Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

Severous in flight

Near the end, snape jumps out a window and flew, repotedly like a bat. There has been much speculation to whether he could really turn into a bat, or he looked like one. I bring your attention to HP 4 (goblet), US version page 655, Harry says, "not unless he could turn himself into a bat" and Ron says " i woulnt put it past him" Do with this what you will.

Generally, if someone is described doing something like "a something" and that's it, it's not reasonable to assume they did something as dramatic as changing shape. Besides, even if it was a hint, surely Rowling would have revealed the whole thing by the end like she did everything else.
I just thought I'd mention that; such discussion here isn't going to make a difference, speculation doesn't have a place in the article anyway. Ville V. Kokko 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


There should really be a small section about the furor surrounding the release of the book. Perhaps in the "Reaction" section. Something similar, but not exactly like:

Fan reaction

Fans at a Sunnyvale, California Borders waiting in line for the midnight release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Like its predecessors, Deathly Hallows sparked an enthusiasm and anticipation in Harry Potter fandom, leading to record pre-release book orders, bookstore parties and events, long queues to buy the book, and record book sales that has been called "Pottermania" [1][2][3][4][5], "Potterpalooza"[6][7][8][9] or "Mugglefests".[10][11]


Something like that. Then discuss a tiny bit about what happens at various events (people dressing up, shops turning into various Diagon Alley stores, taking trains named the Hogwarts Express, book readings, fake Quidditch, etc.), and the record sales, media coverage, etc. And maybe another free image or two. Thoughts? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I think mostly relying on the links rather than doing a vast description of the phenomenon might be best.
If it got into the hype surrounding the release, though, one might discuss the publisher-distributed bookmarks [12] and include the long-disputed death list as the answer to bookmark #1. "Who dies?" is in fact the question a lot of people are trying to answer when they visit the page. Claudia 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No, a list of deaths would not fit in a "Pottermania" section. I'm referring to the big bookstore events and media coverage. Basically, the "buzz" and furor surrounding the release. --Ali'i 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, we really don't need this. Sales figures alone show how much anticipation and interest there has been for the book. Wikipedian06 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true... look at The Secret or The Da Vinci Code. Both sold huge numbers of books, but didn't have big release parties across the globe, and the anticipation didn't have people queueing up for weeks just to be the first to buy it. There is a difference. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Da Vinci Code wasn't anticipated, though! I have no idea what the heck "The Secret" is, but I doubt it was the last of a long line of books, either. You cannot compare the three. --FallenAngelII
Which is exactly what I wasn't doing. I was contrasting the three. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First Weekend Sales Figures

This is a link that contains information regarding the first weekend sales, which came up to a total of 72.1 million copies: (22:49, 26 July, 2007)

This news is worthy of recognition on the main wikipedia page for The Deathly Hallows as the figure of 72.1 million copies is a staggering achievement. This is under the assumption that the information in the article is accurate, which I believe is likely. This of course is a judgement that is in the hands of the moderators of the main page.

May I request that the sales figures are updated on the main page and that there is perhaps a sentence in one of the opening paragraphs highlighting the significance of this achievement.(23:05, 26 July, 2007)

Firstly, the number is already in the article (at the end of the "Sales" paragraph). Secondly, it should probably be seen as extremely dubious. See also the discussion in Archive 24 (here). IMO, this is most likely Nielsen's projection for the likely ultimate total number of hardback sales, based on the initial demand -- ie a complete guess. But this number for the sales so far is simply not credible -- there simply weren't that number of copies printed. Jheald 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the section about the sales in Archive 24.

Here is another link suggesting the same figure but this one is a bit confusing to me:

The reason I have put this link up is because it says that 72.1 million copies of the book in English have been sold, this got me thinking.

It is pretty much agreed I see that 72.1 million is dubious and most probably an estimate of a projection. The book has sold 11 million for sure in the first 24 hours in the UK and US, but what about the sales figures from other English speaking countries. It is interesting that a good number of the book were sold in Germany despite it only being available in English. Suppose that since the release of The Deathly Hallows that 25 million copies have been sold in the UK and the US since the release and that a further 15 million have been sold in other English speaking countries and also versions of the English book in countries where English is not the first language. If we were to add that to sales figures for the book in languages other than english, is it not possible that there could be roughly 50 - 80 million copies of the book sold already? Or has the book not been released yet in any of the translations; the month of October is the release date of the translations in German and French in those respective countries but what of the other countries? If is has been released in no other languages as of yet then the book may have sold between 30 - 40 million already?

I am now saying that yes the 72.1 million copies statement is dubious, but the information in that article got me thinking. What are your thoughts on the overall global sales figures for the book in all translations? Could you lead me to the data for how many copies were printed worldwide. Please pardon my ignorance. (23:37 July 26 2007)

I haven't been able to find anything about worldwide prints. It is a very high number indeed, as the previous book has "only" sold a grand totalt of 65 million copies, including translations. Not impossible, what with very populous English speaking countries out there, and the book selling well in non-English speaking countries, but the source does state that it is an initial estimate (though I've never seen the update). The 11 million in UK-US in the first 24 hours is the highest reliable number I've seen (we shouldn't do OR and start adding all sources up ourselves, that would be too errorprone). Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear that the 72.1 million figure can not possibly refer to first-day or first-week sales. It is either an outright error or miscommunication, or some sort of projection. The actual total is probably in the 13-20 million range, which is itself completely unprecedented. Also, the number reported for India is 170,000 (1.7 lakh), not 100,000; see An early estimate for Australia was 350,000; see,23599,22109295-2,00.html?from=public_rssFragesteller 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Article updated with these numbers. Jheald 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The book has not been released in--or even translated into--any other language than [varieties of] English. Tesseran 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And braille. Which is, admittedly, not going to impact the sales numbers. dmf 12:15, 30 July 2007

Bloomsbury reports first-day sales in Australia as 573,845, and Canadian sales as 930,711. Based on previous reports, it seems possible that the Canada figures refer to the first 48 hours instead of the first 24; see Fragesteller 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Those Bible Quotes

For the life of me, I cannot recall where the first of those quotes comes from. The second was one the graves of Harry's parents. Where is that first quote in the book? 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherever they are, I am not convinced they're notable enough to warrant such prominent placement in the article. Marc Shepherd 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It was written on Kendra Dumbledore's grave. focoma 13:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the bible quotes interesting and noteworthy. Rick Norwood 12:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it is interesting, along with all the other Christian influences in the book. It will be very interesting to see what the reaction is from the Hardcore "Potter turns our children evil, they's tampering with dark-sided stuff" Christian-Right. However, until there is a reaction in the press or from Christian groups, including a discussion of the Christian themes might be seen as OR. I guarantee that sooner or later (or maybe already) there will be a reference which can be used. It's quite an noteworthy aspect of the book, after all. Not only the explicit quotes, but also all that self-sacrifice, resurrection malarky. chgallen 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Found them. I did the epigraph section and that seems to have stuck. Does anyone think mentioning these biblical quotes will stick? The article can't discuss them until others do, but is mentioning them OK? Carcharoth 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On their own, I think they might look out of place. I'd wait until there is a source mentioning the Christian themes and then add it into a subsection of critical reception. chgallen 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are:

  • "Where your treasure is, there your heart shall be also." Matthew 6:21. Words of Jesus.
  • "The last enemy to be destroyed shall be death." I Corinthians 15:26. Words of the Apostle Paul.

Erudil 15:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows AfDs

These are all of the Potter-related articles that have been proposed for deletion in the last week. I list them here because the vast majority of them were created right after the book came out, and are related to its plot. Unless otherwise mentioned, these are all still open:

-Wafulz 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC) (+ any listed here - RHB - Talk 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

I find it remarkable how much support there is for keeping articles on very minor subjects. Wikipedia is supposedly not an indiscriminate list of information, but you wouldn't know it if you looked at some of these articles. Marc Shepherd 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you on that, though the vast majority of those keep voting are new, and dont appear to realise that even if they type in the name the redirect should work to the same section on the Minor characters page or wherever.

Those of us that were around pre-Deathly Hallows know that nearly every single one of the newly created articles needs deleting or merging, although there are some to keep. Is it still ok to make common-sense merges in articles at AFD? RHB - Talk 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the opening salvo in the long road on cleaning up Harry Potter articles. The next step should be to identify the incidental characters and places from all seven books and remove any entries on them. --Farix (Talk) 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Pottercruft is only second to Pokecruft. Vodak 12:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Other short-lived short articles related to the Deathly Hallows:

Erudil 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling's commentary on the epilogue

The name of Fred and George Weasley's joke shop is labelled incorrectly. The name is "Weasley's Wizard Wheezes". And the reason that Teddy Lupin is close to the Potters is because Teddy is Harrys godson.

Somebody removed the commentary because it isn't actually in the book, which is very fine and valid point. I reverted it, though, since it is what I'd consider to be interesting information for anyone reading the book. What do people think, should it be in or out of the article? Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I say keep. As you said, it is interesting for readers and probably invaluable for devoted fans. Many film articles discuss alternate endings; Rowling's extended epilogue could be viewed as just that. Algebra man 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC

I say it should stay, and I disagreed with whoever-deleted-it's argument that if Rowling had wanted readers to know this, it would have been included the book, and that it didn't fit in with this page, etc. Obviously Rowling did want to clarify things for readers, and this does fit in with this overall page, which covers many other aspects about the book's publication, sales, reviews, etc. PNW Raven 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Lilac, it should stay. It is about the book, from the author. --Cdman882 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted it. Now, I'm not arguing that it is not interesting information, on the contrary, I very much enjoy hearing an author talk about a work s/he just published, but it certainly is not "Plot." If anything, it should be moved out of the plot section. While the information that she provided is certainly interesting material, it is sadly not part of the book. Lots of people have bashed George Bush for giving signing-speeches that interpret a bill as something that it isn't in writing, so why should this be the same? For now, I'll agree to its presence in the article, but would hope that you see my point and at least move it out of the plot section. It just isn't the plot of the book, its stuff left open to interpretation by Rowling, and then clarified days later herself (which is sort of odd, but, again, not the book!). Jared (t)  01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to incorporate Rowling's commentary directly into the plot summary. This is the method that WP:WAF encourages. --Farix (Talk) 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
But it isn't the plot! It's extraneous material that is one suggestion as to what the epilogue could mean. Just because it comes from the author doesn't make it true to what the book suggests! Jared (t)  03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is, however, one of the very things that both WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT requires. If the author provides an explanation about a plot detail, why should it not be incorporated into the plot? --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Remember that this is not an article about the plot of a book; it is an article about a book. Our page on Frankenstein notes that Shelley once referred to the creature as "Adam". Our page on Stephen Dedalus notes that he is an alter-ego of the author, as well as observing the parallels with Hamlet and Telemachus, even though none of these could be supported with quotes directly from the text. The Foundation Series mentions Asimov's comments regarding the origins of the story. None of these are directly analogous; I merely point out that our focus is the work and its place in society, rather than those particular details of plot that are disclosed in the text. Tesseran 07:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand this, but the section it is in is clearly marked plot, and this is most certainly not part of the plot of this particular book, would you agree? It is the author's attempt at extending the story contained in the book with several references to other non-canonical events. Though interesting (and definitely deserving of a spot on this page, it should be moved out of the plot section to somewhere more suitable for the content it contains. Jared (t)  12:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Plot" section is meant to summarize what actually happens in the book. I think it's appropriate to rely on Rowling if she has said anything that clarifies the plot. But material she didn't use at all belongs somewhere else. It's quite common that authors develop more material than they are able to use. The plot summarizes what they actually wrote, not drafts and thoughts that they ultimately omitted. Marc Shepherd 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it is appropriate-- it is a canon part of the story, and simply fills in the gaps between the aftermath of the Battle of Hogwarts and the nineteen years later bit. I see no reason why a clarification of the epilogue shouldn't be allowed, as all she is doing is adding things that she didn't think would be appropriate as literature. Her post-epilogue comments are definitely still relevant to the plot of DH more than anything else --Lie! 14:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling has developed a lot of extra material that is not in the seven main books. While this material is canon (by some definitions) it is not part of the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Surely you are able to see the difference? Marc Shepherd 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, it might look like it's just "filling in the gaps" of the plot, but really, it is only extra material that Rowling herself didn't see fit to put in the book in the first place. Jared (t)  12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Canon is just one of those silly fan concepts. If we're going to have a plot summary, it should summarise the plot of the book. We can add Rowling's clarifications in a separate section and this will have the advantage of making it clear what is and is not in the book. --Tony Sidaway 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Named for?

Harry tells his son that he was "Named for" two headmasters. "Named for" is an Americanism; UK English would usually say "Named after". Is this a editing error in the UK edition? Apepper 10:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Named after could be used in the states too. --Lie! 13:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, named for means that the namesake is still living; named after is for when the namesake is dead. So in this instance named after is more appropriate. So... JKR made a mistake. chgallen 13:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
to copy exactly what JK Rowling has put is plagurism so it would be better to use the English version of named after on here I believe as wikipedia uses English UK when writing articles about some thing British as this is Delighted eyes 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe what Jo Rowling and Harry Potter intended to mean is that Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape are not really dead - their Spirits live on in the Afterlife, their legacy lives on at Hogwarts, their memory lives on in the hearts of many. Erudil 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but what I do know is that Rowling can't move a finger without someone speculating about what it means like this. Ville V. Kokko 10:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help - German wikipedia discusses the meaning of Elder Wand

There has been a heated discussion on the German wikipedia whether the term "Elder" shall be translated "Holunder" referring to the material "elder" the wand is made from or whether "elder" actually means "older" in the sense of "The Wand of the Older (Brother)" or "...the Oldest (Brother)". Or even "The Wand of the Mightiest Wizard" ("elder" in the sense of a clan chief). Coluld you please help us find a solution? Thanks a lot. Kind regards from abroad.--Winniwuk 10:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the double meaning is quite intended by Rowling, but speculation doesn't belong in Wikipedias of any language. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 10:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just pick any one and be consistent - I would not waste too much time over it. I get the impression it meant "older", but it doesn't really matter; the German-language translation will be released in a few months, which will have the appropriate translation anyway, so eventually, it will be correct. Neil  11:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would just be interesting to know how native speakers interpret the word "Elder". The discussion was no pure speculation but an attempt to "get the meaning" for the German article about the 7th HP book (as the double meaning is lost by translation...). Of course, the official German translation will be published in October, but as there were several mistakes in the German versions of the first six books, I guess the discussion about the "right translation" may go on. So, I am grateful for any helpful comment.--Winniwuk 11:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We know that the wand was made from elder wood, and since no other explanation is given, I'd have to guess that it is from this that the wand's name is derived. Faithlessthewonderboy 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that, until the official translation is out, just call it by the english name "Elder Wand". Just make a note of it ("Elder Wand" could refer to both the "Elder", or Elder wood it is made from; or "Elder"'s usage to indicate someone of a great age) and leave it --Lie! 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy is right... if you recall, in the children's story in The Tales of Beetle the Bard, didn't Death make the Elder Wand out of an elder tree?? Seems like that clears the matter up right there. --NetherlandishYankee 14:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure it means that it was made of Elder wood but it is also a pun Delighted eyes 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Doe vs. deer

The mysterious patronus in the forest should be called "doe", as in the book. Just saying "deer" is confusing.

Furthermore, it should be explained that a doe is the female of stag, because it is rather important to the plot. There's no satisfactory article about this meaning of "doe" in Wikipedia, and there shouldn't be (it's dictionary material). Still, it is useful for readers whose mother tongue is not English and who don't know what a doe is.

Correct me if i am wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to doe with a link to Wiktionary. However, I really don't think we should be that worried about non-fluent English readers because that will severely limit the vocabulary we can use. --Farix (Talk) 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Wiktionary solution is OK.
I am not a native English speaker myself, but i daresay that i learned it pretty well. "Doe" was one of two words that i had to check in the dictionary when i read Deathly Hallows (the other one was "kip".) English Wikipedia doesn't need to be too limited in its vocabulary (that's what Simple English is for), but i believe that the community can find a nice middle path without too much bureaucracy. One can't ignore the fact that a lot of non-native speakers read the the English WP...
(Oh, and i write non-capital i intentionally.) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also added a parenthetical comment, to the later mention, explaining that a doe is a female deer, and the more important point that Snape's patronus became a doe because he loved Lily and a doe was the form that Lily Potter's patronus took. As to why her patronus was a doe, well, remember that Harry's patronus is a stag because his father's animagus form was a stag. Doe-stag. Lily-James. Well, it seems obvious, but I don't think the origin of Lily's patronus is confirmed anywhere in the books. I expect someone will one day write an abtruse academic paper about Snape being Harry's substitute mother, watching over him... :-) Carcharoth 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses UK English when writing about some thing UKish see Wikipedia:Manual of style however, thereis no reason to make it difficult Delighted eyes 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Realized vs. Realised

I understand that we are following British conventions of spelling and punctuation in this article, but here's an interesting question. Where the article contains a direct quote from a review in an American newspaper (The Christian Science Monitor), and the writer wrote the word "realized" (American spelling), should the article maintain the American spelling within the direct quote, or should the spelling be switched over to the British "realised" to match the rest of the article? GiveItSomeThought 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote should keep its spelling. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, you can put a (sic) after it if they originally misspelled the word. But since the author of the quote didn't misspell it, that wouldn't apply. --Farix (Talk) 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, keep the spelling. As long as it's correct, keep whatever the author wrote, be it in American English or British English. Faithlessthewonderboy 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Britished published works use British spelling conventions, American published works use American spellings. Even the American versions of Book 7 use American spellings. The consensus has been to use British spellings in Wikipedia on topics that are primarily British (eg: Harry Potter), and American spellings on topics that are primarily American. Of course when quoting anyone, the spelling they use, right or wrong, American or British, should be quoted. Sic is only used when the spelling is clearly incorrect - eg: coulour (sic) in the place of color or colour. We need not use sic when American spellings are used by Americans in American analyses or commentary on British works, any more than I would have to use sic if I mentioned the "color" of Harry's eyes on this talk page. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

King's Cross station

I haven't had a chance to look through the talk page archives yet, but I find the following sentence in the plot summary too simplistic: "Harry awakens in a place resembling King's Cross Station." - in fact, he awakes in an empty, white nothingness and finds himself naked, and then proceeds to imagine his surroundings into existence (Dumbledore, or rather the Dumbledore-construct in Harry's mind, says as much when he says "This is, as they say, your party"). I won't get into all the afterlife and "passing on" and "waiting room" symbolism in that chapter, but the current treatment is too simplistic. I suggest extending it slightly to: "Harry awakens in a strange otherworldy state. Silence is followed by Harry's senses gradually returning until he perceives that he is lying on a flat, blank white floor, surrounded by a bright mist, later described as an unformed nothingness. As the experience progresses, Harry sees his surroundings seemingly "invent themselves before his eyes", eventually coming to resemble an empty King's Cross Station." - I think that gives a better flavour of what has happened at this crucial point. Otherwise, people reading the article might think Harry has awoken in a different place, a real place looking like King's Cross Station. It is immediately obvious in the book that this is taking place in some 'otherworld' or his 'mind', so that is what the summary should make clear. The resemblance to King's Cross is actually not that important. I will edit the article to the version I have suggested above, which can be discussed here. Carcharoth 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

After a few changes, and other editors changing things without using edit summaries, I've removed all references to King's Cross - the resemblance is too difficult to explain in the limited space, and focused instead on the important point - Harry does not know whether he is alive or dead. This chapter is crucial to the whole book though, so expect people to try and expand and explain more of the stuff in this chapter, but watch out for speculation. Carcharoth 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, and hopefully it'll stay out this time. But so far, it has always been re-inserted every time it's been deleted (I think I've deleted it twice, myself, and rewritten it at least as many times). Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 06:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Epigraph section

With this edit I've added a section about the book's epigraphs, which is a nice jumping off point for the readers of this article into the wider areas of literary culture and history. I originally quoted a nice blog post, but it got removed as not being a reliable source (well, it probably is reliable, but many blogs are not, so a blanket ban on blogs is better). For the record, as it is an interesting post and it is entirely possible that later, more reliable sources, will write about the epigraphs, the removed material is: "Breakfast with Pandora - blog on ancient Greek and comparative mythology, commenting on the background to the Aeschylus quotation." Carcharoth 00:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

More here. As these are blogs, they shouldn't be used in the article, but I'm recording them on the talk page for future reference. Carcharoth 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Time between Philosopher's Stone and Deathly Hollows

I'm bringing this to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. Another user has recently added the fact that there was ten years between the release of the first and last book. I don't see the relevance of this information, and so deleted it, but it was reverted by the user who originally added it. I would just like to get their reasoning behind why this information is pertinent to the article, and hear what others have to say as well. Thanks. :] Faithlessthewonderboy 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is part of what I look for in a well-written article about a book to keep it grounded in the real world. Who wrote the book. What the book was about. When the book was published. If it is part of a series, a short bit on how it relates to other books in the series. Where it was written and published, and so on. I think part of the problem is that people are (bizzarely) focussing on the number 10. That has no meaning whatsoever. If it had been 8 years, or 12 years, I would still be arguing that the information should be presented in the article, especially as this is the last in the series. Rowling herself has been quoted as talking about the 17 years she has spent on this series - it is the information about the length of time that I want to see added to the article. Another example is saying upfront that the book's author is British and that the book publishers are based in the UK, USA and Canada. People can find all this information by clicking through to other articles, but a balance needs to be struck between expecting the reader to continually run off to other article to find basic information, and weaving that information into this article, keeping it more self-contained. I'll add more examples to the article to show you what I mean by this. Carcharoth 02:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, it would belong directly in the Harry Potter article, but let's keep it in this article as well as something likely to be of general interest to all readers, without violating the WP:NOT policies.Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 06:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Duplicating information across article is sometimes necessary. The series article (Harry Potter) contains lots of information that is duplicated in the articles on the individual books. Getting the balance right is difficult, but my rule of thumb is if it is directly relevant and informative for an article (I find it helps to ask if a reader is likely to ask a question about the material being added), mention it there. Keep background details a click away. Carcharoth 09:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot structure

Why are there subsections here? They do not seem to feature in the other books' plot summaries. Simply south 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times. First of all, the plot is rather complex. Second, the subsections make it a bit easier to read; every time someone made an edit eliminating the subsectinos, it was an ugly wall of text. I also seem to recall some suggestion that some of the longer plot summaries in the articles should also be given subsections, which I think would be a good idea. - Ugliness Man 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Simply south 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It actually started off as a way to make it easier to copyedit the plot summery. It was kept in because of reasons Ugliness Man stated. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information about post-HP7 life?

The linked MSNBC article states that Ron is an Auror, but an AP article [13] (found on CNN today) states that Ron joins George at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. Since Rowling apparently made both claims, which one takes precedent? - 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For now, we should note the conflict without trying to decide. The book has been out for only 8½ days. Rowling will have years to clear this stuff up. Marc Shepherd 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure if we should refer to it as a "conflict" in the article, because it's also possible that both are true. He might be an Auror as his primary profession, but help with his brother's shop in his free time. People in real life have multiple jobs and/or hobbies, there's no reason to assume that Ron can't do both. - Ugliness Man 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
When I read the articles that said these two things, I interpreted it as Ron helped George with WWW relatively soon after the battle of Hogwarts, but this was not a permanent arrangement and eventually he became an auror. The One 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Another good point, since there's no reason to assume anyone would only have one single profession in the span of 19 years (and beyond the epilogue). - Ugliness Man 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say Harry went back to finish his NEWT? I can't find that in any of the references. Rowling gives their careers, but she never said that they went back to school. Aloha princess 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazi similarities

I couldn't help but notice striking similarities between Voldemort,Death Eaters,and their beleifs and Hitler, Nazis and their beleifs.For instance both Voldemort and Hitler were didn't fit their own standards.Voldemort was looking for only pure-blood wizards while he was half-blood and Hitler was looking for Aryans when he was short w/ brown hair and eyes.Also where Voldemort blamed muggle-born wizards for all the world's problems, Hitler blamed the Jewish people. There are more similarities, but I won't point them out right now. Dinonerd 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK... So what's your point? Are you trying to say we should include this in the article? If so please look here Asyndeton 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this should be included in the article. If the reader wants to see Russian water tentacles, they're going to see Russian water tentacles. This doesn't mean there are Russian water tentacles in the book. -FeralDruid 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting obsevation which probably comes under the bit where Rowling says she likes the other world to run concurent which is interesting as i don't remember anyone like that existing on the time scale of the book and the time Harry Potter is set in. Is she predicting world war three or is there someone she is thinking of. It would be interesting to know. Has she ever said anything? Delighted eyes 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Rowling did say, in her NBC TV interview, that the Riddle-dominated Ministry of Magic is intended to be reminiscent of the Third Reich, but that is not all that it is. Erudil 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In an MSNBC interview last week someone asked her that question, and she said that it was somewhat of a political metaphor. [14] is the link. Ctrl+F "ethnic cleansing" for the specific questions. I think it might warrant a mention in the article. i said 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I noticed the invisable comment about the simpsons in the epiloge. I didn't bother to delete it as I mainly proof read. In future I will proof read invisable comments to if it is prefered.Delighted eyes 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. Perhaps you're referring to something that has now been removed from the article? Lilac Soul (talk 09:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep... [15]. --Ali'i 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical Reception Section

I have deleted a couple of reviews in the section in accordance with the {{quotefarm}} tag. I know that doesn't help a great deal, but we don't need that many anyway. I tried to have a balance. I left in the Christian one *coughs* (As it is the only review currently in the article that borders on negative), aswell as for a negative and positive balance I tried for a nationality balance. There are now 2 American reviews, 1 British, and the Christian review is apparently international. ScarianTalk 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Christian" one is, apparently, a pretty good source. Try and read the entry on the magazine, it seems to be a major publication that strives for a non-preaching POV, despite the magazine's name. So it may be fine to leave it in there. Also, the review is in no way particularly based on anything Christian. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 06:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Have told user what I meant. I was using the "Christian one" as a name simply to identify the review, I was NOT making any sort of assumptions. ScarianTalk 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if I came across implying that Scarian did anything wrong or if my comment could in any way be seen as offensive. I assure both Scarian and everyone reading these comments that this was not my intention. If anybody wishes to discuss my comment with me, you're more than welcome to come and leave a comment on my talkpage. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, for the record, I think Scarian's decision to shorten the critical reviews section was a good one. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Christian Science Monitor is an internationally-respected newspaper, and long-time winner of many Pulitzer and National Press Club prizes and awards, among many others. GiveItSomeThought 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

in the end

what job does harry, ginny, ron and hermione get because it dose not say in the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The book doesn't say. Neither did Rowling, to our knowledge. Unless she posts the answer on her web site or blurts it out in an interview, we cannot say. You might want to take it up at a fan Fiction site though - I'm sure they are just bursting to speculate. As Rowling said some time back, she was sure the speculation and discussions would continue long after Book 7 was published. Just not on the Wikipedia. Thanks for your inquiry though - we are all flattered that you believe we have the inside scoop on that. We don't. Sorry. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
JK confirmed all their jobs... it's in the article. chgallen 10:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well, there you go then.  Done. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


I wrote the following section:

The last sentence of the epilogue, All was well, may be an allusion to the Death is nothing at all poem by Henry Scott Holland whose last line is All is well [16]

Somebody just erased it, claiming that "allusions are not that relevant to the article". People, do you think that this section should be erased?

I didn't erase it but I do think that it could be just speculation... which, you know isn't allowed. But it was a good try, though. Speculating the link between the two, I mean. ScarianTalk 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MuggleNet is not a reliable source. Faithlessthewonderboy 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, allusions are excellent to know when discussing a work in terms of literature, especially if the allusions are clear and obvious. However, this article is just a little too new I think to be writing something so speculative. Perhaps in months or years to come, if journal articles or studies on DH are published, a review of those could be included. But for now, this article needs to stick to less literary analysis, more factual analysis. Stanselmdoc 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed it earlier. The simple reason for removing it is obvious: the citation supplied only demonstrates that it is the opinion of the writer of an editorial on a website that the last line of this novel is an allusion to the last line of a poem by Henry Scott Holland. I've no idea who this editorial writer is. Why does his opinion merit writing a whole section? --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Seach the poem on Google, and some pages have the last line as "all was well", while others have more text added on. I don't know which is the correct one, but as "all was well" may not even be the last line, it's better not to make a whole section on it. Aloha princess 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me allusions are all opinion anyway, aren't they? Because three words appeared in a poem somewhere doesn't mean that poem influenced the author, or that the book refers to the poem, eh? Unless Rowling herself comments on what books, stories, poems, etc., influenced her writing, I don't see that it's important enough to even mention. -FeralDruid 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with citing opinion, provided it comes from a reliable source. While I wouldn't be quite as dismissive of MuggleNet as the commenter upthread, in this case I agree that the source isn't reliable. Marc Shepherd 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


You know there should really be warnings before the plot. I read the plot and it totally spoiled the book for me.--Ice66Breaker 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd say that's not a big deal. Anyone that's actually capable of reading the books would've understood the box at the top of the article, the box at the top of the talk page, what the word "plot" means, and realized within the first five paragraphs or so that it wasn't what was on the back of the book --Longing.... 21:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that you didn't want the book spoiled for you? If so, WHY WOULD YOU READ THE PLOT SUMMARY ON WIKIPEDIA!? Faithlessthewonderboy 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The warning at the top of the article says:
{{Current fiction}}
After reading this, how could you be surprised that the plot was disclosed? Marc Shepherd 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, one problem that I encountered was reverting vandalism (It summarised the plot in the wrong place and was meant to annoy user's) that gave the plot away entirely inappropriately... I accidentally read a few words and was deeply saddened. I think the warnings should be there just in case of accidentally laying eyes upon the plot. It is only fair for user's because this is such a popular book. ScarianTalk 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll get right on adding a tag. Oh wait, there's already one there. Problem solved :D --Longing.... 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that vandals who do drive-by shout-out spoilers in the article should leave a spoiler warning that their vandalism may contain spoilers, so when you are on a vandalism reversion hunt you will avert your eyes? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"unconfirmed" Deaths

Before the official release of the book, I was one of many editors battling against people who insisted that leaked copies were "verifiable" sources for details to be included in the article. Now that the book has been released, we have a similar problem with verifiability. Even though the book is out, it appears that (according to some editors, at least) we can't mention anything that happens in the book itself unless it's explicitly mentioned in a source other than the book, such as a news website. This appears to be the reason that the deaths of Bellatrix and Dolohov were removed in a recent edit. For what it's worth, here are the relevant passages from the book, found in Chapter 36 "The Flaw in the Plan" (emphasis mine):

Harry saw Yaxley slammed to the floor by George and Lee Jordan, saw Dolohov fall with a scream at Flitwick's hands, saw Walden Macnair thrown across the room by Hagrid, hit the stone wall opposite, and slide unconscious to the ground.
"You - will - never - touch - our - children - again!" screamed Mrs. Weasley.
Bellatrix laughed the same exhilarated laugh her cousin Sirius had given as he toppled backward through the veil, and suddenly Harry knew what was going to happen before it did.
Molly's curse soared beneath Bellatrix's constreched arm and hit her squarely in the chest, directly over her heart.
Bellatrix's gloating smile froze, her eyes seemd to bulge: For the tiniest space of time she knew what had happened, and then she toppled, and the watching crowd roared, and Voldemord screamed.
Harry felt as though he turned into slow motion: he saw McGonagall, Kingsley and Slughorn blasted backward, flailing and writhing through the air, as Voldemort's fury at the fall of his last, best leutenant exploded with the force of a bomb, Voldemort raised his wand and directed it at Molly Weasley.

I'm not entirely certain if Dolohov was killed in that first part, so more research is needed, but I don't think Bellatrix's death was anywhere near as ambiguous as some have made it out to be. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to "cite" this text without what some might consider to be copyvio. Any suggestions? - Ugliness Man 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A book is a verifiable and good source. End of story. Whether the book was "leaked" or not, or whether a news story has covered it or not, the information is out there and it is able to be sourced. A leaked book, I can see, may be questionable, but that's besides the point now. Let's just look at policy as it is. If a source is available and is reputable, then by all means use it. A book is just that. Just please source your statements.
It is not "original research" to state the obvious, and it is obvious that Bellatrix dies. I agree Dolohov's fate is slightly ambiguous. As he is a minor character by comparison, the synopsis need not mention his fate at all. Marc Shepherd 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The "leaked book" issue is irrelevant now, since copies of undoubted authenticity are plentiful.
The only reason I mentioned the leaked book is that part of the verifiability problem was that, even if a leaked copy in question was proven to be authentic, it would still be copyvio to provide a link to a copy of it as a "source" for the sake of citation. My point is, now that the book is out, it's all well and good to say that the book is a verifiable and good source, but how do we cite it? How do we provide a citation link to text of the book, within Wikipedia's guidelines, if said text isn't currently legally reproduced on a reputable website? Also keep in mind that if we don't provide a link to the book's text as a citation, and simply say that "it's in the book" in some way, this means that anyone who doesn't own a copy of the book is not able to verify the citation. Once again, this is why I referred to the past issue of the leaked copies, verifiability was not simply a matter of whether or not any of the leaked copies were authentic, it was a matter of whether or not the average Wikipedian had access to the text to verify the various things being claimed. That issue still exists, since it is not reasonable to assume that there is a copy of the book readily available to every person who might be reading this article. - Ugliness Man 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You may want to do something like this to source. Make a blanket source of the book in the citations section, and then with <ref> tags, source individual statements as "Deathly Hallows, ##" with a page number. Just to appease those who feel that there is no source, ya know. Jared (t)  00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if someone debates a fact and the book itself is the only available source, it's still a valid source, I understand that now that you've explained it. However, if a page number is given for a citation, it will have to specify which printing of the book is being used (and whenever possible, the UK/international version would be preferable)... I recall that during the whole "Snape kills Dumbledore, page 606" thing, when I got my copy of the book it was a different page number (I'm pretty sure that 606 was from the Scholastic USA version, as I'm in Canada and always read the UK/international versions). - Ugliness Man 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
For citation purposes, it doesn't matter that some Wikipedia readers may not have the book. Like any citation, you are merely illustrating where you got the information. Generally, one does not cite statements in a plot summary. Marc Shepherd 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts

This battle was too complex for us to consolidate into one tiny section.

I suggest that the entire Battle of Hogwarts be seperated from this page and include more information such as:

  • Forces involved before and after including spiders, the 2 giants, centuars and house elves.
  • Who in Harry's life stayed to fight.
  • Who sustained a loss including death and injury.
  • The moments after Harry was transported before the school by Voldemort/Hagrid.
  • Stratigies used by the people who were involved in the fighting such as Neville sneaking around the school using plants and Trewleny using her crystal balls.

I also suggest that Kings Cross should not be fully discussed in the Battle of Hogwarts instead leave that on the current page only expand it.

Deathly Hallows is not even the longest of the Harry Potter books. That distinction goes to Order of the Phoenix, and we managed to cover the plot of that book on one page. It can easily be done here, too. Marc Shepherd 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I.P. Comment

I'm not really sure how this is organized. But why does this article have a detailed plot summary? It's seems like the only thing that would come out of it is spoiling the book for people. If they want to know the plot, they should read the damn thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia has similar plot summaries for many works of fiction that it covers. Wikipedia does not omit information just because some people will be sorry they read it. Marc Shepherd 17:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I do, however, believe that the plot summary should be somewhat shorter still. But it keeps getting expanded. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 19:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be sweet and concise. Freshly well-read user's look at the Plot summary and think to themselves, "Hey! They left that bit out! I gotta stick it back in quick!" *sighs* I'm doing 500 things at once so I can't do it... I'm losing my hair over Wikipedia... how queer. ScarianTalk 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sales Figure Outdated?

In a "provisional" tally, sales of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" have been reported [17] as 72.1 million, worldwide. Though provisional, this number is close to double the sales total currently listed in the sidebar of this Wikipedia entry.

This sales tally was released by Nielsen BookScan. I have searched, without success, for an updated final tally, without "provisional" status. Perhaps somebody will have better luck confirming this number. Even if the final number is a bit lower, it will likely be higher than the 44 million figure now listed in the sidebar, especially since a few more copies have doubtless been sold since then.

[:-)] Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)