Talk:Deathly Hallows (objects)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click Show →

[edit] Ties to Christianity?

Did you guys notice the ties this has to Christianity? I'm not a huge Christian, but think about it. Harry walks to death purposely to protect the people he loves. The Three Brother remind me of the Three Kings who gave Jesus gifts, except the gave the Stone, the Wand, and the Cloak. Maybe I'm just overthinking this. You decide.

This is not the place for original research, which this is. That said, I believe that this theory is quite far-fetched. Dying to protect loved ones is a motif that appears in more than just the Christian faith. Also, please sign your posts. Erdbeere (talk)

[edit] NPOV??

This article is littered with rambling bits of fannish interjections such as:

"This is another of the logical flaws in the series that becomes more noticeable as a result of the seventh and final book (though, according to Dumbledore, the tale of the three brothers is only just that; it may be possible that the cloak would not actually hide its wearer from "Death")."

Please, save your conjectures for the message boards. Somebody needs to clean this place up. 75.45.238.19 08:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Rock, Paper, Scissors. - CarbonLifeForm 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Historical basis"

I removed the "historical basis" section, since it consists of weak, fannish armchair observations.

"As a symbol, the Deathly Hallows resemble the swastika. Both were originally positive symbols from a spiritual/mythological background that acquired extremely negative connotations after being adopted by evil political movements (Grindelwald's forces and the Nazi Party, respectively)."

I don't know what the author was smoking, but the Deathly Hallows symbol isn't even close to a swastika, neither in appearance nor in background. Any resemblance between Grindelwald's philosophies and Nazism is in spite of the symbols. Nazism didn't get started as a fairy tale about conquering death, and nowhere is it stated that the Deathly Hallows were ever "positive symbols" in the way the swastika was (and is). At best you could say that both Nazism and the Deathly Hallows were about power, but that has little to do with the symbols.

Then there's this:

"As objects, the Deathly Hallows resemble the Holy Grail. Both are items which convey supernatural powers upon those who acquire them; both can only be achieved at the end of a 'Quest;' and both are considered mythological, yet are the basis for a number of mythical and pseudo-historical studies."

These parallels are less disputable than "Deathly Hallows = Nazism", but they still stink of original research. There are so many artifacts (fictional and non-fictional) that fit these characteristics that you might as well compare the Hallows to all of those. The author conveniently glosses over the fact that the Holy Grail is one artifact, not three, and that the stories about it do not resemble that of the Hallows at all (this is all the more obvious because Rowling uses the Philosopher's Stone pretty much as-is). At best one might claim that the Hallows are possibly inspired by the Holy Grail, but that's original research at its finest.

Whether you agree with these observations or not is not the point; the point is that they're by no means clear-cut. Unless Joanne Rowling states that the Deathly Hallows were based on the swastika or the Holy Grail, or is at least kind enough to humor people with such ideas, this has no place in an encyclopedia. We're not in the business of putting our own thoughts into other people's heads. 82.95.254.249 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: someone added that the symbol "holds a status similar to a swastika" to some wizards, which is much more accurate (and hardly disputable). What a difference a formulation makes. 82.95.254.249 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that was a misuse of the word "resembles" — I assume the writer meant "has parallels to." $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the mentioning of Hitler/Swastika again, as it still seems entirely like original research. Also it could act as a lightning rod for flame/edit wars.Joe056 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The basis or parallel is the Fisher King myth. When the title of book 7 was first announced someone wrote an article (linked to in an earlier version of the book 7 page, check its history) speculating on the meaning, presuming that with the two at the time known Horcruxes having analogues in the Fisher King myth (this is where the Grail connection comes from) the title 'Deathly Hallows' referred to the Horcruxes and concluded that the unknown Horcrux would be a wand.

Naturally this person had no way of knowing the Deathly Hallows were entirely new and not the Horcruxes, but sure enough one of the Hallows was a wand and yes the other two have analogues in the Fisher King myth.

That both sets of items have parallels to the Fisher King is highly unlikely to be a coincidence. LamontCranston 5:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to write something like "There is some resemblance [ouch!] to the swastika, which gained a negative connotation in part of the Western culture since it was used by the German Nazi regime." until I read this discussion. Searching in internet for "swastika deathly hallows" gives a lot of results on this issue, most of which don't qualify as a reliable source. I don't know whether any of these [1] [2] do, but I think that if we find one, we should add something about this aspect of the symbol to the article. -- NaBUru38 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Grindelwald truly possess the wand?

It's actually not clear from the book whether Grindelwald was a "true" possessor of the wand according to the criteria set out by the books, since he merely stole the wand by stealth and did not defeat its previous owner (Gregorovitch) by force. This would explain why Dumbledore was able to defeat him in a duel, and why, when Voldemort came to interrogate him about the wand, Grindelwald says in the book: "So, you have come. I thought you would ... one day. But your journey was pointless. I never had it." (Emphasis added.)

On the other hand, Harry interpreted this as a lie "to stop Voldemort going after the wand" and the ghost of Dumbledore (or whatever that apparition was supposed to be) apparently agreed, saying "perhaps that lie to Voldemort was his attempt to make amends". Also, if Grindelwald wasn't the true possessor of the wand, then I suppose ownership wouldn't have passed to Dumbledore and thence to Malfoy and Harry; it would have still resided with Gregorovitch and thus been taken by Voldemort when he overpowered Gregorovitch.

Yet again, even if Grindelwald wasn't truly the owner of the wand, perhaps it had "forgotten" about Gregorovitch by that time and took a liking to Dumbledore because he took the wand by force in a spectacular duel. After all, there is no reason to think that the characters' theories about the rules of wand ownership are intended to be taken as infallible, as the characters themselves indicate that they aren't always sure.

Meh, these metaphysical rules about quasi-sentient sticks in fictional books don't always make a lot of sense under close scrutiny.

—Steven G. Johnson 02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be taken that while Grindlewald was the OWNER of the wand, he was not its master, as he did not defeat the previous owner to acquire it, but rather stole it. Thus it did not make him invincible in battle as it should have, allowing Dumbledore to defeat him. Dumbledores defeat of the owner of the wand effectively transfered its loyalty to Albus, which recognized it as his master. I mean, even Voldemort was able to use the wand to such effect that he did not notice it didn't recognize him as its master, and Harry was able to defeat him because the wand was being used by an owner, not a master. But this is my own speculation, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it worthy of mention. Nekrogeist 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Grindelwald set a Stunning spell off at Gregorovitch while leaving with possession of the wand. Assuming the curse hit (we're never shown if this is the case), then this would fulfill the criteria set by the Elder Wand.

I am of the opinion that stealing the wand from Gregorovitch was enough to make Grindelwald its new master. This is because Harry does something very similar to become the wand's master. When Malfoy is temporarily blinded by shards of glass, Harry snatches Malfoy's wand from his hands (he doesn't even use magic). This is much more akin to purse-snatching than to defeating someone in a duel and taking the wand as the spoils. The fact that the wand Harry snatched wasn't even the Elder Wand itself, but rather another wand mastered by Malfoy, makes this even more interesting. But regardless, it suggests that stealing the wand (or any mastered wand) from the Elder Wand's true master will cause it to switch loyalties. Since Voldemort stole the wand from Dumbeldore's corpse after the wand already already switched allegiance to Malfoy and then to Harry, he did not become the wand's new master. Someone made a good point above: If theft doesn't cause the wand to transfer allegiance, and if Gregorovitch was the wand's true master (even after Grindelwald stole it), then Dumbeldore would have never been its true master either, and Voldemort would have become its true master (in absentia) when he killed Gregorovitch. So, theft of the wand (or any mastered wand) from the possession of its true master will cause the Elder Wand to transfer allegiance. My two cents. -Eisnel 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - when Xenophilius Lovegood is talking about the Elder Wand, he notes that to become master of the wand you must *capture* it from its previous owner - the legend does not say anything about "defeating" the owner. As well, when Ollivander is discussing the Elder Wand he states, "Whether it needs to pass by murder, I do not know". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.12.18 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But Harry never captured the Elder Wand from Malfoy, he captured another wand from him. So I think the concept of "defeating" works better. Capturing the wand and taking a different wand would both fit under the heading of defeating the wizard who owned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.33.251 (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Defeating" implies winning, though, and you don't have to win a wand - you can 'capture' it, as Grindelwald did, by theft, or as Harry did, by yanking it out of someone's hand. Capturing one wand and thus gaining the allegiance of another wand is a different matter, but I don't think it necessarily means the owner was defeated. (And I'm not sure that would have worked if Malfoy had had the Elder Wand with him, or even knew he had possession of it and where it was - unless Harry had managed to wrench it out of Malfoy's hand, as well.) The point for this article, though, is that the book says you must "capture" the Elder Wand, not you must "defeat" its owner, adn I think the book is what should be followed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.12.18 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Okay, I got a question. I don't exactly get it but what is Death in the book. A person or what? I'm not the smartest person and would really appreciate someone to answer this. Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772

Try signing your posts with tildes (above the hash sign). - CarbonLifeForm 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like many other stories, its just a personification of the concept of an agent that causes death. Think the Grim reaper.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayleuss (talk • contribs)

In the beedle tale, death is a person, but Dumbledore said it was probably a legend

[edit] Consensual homocide

Where is the evidence that consensual homocide is superfluous? -anon.

Snape killed Albus at his own bequest and yet did not became the wand's master.

Yes, but Malfoy was already the master. Ichormosquito 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are only a number of ways that the wand's ownership passes, one of these is by duelling them, which is how Malfoy came to be the wand's master (by disarming Dumbledore), though he didn't know it, and another is by using non magical means to claim the wand (in several mentioned cases, stealing it). Snape didn't become the wands master primarily because Malfoy had already disarmed Dumbledore, secondarily, because Snape didn't take the wand after Dumbledore's death. This is necessary, it seems.-Vampiricduckie 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unclear wording

The following section doesn't really make sense: "Supposedly, it is the most powerful wand in existence, and when used by its true master, he or she cannot be defeated. However, the wand will only serve this purpose if it is used by its master in single focused combat — it is useless if one is murdered by subterfuge (stabbed in the back, poisoned, killed in one's sleep, etc.), or if one is not currently in possession of it."

OK, the first sentence is fine, and the beginning of the second. Most powerful wand, true master can't be defeated. "Will only serve this purpose" isn't great - I'm assuming that "purpose" refers to rendering its master unable to be defeated, which is sort of not a purpose and more, I'd assume, just what it does. OK, so far, though, my understanding is that the wand will only be the most powerful, undefeatable wand if it is used by its master in single focused combat.

The next part loses me. "It is useless if one is murdered by subterfuge." If one is murdered, one isn't using a wand at all. Subterfuge is cast as the alternative to single focused combat (a concept which is also fairly unclear, by the way). But the meaning should be that the wand will only be undefeatable if facing an opponent in "single focused combat," and will not have the same power if used for subterfuge.

The end of the sentence follows along with that - "if one is not currently in possession of it." So, you can use the wand if you are its master, and if you are its master you can use it in combat and be undefeatable, but cannot use it for subterfuge.

That's my understanding of what the author of this section was trying to say, but "it is useless if one is murdered by subterfuge" completely doesn't make sense there. Should it be "if one is murdering by subterfuge"? Cos that's awkward, but at least if makes some sense.

The next sentence, "In order for one to become the master of the Elder Wand, he or she must Disarm, kill, or otherwise defeat its previous master in combat — though an act of consensual homicide is superfluous," seems to suggest that the author was trying to say that you cannot become master of the wand is "murdered by subterfuge," in which case that bit of information is just in completely the wrong place. (Also, superfluous is probably not the right word there? It seems that ineligible or something might be better, but I don't know.)

I do not actually know what's up with the wand, so I can't edit it myself. And I'm actually too confused by what was written to be able to clearly explain what's wrong. It's not a huge deal that I should have made such a long post about it , I'm just trying to explain myself. Hopefully someone will get what I'm trying to say and fix the explanation. The first half of that sentence deals with action dealt by the master of the wand, the second half deals with action received. And none of it is particularly clear. 69.123.177.197 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reworking this entire page as I, like you, found much of it barely understandable, and much of it seem like blatent speculation. PNW Raven 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

[edit] The symbol

The symbol of the Deathly Hallows is not described in the book as having a

"vertical line inside the triangle, going from the upper angle down through the circle."

Actually, the narrator describes it at first as an odd triangular eye (Chapter 8), then it adds that the pupil is crossed with a vertical line (Chapter 16). When Xenophilius Lovegood draws it (Chapter 21), he begins with a vertical line, then adds a circle on top of it.
The symbol, as presented in the page, resembles more the illustration by Jason Cockcroft on the side of the book than any written description. I believe the vertical line in the symbol should just be a diameter of the circle.

Zio Illy --83.103.90.56 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about that- I don't have my book handy. However, does the book say it's an equilateral triangle? The article intro says so, and the depictions all seem to show it as equilateral, but is this ever explicitly stated? -Phi*n!x 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is - "The Elder Wand," he said, and drew a straight vertical line upon the parchment. "The Resurrection Stone," he said, and added a circle on top of the line. "The Cloak of Invisibility," he finished, enclosing both line and circle in a triangle, to make the symbols that so intrigued Hermione. "Together," he said, "the Deathly Hallows." Reinn 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's weird, there are two description in the book. In chapter 8: he wore a cap whose tassel dangled in front of his nose and robes of an eye-watering shade of egg-yolk yellow. An odd symbol, rather like a triangular eye, glistened from a golden chain around his neck. - It seemed incredibly unlikely that Luna’s father was a supporter of the Dark Arts, and nobody else in the tent seemed to have recognized the triangular, finlike shape. If "Eye" means that the circle is as big as the triangle, then what happened to the "circle on top" of the line then...? Reinn 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My first instinct and imagination was to draw it like this. But the version discussed here seems to be in some of the published versions as illustration. (Not mine, they send me the "adult-edition"). And I would hope J.-A. Rowling is allowed to have a last look at the layout of her books and she doesn't seem to have objected. --Wuselig 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion of something being drawn " on top of a line" would seem to suggest "top" in terms of 2 dimensional shapes, which is what the symbol is. It's 2 dimensional layering, that's all.-Vampiricduckie 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. While the illustration drawn by Mary GrandPré on page 405 of Deathly Hallows shows the line bisecting the triangle vertically, it is not described in this way and would look more like an "eye" if the line's boundary was the circle, as is implied in the text. I've added an image in accordance with this. --Walkeraj 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the line should go all the way to the pinicle of the triange. It is how it is illustrated in the book, and the article becomes inconsistant, based on your own ideas which is original research. The caption should note that this is how the book illustrates the symbol. And since Hermione drew the symbol in the book and presumably the illustration is her drawing, and she did see the symbol several times prior, so she would be correct. In other words, I trust her (and the illustration) more than you. Bytebear 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the illustrator has no collaboration whatsoever with the author (look it up) and that the symbolic picture at the head of the chapter is intended to represent the torn piece of parchment on which Xenophilius wrote the symbol.

I agree with Bytebear that the line should reach the top of the triangle. Not only is this how it was illustrated (and how I took it to be described), but it is also the shape of the symbol that appeared on J. K. Rowling's desk when the "Room of Requirement" on her website was opened for the eighth time (for the last W.O.M.B.A.T.). Currently trying to find a screen-cap of this. --Mercurialmusic 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears on the British cover as linked here, and this should also lend some degree of canonical authenticity to the concept. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Well, consider it changed, then. --Walkeraj 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be nitpicky, but I am going to be. The cover art linked above, shows the circle inside the triangle, and not overlapping the triangle. I would recommend making the circle inside the triangle, and not overlapping. Bytebear 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated image. It looks great. I will stop complaining now, while I am ahead. Bytebear 01:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No, the wand DID kill Harry! (Kind of!)

Okay, here's what the article states: "The Killing Curse merely knocked him out, and the Cruciatus Curse caused little enough pain that he could control himself." That is wrong. The Elder Wand had the power of a normal wand if not used by the "True Owner", yet if it is under the control of the "True Owner", it is an amazingly powerful. The reason the Crucio curse did not harm Harry was because he went into death willingly; thus casting a protective charm over him and the ones he ment to protect.

I was thinking the exact same thing as a read this article. -metsfanalex

I think you have to accept it is nebulous. Harry really was the master of the Hallows, as he had the choice to go "on" or go back - not as a ghost, but fully alive. Plus, the part of Voldemort's soul at the train station (which was beyond help) had died - in a horrific state. So I tend to think that the Elder Wand might have compromised just a bit - it could easily kill the part in Harry that wasn't Harry.. but it left it's master with a choice. Once Harry chose life over death, the Elder Wand refused to kill or even HARM it's master - Harry Potter. The Elder Wand kind of said "Yeah, right, I'm not going to torture my master". In the final duel, the wand again said "Are you kidding me? I'm not going to kill my master" when asked to kill Harry, and Expelliarmous just told the wand that it's master wanted the curse to go back to the holder of the wand. Jclinard 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Jclinard, I never thought of it that way :-) 7:17, 26 July 2007

I thought the Cruciatus curse had no effect because Harry sacrificed himself for others, making Voldimorts attacks useless on everyone including Harry. But maybe the love sacrifice of Harry affected everyone except Harry. Thoughts? Bytebear 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Cruciatus Curse didn't work because Harry was the master of the Elder Wand. He did not die, as Dumbledore says and we already know that it is impossible to come back from the dead (JK told us), being the master of death means that the person doesn't run away from death, Harry did embrace death but didn't die.

Harry Potter did not die because he gave himself to death similar to the way his mother did, thus establishing a protective field around himself and those he cared for as his mother and father did for him. That, combined with the fact that Voldemort was not tapping into the true power of the Elder Wand, allowed Harry to keep a small part of himself alive, which allowed him to be resurrected. 24.15.53.225 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Harry did not die because he had ownership of all three Hallows and was thus "Master of Death." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.196.66 (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invisibility Cloak

I don't have my copy of the 4th book around at the moment but wasn't Mad-eye Moody able to see Harry while he was hiding under the invisibility cloak?

Olosnecaj 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Dumbledore saw through it in the second book when Harry and co. were hiding in Hagrid's hut. This just seems to be a hole in the explanation of how fantastic the cloak is. I have no answer. --Banyan 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Xenophilius's story was exaggerated due he was fantasized with legends and myth. Elder Wand doesn't need a murder to pass the ownership. Of course the Cloak will have its own weaknesses.. I thought Dumbledore was using an instant Legilimency on Hagrid to know where the exact position they were hiding. Of course, he already knew that Harry and co. was visiting Hagrid's hut that night. Reinn 03:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the cloak was less fatastic, but the wizards who could see through it were extraordinary (and Mad Eye had that special eye).~Steff

It is also possible that those that seemed to "see" someone under the clock, were actually just able to sense the other person. Those instances when people seemed to see were all with people, that would be highly skilled in legumency and occulmency. 155.94.62.221 13:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JKR answers this question: Why is it that albus dumbledore can see harry under his invisibility cloak at certain moments? (during the series is the cloak only infallible to those who do not own a deathly hallow).

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore, who could perform magic without needing to say the incantation aloud, was using ‘homenum revelio’ -

J.K. Rowling: – the human-presence-revealing spell Hermione makes use of in Deathly Hallows. http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript AUburnTiger 01:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Its possible that Snape was able to sense Harry though his mind? He is skilled at reading minds, so he might have sensed his mind nearby. Dumbledore - having one of the other hallows might have been able to see through the invisibility. Crouch might have used the reveal spell? Baaleos 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rowling made a point that skilled wizards can perform magic without having to utter the incantations. This was even proved with Snape as he quoted he could use magic with mind in the sixth book if I am not mistaken. Rowling also proved the Homenum revelio charm could reveal the presence of people even beneath the invisibility cloak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.53.225 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection Stone

I think Dumbledore is able to communicate with Harry in King's Cross was the power of the Stone. Should we add in the possibility of that? 60.48.73.238 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Didnt the drop the stone before he reached Voldemort? My copy of the book is not with me atm, cant verify. :( --soum ^talk 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, because after Voldemort's defeat, Harry was unable to recall the Marauders + Lily spirit because he dropped it somewhere in the forest. Reinn 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - Harry specifically used the stone to recall the Marauders + Lily, and the way it happened was exactly as was described in the Story of the Three Brothers--they came back as shadows, etc. Harry speaking to Dumbledore was completely different - see 'Harry is or is not the Master of Death' below. Doady 05:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed, per statement above. Also, Harry had dropped the stone before going to Voldemort (U.S. ed. p. 703) Reputation ^Talk 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Harry didn't come back as some kind of ghost, or zombie, like the others who were resurrected with the resurrection stone. Why did he come back as a REAL person?

I think the killing curse killed the part of Voldemort's soul in Harry and only knocked Harry unconscious.144.212.109.68 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is off topics guys, but anyway, Harry was a Master of Death, Dumbledore gives Harry choices to continue "on" (meaning, dying) or return back to the world. So the answer is, Harry is indeed dead, but back to the living as normal human, as he was Master of Death. See the discussion above. Reinn 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, Dumbledore states that only somone who "accepts their death and moves on, can be a master of death" Indeed I do believe he died, but this does not indicate they are masters of death. Had Harry chose to move "on" he would have been a master of death. Baaleos 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

If anyone has a pic of the elder wand, add it. In the film series, keep in mind Dumbledore has used his wand in the film series. That means the Elder Wand has been shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bames17 (talk • contribs)

Actually, he said in the book that he kept it hidden. One does not need to be holding the Elder Wand to transfer power upon being defeated - keep in mind that Draco never held the wand, but still transferred ownership to Harry. -- Lampbane 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think his point is that since Dumbledore had possession of the wand, a picture of that wand would suffice as a picture of the Elder Wand, because it is revealed that Dumbledore was the owner of the Elder Wand in the Deathly Hallows. Reputation ^Talk 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He must have used it, because otherwise, they wouldn't have buried it with him, which they did.-Vampiricduckie 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore vs. Malfoy

The article says "This is inferred by the fact that Dumbledore was able to defeat Grindelwald without killing him, and why Draco Malfoy, who did not have the nerve to kill Dumbledore, was able to defeat him using Expelliarmus."

However, Dumbledore didn't even *try* to fight Malfoy; he used his opportunity to petrify Harry, rather than oppose Draco. It is a fair inference that, had Dumbledore instead engaged battle with Malfoy, Dumbledore & the Elder Wand would've come out on top.

Since this is a bit theoretical, I'm not sure whether to edit the article text on this basis; so I'm posting here to invite comment. --Andersonblog 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Before Dumbledore lowered his wand, he is disarmed by Draco therefore rendering him lost to a duel. Harry takes Draco's wand (along with Bellatrix and the others) rendering him lost even before the battle. It's all make sense actually, if Grindelwald possess the ownership of Elder Wand by stealing, of course by disarming in a duel (like a checkmate in chess) still scores as winning the ownership. Reinn 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite correct - In the Room of Requirement, Harry uses a Stunning spell and accidentally disarms Draco that way. Still, it can be speculated whether that did it or the taking of Draco's wand at Malfoy Manor did it. Reputation ^Talk 13:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Help my memory: When Harry disarmed Malfoy in book six, did he take Malfoy's wand? Regardless, I know Harry didn't claim Malfoy's wand as his own in book six. I'm assuming Harry kept using his own wand and Malfoy's was returned after hostilities ended. Since Harry didn't keep Malfoy's wand, I don't think a simple temporary disarming and later return counts to the Elder Wand. It's a defeat, but not a defeat that results in the transfer of wand ownership (which is what really matters to a wand). Granted, when Malfoy disarmed Dumbeldore he didn't claim Dumbeldore's wand as his own. But since Dumbeldore subsequently died, the Elder Wand no longer had a master, and had to transfer its allegiance to the one it saw as most responsible for its late master's defeat -- which in the eyes of an ego-maniacal wand is the person who caused its master the lose the wand and become helpless (Snape's murder of a wandless man would be seen as no great feat). In book seven, Harry snatches Malfoy's wand and keeps it, making it his primary wand and becoming its new owner, which the Elder Wand sees as a defeat resulting in the loss and transfer of its master's wand, prompting it to change its allegiance to the more worthy victor/thief. Here's something I wondered about: at the end of book seven, it doesn't say whether Harry ultimately returns Malfoy's wand. The fact that Harry considered himself the owner of Malfoy's wand for a length of time may have been good enough for the Elder Wand, enough so that ultimately giving back Malfoy's wand wouldn't cause the Elder Wand to consider that a temporary disarmament and remain under Malfoy's control. -Eisnel 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry's wand was broken in the middle of the book, caused by Hermione. Since then he cannot cast any spells, until he snatch the wand from Draco in the Malfoy Manor. Quoting Harry, “You still don’t get it, Riddle, do you? Possessing the wand isn’t enough! Holding it, using it, doesn’t make it really yours. Didn’t you listen to Ollivander? The wand chooses the wizard . . . The Elder Wand recognized a new master before Dumbledore died, someone who never even laid a hand on it. The new master removed the wand from Dumbledore against his will, never realizing exactly what he had done, or that the world’s most dangerous wand had given him its allegiance . . .” - "The true master of the Elder Wand was Draco Malfoy." - "But you’re too late," said Harry. "You’ve missed your chance. I got there first. I overpowered Draco weeks ago. I took his wand from him.". Reinn 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The wand is semi-sentient, an expelliarmus spell that hit its target would indeed be conceaved as "disarming" and ownership of the wand would have left its original owner. If Dumbledore wanted to pass on the wand, he could have just given it over, having the same effect. He could have just held his wand pointing up, making it easier to disarm. Baaleos 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

Does anyone else think that the article, especially the Elder Wand section, is a bit too long? -Phi*n!x 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

YES!! I'm chopping it down.PNW Raven 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Deathly Hallows, the Golden Bough, etc.

My first reaction is that J.K.Rowling must have read "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazer. It is a book about cultural anthropology that deals with many folklores and traditions. In Book 6, the idea of the horcruxes apparently comes from the external soul in the Frazer book. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough/The_External_Soul_in_Folk-Tales) In Book 7, the idea of the Elder Wand comes from the Frazer Book as well. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough/The_Golden_Bough) There is a certain priest in Italy that becomes the priest by killing his predecessor after picking a golden bough from a magical tree. His duty becomes guarding this tree to prevent anyone else from picking another bough. When he becomes feeble, there must be a successor that manages to pick the bough in order to win the right to duel the old priest and kill him eventually. Then a new circle begins. Frazer argues that the so-called golden bough is a holy plant worshiped widely called mistletoe. Luna mentions mistletoe before. On the doorsign of the house Xeno Lovegood, it also says "pick your own mistletoe." A hint can't be clearer. By the way, Frazer gets the idea of golden bough from "The Aeneid," written by Virgil. Aeneas, the protagonist, picks the Golden Bough and goes to the underworld to meet the dead people, just like the function of the Resurrection Stone. Later Aeneas sees the Shield of Prophecy, which discloses to him the grand future of Rome empire, which is like the Prophecy in the Minister of Mystery. Rowling is indeed well read. Bestenoch 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she is. You probably shouldn't have posted this on an article's talk page, but thanks for the insight. I think the mistletoe connection you make is spot on. Ichormosquito 06:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling studied classical literature at university. Sandpiper 08:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry was or was not Master of Death? (I think he was)

The article intro states, "Although Harry uses the cloak frequently, and indirectly uses the wand at the end, it appears he never needed to be Master of Death — that is, no need to have all three deathly hallows to be victorious over Voldemort."

I disagree. When Harry gives himself up to Voldemort, Voldemort curses him with Avada Kedavra. Harry then goes to a place where he speaks to Dumbledore. Dumbledore states that although he (Dumbledore) is definitely dead, Harry can either go back to life, or "go on", apparently to the next life. The fact that he has this choice convinces me that at this point, Harry is indeed the Master of Death. If he wasn't, he would not have had the choice to go back. Voldemort's body would be dead too, because of the curse rebounding once again, but someone else would have had to kill Horcrux-Nagini for Voldemort to be completely dead.

Harry was the master of the Elder Wand from the time when he took Draco's wand. Of course he had the cloak. And even though he had dropped the stone before Voldemort tried to kill him, it was only a few feet away and he could still be viewed as being the possessor of it. Afterwards, by leaving the stone in the forest, it is less likely he would be able to find it again, so at that point I believe he is no longer the possessor of all three Deathly Hallows and no longer the Master of Death. Thoughts? or should I just change the article? If so, any suggestions? Doady 05:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Touchy issue. I think, because he had all three objects, Harry Potter was indeed the "Master of Death"; however, this is just a prophetic title. The "Master of Death" was said to defy death, but only because the "Master" turns out to be Potter, who, as explained in "King's Cross", cannot be killed by Voldemort. Ichormosquito 06:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He is. He already own the Cloak, Dumbledore sent the Stone to him inside of the Snitch, and the Wand's ownership has been passed into him since he takes Malfoy's wand. Even Dumbledore states so: You are the worthy possessor of the Hallows.

About the "no longer" thing, how about the Wand, then? Harry never use it, never even touch it, it's been used by Voldemort since he took it from Dumbledore's Tomb. He shouldn't be a master of Death in the first place? Reinn 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry used the Elder Wand once - to repair his Holly and Phoenix Feather wand. Also, he really was the master of all three hallows in his next-to-last duel with Voldemort. The invisibility cloak was his by right - part of his inheritance from his father. The Elder wand was his by right of conquest. He took the right to the wand from Draco Malfoy. The stone is more nebulous. However, you could reasonably argue that the ring was abandoned property and thus could be owned by the person who picked it up. Thus, it was Dumbledore's when he took it, and under his will, it was the lawful property of Harry Potter. The books make it very clear that magic laws are open to theoretical debate, but in these matters have a practical test. Harry's inheritance of Grimauld Place and Kreacher is a great example of how laws of inheritance work. However, the ministry refused to pass Godric's sword to Harry. Indeed, if it wasn't Dumbledore's to pass on, the only purpose of the clause was to make Harry aware of how important the sword was (useful to destroy Horcruxes). Besides, Dumbledore knew the sword would present itself when a worthy Gryffindor had need of it.

Harry almost certainly gave up his ambition to be an Auror after the fall of Voldemort. As master of the Elder Wand, he really needed a job that gave him a quiet life - and one were nobody could make themselves the master of it. The epilogue made it clear that Harry isn't ever going to be "normal" - he'll always be a famous wizard. But he got the most normalcy he could wish for under the circumstances. He was married, had three children; Ron became his brother (in-law); Hermoine became his sister (in-law), and was concerned for the development of his children, and his godson. He loved and had fun with his children, but when he saw Albus was terrified of disappointing him, Harry got to his knees to look UP to his son (no man ever stands so tall as when he kneels to comfort a child). To tell him he'd love him no matter what; if he was put into Slytherin he'd still be proud - but if it made a difference to Albus, he could just ask the sorting hat.

[edit] Symbolism

[edit] Important Symbols in Deathly Hallows

The Deathly Hallows symbol appears to be made up from the Greek letters Δ and Φ , transliterated into English language and letters this appears to spell the word D + Phi . Together these letters appear to spell Dphi or Defy , therefore this would make sense since the Deathly Hallows enable the user to defy or conquer death himself.
D + Ph = Dphi , defy

T saston 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How hard can it be to take something at face value? :P (No offense, I meant it as a joke!) --soum ^talk 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Δ actually "delta" which would make it Deltaphi... which wouldn't make sense... however, D + P = DP = Dr. Pepper, obviously it means that Dr. Pepper is the official drink of Harry Potter. Olosnecaj 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the derivation of the symbol is more complex than we know so far, but the difficulty is we don't know exactly how Rowling arrived at it. Sandpiper 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about the Elder Wand

During Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort it's stated that Malfoy is the true master of the Elder Wand. So, in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore with Expelliarmus making him the new master of the Elder Wand. The wand is then buried with Dumbledore until Voldemort breaks into the tomb and gets the wand.

Going back to Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort, Harry tells him he "overpowered Draco weeks ago" making he, Harry, the master of the Elder Wand.

But... it's not the same wand is it?? One wand is buried with Dumbledore until Voldemort goes and claims it, the other wand is Malfoys which Harry snatches from Malfoys hand during the escape from Malfoy Manor. Two different wands. Is this a mistake in the book or have I overlooked something. Yaguchi 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The usurper (for lack of a better word) does not ever have to possess the wand to become its master. Draco never claimed the wand because he knew nothing about it, but he was still its (clueless) master. The same with Harry. Because he bested Draco in a confrontation and claimed his wand, and regardless of whether he had the Elder Wand with him, Harry becomes the new master. It's very confusing. PNW Raven

It is also possible that the Elder wand does not “know” who it’s current master really is until he claims it!--145.253.2.29 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Dumbledore didn't even use the Elder Wand... so if Malfoy became the master by disarming Dumbledore while Dumbledore was wielding a different wand, Harry could become the master while Malfoy was wielding a different one too. Olosnecaj 00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dumbledore DOES use the Elder Wand, he uses throughout the entire series, it's his regular used wand. However, you are correct in saying that you can master the wand by master the person, not the actual wand itself. Unfortunately, it seems Rowling left a lot of holes in the end. 72.67.33.79 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ollivander made it very clear that murder wasn't necessary for a wand to change allegiance. Indeed, the last four masters of the Elder Wand made themselves it's master without killing (Grundlewald from Gregorovich, Dumbledore from Grundlewald, Draco Malfoy from Dumbledore, and Harry from Draco Malfoy). The wand had to be taken against the will of it's master... and probably under combat conditions. Harry lost control of his wand a few times (Neville disarmed him in a Dumbledore's Army training session, and Harry's wand changed hands a few times in Umbridge's office before it was returned to him in the forest).

I don't think combat conditions necessarily matter, and disarming a wand against its master's will doesn't matter as long as the person who takes it doesn't keep it (assuming its master hasn't died). Regarding those times when Harry lost control of his wand (DA practice and Umbridge): In all of those cases, the person who took the wand didn't try to keep Harry's wand as their own, they simply wanted to deprive him of it, and it was returned to him later. It becomes significant when a wand is taken for keeps and used as a primary wand by its new owner. I think that the change of ownership (even if the previous owner doesn't die) is what really matters to wands like the Elder Wand. So when Harry takes Draco's wand in Malfoy Manor, he's keeps it and starts using it as his own primary wand. That change of ownership is significant (especially to the Elder Wand, who is watching its master from afar), much more so than if Harry had disarmed Malfoy's wand and dropped it for Malfoy to later recover, or hidden it in some deep cave so that Malfoy couldn't use it. -Eisnel 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On page 584 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the American version), Rowling writes, "The door burst open and somebody erupted through it and shouted, 'Expelliarmus!'", and later, "Standing against the ramparts, very white in the face, Dumbledore still showed no sign of panic or distress. He merely looked across at his disarmer and said 'Good evening, Draco.'" Since Draco Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, master of the Elder Wand before this, Draco became the master of the Elder Wand, even though he did not possess the wand itself. Harry later disarmed Draco and took his wand, making Harry the master. Voldemort stole the actual Elder Wand from Dumbledores grave, but that did not make him the master. So when Voldemort tried to kill Harry with the Elder Wand, it could not kill its true master, so he did not die.

[edit] Illuminati Symbol

Did anyone else notice that the deathly hallows looks a lot like the Illuminati symbol? I noticed the page doesn't say anything about it. -Gimodon

I guess there are similarities, since the characters first thought it was an eye in the triangle. Perhaps she was influenced by other authors writing about the Illuminati, maybe Dan Brown or video games. T saston 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I got none of that vibe - keep in mind that there are only so many patterns to make with simple geometrical shapes. --Kizor 10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Eye of Providence? That is just an eye in a triangle with sun rays extending out. It is not exclusively Illuminati, and has references in all sorts of religious and fraternal organizations. Bytebear 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rooted in Canterbury Tales

J.K. Rowling has stated in an interview that her tale of the "three brothers" in book 7 is based partly of off the Pardoner's Tale. Should there be a section breifly mentioning that on this page? What about on the Tales of Beedle the Bard page?--Romulus 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership of the wand!

The following is not entirely correct.

"With Dumbledore's agreement with Snape for his death he meant Severus to end up as the new master of the Elder Wand, however, as Draco Malfoy disarmed him, the plan failed and Draco became the wand's new master."

Dumbledore intended the power of the wand to die with him, he did not intend Snape to get it, because had he, he would have told Snape to actually GET IT, to pick it up and take it away with him. Snape was not told to do this, and this seems to be a necessary claim right to the wand. You kill the person, and then literally TAKE the wand from them. Or steal it from them. Which was not done either.-Vampiricduckie 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] resurrection stone

if the resurrection stone doesn't really raise the dead, just allowing you to communicate with the dead, then why does harry need to "lose" it on purpose? i could see why if it brought the dead back to life, but not if they don't actually come back from the dead. Andrewb1 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies?

Would it be suitable to add an inconsistency clausul? IMHO, Harry's invisibility cloak is not at all described as special in the earlier books. The most obvious examples, apart from the case of Moody's eye being able to penetrate it, include:

In book three, Harry (the only owner of a cloak among Hogwarts students) was warned by Dumbledore (who should know) that Dementors were not fooled by such cloaks, and the cloak was never used to shield off Dementors.
In book four, Barty Crouch was forced to use an invisibility cloak he did not own, and also Mad-eye has spare cloaks which are lent to others. Clearly, any cloak protects others than its owners.
In book six, Harry is stunned by Draco Malfoy through his cloak on the train to Hogwarts (p.146). This is perhaps the best proof that the cloak did not match the Hallow at all.

Generally, the cloak does not at all make Harry indetectable, as the brother in the tale. He narrowly avoids detection by sheer luck on several occasions, since he remains solid in the cloak, and neither are sounds concealed. Please erase it if you find this unwarranted. Sponsianus 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any of this as being inconsistent. I think this section should be deleted. The power of the cloak is that of a normal invisibility cloak. The only differences are that it doesn't fade or lose its powers over time and can't be retried with accio (maybe just when being worn, I don't know). It is never stated that it protects the wearer from "homenum revelio," dementors, or anything. It is never stated that only the "master of the cloak" can use it. Only the Elder Wand had the whole master issue. It is never stated that curses can't penetrate it. Why should this section remain?Sorria2000 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is inconsistent with the Hallow of the story, which - as Dumbledore believes, and is implied to be true - is an embellishment, and the difference should be noted. Not in great detail, just a couple of objective examples. Those shoud do. Just my opinion though. --Kizor 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sorria2000! Well, I thought the Hallows in book 7 are given really extraordinary powers - the owner of the cloak was according to the tale able to avoid being captured by Death itself, even though Death was described as a most powerful entity. Harry's cloak clearly did not contain such powers in the earlier books. Death could have hired a dementor, set traps or sent even weak spells around. Even the magical eye of Moody must be seen as a power inferior to Death. Personalised Death is not one of Rowling's own characters; she adopts it from innumerous other myths and stories and we must assume that its powers are the ordinary: Death is more or less omnipotent in finding people. Therefore, Harry's cloak is by no means "death-proof".Sponsianus 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sorria2000; I think this section should be deleted. In addition to being of questionable accuracy, it is original research. Once someone discusses these issues in a published source, we can quote them or summarize their views. --Allen 01:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing to remember, though--The story of the brothers was "just a tale", as Dumbledore said. While the items are indeed real, they're not exactly the same as the ones in the story. Kind of like how Davey Crocket existed, but did not accomplish everything that was said of him. None of the characters go on record saying anything about the cloak being COMPLETELY undetectable, except Hermoine/Lovegood when the story is being read. 74.234.207.208 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voldemort

OK, I just deleted this from the page: "It is also said that every letter in Voldemort's name fits into the symbol for the Deathly Hallows." One, that's not encyclopedic; it's said by WHO? Not in the book. Two, it's not the kind of thing that can be "said", it's either true or it isn't. Three, it's not true; you can't find an E or an M. 91.105.45.60 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathly Hallows image

The symbol for the deathly hallows (in the US edition, page 405) shows the icon with the vertical line going all the way to the peak of the triangle. The image on the article shows it only in the circle. 70.181.109.146 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The symbol on the sleeve of the British edition is much the same. I would suggest that a scan of the sleeve should replace the image used now. ChiLlBeserker 08:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree... the people who are arguing above for the line not going to the top of the triangle have an interesting argument, but it's original research, because the book is not explicit (as evidenced by the disagreement). Plus, the last drawing was deleted as a copyright violation, so I'm sure the new one will too. Perhaps a scan of the book drawing would be fair use and so get around that problem? --Allen 11:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the copyright page in the front of your book (or any recent book), you will see that electronic scanning and publishing of images from any part the book is forbidden. About all you can do legally is use the already provided (under fair-use) image of the book cover which shows the symbol, under a clear fair-use justification, or provide a link to a Rowling or Publisher's web page which might illustrate the symbol. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh woops - it appears that the cover image that showed the symbol is gone. Still, it exists here at the Bloomsbury site. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Move to Deathly Hallows?

Nonsensical dabpage. First of all, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows isn't called "Deathly Hallows", secondly, it is linked to in the first sentence of Deathly Hallows (objects). —Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
People often colloquially call the book merely "Deathly Hallows". Anthony Appleyard 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Leave as is. (Is this an RfC?) It follows the disambiguation page convention used for Order of the Phoenix; although Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, and Half-Blood Prince redirect to the respective books, and Chamber of Secrets goes to Locations in Hogwarts. Sorceror's Stone goes directly to the book, although Philosopher's Stone goes first to the mythical object of alchemy, with a link provided to a disambiguation page. Sending Deathly Hallows to a disambiguation page to choose between the objects, book, and movie, makes perfect sense, since there is a reasonable treatment of the objects here. If there were similar articles provided for the objects and persons which also constituted the other stub-titles (Goblet of Fire, Half-Blood Prince, etc.), then similar disambiguation pages for those searchbox searches would be correct. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you need a disambiguation page for this? The link to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is in the first sentence of Deathly Hallows (objects) anyway. The book isn't called "Deathly Hallows", only colloquially, and was named after the objects. Mel sa ran 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Deathly Hallows (fictional objects). They're not real. OR ARE THEY?!?!?! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

is there a nonfictional Deathly Hallows? If not, I don't think you need the distinction. I would say, have "Deathly Hallows" redirect to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and have a blurb at the top for this article on that article. I know it doesn't make perfect sense, but I bet people looking for Deathly Hallows want the book first. maybe this will change when the movie comes out. Bytebear 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make sense. The book was named after the objects. Mel sa ran 10:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that statement. She may have titled the book before deciding what it meant. Who knows? I certainly don't until you can provide a citation. Don't assume. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You need the distinction becau8se not everyone who reads this article will have done so on purpose, and we have to make the difference between real subjects and fictional ones as clear as possible. These aren't objects; they're fictional elements from a children's book. To claim otherwise, by calling them objects in the title, is misleading. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did a bit of research, and I think Deathly Hallows should be this page title. I think there should be no redirect page, and there should be no page called Deathly Hallows (object) or Deathly Hallows (fictional object). My reasoning is based on the article Philosopher's Stone which does not have a redirect page, and does not mention that it is a fiction object in its title. We should follow the same standard. Bytebear 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the Philosopher's stone is not merely a fictional detail, and the concept existed for hundreds of years before the books. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that, but I still think we should be consistant. Bytebear 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not consistency because they are two separate things. One is a mythical alchemical item whose legend has persisted for nearly 1000 years, and the other is a set of items from a children's book not even a month old. They're not in the same league. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but a disambigous page is to clear up disambuity. what is ambigouous about "Deathly Hallows?" How many things does it describe? The parentheses (object) are not designed to distinguish the item or to clarify the meaning. It is to clarify which of the disambigouous things you are clarifying. The parentheses are not needed because "Deathly Hallows" cannot refer to anything other than the objects in question, fictional or otherwise. Bytebear 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to leave as is. While I think it would be unnecessary to move the page to Deathly Hallows (fictional objects) for the same reasons why Philosopher's Stone does not have the fictional tag, the idea of the Philosopher's Stone has indeed been around much longer and has been used numerous times in fiction and mythologies. Perhaps when the Deathly Hallows achieves this universal status it could be moved to it's own page (sans disambiguation). For now, though, the disambiguation is useful and the article self-explanatory.--Mercurialmusic 03:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presumably

In the Elder Wand section, presumably is used at least twice. Could someone take a look at it and make sure that we aren't making our own conjectures. I can't remember if these presumptions were theories the characters had in the book, canon, or just someone's ideas. Sagittarius Flame 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Every statement should be referenced. I have added some HP7 but I think it needs to be more specific, either in chapter, or page #. Bytebear 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Image:Deathly hallows Object UK.jpg Is this picture and its rational of use OK? I've uploaded this and put it in the article once but it has been removed. Now - in the picture description page - someone said that its rational is OK but I'm not sure to put it into the article anymore. Pmuean 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is is part of the cover art, and as such could be copyright infringement. I would avoid it. Besides, the picture we have is just fine. Bytebear 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what about the Dark Mark? Pmuean 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend removing it. It is copyrighted. Bytebear 03:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperfection

Is it possible that each Deathly Hallow has a slight imperfection? The Wand was, even in the posession of Grindelwald, true master of the wand, able to be defeated by a powerful, but still regular wizard, who was Dumbledore. The ring, which could bring back the dead, did not bring them back fully, but only as a ghost. The cloak, though thought of as perfect, could be seen through by Dumbledore, Mad-Eye, and a "Homenum Revelio" spell. So, could each Deathly Hallow be slightly flawed? Writtenbythevictor 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The legend is more grand than reality. It is suggested in the book that the three items were not unique in the sense that the legend says, but probably made by clever wizards and no more unique than any other magical objects, so yout idea is very likely. Bytebear 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elder Wand

I think we're getting a bit carried away with the Elder Wand. The section is starting to feel like a forum of random facts rather than what is necessary for an outsider to be able to understand what the Elder Wand is as part of the Deathly Hallows as objects. I don't believe that so many plot details and arguments about how it was mastered are relevant. Right now the reader would be overwhelmed with a lot of things that they wouldn't understand, so let's please clean up the section and stop adding trivial information that would fit better in the plot summary for HP7. Am I way off base here or can we start paring it down? --Mercurialmusic 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. we should pair it down to a simple explaination and not add every fact, or inference from the book. Bytebear 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Honestly, that section is so out of hand that I think it needs a complete rewrite. Part of its problem is that it tries to explain all the concepts of wand ownership outlined in HP7, which doesn't really belong there. -Phi*n!x 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cloak of invisibility.JPG

Image:Cloak of invisibility.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)