomsbury editor who "hopes" for it to be released next year should also be removed. Didn't get too much out of the words "hopes" and "likely." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NYT only mention the theory for its popularity, this is not as remarkable as you think. Fan theory is not supported here, no matter how widespread it is. The question of release date was done a few days ago you could see that topic "7/7/7 release" in this talk page for more details. Thank you. Hope you enjoy your vacation PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a one sentence mention would be fine, especially with the ref. If there are facts to back up the theory, it seems appropriate. Popularity seems to be a factor for inclusion of theory in many articles. Take a look at all of the theory at Regulus Black. There is the beginnings of a debate at the talk page, please comment.John Reaves 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the theory being included because it's thought to be true, it's the fact that the theory is relevant to the topic to which we are reporting on. There is a slight difference between saying "A popular fan theory was 7/7/07." and "Fans think that 7/7/07 will be the release date." WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:OR would both prohibit the second one, as it's an unpublished theory. Suddenly the NYT publishes the theory -- not saying that they side either way with the theory, but they publish it -- and it doesn't fall into that not allowed by those policies. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else have anything to say on this one? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's out there and there is reason to think that plenty of people are discussing it, the fact that the theory exists (together with a explanation of what the theory is) should be included in an article. If a reputable (I think, anyway: is it the New York Times or New York Post which has the bad reputation) newspaper reports on the theory, I'd say you were venturing towards POV by NOT reporting it in the article. Michaelsanders 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration, I would agree that we can mention that there have been rumours circulating for some time in support of a possible release date of 07/07/07 for "Book 7", with Verifiability provided by quoting the New York Times article as a Reliable Source, to avoid Original Research claims. However this should be provided ONLY in the main article under Writing progress section and made very clear that this is a "popular candidate" for a release date, and not by any means a hard target. It can be mentioned along with the traceable and documented quotes attributed to the publisher-gal's "hopes" that the book would be published in 2007, and Rowlings atatements that she planned to get the writing underway in 2006. The 07/07/07 date should NOT however be included in the "infobox", because the infobox by its very nature is a summary of the facts - and there is no room to spell out all the NYT quotes and conditionals that make it clear that this is popular speculation and not by any means a hard fact. In general, I rather prefer the approach of carefully controlling and closely fencing off in proper "rumour corrals" the hard to ignore and "necessary and hardly avoidable" stallions of speculation of this nature, held tightly in the barnyard fence to keep them tamed, horse-broken down with carefully worded explanations of pedigree, rather than letting the wild speculators keep insisting on throwing opinions in just anywhere in the article like so many feral horses and mustangs running around loose and breeding uncontrollably in the bush. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been trying to say: not that the theory has anything to it, necessarily, but the fact that there is a popular theory, now cited by the New York Times. (Michael, hehe, the New York Times is one of the most reputable papers in the world, if not the most; the Post is… well… ;-) ). Nice linking, by the way, T-dot. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, I read the Guardian. Michaelsanders 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section go now that the release date has actually been set? --Lulurascal 15:39, 3 Feb. 2007

Promotional Cover Art

Please Note: I have included promotional cover art for the UK version of the book, as seen on Amazon.co.uk - Hpfan9374 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Costco.com has a different promotional image. Search for the book title or type "11175034" into the search dialog. Here is a link to the picture - Davandron | Talk 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read a bit further up the page? I am about to remove it and tag the image for deletion like was doone with the other! It serves no purpose! Flutefluteflute 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Davandron, thankyou for pointing out that, though for all previous books it shows UK cover art, as this promotional artwork is designed to mimic the UK cover, while Costco.com's is designed to mimic the American covers. Hpfan9374 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Flutefluteflute, I see your reasoning for deletion, though isn't a promotional cover, better than no cover? Hpfan9374 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the person further up the page who says it serves no real purpose. Do you agree with that fact. I agree it would be nice to have an image but I don't think there is any point when the final book will not have that cover. Flutefluteflute 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hpfan, thanks; I hadn't looked at the WP's entries for the other books so when I saw the current "promotional cover" topic I thought I'd leave a note for you dedicated editors that there was another promotional image in case it was usable. - Davandron | Talk 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fawkes

I've seen this a couple times now, on this page and others, so I thought I'd start a section on it here on the talk page. My understanding is that there is no confirmation on Fawkes being dead, that at the end of HBP the only hint at him being dead is the ambiguous thought of Harry's that the phoenix had "left Hogwarts" or something similar. Am I missing something? Is there any canonical reason to believe that Fawkes is actually dead? Scharferimage 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What you saw is a piece of inaccurate information added by an IP, which has already been reverted . And no, for your question, his death hasn't been verified in the canon. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I figured. Thanks. Scharferimage 06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you keep referring to Fawkes as a "he." I think nothing was ever said of "it's" gender. Moonwalkerwiz 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Fawkes is referred to as "he" in the books. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Again with the premature Release Date?

Everyone please: Amazon.com, BarnsAndNoble.com, Borders.com, and Your Local Bookstore are NOT reliable sources for announcing a release date. If you do a Google or Yahoo news search for NEWS ARTICLES on the release date, all the legitimate sources say the date is unannounced - even articles posted online in the last few hours. Just because Amazon.com posted a target ordering date of March 31, 2007 means nothing. Bookstores like this put a target date to try to get pre-orders, so they can gage demand and plan their own ordering volumes, and they are under no obligation to deliver anything. When a truly legitimate release date is officially announced, it will be widely reported and Verifiable by Reliable Sources such as Rowling's web site, her Publisher(s), and the news media such as the BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum. The Misplaced Pages is not a "breaking news source" reporting the latest gossip - the Misplaced Pages is intended to be at least a semi-reliable source, where claims are easily and unambiguously verifiable. Even if March 31 is "true" and somebody knows it to be a fact, that is still not sufficient until it is clearly verifiable. Please, please resist the primal urges to jump up and post the latest gossip and material you hear about or find online somewhere from unreliable sources, as was recently done in this article here. Without an independant Reliable Source as described above, it shall be disallowed. Rules are Rules. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even notice that everything had been reverted? There's no reason for a rant like this. I decided to wait for another source. Calm down. John Reaves 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - but clearly we need everyone else to learn the lesson from your example. This was not directed at you - it was directed to everyone. I have seen the revert wars, on this and other issues, and therefore see an obvious need to re-establish the Rules of Engagement, for all prospective editors to see. Perhaps You may have missed the previous discussions where an anonymous bookstore worker also claimed to have an exclusive scoop on the story? Anyway thanks for your efforts and reversions - it brought to light (again) the issue at hand. No offense intended - you were simply the latest "victim" of an ongoing hoax. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what you wrote was pretty informative. I wasn't aware of Amazon and other's tactics. John Reaves 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the ASsociated Press

BC-APNewsAlert,0038 LONDON AP - J.K. Rowling says Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final installment in the series, will be published July 21.Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. AP-NY-02-01-07 0718EST

Too much change, too fast?

I have been looking at this edit to see whether it was good faith or not, as there was not comment and a large chunk of text removed. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails. I am tempted to revert it and ask that if anyone wants to reapply this edit it be done in smaller pieces , but most of all that it be discussed first here. Seems that many interesting tidbits were removed, even the ones that had citations to this interview or that one. Anyway, it is not my article, just one I ran into yesterday while on RC Patrol, so do what you will. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Born on July 30th?

In the Wiki article, it says that Harry was born one day after Neville, who was born on July 30th. However, I thought they shared the same birthday. I'd edit it myself, but I've kinda been scared into not editing things anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.234.172 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure whether or not it's considered canon, but Rowling's website has a desk calendar, and on that it identified Neville's birthday as 30th july and Harry's as 31st July. --Dave. 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rowling clearly stated that Neville was born on July 30 and Harry on the next day. See http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84. Thanks for not making the incorrect edit based on what you "thought". We try to keep things on the Misplaced Pages verifiable from reliable sources and avoid original research and speculation, unlike some of the Harry Potter Fan Sites which you may have been reading. If you have something to contribute to the Misplaced Pages, then please by all means do so: we welcome encyclopedic quality edits by newcomers. Be Bold! - just make sure you have a reference to a reliable source, or it might get reverted. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B.?

Can we/should we include in the plot details list of rumors that when the 6th book was translated to multiple languages, Regulas Black was the only name who's initials translated correctly as well? Whether or not this actually means it is 100% Black for sure is still debatable, but this information seems like it would fit in well. Brett 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave this to the R.A.B. page, and only include an idea here. Tuvas 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time treavel? Or incorrect date?

Can somone clear up when the referance to 2010 was made as teh article states March 2007.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.208.77 (talk • contribs)

Can you clear up what you're referring to? There's no mention of either 2010 nor March 2007 in this article… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Why does this title need a pronunciation guide? And why were the accessed dates removed from some of the sourcing tags? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized how pointless it is, I'll delete it. I don't know about the dates. John Reaves (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie?

I can't find any other reference to this movie, including on All Movie Guide. Brian Jason Drake 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because this is far too crystal ballish to know anything. IMDb is user-submitted, like Misplaced Pages, but without references, unlike Misplaced Pages. Thus we cannot say anything about a movie until more details are heard -- which probably won't happen until HBP is in at earliest pre-production. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Meaning of Hallows

This was added by an anon user, and removed by an editor because it is OR. However, it is such excellent speculation I have decided to move it here, to the talk page. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever since the release of the title for book 7, many people have been speculating about the meaning of the title. Hallow is a word usually used as a verb. It means to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate. However, in the title, it appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "All Hallows' Day" or "all Saints' Day," which is Halloween. Hallows can refer to saints, the relics of saints, or the relics of heathen gods, or even holy relics. One place we can find hallows is in the grail legend. In the Grail legend, the Fisher King is the guardian of the four hallows, which include the Grail itself, the serving dish/or stone, the sword/or dagger, and the spear. Many scholars have since identified the connection of these four hallows with four treasures of the Tuatha de Danaan, which include a chalice (Grail), a baton or wand (spear), a pentacle (serving dish), and a sword. There has been much speculation about whether the grail legend might play a part in the final Harry Potter book. Many Harry Potter fans have seen a connection between the four founders of Hogwarts, their relics, and the four hallows in the grail legend. We know from the books that Gryffindor's relic is a sword, Hufflepuff's relic is a cup (chalice), and Slytherin's relic is a locket (pentacle). Thus, it has been suggested that Ravenclaw's relic must be a wand or staff. We also know that Harry Potter must find four horcruxes, and that Voldemort wanted a relic from each of the four founders. These are interesting connections, but only the final book will prove or disprove this connection.

Interesting speculation, while I'd agree it's too OR to go in the article. Do we even need a paragraph defining the word? Even the part that remains seems to go into OR with the grail stuff. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I told the user to cite his sources, after that it can be reworded and surely incorporated somewhere. John Reaves (talk)

There are sources now, but none of them back up a connection from the grail to Harry Potter. The sources either define hallows or just talk about the grail without reference to HP. As it stands, making a connection between the two is OR. We need specific references that make this comparison or the section needs to go. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The source to Lexicon's essay back up the connection between the grail and Harry Potter (The Grail Hallows and Harry Potter is the title, and the other source is four founders and the magician cards). --Lulurascal 16:39, 30 January 2007

This section, "The meaning of hallows," has got to go. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary; Wiktionary is. Hallows should be linked as ] in the lead. I would have removed the whole section but the link to the Lexicon's essay is legit, and I'm not immediately sure where to put that. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And the wictionary link is already at the end of the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, it should probably be more prominent, but that takes care of that. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it should not go. Misplaced Pages might not be a dictionary, but it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles always define the word that they are discussing. The word is pertinent to the subject matter (as it is in the title) and should be discussed, especially since many people do not know the meaning of the word in question. It should also be noted that dictionaries don't usually have a defnition for "hallows" as a noun; this is an old english usage. You have to go beyond dictionaries to find the meaning of hallows when it is used as a noun. For this reason, the word should be discussed, since Rowlings seems to have carefully picked this word. --Lulurascal 16:49, 30 January 2007

Maybe it should remain as the meaning pertaining to the title of the book but be a little less dictionaryish (is that a word)as well as less verbose. I am surprised however that no one has mentioned that it might have some relation to Godric's Hollow. I'm sure the Hollows in the title of the book is supposed to have more than one meaning. Jay--Feb 2, 2007

The connection between the title and Godric's Hollow has been made over and over again. As has the point that the title is HALLOWS, not HOLLOW. A hallow and a hollow have no connection. Michaelsanders 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just an idea, but thanks for being a dick about it. I'm sure your interpretation is the only correct one. But, FYI, in literature things that often have seemingly no connection are put together to get different or multiple meanings. Such as Deathly Hallows which basically means Fatal Saints. That is counterintuitive since saints are traditionally not known as being fatal but rather thought of as being good people. The same can be said for a title like "Heart of Darkness" because it can have different interpretations and meanings and was intended as so. BTW, one of my undergrad degrees is in English Lit and I do also have a Master's degree so I might know more than you think. Jay--Feb 2, 2007

Oh, I see. So obviously, the title 'Heart of Darkness' actually means 'Hart of Darkness', involving the effects of deer poaching in the Congo? Michaelsanders 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's all keep our cool here. It's not about which interpretation is "correct", nor who has degrees in what, but on what information is veriable from sources. "Hallows sounds like hollow" isn't really a connection that editors here should be speculating about. If a reliable source has written about a possible connection, feel free to add it with a citation. But we can't do original research here. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, maybe "Heart of Darkness" wasn't the best example. How 'bout "Waiting for Godot?" Yes they're waiting on a guy named Godot but it's obviously God that they are waiting on. Sometimes words and meanings are changed or mispelled on purpose in order to make a point. For instance the title and the whole meaning of "Catcher in the Rye" is based on Holden's misunderstanding of the true words to the poem. Get the point? Or are you going to continue to be an obtuse jerk about it? Jay--Feb 2, 2007

I just had to insert this, because I recently did some light editing on Waiting for Godot... Beckett insists that Godot is NOT representative of God. That if that was what he meant, the play would have been titled "Waiting for God". :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I expect that 'Deathly Hallows' has more than one meaning. And maybe it will be connected to Godric's Hollow. But this is not only speculation - which doesn't matter in the context of a discussion - but it is speculation based on a vague similarity between two words which have no common meaning. 'This sounds or looks a bit like that' is the lowest form of considering titles. "Catcher in the Rye" - well, 'Catcher' could be "cashier", so obviously the title is connected to the wealthy family. "Waiting for Godot" - ooh, maybe weights are involved somehow? So, yes, maybe the book title has something to do with Godric's Hollow. But when your sole reason for thinking that is that you can't spell Deathly Hallows ("I'm sure the Hollows in the title of the book is supposed to have more than one meaning"), it really isn't much of a literary argument. Michaelsanders 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, quit the name calling, it's not acceptable on wikipedia. If this is a case where words and meanings are changed or mispelled on purpose in order to make a point, that needs to be pointed out by an external source, not an editor here. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If he's gonna be a dick about it, I'm gonna call him a dick. He'd rather elude the obious point (or maybe he doesn't understand it) by relating Catcher to cashier because he can't admit that others might have a valid opinion. As for it not being cited or encyclopedic; this whole article is speculation since it's about an as yet unpublished book. But I'm sure Micha Elsanders' opinion is the only one that's correct, because I know that I'm not as big a Harry Potter geek as he is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk • contribs)

This whole article is cited, that's what's important. Some is fact, and yes, some of it is speculation. But it is speculation done by reliable sources and cited to them, not speculation on the part of wikipedia editors. It doesn't matter "whose opinion is correct", what matters is who is following WP policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You claim to have an undergraduate degree and a masters. Why, then, you seem to think that hurling insults is an adequate way to behave is beyond me (as is why a grown man would be adding juvenile nonsense to a discussion page for a children's book). Michaelsanders 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you were being a dick. You said "The connection has been made over and over..." yadda yadda yadda, yes you're the expert on all things Harry Potter and no one else has anything new or worthwhile to say. Maybe if your response had been a little more understanding and less self important then, I might not have felt like hurling insults no matter how true the insult is. I tell ya, you people are waaaaaaay too self involved here.

It has been made repeatedly. Look in the archives for this page. And I fail to see how you can complain about self-importance, given your rhapsodising about your many qualifications, and your remarkable insistence that titles are chosen based on trivial similarities rather than deeper meanings. Plenty of people have worthwhile things to say - considerations of the meanings of 'Hallows' or comparisons to previous titles or references, or whatever. But simply repeating what has already been said because you think it is important, despite the fact that it suggests you cannot spell, and is a fantastically simplistic idea based on flawed understanding of titles (I note that you were wrong about 'Godot=God') - that is not worthwhile. It's not even as if you are suggesting any relevant reason for a connection between 'Godric's Hollow' and 'The Deathly Hallows' - you simply based it on a spelling error. Great. Michaelsanders 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I see we have a subject of some debate. It seems to me entirely reasonable to include an explanation of what Hallows are, not the sort of word I use in conversation much, in an article about HP and the deathly ones of that ilk. My own problem was that the section sounded strangely familiar. I hope no one lifted it from somewhere? Sandpiper 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh My GOD! What a mess. This is all speculation. The page on the Goblet Of Fire doesn't define the word goblet or that fire has evil connotations. This section is totally unnecesary and is clearly original research. Using weasel words like "Some people think the title means...." would be just as bad because it is unciteable, the referance you could put for it would be this talk page. Defining the word hallows because some people think it means hollow and need to be corrected is fair enough, but a long rambling discussion on how literature often uses words that are similar to imply an inherant connection so therefore there might be a link between Godric's Hollow and the Deathly Hallows... That is clearly speculation.Simondrake 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, funnily enough I have occasionally used the word 'goblet' in conversation, and the word 'fire' definitely within the last month. I am not certain that I have used the word 'Hallow' as it is used in the title, er, ever. That is the first reason why it might be considered appropriate to explain it now. The second is quite obviously that the only part of the book so far released for public reading is the title. So including some analysis of them seems appropriate. Sandpiper 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little out of hand, nasty, and uncivil. Please be considerate to others, even if you disagree. It should be noted that while some of the section is speculation, it is cited speculation, and that is what is important. The encyclopedia article is not reinventing the wheel, just stating how others reinvented the wheel. In addition, most of it is actually literary analysis of what has already been written by Rowling (such as the connection between the four founders and the four grail hallows, this connection was seen before the title came out, and further confirmed by her wording of the title). Nevertheless, the point is that it is cited by reliable sources (where the reliable sources also cite their work). The previous responses here were why I thought this section necessary. Many people (educated people as well) do not know the meaning of hallows. It's not unless you have studied grail legends and old British and Irish legends, that you really understand the term and where it originally comes from.----Lulurascal 13:42, 2 February 2007

I agree. There should at least be an explanation of the word hallows. - Redmess 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Set

July 21 2007. I don't have time right now to rework the article, but we now have reliable sources. Bloomsbury.com and Scholastic.com are probably the most reliable. Please keep it tight folks! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems weird. The release of HP5 movie will hurt HP7 book sales or vica versa. On would think professional publishers do not make such mistakes that could cost into 100 millions. Please double-check the info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

See - this illustrates the problem! Well meaning editors who have "appropriate" release dates set in their minds, and insist on holding to their theories and "common sense", refusing to accept the public facts from numerous reliable sources. Just exactly which marketing principle would suggest that close release dates for the book and the movie would be a "mistake" that would cost the publishers hundreds of millions? Why would the movie and book sales hurt each other? Co-marketing suggests a synergy - a symbiosis - a convergence as it were - that each would drive up interest in the other. Here is some opposite speculation: it could be a billion-dollar summer for Rowling, her publishers, and Warner Brothers. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked, it's totally legit. I'm a bit surprised they're so close together. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also at JK Rowlings' site under http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=97. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.83.25.151 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I have the email from Bloomsbury quote:

"'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' by J. K. Rowling will be published around the world in the English language on Saturday, 21st July 2007." -- 65.61.193.89 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was on Newsround (News show for kids by BBC) today.--Andy mci 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

US Cover

I just got an email from Barnes and Noble about a pre-order. Can we use that cover image? image -Searles2sels (PJ) 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a cover. It's an advertisement. - _хот 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was a sweet new dark cover. Ah well, thanks. -Searles2sels (PJ) 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Its just a picture, not a cover. It in no way follows the style of the other covers.--Andy mci 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested semiprotection for this page for a couple days, meaning that anonymous users and new users won't be able to edit it. Hopefully if it's granted it will cut down on the adding and reverting of info already in the article. We'll see what happens. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that the release date is official, exactly what else on this page do you feel needs protecting? That is, what needs it more than every other page on WP that is vandalized on a daily basis? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. The protect only blocks IP and new users (I believe those registered less than four days), regular editors can still edit. Hopefully those who have been here will read before editing. I notice there's also been a fair amount of vandalism at the main Harry Potter article, anyone think it needs a similar temporary semiprotection? I assume we may need to do similar things when the movie and book are released, I can just imagine all the HAGRID KILLS RON!!!1!!1!! spoilerspamming the articles will get. Requests for protection can be made at WP:RPP. Anyone here when the last book was released, how bad was it? I'll probably stay away from wikipedia entirely for a week or two before the book's release until after I've finished it, people will be set on blurting spoilers everywhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm contemplating the same. You have to assume the HP SuperFans and trolls are going to go absolutely bonkers, starting on July 20th if not sooner - running wild and naked through the wiki-streets, leaving little piles of doggy-doo-poo everywhere. It will be a race - a competition for them - to post as many outrageous spoilers and plot details as possible. Meanwhile the legitimate HP Project editors will likely be in hiding for several days, reading and re-reading the text to absorb it properly, before they dare to come out to battle the trolls and set the facts straight. This problem alone would be a very good reason to place the entire set of HP articles on at least some sort of semi-protection from anonymous edits for perhaps a week or so, starting at noon on July 20th. Properly registered editors can still add (and then be accountable for) their edits; and various anti-vandalism robots can be designed and set up in advance, and let loose to run on auto-pilot on July 20, to beat down the most outrageous of the trolling vandals, at least until the legitimate editors can properly prepare themselves to take on the trolls without having the plot spoiled in the process. I think this event will prove to be one of the worst for the wikipedia - a true all out DEFCON 1 battle for several days. As to comparisons to Book 6 - we are STILL battling the Dumbledore-Snape spoiling trolls, and it was just awful for several days that summer. This one could be orders of magnitude larger. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it might be hard to get admins to agree, it would probably be good to propose a plan ahead of time, and include a LOT of pages. Unfortunately I bet there will be plenty of spoilers posted even on completely unrelated pages as well (was there any of that with book six?). Might want to do it even earlier than July 20, the movie is on the 13th in the USA and a couple days earlier in other countries. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The movie isn't really sensitive information though, we have a pretty good idea what the plot will be and who dies. But I agree, I am not likely to be having a look anywhere here untill I'veread it, and while there will likely be a couple of copies around, I'm not going to get to read them first. Sandpiper 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Charity books

I find this sentence to be a bit ridiculous:

However, she has said that an encyclopedia of the Wizarding world based on her copious notes may be published in the future, possibly for charity similar to her two other Harry Potter charity books.

The term "two" has nothing to do with Quidditch Through the Ages. The term "other" has nothing to do with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Brian Jason Drake 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should say something like: "...possibly for charity, as she did with her other two charity books, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Please feel free to make sensible changes of this sort which improve the article. If the person who posted it the other way objects, then they can feel free to discuss it here and explain why they think their way is better! This is how you reach a proper consensus. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned that I changed the sentence myself at the same time as posting that comment. Brian Jason Drake 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing Progress

I wonder if the "Writing progress" section should just go away now. Most of the information in it is rather dated and no longer of any real interest. The Airport Fiasco may be of some interest to keep, perhaps in a trivia section, but the rest seems forced and breathless "news as it happens!" cruft. The only reason for having it in there in the first place was because we wanted to have SOMETHING there in lieu of a firm release date, a surrogate as it were, something more encyclopedic than the date speculations posted at the fan forum sites. The section simply provided some sort of reliable evidence that the book was being written mostly during 2006, and was expected to be released in 2007.

By the way - where are all the bookshop owner assistants and stock boys who had absolutely reliable "inside information" from their suppliers that the book would come out on 07/07/07 (due to the "magical nature of 7"), or 3/31/07 because Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com posted that target date for pre-orders, or 07/14/07 because the riots were on 07/07/06, or on JK/Harry's "birthday" on 07/31/07? Funny - I don't recall anyone insisting that they heard it was 07/21/07. Wherever those folks are hiding now, I hope that now they can understand and respect why it is that we refused to allow them to post their speculations and false gossip here. Even if they had guessed right, or if JK had told them directly herself, it would not have been appropriate to post that information until it came out publicly. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard it from a stock boy in Stockholm who heard it from a buzzard in Bulgaria who heard it from a pelican in Peru who heard it from JK herself that the the date would be 7/21/07 because the 21st was three times as powerful as the 7th. 67.88.29.58 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 Done John Reaves (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, help!

Hi! I've just read this article and I must tell you that someone edited it writing nonsense; here it is:

"harry potter 7 is going to be about Ron, Hermoine snd Harry Potter eating horcruxes. They discover that Dumbledore did not die...he only passed away.Then they discover a horryfying discovery to discover...VOLDERMORT IS A GIRL!!! AHHHHH!!!!"

Perhaps because I didn't sign in, I'm not able to edit that part of the article, so someone help me! Edit it and cancel those stupid news! Thank you very much 87.24.15.6 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Your Italian Hades

Thanks. The main article certainly needs a major cleanup and rewrite, to bring it up to date and to mop up the remaining fan cruft, speculation, and occasional trolling vandalism. As an open-edit system, the Misplaced Pages sometimes becomes vulnerable to immature vandalism by trolls who are begging to be fed, especially on topics of particular interest to children and adolescents. Please feel free to register yourself with a proper login ID, and start to boldly make some sensible edits, and join the Wiki Project as a productive member to guard against such vandalism and to "keep it real". Due to the recent rampant vandalism and unexplained reversion battles, this article may have been temporarily disabled from editing by the administrators. Please feel free to contact an administrator, or in particular the individual who disabled the article from editing, with your concerns. Thanks for the alert! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Add release date!

Could somebody add the release date, July 21st, 2007, to the article? It would make it more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halleedwards (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Wait, hang on...getting out my wand...waving it around...saying the magic words...*POOF*. There it is, in the article, in two places! And what's really amazing is that I went back in time and added it before you even asked. Isn't that awesome? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're good! Now while you're at it, could you please add the title of the book somewhere into the article, I think it's important to mention somewhere what the book is actually called. ;-) (I'm not the only one flashing back to the identical spree of redundant edits we suffered back then, am I? Why do people think it's a good idea to edit an article without at least giving it a quick readthrough first?) --Maelwys 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry's death

My question revert's to the fact that it is widly spread that Harry Potter will die in the seventh book. i wonder if that is true just out of curiousity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.65.49.221 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Nobody knows but Rowling, and I don't think she's about to spoil something like that. You'll have to wait until July 21st to find out, sorry. --Maelwys 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We will find out on July 21, and if so you can bet that it will be posted then, and not before. We do not deal in "widly spread" rumours and gossip here in the Misplaced Pages. That is what the fanatic sites are for. The Misplaced Pages only allows neutral and verifiable facts taken from reliable sources, and strongly avoids speculation, rumours, gossip, and fan theories on what might happen in the unpublished book. We also do not use weasel wording to try to make something we heard about somewhere seem encyclopedic somehow by shifting the "blame" to unnamed sources. Please feel free to share your thoughts and questions at one of the many HP fan forums - see the Harry Potter fandom article for some examples. --T-dot (Talk |

contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

First off, this article is very good; it's informative and cites all its sources.

I don't have an account. Could you make the following edits, o ye kindred soul with editing powers?

1. Remove the line "She has said that the scene between Professor Remus Lupin and Harry speaking on the bridge was especially important, yet not deliberate" when talking about the Azkaban movie. She never said that, or at least not in the article it cites.

Checked and reference does not cite this sentence, so I've removed it as per anon suggestion SeanLegassick 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

2. I was going to suggest adding that J.K. Rowling finished writing the book on the 11th January of at room 652 at Balmoral Hotel in the 'Writting Progress' section, but that's gone now...

Cheers.

Rowling did say she was statled by elements which had got into the movie because of future events, or something to that effect, in the interview with her included on the published DVD. I'm not sure she explained exactly which scene she meant. Sandpiper 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, feel free to refer to the DVD and cite it directly. The previous version cited an article which didn't contain the information. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted cite of Rowling's online diary

I just reverted an edit by 82.206.131.163 as follows:

Trivia

oN fEBUARY 6TH 2007,J.k Rowling stataed in her official website that Dealthly :Hallows is her favourite and its a wonderful way to finish the series.

Obviously the edit needing improvement to stay, but it seems like an interesting point and I've verified that she has said this at her online diary. The precise quote is:

"While each of the previous Potter books has strong claims on my affections, 'Deathly Hallows' is my favourite, and that is the most wonderful way to finish the series."

However I can't see how to reference this properly, as she seems to replace the old text with the new each time she updates the diary, with no permalink.

Any ideas?

You could always take a screenshot of the diary quote and have it hosted online (like on Photobucket or the like). Provide that as an external link to follow along with the reference, but don't make the image the reference itself. The correct reference would need to be Rowling's site. Even though it might change, that is why all website references need an "Accessed" date. This makes it clear that, though the website may have changed, the information was there and accurate at the time and date the web page was originally accessed. The screen capture will just provide readers with a visual image to go along with it in the event of the change. Sage of Ice 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already added this tidbit in the introduction, and referenced it. ---Lulurascal

recent deletions

I just reinserted some of the stuff pruned from the article recently. This mainly seems to have affected the section on ongoing plot. While I did not think it sensible to put back half of what had been removed, we do need to have a section which states the straightforward bits of what has to happen because of events already begun in the last book. It may seem obvious to say that Harry has to fight Voldemort and destroy his horcruxes, but the article would be seriously incomplete without explaining this very basic part of the plot. Sandpiper 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hallows" meaning: Speculation and Original Research

Let's keep speculation and original research out of this article. Going on and on about how Hallows could have something to do with grail legend is not at all encyclopedic. It might be something interesting for Mugglenet, but it has no place here on wikipedia. dposse 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You removed legitimate information regarding the meaning of the word 'hallows', as defined by verifiable sources. Please don't. Michaelsanders 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to explain what hallows are, and in particular explain what seems to be the main historical literary example. It is quite clear from the definition of hallows, venerated relics, that some have already been featured in the books, and it is entirely sensible to say what they are. If she had called her book 'HP and the cat', then we would be going on about where cats appear in the books. That is, as they say, source based research, which far from being forbidden is in fact necessary for anyone writing on wiki. That is what encycopedias do, organise information, so that someone doesn't have to read the entire book to find where something is mentioned. We present them here. Now, if you know of alternative examples where hallows have appeared in literature, which might suggest we have an unfair presentation of the subject, then please tell us what they are. I am not aware of counter examples, so I do not see that we are 'speculating' in what we include. Rowling started this ball rolling by titling her book 'Hallows'. The 7 words of the title are the only part of the book published so far, so it is not unreasonable to 'go on' about them at some length. She even stated that they are meaningful. I don't know what she meant by them, and there are lots of suggestions out there. What is presented here is a pretty much face-value, but in suitable depth, explanation of the words in the context of the HP books. Sandpiper 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." All of the research in this portion of the article is not stating new ideas, it is stating ideas that have been made by earlier publications and it cites them. So, it is not original research. As for speculation, the only speculative sentence that is in the section is "presumably leaving Rowena Ravenclaw's relic as a spear or wand." All of the rest of the article is actually literary criticism of the pervious Harry Potter books and their symbolism. -- Lulurascal 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys are speculating that it has something to do with the legend of the holy grail. It's original research when YOU try to search for a meaning of something. Sure, you have sources for the infomation, but you are using it to speculate. Speculation is not fact. dposse 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sceptical what this book will have in common with the arthurian legends of the holy grail. The article does not anywhere go into how the book might reflect that legend. Whatever plot Rowling has devised will certainly not be a direct copy of anything. What the article does do is demonstrate what hallows are, by using what frankly is the only example I have seen of hallows, used in exactly the same way as hallows which she has already told us about (using a different name) in the books. It is not speculation that there exists within the book a hallow of Godric Gryffindor, his sword. I see no reason to speculate that this sword might share magical properties with some other legendary sword, or frankly have any magical properties at all. The whole point is to clearly explain the meaning of the words used in the title. I don't consider it my business to speculate on the consequences or implications of the title, or include anything other than the clear meaning of the words (once you have researched them, because the whole issue is that they are words people are unfamiliar with) Sandpiper 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am of two minds about this. Yes, speculating that the remaining horcruxes or what the items referred to in the title of the 7th book follow the theme of the Arthurian hallows or the Tarot suites is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages. Citing someone else's speculation of such is on the border. However, considering that the Arthurian and tarot hallows are pretty much the only other commonly used examples of the word "hallows" as a noun in the English language, it borders on irresponsible not to include something on this topic. So far, there are a lot of citations in this segment, but all seem to be just about the Tarot and/or Arthurian Hallows, not how they relate to this book/series. I know there has to be other articles from respected critics and analysts about this - at the very least, those need to be found and cited. --Reverend Loki 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We all know that, once the book comes out and/or the true meaning of the title is revealed, anything which is not relevant, or indeed anything which is not provably connected to Rowling will be thrown out of the window. Until then, as responsible editors, we should be giving as much information as possible - i.e. 'Hallows isn't a word commonly used in English. Here's what it has been used to mean, etc' and - as you say - cite critical interpretations of what it might have to do with the title. It sails near the wind, but it is not we editors, but the writers we cite who are doing the speculation - and, in the absence of clear authorial statements, we should be saying 'here is a range of mainstream critical views of what the title means'. "You guys are speculating that it has something to do with the legend of the holy grail" - no, those outside wikipedia are speculating, we are noting that speculation. The best thing to do would be to find an alternative critical view of the novels, or of the title meaning, and cite that - e.g. 'Such-and-such disagrees with this view, however, saying..." Isn't that - to a certain extent - how articles on literary subjects are meant to be written? Michaelsanders 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And it certainly isn't OR by encyclopaedic standards. The test for OR is, if someone writes something uncited and questionable, to ask, "Okay, who says this?" If the answer is, "Er...me, the editor" it is OR. That clearly isn't the case here. Indeed, I fail to see how an encyclopaedia could possibly function without external research (are we not to mention 'The Theory of Relativity', on the basis that it is only a theory, and thus Original Research?). Michaelsanders 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but there is indeed original research in this section.

While mentioning the arthurian legend as an example of the use of the term "hallow" in literature is definitely a documented work, it needs something other than fan speculations to become relevant to the plot of HP 7.

Also, you should read more carefully some articles such as WP:OR and WP:RS.

Citing external original research from fans outside of Misplaced Pages, doesn't prevent it to be original research nonetheless. "Original research" is not a concept limited to Misplaced Pages. External works can be original research themselves.

Fan speculations from the HP Lexicon have been used in the article to justify a connection between the plot of HP and the arthurian legend. Sorry but this is original research. Citing other fans' works is equivalent to writing your own theories on Misplaced Pages.

According to WP:RS#Self-published_sources: "self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

There are some exceptions though: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

Even though the HP Lexicon is a very popular fansite which has compiled some very interesting works on the HP saga, it remains nonetheless the work of mere fans, who are certainly NOT "professional researchers writing within their field of expertise" or "professional journalists".

Also, in WP:RS#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources, we have: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

Thus, fan theories, even though "published" outside Misplaced Pages, by fans on their own websites, are NOT reliable sources. And please, Michaelsanders, do not compare the works of scientists who have years and years of studies and experience behind them, to fans talking about fictional novels.

Another proof of original research is in this paragraph : "It is known from the books that Godric Gryffindor's relic is a sword, Helga Hufflepuff's relic is a cup (chalice), and Salazar Slytherin's relic is a locket (pentacle), presumably leaving Rowena Ravenclaw's relic as a spear or wand."

I don't need to elaborate much on this, to show that these claims are totally unsubstanciated. It has never been said anywhere by JKR that theese horcruxes had to be seen as representations of "chalice" or "pentacle", or that Ravenclaw's relic was indeed a "spear or a wand". This is original research, from an editor forcing the idea that the horcruxes had indeed be seen as arthurian relics. Which has never been said anywhere.

Then we have this: " J. K. Rowling has explicitly stated that the four Hogwarts founders represent the four natural elements This solidifies the connection between the four founders and the four hallows in the Grail legend."

Even if JKR said something about the 4 Hogwarts founders being linked to the 4 natural elements, there's still nothing connecting them to relics of arthurian legend. Yes, there would be similar elements between them, however it requires a full citation from the author herself to be able to make the connection bewteen the 2 without writing original research.

And worst of all: "It is also stated in the books that Harry Potter must find four horcruxes, and that Voldemort wanted a hallow, or relic, from each of the four founders."

Exactly how is this the "worst of all" in terms of WP:OR?. In ch. 23 Horcruxes, p. 505 (Template:HP6Scholastic) Dumbledore and Harry are discussing the remaining four. Two mentioned were the Slytherin locket and the Hufflepuff cup. Then Dumbledore says: "The remaining two, assuming again he created a total of six, are more of a problem, but I will hazard a guess that, having secured objects from Hufflepuff and Slytherin, he set out to track down objects owned by Gryffindor or Ravenclaw. Four objects from the four founders would, I am sure, have exerted a powerful pull over Voldemort's imagination." --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "worst of all" because this final sentence, after all this original research, flat out states that "Horcruxes = Hallows". Folken de Fanel 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK that makes sense. I agree that Dumbledore's use of the word "objects" relating to the four founders (and also "relic" when referring to Gryffindor's sword) cannot be arbitrarily changed to the word "hallows" by fans and editors without constituting an original research violation, in fact it is a circular argument and "begging the question". Hallows are defended to mean horcruxes because of 4 Founders / Authurian hallows legends/ Tarot suits / Natural Elements / 4 Founders? More of a logical pretzel than a circle. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article never mentioned that Hallows = Horcruxes, and in case you haven't read the HP books, Godric's hallow is not a horcrux. However, the article did mention that Godric's relic was a "hallow", which techniquely it is. The article did equate "relic=hallow" which is indeed the case! You can use hallow in the english language to refer to relic. --User:Lulurascal

The article mentionned that Hallows = Horcruxes. Goderic's relic is not a "hallow", because we do not know what hallows are. The use of "hallow" is of course highly questionable, given that "hallow" is a word from the title of book 7, and the very word which meaning in the novel is unclear. Folken de Fanel 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More confusion and wire-crossing, with some hand waving and a lot of smoke and mirrors going on here. Lulurascal, Godric's Hollow was the location of the Potter's home. Whether this "Godric" had anything at all to do with Godric Gryffindor is pure speculation - Rowling has remained silent on this issue. The word "Hollow" has nothing in common with a "Hallow", other than nearly similar spelling and pronunciation in English, and this similarity is unique to that language - the original word roots have no common denominators. Meanwhile, Gryfindor's "only known relic" (his sword) is also not a Horcrux, and "remains safe" according to Dumbledore. Once you clear up the confusion and smoke, the only argument should be: Are the Horcruxes and the "Deathly Hallows" the same thing. If you can get Rowling to admit it, then it is encyclopedic and is permitted. If you have to go through 4 Tarot Card Suits, Authurian Legends, "the 4 natural elements", and the 4 Founders with 4 Horcruxes to tie Horcruxes to Deathly Hallows, then you have stepped deeply into the muck of original research. It does not matter how many "expert (fan) opinions" you get - it is still speculation by people with an agenda. At best, you can corral such speculation into a "Fan Speculation" section, and link to all the Mugglenet and HPANA web pages you wish. It should not be presented as "fact" without the only reliable source on the issue - Rowling. Just what are you going to do if all your speculation and "reliably sourced" theories turn out to be totally false when the book is published, and it turns out that the "Deathly Hallows" are in fact a new breed of wizard-spirits or ghosts in the same sort of model as the Inferi and Dementors? That is why we need to control ourselves and stop speculating on what Deathly Hallows means and whether they have anything to do with Horcruxes. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

She meant that since one meaning of hallow is 'relic', the sword is 'Godric's Hallow'. Which is a nice, but ultimately confusing and unhelpful play on words. Michaelsanders 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that hallow does not equate with hollow, what I meant by it was that Godric's relic = Godric's hallow = Godric's sword. T-dot, we have already seen hallows in the book. If JKR decides to make hallows also mean something else, that is fine, but it won't make what was written here incorrect, because we are using her previous books to discuss hallows. We know from the previous books that the four founders have hallows or relics. We know that the seventh book will be about finding the hallows. If JKR chooses to use the word hallows to mean say shrines for where those relics are kept, it does not negate what she has previously written, and the fact that she has previously written about hallows (using the word relics). It does not negate the fact that all of the HP books so far have been shown to have arthurian undertones (as discussed by many literary critics and experts, where the experts who are experts in arthurian legend (I mean professors and such), and it does not negate the fact that these people have formed a connection between relics and the hallows in the arthurian legends. All of this material is based on Rowling's previous books. If she decideds to suprise us and to publish something completely different, and completely unrelated to her previous books, then all of this will not go on this page, but on the pages of the previous books. --User:Lulurascal

So, even if JKR recently refused to explicit the meaning of "Hallows", here is our briliant editor who has already guessed all of JKR's secrets and is revealing them to the world. How nice of him... To be clear, it has never been said by JKR that these "hallows" were precisely the Horcruxes. Assuming the two are one and the same, even when based on what you think is obvious, remains original research unless JKR states it. JKR has refused to say what were these Hallows, it's not ours to say it.

In conclusion, the "meaning of "Hallows" " section is full of original research, and needs a bit of reworking to be acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Folken de Fanel 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

After recent edits by Lulurascal, I think there is a need to clarify something: "The meaning of Hallows" is here to explain and encompass every definition that can be given to the word (until it's true meaning in the HP world is revealed in the book) and NOT to try to assert what will be it's supposed meaning. Also, it's not an essay about whether HP is related to the arthurian legend or not. This matter is irrelevant to the topic, and such debate is undisputably original research. Folken de Fanel 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As some people don't want to understand, here's more clarification:

1) That someone finds that Harry Potter has arthurian characteristic is one thing. However it is irrelevant to the topic of the "meaning of hallows", as the quote doesn't give any more information about the possible meanings of the word.

2) Using this quote to prove that the "Hallows" are "Horcruxes" seen as arthurian relics, is a case of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.

Here's what the article says: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research".

So, using this claim of Harry being an arthurian figure (A), with the claim that the arthurian legend features hallows as relics (B), with the fan-claims that the horcruxes are seen as arthurian relics (C), to say that "Hallows" means "Horcruxes as arthurian relics" (D) is thus original research.

3) Fan speculations and fan websites cannot be used as reliable sources.

4) Personal interpretations of the editors are original research and have nothing to do on Misplaced Pages.Folken de Fanel 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If the critical views have been published, we are allowed to reference them in the article. They have been published. Therefore, we are allowed to publish them. Michaelsanders 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are allowed to reference these critical views as long as they are relevant to the topic you're dealing with. Quotes qualifying Harry as an arthurial figures have been used only in order to artificially establish a connections between Hallows -> relics from the arthurian legend -> Horcruxes.

And making a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is defined as original research.

You are allowed to reference critical views, as long as they remain relevant to the topic (of what use are these view when dealing about the "meaning of Hallows" ? None) and as long as you don't use them in synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Obviously, you have not respected these essencial conditions. As I have said, where not here to debate on what will be THE meaning of "Hallows" in HP 7. Folken de Fanel 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the article has been protected. Michaelsanders and Lulurascal are entirely responsible for it, since they have repeatedly reverted the article so as to impose their own original research in it.
I have written very elaborated contributions to this talk page (using precise quotes from various official policies of Misplaced Pages), in order to explain how the "meaning of Hallows" section needed to be reworked because of too much OR, POV, and a use of unreliable sources.

However these 2 persons did not even answer to me, they merely reverted my contributions and added their OR, never justifying any of the reverts. Such behavior shouldn't happen on Misplaced Pages. Folken de Fanel 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the reverts were added with comments on why the reverts had taken place. To say that I did not answer you is ludicrus, since you haven't given me enough time to respond fully! I did answer you in little comments, adding "academic" sources at your request. I have made justification for all of my reverts. Your sort of behavior is irresponsible, not even given time for a person to fully and completely respond and then, accusing them of not responding. What nonsense. -- Lulurascal 17:00, 10 February 2007

You have never commented on any revert. You didn't answer me, and that's fact. You have not added any academic source. You have just added someone's opinion about the character of Harry, and used it in a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.

You have never justified any of your reverts. You had 2 hours to answer, during which you had better write full answers to this issue in the talk page, instead of dumbly reverting the article without justification. Folken de Fanel 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this is original research. Even if you have a conflict with what sources are used. The definition of original research is "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." All of the research in this portion of the article is not stating new ideas, it is stating ideas that have been made by earlier publications and it cites them. So, it is not original research. While you might disagree with the "professional" quality of our sources, you cannot call it original research. Citing other fans' works is not equivalent to writing our own theories on Misplaced Pages. It's equivalent to citing other fans' work. Now that we have that cleared, let us talk about the professional quality of the sources. I added a comment that was sourced to a strictly professional, actually academic journal, while I added only one quote from the article, the whole article mentioned many many things. Please be considerate enough to actually read my sources before you determine that it is not appropriate for the subject matter. You have no idea about the content of the article, obviously, and to suggest that I was using it to substantiate my own claim when the claim was not made by me but the author is down right rude. As for the other sources. These are publications on reputable sites that make it their job to be well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, each one of the essays in Scribbulus is peer reviewed by credible third parties. This is also the case with Lexicon's essays. Lexicon and Scribbulus (which is an actual published journal) are not "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications." They are not "personal websites," while they do have "blogs," the source is not from the blogs, and the essayists themselves were published by third parties,e.g. Lexicon and Scribbulus, that make it their job to be professional researchers on all things Harry Potter. So, even if they were originally self-published, they are published by credible third parties. The only claim you might have is the Lexicon essay. Scribbulus is a journal that is considered to be on all things HP, where the articles are peer reviewed, and you have absolutely no claim against that source. In addition, both sources cite their work to academic references. Each is very well researched. To say that just because it is a "fan" site makes it unreliable is just plain wrong. -- Lulurascal 17:00, 10 February 2007

All of this is original research. Original research 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."

You have not been able to cite a single reliable source. All you have cited is self-published fan theories. According to WP:RS#Self-published_sources: "self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

There are some exceptions though: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

Even though the HP Lexicon is a very popular fansite which has compiled some very interesting works on the HP saga, it remains nonetheless the work of mere fans, who are certainly NOT "professional researchers writing within their field of expertise" or "professional journalists".

Also, in WP:RS#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources, we have: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

Thus, fan theories, even though "published" outside Misplaced Pages, by fans on their own websites, are NOT reliable sources. And if you are not using reliable source to back up your claims, then you are doing original research, whether it is your own or another fan's.

Then, don't play the fool. If your so-called "academic" source did state that "Hallows = Horcruxes because Hallows = arthurian relics and Horcruxes = arthurian relics", then, why didn't you cite it ?

Your "academic" source oinly made a comparison between Harry and Arthur, and that's all. The rest of your argument was elaborated only by yourself, linking together various reliable and non-reliable sources which had nothing in common.

Then, don't try to turn HP Lexicon and Scribbulus into "scientific publications". They may be "reputable" fansites among the HP fandom, however they are nothing more.

None of the editors from the Lexicon or Scribbulus are "professional (= remunerated) researchers". They do not hold any research doctorate in "potterology" . And as the Verifiability article says: " Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

The Lexicon and Scribbulus are personal websites, and they are not "third parties" themselves. Do not change the meaning of the words from the official policies articles. None of these websites have been published by third parties. Whether the articles are reviewed by the webmasters (= no third parties) is irrelevant here, and I have absolutely all claims against these non-sources.

None of these personal websites were reviewed by any professional researcher, they are simply fansites, and not sources. Fansites aren't reliable sources.

As I've said, it's not ours to determine what will be THE meaning of Hallows, and in any case, no personal website, whether it is the Lexicon or anything else, is accreditated to guess the content of book 7. The only persons that are reliable in this respect are JKR herself and her editors.

To say that just because it is a fan site makes it unreliable is just the absolute and undisputable truth, because it's not me who made the wikipedian rules. If you're not ready to accept Wikiedian rules, you should not come here. Folken de Fanel 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where in wikipedian policy does in say that fan sites are unreliable? Even JKR posts links to these fan sites! These are established fan sites, that have been given awards by JKR, to say that they are unreliable is disrespect. As for my academic source, if you actually had read the source, it connected a link between Godric's sword and the sword in Arthurian legend. If you actually read my source, you might find more, but I am not about to completely republish a very length academic article in wikipedia. Apparently, you just disagree want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. When I added an academic source, you brushed it off saying that I was using it to establish my own theory, without even reading the article, which you would have found, that I was only stating what the article stated. If you disagree with this literary interpretation of HP. That's your opinion, but leave it out of wikipedia unless you can find, much like I found, an academic journal or professional cite to back up your view. Every single academic critism of HP has been relating it to arthurian legend, so good luck. Then you can say, "conversely so and so said this." As for giving me time to respond. I'm sorry but I cannot be at my computer 24/7. I have other things to do, and so critising me over not responding is utterly disrespectful.--User:Lulurascal

"Where in wikipedian policy does in say that fan sites are unreliable?". Here: WP:RS#Self-published_sources: "self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

JKR has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. I have already said it, while some sites might be well-known and very interesting, they do not meet Misplaced Pages's quality and encyclopedic standards.

These sites might be established, and they may have been given awards by JKR, however they do not meet Misplaced Pages's quality and encyclopedic standards, and they are NOT reliable sources, as per WP:RS. It is not disrespectful to say that these sites are unreliable: it's only the absolute and undisputable truth. They publish essays about unpublished books which content is totally unknown.

As of know, oracles and fortune-tellers are not for real. That is what these sites are doing, predicting the future. And such work is not encyclopedic work and has nothing to do on Misplaced Pages. If you're not ready to accept and comply to Wikipedian rules, you should not come here, because no one will change it for you.

Your academic source equaly doesn't have the power to see the future. If they see in Godric's sword a ref. to an arthurian sword, fair enough, but this article IS NOT about the possible influences of the HP saga, but only the meaning of Hallows. And such claims about the sword, etc, are absolutely not relevant to this question. Please read the rules before contributing. You have only referenced this irrelevant source so as to make a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is original research and forbidden here.

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing; you are being rude and disrespectful, now. I'm disagreeing because you are wrong: you have written original research, based on unreliable sources and your own synthesis of various sources. And you can't contradict that.

You were absolutely not stating what the article stated. You used this article in order to link the Hallows and the Horcruxes together with the arthurian themes. That's all you've done, and it's called Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it is forbidden here.

That some persons found that HP was an arthurian character is totally irrelevant to the matter of the signification of Hallows. The source only use was to establish he connection Hallows -> arthurian relics -> horcruxes. And it is not ours to say what are Hallows in book 7.

That some academics found similarities with arthurian legends in HP is totally irrelevant if you try to use it to explain the meaning of "hallows". And currently, no academic has said that hallows = arthhurian relics = horcruxes, while the article did try to say that, so you have no source.

And stop playing the fool, the first thing I did here was to thoroughly explain my point of view, with various and precise quotes from various official policies, even before reverting anything on the article. Were you respectful, you'd have done the same. Instead, you dumbly reverted without giving any explanation. So you're the only one being disrepsectful here. And I don't even talk about your biased "logic" and your highly questionable definitions of "professional researchers"...Folken de Fanel 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, the article did not equate arthurian relics to horcruxes, it equated relics=hallows=relics(Arthurian) which is indeed what VD was after, he was after hallows from each of the four founders. It did not say that those hallows ever became horcruxes, what it did say was that VD wanted hallows from the four founders, which as a reference, you can find in the books. As mentioned, you did not give me enough time for me to explain my revision, and I thought I was being respectful by telling you exactly what I was doing when reverting in the edit summaries. As you see when I first reverted you, I said "see discussion". I've already explained that the additions to the article were not OR, using the strict definition of the word as found on wikipedia. In addition, I was going to further explain myself, but you did not respectfully give me time and decided to start a reverting war. You haven't even read all of my sources, so you cannot justify yourself on commenting on them. I honestly see that we are getting no where but insults. Frankly, convincing you that a reliable resource can be a well established fan cite is no longer worth my time, as I see that you consider only your opinion right. I am going to leave it at this. I believe that you have not respected me in the least, when I myself have tried to be respectful, by saying, alright, well this person wants a "scholarly" reference, so I will provide a scholarly reference in order to appease, but this didn't even make you happy. You had to brush off my scholarly reference without even reading it, without even considering it, and accuse me of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position when you haven't even read all of my sources. This is ridiculous, and I have nothing more to say to you. --User:Lulurascal

You can't use the word "hallow" lightly here, in the section dedicated to the meaning of the very word "Hallows" in book 7. You are indeed imposing a certain definition, and point of view, on the word which doesn't correspond to anything correctly sourced. Voldemort doesn't search for "hallows", he search for objetcs which will become Horcruxes, period.

Hallows is an unexplained word in book 7 title, and you can't use it for "horcruxes", that's all.

Besides, saying that the objects/Horcruxes are "hallows" as in the arthurian legends, is still original research.

You had all the time you wanted, you only had to write your argumentation before touching anything in the article. You had all the afternoon to write something, yet you didn't. But you reverted. Do not try to act as a victim here.

You said "see discussion" the first time, but it was in this very same discussion that I had fully explained my motivations for reworking the section, and to which no one had answered. So you said basically "see the discussion where Folken has undisputably proven that this section is pure OR". Which doesn't make sense, and is highly disrespectful for me since you had ignored everything and blindly reverted.

I have undisputably proven that this section was OR, using using the strict definition of the word as found on wikipedia, and that's only after I explained my motivations in detail that I reworked the article. However you merely reverted the article and didn't even try to discuss the matter, and you started an edit war.

I have read all of your "sources", I absolutely can justify myself on commenting on them, and I can say that none of your sources had proven that Horcruxe=Hallows, and that it was only you who made this up.

Indeed, if you're trying to convince me that you have the right to violate the rules of Misplaced Pages as you see fit, it's no use, you won't succeed. So you'd better stop. It's not me, but Misplaced Pages itself that has personal websites are not to be taken as reliable sources. If you don't like the rules on Misplaced Pages, don't come here.

It's not about my opinion, it's that we all have to comply to the rules. I did not invent the rules, they are here, and we have to respect them, that's all.

Your so-called "scholar reference" was totally irrelevant to the question of the "meaning of Hallows" and it only served you to make a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Plus, you didn't even remove all of the original research after (of course, without this OR, you couldn't try to establish a link between horcruxes and hallows any longer, so your "academic source" only appeared more irrelevant than before). And I've read all your "sources".

Perfect, don't say anything, and do not add anymore OR to this article, unless you're able to perfectly justify your edits. Folken de Fanel 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not read all of my sources. I never synthsized published material to create a new argument. I was only citing other people's arguments. I do realize we disagree on what we consider reliable source, but that is besides the point. The only argument that you are making here is that one, and only one, of my sources was about Harry Potter and Arthurian motifs and not about the meaning of Hallows as in book 7 (while it did mention arthurian hallow in the context of harry potter). The rest of the sources had everything to do with the meaning of hallows in the context of HP7. What about the rest of the sources? Yes, you believe them to be unreliable. But whether or not they are unreliable is besides the point. You cannot accuse me of OR, because that just isn't true. You may dispute the credibility of the sources provided, which has already been discussed, but you cannot say that the contribution is OR. One source was about arthurian legend, one source was about arthurian legend in the context of harry potter. Two other sources were about the hallows in HP and arthurian legend. The only credible dispute I see is that the material should be in a different section under a different name. There should be a section on Harry Potter and Arthurian legend. There's been books written all about this, by theologians, arthurian experts, etc. None of my contributions have been my own arguments, but each and every one has been other people's arguments. As I stated before, the section was a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. I never was synthesizing a new opinion or claim.--User:Lulurascal

I have read all your sources, and you have synthesized published material.

Arthurian hallows and HP as an arthurian story are different things.

Whether or not sources are reliable is not besides the point. It's of utmost importance on Misplaced Pages, as the "reliable sources" principle is one of the 5 official policies of Misplaced Pages that every contributor has to follow, and that are at the very origins of the Misplaced Pages project itself. The reliablity of the sources is NOT a "minor" issue.

I can accuse you of OR because it is absolutely true. OR is when you make claims that have not been backed up with reliable sources. That is what you did with the article.

One source was irrelevant, the other sources were (unreliable) fan theories. There is no dispute about the use of the "sources" in another section (except for the first). The problem is that the other sources won't be used on Misplaced Pages.

Then you'll write an article about HP and the arthurian legends, only citing decently published books (an not personal websites) by literary experts (and not mere fans), without making any reference to the Hallows since the use of the word in the HP word has yet to be explained. And of course you'll be careful not to state anything that hasn't been published by these reliable source: if you want to insists on the similarities between the hallows in arthurian legend and the objects of the 4 founders, then you'll have to find the opinion of a doctor of literature specialized in the arthurian legend saying so.

Even when you're using other fans arguments, it remains original research. "Publication" outside Misplaced Pages is not enough, the source must be reliable, that is, written by someone who has credential and is an authority on the subject, not merely fans doing intensive researches and speculations. Fansites are not proper publications.

You have synthesized a new opinion or claim, first by linking HP in general with arthurian legend, then by stating that hallows were used in arthurian legend, then by doing original research on the similarities between the horcruxes and the hallows from arthurian legends, in order to prove that Hallows in Deathly Hallows are the relics of the 4 founders. Folken de Fanel 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No comment, I think I've already made and proven my case. By the way, the next time you come across what you believe to be OR, I would suggest the following: In stead of reverting it, you should place this up:

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

,

rather than start a reverting war. You erased contributions from multiple Misplaced Pages editors that was non-vandalism, this is against wikipedian policy. You broke the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, you broke wikipedian policy, techniquely you could be blocked. It is not your place to do this, what is your place is to discuss and suggest peacefully what should be done to better the article, and if you feel the need, put up a tag that it is OR rather than continue to revert.--User:Lulurascal

You have only proven you are totally wrong.

Unless you haven't noticed, the "OR issue" had already been discussed. Before editing anything, I had explain my opinion and justified it with complete and precise references to the rules of Misplaced Pages.

We were only facing blatant original research, as it has been proven, so there was nothing else to discuss. What I did was reworking the article accoring to Misplaced Pages's quality and encyclopedic standards.

What you did was merely blind reverts, thus you and only you have started an edit war.

For all I know, it's not a crime to revert users' contribution if they do not meet Misplaced Pages's quality standard.

However you have chosen to start an edit war, without debating further about the relevance of your edits, thinking you were the absolute god of HP. But you're not. You also have to comply to the rules.

I'm not going to use these templates when I know what is original research and what has nothing to do on wikipedia. These templates are for editors which are not sure/who don't have the time to edit, and who warn people of possible OR. This was not the case here, as we were dealing with blatant OR.

Erasing contributions in article is certainly NOT against the rules of Misplaced Pages. It's the base of Misplaced Pages itself : anyone can edit anything, add/delete content. Your edits are not perfect, then CAN be changed and they have been. If you want your own website, then create it. But Misplaced Pages IS NOT YOURS. Everything must be done according to the rules, and OR is not tolerated by the rules.

You are the only one who broke the rules here: and you not only violated the WP:OR and WP:RS, you have nearly violated the 3RR rule and you have started an edit war, when you kept reverting my edits with no justification whatsoever.

Also, please do not threaten me of being blocked, first because it is not yours to say who should be blocked (you're not an admin), and second because this might be seen as an attempt to personally attack me.

I am an editor and a contributor here, so it's my place to edit the article. And I will edit, whether you like it or not, whether you concider your edits to be the best or not. Folken de Fanel 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Everything has to be done according to the rules" - would those be the rules you flagrantly broke? Michaelsanders 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Michaelsanders and Lulurascal are entirely responsible for it" - yes, when one person reverts the non-vandalism of several people (breaking the rules in the process), the others are to blame. Face the consequences, please. You are as much to blame, by breaking the rules. And this is not our research. It is the research of external critics. You think it's wrong? Cite an alternative critic who says something different. Michaelsanders 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I have reverted your original research. Even if not vandalism, original research is banned from Misplaced Pages, and the official policy concerning it has not been written for nothing.

2) Yes, the others are to blame, when they dumbly revert without justification and without answering any of the issues that have prompted one editor to revert this original research.

3) You face the conseuqences, please.

4) I have not broken any rules. I merely reverted original research, which, as per WP:OR, has nothing to do on wikipedia. However you have broken the rules, first in publishing original research without any reliable sources, and then beginning an edit war.

4) No other external reliable source/critics has made this research. Folken de Fanel 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Original research 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." If it is cited to a reliable source (i.e. not a chatsite, etc, which isn't reliable), it is not Original Research. And please don't talk about 'dumbly reverting' - it is either inaccurate (the reverts were not silent) or offensive (if you mean stupid).Michaelsanders 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But fansites and personal websites, and self-published theories are not reliable sources. You're merely saying that I'm perfectly right, since you have not used any reliable sources, execpt fan theories and theories from the editor himslef. And I'll talk about "dumbly reverting" as long as you'll refuse to justify any of your edits, and as long as you'll merely revert without discussing (in fact totally ignoring the discussion).Folken de Fanel 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear me, another right two and eight. Having scanned that lot quickly i would say:

• Please be less hasty in deleting controversial material from an article. Discuss it first, perhaps? Earlier today I had a look at this issue and posted some comments, but there was little here to debate except a bland assertion that the article contained OR.
• it is as accurate to say that this is published information from world respected sources as it is to say it is 'fan speculation'. It is only 'fan speculation' in the sense that an article written by an esteemed university literature professor who has spent his whole life reading shakespear, is also fan speculation. This term is being used in a derogatory sense, when it should imply that the information is more likely to be accurate than if not written by a 'fan'.
• It is entirely incorrect to claim that websites such as lexicon, mugglenet, etc are not peer reviewed. You might try to argue that the peers doing the reviewing are not qualified, but it is utterly absurd to say that they are not reviewed and challenged. Generally an article there also has an attached forum where anyone can post comments on the article in question. The articles themselves are based upon the contributions of everyone posting on the site. That means thousands of people have peer reviewed every piece. Any article which was found lacking would rapidly disappear or attract an opposing article. This is way and beyond the standard of review found in most printed journals.
• The reviewers are qualified. Having read a lot of this stuff by now, it is obvious that people posting there are amongst the foremost world experts in this subject. While I don't know their real names, it is clear that some even have genuine published printed books on the subject, but I also find it absurd that anyone developing an internet encyclopedia would refuse to acknowledge the reputation of established internet sites which are frankly world experts in a particular field. As mentioned above, the sites have been acknowledged as experts on the books by Rowling herself. There is one lovely quote re hp-lexicon from a few years ago now, where Rowling stated that sometimes if she does not have her own information handy, she may go into an internet cafe and check something on lexicon. They also claim to have created the timeline of events in the HP world which was adopted by Warner Bros. Warner do not acknowledge this, but apparently a mistake in HP's timeline managed to re-appear in the one published later by Warner bros on their film DVDs. Oops!
• As I said above, if the book was titled 'HP and the cat', we would have a section in the article saying where cats appear in the book. This situation is no different, except that 'hallow' is not a word in common usage. Well I have news: it is now. Several million English speaking people now either know, or want to know, what it means. We are not in the business of explaining what it could mean, any more than we would be in the business of speculating whether 'cat' might turn out to be Dumbledore's pet name for his sister. Having now found out from dictionaries and the like what hallow means, we re-publish it here. We also state where hallows exist in the books. Godric's sword is a hallow. Dumbledore says so. He uses a different word, but that is irrelevant. The item fits the description. Similarly, the cup and the locket. The objects are hallows, and we are entitled to say so.
• It is no more than a statement of fact that these objects not only fit the general description of 'hallows', as found in the only significant literary example anyone has yet presented, but even fit the precise form. It may be that Rowling has lots of tricks up her sleeve and may twist the meaning of hallow. We do not address that. Wiki publishes what is known, not what is speculated. So we explain what hallows are and where they appear in literature, and in the books. There already exist thousands of posts on internet sites discussing possible alternate meanings of 'hallow'. As I said, we are steering a straight course to the face value, established, meaning. Sandpiper 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers to Sandpiper:

• It had already been established by others that this was blatant original research. And I had throroughly and undisputably proven it, so it just needed reworking. By the way, I wrote my opinion here before doing anything.

• A litterary professor that is specialized in Shakespeare, and who talks about Shakespear, has infinitely more value that any fan making assumptions on one of his favorite fictional series...

• You are only writing assumptions here. Lexicon etc is reviewed by forum members and webmasters, however they are not supported by literary experts, researchers, doctors of literature etc. However die-hard these fans may be, their work remain fan work, and no matter how many times they've read the books, or how many hours they spent on the internet to find the significations of certains elaborated words in the books, they are not "professional researchers". Period. (and your personal opinion about these sites doesn't affect it in anyway)

• As I've said, "I'm sure that", etc = assumptions = not valid in anway. We don't care about what you think of the contributor of Lexicon, it doesn't change the fact that they're not professional researchers or doctors of literature.

• You make no sense. The 1st appearence of the word "Hallows" in the whole HP saga is currently in the title of book 7, so trying to guess its meaning, basing on assumptions an parallels established by the wiki editors themselves is original research, and doesn't have anything to do on wikipedia.

• So re-publish what the dictionaries say about Hallows and do nothing more. Godric's sword is not a hallow until it is written in a book.

You are making assumptions on the use of the word "hallow", and imposing a certain use among others, qualifying certain objects in the books as such, is already original research. Since JKR herself doesn't want to say what Hallows means (and it's not a question of pure language, since even native english-speakers doesn't clearly see what it means in the HP context), assuming a meaning and saying "this is a Hallow in HP" is blatant OR.

You say the item fits the description. It fits one of the possible description", but JKR has never said anywhere that Horcruxes or objects that may become Horcruxes are indeed the Hallows from book 7.

So what's the use in saying "this is a hallow", if you're deliberately using a word which signification is still unknown and highly debated ?

"Hallow" is the very word that is debated in the section, and it's really not smart to re-use it in the article by saying "this fits one of the description of hallow from arthurian mythology, so let's joyfully use the term" (and insidiously imposing one meaning concerning the title of book 7).

• All you say is original research and completely irrelevant. Assuming the objects/Horcruxes fit the definition and the forms of arthurian hallows is your own opinion that has never been supported by any reliable source.

The 4 founders of Hogwarts are in no way saints or gods, so you can't impose on their objects the word hallow. The relics of the 4 founders have nothing to do with the arthurian Holy Relics, in any case the connection has never been explicitely stated, except on controversial/dubious/purely unreliable sources such as fansites...

You are not familiar with the verifiability rule on Misplaced Pages. If JKR has never called these objects "hallows" (which we know to be an important word, now), it's not ours to say what the hallows are in HP.

You are trying to impose a meaning and a definition to the Hallows of book 7, and you have no right to do that. "Hallow" is not a mere synonym, we know it has a certain importance in the world of HP now, so we can't use this word lightly and just use it as a synonym, because it will only confuse the readers and spread biased interpretations of the title of book 7.Folken de Fanel 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that horcruxes are not hallows? I don't think anyone was saying that - what was there were cited comparisons between several 'relics' or hallows in the series so far, and Arthurian legend. Michaelsanders 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you keep saying that the relics of the 4 founders of Hogwarts are hallows, if you're only talking about hallows in the arthurian legends (of which HP, despite its possible influences, is no part) ? By the way, I'm not saying these objects won't be called "hallows" in book 7. I just say that currently, we don't know. Folken de Fanel 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the time has come that we really need to create a separate independent article for Hallow - which details both the verb aspects of the word (to consecrate or sanctify - as in Hallowed be Thy Name), and the noun aspects (as in the Holy Grail and other holy relics of the saints). That article can stand on its own merits, with reliable sources to all the examples of "historical hallows" that we can think of. That article can mention in a "Hallows in modern culture" section, Rowling's curious use of the word in the title of book 7, and how it has spawned much speculation, but carefully avoid actually speculating on what she meant by it. This article can then refer the reader to Hallow, and let the readers decide if they want to explore the meaningful depths of hallows in general, preferably without being tainted by editor's opinions and fanatic's speculations, and some alleged University Professor's opinions on whether Rowling was comparing her Horcruxes and the relics of some old wizards to the Holy grail and the relics of some old saints. I think it makes good sense to split off the "Meaning of Hallows" section to a general article on Hallows, and restrict the Hallows discussion here to Rowling's hallows. This action will also serve to split up the arguments and perhaps make them go away. Who could argue the veracity and reliability of an encyclopedic article on Hallows in a historical context, completely separate from "Deathly Hallows" in a fictional universe? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the most constructive proposition I've read today...Debating on the meaning of such a complex word only in an HP-perspective will inevitably lead to interpretations on hypothetical uses of the word in the plot of a book that is not released yet (and as you have said, hypothetical connections between arthurian legends and the word Hallows in book 7). To be really encyclopedic, this notion of "Hallows" should have its own article encompassing all the definitions the word has, and all the uses that were made of it. However I can't see the encyclopedic process in taking a certain word from the arthurian legend and lightly (and arbitrary) applying it to the HP world despite the controversy surrounding the word "hallows" in the title of book 7. Folken de Fanel 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to follow T-Dot's suggestion, and create an article on 'Hallows' or whatever, with all of this information in. And then, we can debate there how much should be put in, and we can debate how much should be referred to in here (I'd say that the fact that the Founder Relics are a form of hallows, but not necessarily the eponymous Hallows, is a must, and possibly some mention of the Arthurian citations).

On a slightly separate note, I really don't like the elitist attitude of 'Folken de Fanel' to the critical work on Harry Potter. One does not require a Doctorate to be an expert (or something like that you said - this is all getting very difficult to read). There are plenty of published writers on Harry Potter who aren't PhDs. And, in the age of the internet, you cannot ignore online sources. Clearly, we can't regard every piece of self-indulgent drivel online as a pre-eminant source, but nor can we discount it because it 'is online'. Better reasons for inclusion/non-inclusion need to be considered; or, at least, online sources should be discussed by editors on the discussion page, so they can come to a considered and non-Procrustean decision about whether the source merits use in the article. Michaelsanders 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And would Folken de Flannel please drop the attitude? That self-righteous and conceited tone is not helping. Michaelsanders 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler position

Now, I would be interested in discussion of whether the explanation of hallows ought to be inside the spoiler warning, beause I am minded that it ought. Rowling chose obscure words to set people a puzzle, and they may want warning that the meaning is going to be explained. Normally I am rather sceptical about spoiler warnings, because I feel people looking at articles about a book deserve to find what they are looking for, but they might not be expecting an explanation of the title. Sandpiper 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, to a point. If I hadn't read "...and the Half Blood Prince", I know I'd be peeved if I read the article and it explained who the title referred to (if I was the sort bothered by spoilers, that is). Still, the section is almost as much about what has already happened/background as it is about what will happen. Man, looks like I'm being indecisive today... --Reverend Loki 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article length

This article on a not-yet-existent book is significantly longer than the article on the first book in the series. It's just funny, that's all.

It is anticipated that this will be a much longer book than the first one. But while that's true it's not the real reason. I don't know if this book is unique in publishing history, I seem to remember Charle Dickens work was serialised and very much sought after at publication, but the technology, the timing and probably the type of book with frankly 'something for all the family', have all combined to make it rather extraordinary. Then again, the stuff here is still only 'a taster' of the things Rowling has said in 10 years while the books have been coming out. Despite moans about OR, this article has only a fraction (well practically nothing, really) of the analysis which has gone into guesssing how the plot of the last book will go. People would undoubtedly fight over inclusion of that stuff, and I don't really see the point of putting it in here since those interested can find other websites which will tell them. But wiki could have a page which explained the most likely course of the next book in great detail, based upon existing analysis available on the web. Its all out there, though generally badly organised. maybe some of those who are unhappy about this page do not realise just how much this particular book has benn analysed even before it is printed. There are indeed even published books discussing how the plot of this one will go. Personally, I hesitate to reference them on grounds of advertising (and I have enough to do without tracking them all down), but perhaps we should, and then include some of their content?

Similarly, some people get very upset (see above) when Rowling makes an allusion to a classical myth, and we explain it. Harry has a very bland name (though arguably it harks to 'prince Hal'), but people even argue when the names of characters are explained. This is pretty basic and mainstream analysis. Rowling chose the names, but didn't invent them, and they come with a traditional meaning which has nothing to do with her. As a good author who did literature, she knows all about it and chose the names for their meaning, but irrespective the meaning influences the reader who probably already has a vague idea about it. Choosing the name is part of creating the character's image in the eyes of the reader. Explaining the name is explaining our own culture as it relates to her work. I do sometimes wonder whether the reason for such objections has more to do with a deliberate aim of obscuring what we actually know about these books than some worry about technical rules. After all, this is a multi-billion pound/dollar work we are talking about here. Someone out there has a very big financial interest in everything written about these books. It does not improve an encyclopedia article to deliberately leave out obvious background information. Sandpiper 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class novel articles
• Top-importance novel articles
• WikiProject Novels articles