Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

Spelling Mistakes

under the category Plot, the work artifact is spelled wrong, last sentence "Scrimgeour claims it is a historical artefact." Plot

Leaving the Dursleys Lord Voldemort and his followers plot to ambush Harry Potter, who is about to leave Privet Drive shortly before his protection at the Dursleys' home expires. Order members escort Harry using six Harry-lookalike decoys, but the real Harry is identified en route and attacked by Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Harry manages to escape to The Burrow, although Hedwig and Mad-Eye Moody are killed.

A few days later, Minister of Magic, Rufus Scrimgeour arrives to give Harry, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger bequests from Albus Dumbledore's will: Ron is given Dumbledore's Deluminator, Hermione receives a book of fairy tales, and Harry inherits Godric Gryffindor's sword and the Snitch he caught in his first ever Quidditch match. The sword is withheld, however; Scrimgeour claims it is a historical artefact that did not belong to Dumbledore.

It's not an error but an acceptable way of spelling the word in British English. David Underdown 10:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference in Editions

What the differences in the adult and children's editions?

From what I've read, the only difference is the cover art for each book (apparently for maketing purposes). The text is the same. PNW Raven 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I work in a book store and I get asked this nearly every day. PNW Raven is correct, the only difference is the dust jacket, and the fact that with the children's edition the cover under the dust jacket is identical to the dust jacket, whereas with the adult edition the cover is plain black with the title in gold print on the spine. If you're at a book store and see the two together, just turn to any random page in both editions and you'll see their exactly the same. The only difference in actual text between editions that has ever occured in the series is differences between the UK/international edition and the US edition. - Ugliness Man 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone with the Adult version remember if they say f-ing or fucking, because that would be one of possible changes i can think of. CHANDLERtalk 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oy, thou hast a Dirty Mind. Nay, there is no obscene language in the adult version. The only difference is the cover Art. Erudil 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
When you take part in a conversation, it's a good idea to actually read what's been said to see if your question has been answered before you ask the question. Again, as Erudil reiterated above, there is no difference in the text between the children and adult versions. I don't know how many more ways I can phrase that before it becomes plain. It was the adult version that I purchased and read, and they said "effing" or however it was spelled. There were no profanities, and the only "almost" profanities (Ron getting cut off while saying "Merlin's saggy left-" for example) are the exact same in both editions. - Ugliness Man 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths?

Is there an article on the deaths (and/or injuries) of characters in the Harry Potter story/stories. I was losing track in this last book, and wondered if there was an article on the topic? Bytebear 04:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, there was an article showing who kill who in the final Battle of Hogwarts, and a list of who killed what horcrux and how, but they were both removed. why were they taken down?

Cover Art In that cover art, where are they supposed to be? Not saying this needs to be referenced on the page, but it should be clarified. The other edition clearly shows Gringotts, but this one is puzzling. 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is in the great hall at Hogwards just at sunrise. Bytebear 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The cover in question is the American Scholastic cover. The Gringott's cover is the UK/internatinal children's edition cover. I, too, was intrigued by the US cover when it was released some weeks before the book. My theory was that it was some sort of stadium, and the shadows in teh background were Death Eaters and/or dementors, and that Harry and Voldemort were both reaching for something. However, after reading the final chapters I'm inclined tos ay that Bytebear is right, since that's the only scene in the book that this image could possibly be portraying. It is sunrise, some of the shadows in the background may be Death Eaters, but everyone else involved in the battle is there as well. They're in the Great Hall, and the ceiling is enchanted, as always, to resemble the sky, which is why I thought they were in an open area. H and V are not reaching for something simultaneously, Voldy has just been blasted backwards by his backfired curse, and the wand has just flung from his hand, which is what Harry is reaching for.
Incidentally, I'm not entirely surprised by how wrong my theory was, I was sure that the strange little creature on the UK/international children's cover was either Dobby or Kreacher, but it turned out to be a Goblin rather than a house-elf. You have to give the cover artists credit for keeping us guessing. - Ugliness Man 05:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I read it in an interview with JKR, the cover (if you open the book completely you'll see it), is the final battle between Harry and Voldemort in the Great Hall, while the rest of the wizards and the witches of the battle watch. DorTheScripter 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PoA film

Rowling has long since said that the PoA filmmakers had put in stuff that was foreshadowing the seventh book. Now I KNOW that this isn't the place for a general discussion, but is it relevant to mention it in this article? Furthermore, what was it? I can't think for the life of me what it may have been. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless WB or JKR publicly says something, not worthy of mention in this article. Worthy of hours and hours of debate on some fan sites (I'm sure you are aware).Bryanc 00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There are two things that occur to me; at one point Ginny looks disapprovingly towards Chang - implying she's still "interested" in Harry; this wasn't in the book. The other thing is JKR has said that originally the film script excluded Kreature, but she told them that if they missed him out they'd have real problems in book 7. I agree that this kind of stuff belongs in POA (film)'s article - if that.Apepper 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kreacher wasnt in PoA. CHANDLERtalk 15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Apepper was referring to the fifth film, as neither Kreacher nor Cho appeared in the third one. Personally, I think Rowling was referring to Fred or George's line in the hospital wing after Harry's fallen off his broom because of the dementors -- they say something like "let's see how you'd look if we threw you off the Astronomy tower"; Rowling said it foreshadowed stuff in the last two books, not just the final book, so I think this made her shiver because of Dumbledore's death. I do hope she says what it was some time soon. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right! I'd just seen OOP. Apepper 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, the foreshadowing in the third film that JKR approved of was the budding romance between Ron and Hermione. IIRC, in the film, when the trio think they're hearing Buckbeak being beheaded, Hermione clutches Ron (not Harry!) and sobs on his shoulder. —Angr 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the taboo

Let it be clear for the record what the spell "The Taboo" does.

When the name is spoken it breaks any protective magics the speaker may have cast around them. According to the book, that's all it does.

It does NOT summon Death Eaters. It does NOT summon Snatchers.

I have to keep re-editing this portion of the summary because this is misrepresented.

Don't change such details unless you understand the mechanics of the story.

Bryanc 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't summon anyone, but it causes a "disturbance", that might be the correct way to mention it. i said 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it must "summon" somebody because in the book when the trio are escaping the Weasley wedding they have no protection charms around them, yet later on in the book it is said that Ron realizes the reason the Death Eaters found them in the cafe was because they said Voldemort's name. Therefore it can't just break protective charms around the house.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I objected only to the way it was repeatedly worded in the article, which was inaccurate. Perhaps "disturbance" as iblack suggests is the best way to refer to it (if needed), since it's not definite in the books. I think the more vague mention (as is used now) is more fitted to this article. -- Bryanc 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh...your right. I hadn't seen the new wording- that is a better way to put it. I agree.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that the "Taboo" can be cast by the Ministry only, and that it alert the location of the speaker. If it breaks protective charms and spells, I don't know. But surely it has a notifying abillity, or the Snatchers won't be able to track them so fast. DorTheScripter 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Dor, it is clearly stated in the book that the Taboo indeed causes protective charms to be broken. Ron tells Harry this shortly after his return from Shell Cottage. Jmickelin 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
After checking the book closely, I find this:
"but the name’s been jinxed. Harry, that’s how they track people! Using his name breaks protective enchantments, it causes some kind of magical disturbance"
Ron says that, I think it makes clear what it does. DorTheScripter 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how come Ron, Harry, and Hermione weren't caught when they said Voldemort's name when they were hiding in the Blacks' house. Was it because of the secret-keeper charm? Newboy123 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as you will recall, there were soon afterwards observed some Death Eaters (or perhaps Ministry Officials, or both) stationed at the curb just outside of the hidden Black House at No. 12 Grimmauld Place. Apparently they were staring at the crease between the townhouses (sort of like connected condominiums) at 11 and 13 Grimmauld Place, just waiting for someone to appear outside of the zone of protection or whatever. Every once and a while it seemed they cought a glimpse of something, perhaps an elbow, or a pant leg, or bit of cloak. They finally caught their quarry during the botched emergency-apparation on the porch. Apparently the bad guys knew the trio were there, at least sometimes, but could not get to them as long as they were inside the protective charm. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Absence from the book

Various of the minor and passing characters in the book are advised to flee abroad, and it is clear from the previous books that there are various regions/states (in the sense that we would use them).

Why was no action from outside the UK taken against Lord Voldemort? Jackiespeel 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As explained in the book, Grindlewald's exploits where not well known in Britain, because he primarily operated elsewhere. Similiarly, Voldemort operated primarily in the UK, and as such, his actions where not likely well known in other regions. -- Bryanc 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But eventually Voldemort and associates would probably have had an impact "elsewhere": they were eliminating those whom they saw as undesirable, giving Hogwarts a new direction etc.

"As it is" there will be a certain amount of "normal service will be resumed as soon as possible" activity after the end of HPatDH - and possibly discussions on an international(-equivalent) basis on how future situations of a similar nature should be resolved.

Best left to the "theoretical eighth book" and post-Deathly Hallows fanfic writers. Jackiespeel 14:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The rise of Voldemort parallels Nazi Germany. Voldemort was killed much sooner than Hitler, and if the parallels would have continued, it would have taken an attack on another country before other countries became involved. Bytebear 02:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually people usually equate Grindelwald's campaign with Hitler (it's on the mainland for one thing), but yes, I doubt Voldemort would be content with staying within tiny little Britain.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about that 'thing' whimpering on the floor?

There was a whimpering thing on the floor of kings cross station. was this the horxrux within Harry? -- Lachias69.141.22.253 05:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore explains it to Harry in that chapter, it's part of Voldemort, and according to one of the answers that JK gave in a webchat, it's in that form that he will remain in death (as opposed to becoming a ghost)[1].

I think its the Horcrux that was killed by Voldemort. It was the image of Harry as a baby and was killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Nope. As explained by Dumbledore in the book: it was a physical manifestation of Voldemort's soul-fragment, which was planted into Harry when Voldemort attacked the infant Harry and Voldemort was all but destroyed. Not a Horcrux (an object that contains a soul fragment) per se, but the soul fragment itself, just physically manifested. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Physically manifested"? Well, about as physical as Harry and Dumbledore are in that scene. Remember that Dumbledore as good as says that that scene is all taking place in Harry's mind. "It's your party", and the closing comment, which I can't remember, which leaves Harry wondering if this was just something that took place in his mind while he was unconcious. Carcharoth 10:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh very well. Perhaps a "metaphysical" or "apparitional" manifestation of the Voldemort soul-fragment would be more contextually correct. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
ISTR that the book says that Voldemorte has been unconscious whilst Harry was talking to Dumbledore, so I took it that the creature was Voldemorte in the same place as Harry. Of course, this begs the question of what would have happened to Vold. if Harry had chosen to "move on". Apepper 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bellarix' Death

People must stupping removing the line where Bellatrix's death is included. As she has developed into a major antagonist in the movie, her death is very relevant to include in the section. Wikiburger 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that some people are unconvinced that she is really dead because Rowling did not specifically use that word, so they keep deleting references to that effect. Rowling wrote that she had "fallen" or some similar phrasing. I, for one, am absoultely, positively certain that she is dead, dead, and dead--killed by Molly Weasley's curse. ;-)PNW Raven 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be inferred from the 'look' on her face, comparing that with the look on Sirius's face in an earlier book. Rowling is actually doing some subtle writing there. Only an unsubtle writer would carefully say "they are dead" everytime someone dies. Carcharoth 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this is more appropriate here than on Daniel Radcliffe's page but it seems it talks more about the book's importance than the importance of DR. So if anyone wants to add this, please do in the appropriate section. Berserkerz Crit 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Unbreakable Vow

In the HBP Snape tells Bellatrix that Dumbledore had recently picked up a serious injury, which i took to be his injured hand from touching the pervelle ring. Then he goes on to make the unbreakable vow. This is after he had agreed to kill dumbledore. But in the review of this book it seems to indicate that he makes the unbreakable vow before Dumbledore picks up his injury

I don't think so. the times should be about the same, the summer before September 1996, but if at all, the Vow will come later, as I am almost sure that the Ring was obtained first. DorTheScripter 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked it, Snape clearly states in the conversation between himself and the sisters, Dumbeldore had suffered the injury before the conversation.

American Edition info

As the book is British, why are info about the American edition in the infobox, introduction etc. I only think the original version should be in the info, or els all translations might as well be added. CHANDLERtalk 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, therefore, English-language editions get noted. --Guess Who 03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Harry potter y la hermana de ron se casan y tienen tres hijos y su favorito se llaman albus cerberus potter. Todo este sucedio en el septimo libro de estas novelas

Su deletreo esta incorrecto. Your spelling is wrong. Lo correcto es: Casamiento, Potter, Ron, Albus, Severus, Potter. Cerberus is the true name of Fluffy. Erudil 16:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Should have spoiler warning

The guidelline for spoiler warnings says it's only a guideline and may be broken for the occasional exception. I think given the notoriety of this book, an exception is justified, don't you? 23skidoo 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Dlong 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is it justified here? Are Harry Potter fans so stupid that they will not recognize the significance of a section titled "Plot"? Popularity does not make the spoiler warning more relevant. ' 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
How can a redundancy be justified? It's been said over and over and over again that the warning at the very top of the article is more than enough to tell a user what to expect. And if that don't suffice to warn them I doubt anything will. Chinfo 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When you read the Plot section from the top it doesn't spoil anything, but if you were to read further into it you may find out something like Snape really working for Dumbledore all along, but people should realize that a section about the story of the book will contain the story of the book JayKeaton 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there may have been some good reasons for this, but can someone please explain to me in detail why there is no spoiler warning in this article? Jam2k 13:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasons are given above. Specifically, the {{current fiction}} tag at the top of the article already says that the article "may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." Furthermore, a section labeled "Plot" rather self-evidently describes the plot. Marc Shepherd 19:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Can we really say Rolf was the name of Luna's husband? Upon reading the article in which she explained everything, it seems more like a typo of rofl (rolling on the floor laughing). I'll paste the quote below:

She ended up marrying (rather later than Harry & co) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander (Rolf)!

THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very likely, but we don't know for sure. I'd vote for removing this piece of information. DorTheScripter 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to say that it was a typo, especially considering that she capitalized the 'R'. However, we don't know that Rolf's surname was Scamander, just that that was his grandfather's surname. Ariadne55 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Pages rumor

I don't know about the truth of this, as I've read the book, and it seems whole and complete, but I've heard rumors that the initial release was missing 30 pages(mostly directly from other people, I haven't seen any online sources to confirm or deny it). Has anyone else heard/read/seen anything to indicate the truth or falsehood of this rumor, one way or another?--Vercalos 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Some Scholastic US copies are missing 33 pages after page 306. These can be exchanged for free. ref - . --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the missing pages, were mixed up with other pages, so the books had 30 pages repeated, so the book was the same thickness. Bytebear 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Total Sales

There is information only on the sales of the first day or days after the book's release. Does anyone know the total sales so far? (USA or worldwide)

Well, as of Aug 2nd Scholastic reported US sales after 10 days of 11.5 million (of the 12-million unit first printing run). 8.3 million were sold in the US the first 24 hours on July 21st. source: . Have not yet found any more recent news stories. Not sure if there is an overall book sales tracking system in the same vein as the overall box office sales figures used for movies. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter as a Christ Figure

For some reason when I point out the ways Harry Potter qualifys as the literary device known as a christ figure other users keep reverting my edits. I am not a religous fanatic, but Christ figues are common in literature in books and movies like the Old Man and the Sea, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Cool Hand Luke. In many ways Harry has suprising similarites to the christ archetype. This is what I have been posting:

There are a remarkable number of similarites between the events of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the story of Jesus:

  • Both of their fathers reside in afterlife/heaven.
  • Both have a band of loyal followers/Apostles
  • Both willingly go to their deaths to save the world, that is, both sacrifice themselves because of their love for humanity.
  • Both resurrect when everybody believes them to be death.
  • Both meet the ire of the establisbment. In Harry's case it is the Ministry of Magic; in Jesus's it is the Pharisees* Both are prophesized to confront evil.
  • Both are known for their capacity for love.
  • Jesus is said to defeat evil in a last battle according to the Book of Revelations. Harry Potter defeats evil in the Battle for Hogwarts.

I am not saying that Jesus even exsists. I'm just showing similarites between Harry Potter and Jesus when he is looked at as a character. All the evidence I have is verifiable. Read the plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and read the wikipedia article on Jesus. It's all there. --The Professor (of Faith) 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We have had many similar discussions about parallels between the books and Marxism, Nazism, Communism etc. It is all original research because it s just the way that you have interpreted - you could easily find parallels between Harry and any literary hero. The important thing is that it is original research which we do not include. Also when you start a new topic, put it at the bottom of the page, not the top. asyndeton 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a review etc., that makes the same comparison, then we might be able to include it. However, even then it would probably be better suited to either Harry Potter or Harry Potter (character) as it applies more to an analysis of the whole series or the character rather than this one specific book. David Underdown 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved as the "Professor" was blocked from editing Wikipedia. As it happens, (s)he was the leader of an "anti- Wiki" club. Therefore all of his/her contributions were deliberate vandalism and not good faith edits. Dewarw 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could equally make reference to "standard hero/myth" elements - see also The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Quest and Monomyth... but this is wandering into literary analysis and original research. Jackiespeel 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I have passed this article's GA because I believe it clearly fulfills the GA criteria, and I must admit, I never expected anything else from an article that would be of such - flashiness, for want of a better word. I'd like to see this at FAC, it's very close if not there already. The sources are there where they're needed, the prose is excellent. Congrats and Good Work, please take to FAC. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What was known

I have added a section on what was known about the plot. It is very interesting and is a good complement to the page. Dewarw 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unnecessary detail" vs. "Necessary detail"

Can the active editors at least agree among ourselves a guideline for “unnecessary detail” versus “necessary detail”?

Here’s my suggestion: Unless the detail is important to actually move the plot of this book forward, or unless it is an important link to a prior book, it doesn’t belong in this plot summary.

At this point, at least the following italicized details do not appear to meet this guideline:

  • George Weasley's ear is severed by a glancing spell
  • Emotionally affected from carrying the locket, Ron fears for his family's safety and is frustrated that Harry has no real plan for finding either the sword or the Horcruxes, and he decides to leave.
  • Peter Pettigrew enters to investigate the noise
  • The trio plot with Griphook to infiltrate Gringotts
  • and the trio barely escape with the Cup
  • to secretly enter Hogwarts from behind picture of of his dead sister Ariana

All of these are nice “flavor” points, but none of them is necessary. Can we active editors agree that they can be removed (as they repeatedly have been)? GiveItSomeThought 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

100% agree with you. chgallen 22:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection .... please do not replace these unnecessary details. GiveItSomeThought 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this conversation until just now... I do have one minor objection, I think the loss of George's ear should be in the article somewhere. It's not necessary to the plot, but it's one of the more "intense" or "extreme" occurances. It's a major injury caused by a spell which may have killed him if it had hit him in a slightly different spot, and while it's not as severe as the deaths, it does seem to be worth mentioning as one of the "casualties" of the flight from the Dursleys. If "essential to the plot" is the main criteria, then Colin Creevey's death could very well be left out. A lot of other, more important people die, so he doesn't need to be mentioned. Some "unnecessary" things do belong in the plot summary to give a feel for the severity or intensity of what's happening. But, as I said, the objection is minor, and I won't bother to put it back in, I just wanted to state my case. - Ugliness Man 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the deaths of Hedwig and Mad-Eye Moody definitely convey the "itensity" of the ambush and move the plot forward. George's ear, I agree, is a nice "flavor" point to convey mood, but ... if we all put in our favorite flavor points, this summary would be twice as long! GiveItSomeThought 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter that the issue of George's severed ear came up near the ending as a major plot-twist, regarding Severus Snape's desire to appear faithful to the Dark Lord, yet without causing serious harm to members of the Order of the Phoenix? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

George losing an ear is more than a minor detail--it foreshadows Fred's death (the lost ear represents Fred), although I really don't care one way or the other if George losing his ear is included in the synopsis. As soon as I read this in the book, however, I knew Fred was doomed. I disagree with some points above, like Pettigrew investigating the "noise". If you investigate something there is usually a reason, and it sounds odd to only he say he enters to investigate. Investigate what? I also think the brief explanation about why Ron is frustrated enough to desert his friends at such a crucial time should be included (although leave out the "burdened by the locket"). I also have a major quibble over the continual deletion about who R.A.B. is and the locket. This was a MAJOR plot development in Half-Blood Prince that caused intense discussion and speculation among readers. A "cliff hanger" clue like this should absolutely be explained. I also included a brief explanation about the book of fairy tales that was left to Hermione. If it's mentioned that Dumbledore gave these particular items to the trio, then there should be some explanation regarding each one's significance. Those are "necessary" details that affect the overall story and should not be left unexplained for the sake of brevity. The same with the Gryffindor's Sword. There's also no explanation about why it's the "real" sword. Well, there 'was' an explantion, but it was deleted. PNW Raven 13:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, you knew Fred was doomed? How? I obviously wasn't paying attention in the 101 of "literary interpretation". If such analysis emerges later, it can be sourced and added to a 'literary analysis' section that summarise what others say about the book (note 'others', not Wikipedia editors' speculation). Interesting, though. BTW, Rowling was cruel to kill off Hedwig. :-( Carcharoth 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How did I know? I interpreted it from reading the text. Just to be clear, I am not, and did not, suggest including that interpretation in the synopsis. I was stating my OPINION in this discussion only. OK? Nor did I intend for anyone to interpret the word "knew" so literally (it was a hyperbole). When George lost his ear, I had a "gut feeling" (and I mean that I was certain) Fred was a goner, and so he was. I hope that clarifies things. Rowling often includes clues like this to foreshadow upcoming events in the books. PNW Raven 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raven makes an important point, that any summary has to be self-contained. You can't include half of an event. Either a sequence has to be explained in enough detail to make sense as a storyline, or left out all together. This does mean including linking points to make the description 'flow'. The ear is an interesting issue. It might be very desireable to include it in a discussion of how the death toll is built up as the book goes along, starting with an ear and an owl. Much nicer, really, then simply describing the plot. Sandpiper 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


This article says prof. McGonagall wasn't appointed a new Headmistress. How do we know? In an interview, when asked who the Headmaster 19 years after DH is, JK Rowling says it's not McGonagall anymore. That sounds like she was Headmistress for some time. McGonagall article says the same thing. Did JKR says something more about this? 22: 13, 5. August 2007 erunanne

Where is the interview you're talking about? The source for the comment on McGonagall does not have a direct quote, but says: "...the school for witchcraft and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”)..." which does not imply that she held the position of headmaster for any period of time. -- 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From chapter 29 of the sixth book:
Harry stood up, murmured "See you in a bit" to Ron, Hermione, and Ginny, and followed Professor McGonagall back down the ward. The corridors outside were deserted and the only sound was the distant phoenix song. It was several minutes before Harry became aware that they were not heading for Professor McGonagall's office, but for Dumbledore's, and another few seconds before he realized that of course, she had been deputy headmistress, apparently she was now headmistress, so the room behind the gargoyle was now hers.
So, yes, she was headmistress, even though it was brief. The way that JK phrased her response suggests that she took the position again after Voldemort was out of the picture and everything (including the Ministry) was back to the way it should be... and that makes all the sense in the world, but would be OR. - Ugliness Man 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote you mentioned. It seems logical that when using (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”)..." as a part of her response to who the Headmaster is, she is referring to the previous Headmaster/ Headmistress who resigned, died, whatever. If McGonagall did not become Headmistress after Snape, she would probably mention some other person. I agree we can't be 100% sure about this, though. 20:13, 6 August 2007 Erunanne

OK well, according to this post-release interview at MSNBC:
The fate of Hogwarts
Nineteen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”) as well as a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. That position is now as safe as the other teaching posts at Hogwarts, since Voldemort’s death broke the jinx that kept a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor from remaining for more than a year.
I think it can be said that since McGonagall was the Deputy Headmistress under Dumbledore during Harry's Hogwarts years, per Harry's original Invitation to Hogwarts and the School Books and Supplies information sheet, then she was by definition Acting Headmaster immediately upon Dumbledore's death. Thus she rallied the Heads of Houses and assigned Hagrid to lead Gryffindor. Snape was then appointed Headmaster by the Ministry in time for for Year 7, and was succeeded by "an entirely new headmaster" after his and Voldemort's death. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
well when it comes down to it, we really don't have sufficient information to comment. The quote above could mean that McGonagall got the job immediately after Snape's exit, and that enough time then passed that naturally she retired from old age and someone else got the job. Hopefully not Hagrid. Sandpiper 13:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"personally invested tone"

Here's how I understand the guidelines about not having "a personally invested tone."

A personally invested tone is where the words convey an emotional reaction by the writer to the events in the book. The following, to me are "personally invested tone:"

  • "Harry manages to escape" should be the more neutral "Harry escapes"
  • "Unfortunately Dobby has been fatally stabbed" should be the more neutral "However, Dobby has been fatally stabbed."

Reactions please. GiveItSomeThought 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Who knows, maybe someone is happy that Dobby got knifed. I support making such changes in the tone of the article. Bryanc 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In my estimation (I've just re-read the entire article) such edits have been completed. I've removed the notice. -- Bryanc 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Harry manages to escape" is actually reasonably neutral, I think (you could equally say "Moriarty manages to escape" or "Hitler managed to survive the plot on his life"). "Unfortunately" and the like are not acceptable. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "Harry manages to escapes" is neutral, but it is also poor writing. Phrases like "manages to" or "due to the fact that," and so on, are tired cliches and should be avoided. I delete these whenever possible. It's better to write, "Harry escaped." PNW Raven 13:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Harry escapes." Fiction is supposed to be written in present tense. But I'm sure you know that. ;-) --Ali'i 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of that. PNW Raven 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

'Harry escapes' and 'Harry manages to escape' are not the same thing at all. The latter implies some difficulty about the business. If there was some difficulty, then it is reasonable to say so. There is nothing wrong with reporting the tone of the book. In fact, deliberately making the description so neutral as to remove the tone of the original would be misrepresentation of the story. Sandpiper 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the plot summary reasonably slim

The plot summary is filling up with nitpicking detail again. I support this edit by User:IamHermionie and urge other editors to find more ways to trim down this bloated plot summary. After that edit, it's currently around 12kb, without the embedded comments and section headings, which makes it larger than the plot summary of our article on War and Peace, a far more complex novel that (in its most popular English translation) has twice the page count. --Tony Sidaway 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% - there continues to be just too much detail, and every effort to prune winds up with much of it being reverted, and still more added. To be frank, it won't be a surprise that there are hawks and doves on this issue, and everybody seems to have their favorite non-essential detail (or two) that they just keep re-inserting - even after discussion that the detail doesn't belong.
My suggestion, those of us who are the most active editors should agree what's in and what really doesn't belong, and then ask each of the active editors to abide by the consensus. Can we at least agree that once there's consensus that a detail doesn't belong that we active editors shouldn't re-insert it? GiveItSomeThought 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly an "active" wikipedia editor, but I have been keeping an eye on this particular page, primarily correcting snippets that are just out right contradictions based on the book. I agree that this is not the place to get into every minor detail and that the wikipedia article should summarize briefly only the most critical plot points. Where more exposition or explanation is needed, it should be linked to. (there are entire websites devoted to combing over the story down to every last detail but that is not the role of wikipedia). -- Bryanc 01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the active editors can start by examining each paragraph separately and removing the details that are obviously not encyclopedic? I personally think the plot summary is full of such details. Easiest examples are perhaps in the Epilogue: I don't think the line 'Teddy is apparently very close to the Potters, with Harry remarking, "He already comes round for dinner about four times a week."' or the snippet 'who is worried he will be sorted into Slytherin' are important enough summary items in any way. Teddy Lupin is not even a major character. 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by unencyclopedic. An encyclopedia includes the main points, then more detail, then still more as space permits. On any subject. It is not unencyclopedic to include detail. There may be other criticisms of the description, but I don't see how it can be claimed as inappropriate for an encyclopedia article about the book. The word 'encyclopedic' is pretty meaningless. If you mean there is too much detail, which isn't really helping the article, while the space used for it could more usefully contain something else, then say so. I would much rather the plot description was a natural part of an analysis of the books structure, but I don't see the remotest chance of including such a thing unless someone finds some good existing analysis. Sandpiper 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Trio" as a plural noun

Although the word "trio" is normally treated as a singular noun (at least by U.S. speakers), the convention being followed in this article is to treat the word "trio" as a plural noun; we are told that is a standard British usage.

Hence, "the trio go," "the trio escape," "the trio sneak," "the trio discover" are the subject-verb pairs used throughout the article.

If there are British English speakers who believe that this convention is in error, please let us know here on the Talk page, so that we can make this change throughout the article. GiveItSomeThought 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I just asked this question on the reference desk, and they said that, like band names, using trio as plural is a British convention. I would agree that trio should be treated as a plural noun here. i said 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am the one who argued that the word "trio" should be treated as a singular. Even though I am Canadian and we share much of our language style with the UK, I was not aware of the British convention of using the term as plural. I personally think it sounds very clumsy and counter-intuitive... after all, you can refer to "a trio", or "that trio" as opposed to "those trio", suggesting singularness. However, this is personal opinion, and I will not start a futile campaign against an established convention. I concede the point and apologize for the misunderstanding. - Ugliness Man 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
See also notional agreement and collective noun for discussion of the grammatical point. Jheald 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you've ever listened to BBC broadcasts from the UK, you'll notice that in the "Sport" (not "Sports") section, they say (when speaking of sports teams) "Tottenham win ..." (not "Tottenham wins ...") or "Manchester look forward to ..." etc. GiveItSomeThought 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard "Tottenham win", but maybe "Tottenham won"? Wouldnt "win" refer to that they're winning? CHANDLERtalk 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
When asked, it becomes difficult to say which is more correct. Used either as singular or plural would make sense to me when read, but would have a slightly different feel. On balance I would expect to see 'the trio go', not 'the trio goes'. Definitely 'manchester look forward to', if talking about the club. 'Manchester looks forward to' implies a more singular entity, the town as a whole might be referred to thus. Sandpiper 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information in news articles

The MSN article says things like Ron working in the joke shop with his brother George, but didn't she say that Ron and Harry were a team of Aurors in the Today Show interview "In the years since Voldemort’s defeat, Harry and Ron have revolutionized the Auror Department at the Ministry of magic and Hermione is “pretty high up” in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement." Which interview do we trust? Valley2city 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A story in the Otago Daily Times claimed both (joke shop then Auror). It probably came from Reuters, as most of our international stuff does. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to nitpick, but isn't all of our material necessarily "international"? From my point of view, for instance, Reuters is a local newsagency that happens to have an international presence (as do my national newspapers, the Telegraph, the Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian, and not forgetting the BBC). All of these news sources have their own reporters and generally will only quote Reuters or other wire agencies when there is breaking news overseas and they haven't had time to send a reporter to the spot. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
When I say "our", I mean "New Zealand", with particular reference to the ODT. From MY point of view, it is a small regional newspaper and does not have the resources to have reporters in every possible country. Thus, it imports from Reuters, AAP and other associations. I apologise for the lack of clarity my response gave. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the function or purpose of the Wikipedia to choose "which interview we should trust" and then post the preferred trusted version based on a rationalization vote or something. It would violate original research for us to "choose" one or the other. We need to stay out-of-universe and simply report the facts, eg: In a Playboy interview following the release of the book, Rowling stated that Ron worked in his brother George's joke shop, while in a Hustler interview she stated that Ron was assisting Harry as an Auror. In a Penthouse interview however, Rowling mentioned that Ron was becoming more of a work-at-home dad taking care of a house full of brats, with Hermione being on tour most of the time with her Getting On with Magical Beasts travelling show. Yes all of this is made up of course, but it illustrates the point. If she ends up repudiating or contradicting her previous remarks, then we can point that out as well. We are not a filter to try to sort out what she really meant. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron could easily have done all of those things. Rowling said he helped his brother at the joke shop then went on to become an auror with Harry. He could then have cut back on his hours and done most of his work at home so he could take care of the kids. Nineteen years is a long time. Ariadne55 16:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As of now, there is no citation in that section to the Today Show interview. Shouldn't this be used as a citation as well because the info came from bothe the articles?  Bella Swan(Talk!) 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free. Be BOLD. If you have a good high quality and accessible source for a notable addition that improves the quality and feel of the article, then by all means add it. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in the canon that contradicts the idea of being an Auror who has a joke shop, particularly this one; if you have forgotten, Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes already had a special relationship with the Auror Headquarters, selling defensive magic products for Aurors. Knowing what George has gone through, I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling announces that WWW is now owned by two Aurors. Besides, they could always employ a shop manager, can't they? -focoma 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
All I meant was that it was put in the article that Fred and George were aurors, but was not cited with the interview, not that they had to be aurors and not owners of WWW because the article said so.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Snog vs Kiss

I wont revert again, but I think we should keep it as snog. It's the word specifically used in the book. It may be slang, but I would still say to keep it, since it's what she used, as directly opposed to kissing. i said 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Slang should only be used in direct quotes. And even though this could be a direct quote, the rest of the plot summary isn't (and shouldn't be). So the word "kiss" is better. Incidentally, if this is about Victoire, it isn't important enough to be in the summary to begin with, but as per the section above this one, it'll be futile trying to remove it now. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 06:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LilacSoul. Snog is slang, and should be used only if you are quoting the book directly. Marc Shepherd 11:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Saying kiss conveys the necessary information without the section looking unencyclopedic. AndrewJDTALK -- 11:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, kissing is broader than snogging which implies a certain sort of kiss... David Underdown 11:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with David Underdown. Snogging is redirected as "French Kiss" and therefore is different from the actual kiss article. So snogging and kissing are therefore considered two different things.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Lilac Soul is right. Really... on a scale of one to ten, how relevant to the overall plot of the book is nature of this kiss? The summary is supposed to be just a brief overview of the main plot thread. Either remove this really very unimportant trivia altogether, or just call it a kiss and be done. chgallen
I disagree. "Snog" seems to have a completely different connotation, if not denotation, than the word "kiss." Although slang, I see that snog seems to refer to a more juvenile "make out" type of kiss, and even such minor details can change the character development as well as more about the story. -Mitchell > 1:22 EST 3 August 2007
To put his more into perspective- would you say "I kissed the newborn baby" or "I snogged the newborn baby". There is obviously a difference shown in the words. When "snogging" is used in the book it is used the show a very romantic connection, not just some casual brush on the lips. One example the show how relevent it is to the text is when, in the end of the book, Victorie is snogging James and the children are shocked that this would happen; if it was just a "kiss", would the characters have had such a reaction?  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The point's already been made: if it's not so relevant, it doesn't need to be explained so accurately. What you say above is still not particularly relevant relevant to the plot as a whole, only to itself. Ville V. Kokko 10:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the manual of style, specifically National varieties of English, specifies that we use the national variety of the first major editor, The first editor, User: diff, is from the United States. Therefore, we must use the American term for the act: tonsil hockey. Vodak 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, when there are not strong ties to a specific country, such as an article about the color orange. It was originally written by someone using British spelling colour, and since it does not have strong ties to any version of English, we follow that. However, this does have the requisite ties, it's written by a British author, set in England, and originally published in England. Thus, we use British English. The question here is whether or not we use "snog" or "kiss". I am not saying we use snog because its British, I'm saying we should because of the context. Like people have said, snogging and kissing do not neccesarily mean the same thing; snogging is more like french kissing. Like Bella said, you would kiss a baby, but not snog them. i said 05:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You're still missing the real issue. It has nothing to do with context or nationality. Using the term "snog", unless you're using it with a direct quote (which would be superfluous in such a short subsection), would be in opposition to wikipedia's guidelines because it is slang. Again, in Wikipedia articles, slang (American, British or otherwise) is to be avoided except in direct quotes. - Ugliness Man 08:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

People are missing the point that this is a moot discussion because this is so unimportant that it shouldn't be in the plot summary to begin with. I'm not deleting it myself, though, as it will just get reintroduced. I will eventually once this article becomes more stable, though. Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

my two cents: When I read "snogging" I thought "making out" and not just "kissing". I think snogging is more hot and heavy than kissing. Bytebear 04:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When directly quoting Rowling (from books, interviews, etc.) then snog or snogging should be used exactly as she did in-universe. When commenting about the activities of the characters out-of-universe, if snog or snogging is used, then it should be in quotation marks, followed by short explanation, with a wiki-link cross reference to the applicable page, eg: "...while Harry and Ginny were busy "snogging" (a kind of romantic kissing), Hermione and Ron were discussing ...". This should clear up the confusion regarding the meaning of the slang term, and yet allow it to be used as a quasi-in-universe expression. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

True, snog/snogging is slang, but I think we should use it instead of kiss. Kissing is not very specific aboutthe nature of the "kiss", while snogging refers to a very specific type of kiss. since we won't use "kissed romantically", snog is still the better option. DorTheScripter 12:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can not change snog to kiss, if anything you can put "making out" or "french kissing" even though it is never mentioned as that in any of the books, only as snoging. CHANDLERtalk 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy, talk about angels and pins. Rowling used snog, at least in my uk version. This has a different meaning to kiss. The two are not interchangeable, any more than 'bicycle' is interchangeable with 'tank', even though both are vehicles. If describing something, use words with accurate meaning. Do not substitue a word with a different meaning just because someone thinks it is 'politically correct'. Sandpiper 00:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with political correctness, it's to do with grammatical correctness, and snog is a slang word. For that reason, it really shouldn't be used. I also have to echo the sentiments of someone above - how important really is it to the overall plot? Not at all, thus use proper English. TheIslander 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but the bicycle/tank analogy is rubbish. When two people are snogging, can you honestly say they're not kissing? The word has a few different meanings in different regions, but the one thing that's universal is that it's either a form of kiss (open-mouth kiss, with or without tongue, etc), or it's "making out" which involves kissing. As has been pointed out countless times in this increasingly pointless discussion, the main reason for the decision to not use the word 'snog' is because it is slang, and slang is generally avoided in Wikipedia articles except when used in direct quotations... but that aside, it's also not "wrong". Rather than comparing snog vs kiss to bicycle vs tank, perhaps a better analogy would be feast vs eat, compose vs write, or plates vs dishes. - Ugliness Man 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Modify plot summary - wrong # of Horcruxes

{{editsemiprotected}} Following Dumbledore's death, Voldemort has completed his ascension to power and gains control of the Ministry of Magic. Harry, Ron, and Hermione drop out of school so that they can find and destroy Voldemort's remaining three four Horcruxes. They isolate themselves to ensure the safety of their family and friends. From Harry's climactic and unsuccessful expedition with Dumbledore to retrieve it, they know that the first Horcrux is Salazar Slytherin's locket. They do not have much knowledge about the other remaining Horcruxes except the possibility that two of them are objects that belonged to Hogwarts founders Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff, and that the third fourth is Nagini, Voldemort's snake familiar. The locations of the two founders' objects are unknown, and Nagini is presumed to be with Voldemort himself. As they search for the Horcruxes, the trio learn details about Dumbledore's past, as well as Snape's true motives. (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)magicskip

Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. The current text is consistent in referring to the three horcruxes which remain (out of some larger number which originally existed). The sentence containing "...two of them...and the third..." in particular would not be internally consistent with the suggested change. Regards, Celestra (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)