Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 →

Archives
1

1 "Hallows" meaning: Speculation and Original Research

"Hallows" meaning: Speculation and Original Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but there is indeed original research in this section.

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

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

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

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

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

(I havn't checked the references, but lexicon, mugglenet etc. are neither self-published, i.e. one person writing on their very own website, nor unverified. Anything published there is immediately subject to feedback from readers and will not last long if it shown to be mistaken. Nothing will be published there unless the people operating the sites have accepted it. Rowling has even personally commended Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz as being experts on her work and invited them to the last book launch to interview her. Sandpiper 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

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

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

(Rowling commented that if she cannot remember something about Hp, sometimes she looks things up on hp-lexiconSandpiper 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly how is this the "worst of all" in terms of WP:OR?. In ch. 23 Horcruxes, p. 505 (^[HP6]Scholastic) Dumbledore and Harry are discussing the remaining four. Two mentioned were the Slytherin locket and the Hufflepuff cup. Then Dumbledore says: "The remaining two, assuming again he created a total of six, are more of a problem, but I will hazard a guess that, having secured objects from Hufflepuff and Slytherin, he set out to track down objects owned by Gryffindor or Ravenclaw. Four objects from the four founders would, I am sure, have exerted a powerful pull over Voldemort's imagination." --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Rowling was asked by someone whether Godrics Hollow had anything to do with Godric Gryffindor. Her reply was to say how clever the questioner was, and that not even her editor had spotted that. Sandpiper 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

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

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

Sorry, but I am not convinced by your assertion "we have already seen hallows in the book.". Hallows in noun form are, by definition, hallowed, holy, consecrated relics of the Saints, which are presumed to have religious significance and sometimes miraculous properties, or at least they are objects claimed to be traceable back to the Saints. Normal people who happen to live in old old homes often have antiques and relics from generations past stored in their attics and basements - this does not make those artifacts to be "hallows" by any means. I also cannot accept the notion that the Founders were Saints, and therefore their belongings are Hallowed Relics or Hallows. Just exactly where did that theory come from? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Now there's a comment I can agree with, nearly. I don't think we need to encompass every conceivable meaning, so long as we have a representative covering. Whether or not book 7 has an Arthurian plot is irrelevant to this, but... if the legend is a representative example, then it helps to explain the traditional usage of the word. What do you suggest as an alternative example? Sandpiper 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this is original research. Original research is "material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2007)

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (October 2007)

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

You have only proven you are totally wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, you should be careful about what you write: have you not noticed that these templates advise the users to " improve this article by rewriting this article or section in an encyclopedic style" ? That's merely what I've done.

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

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

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

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

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

I have not broken any rules. You have however started an edit war and violated the WP:OR and WP:RS rules. Folken de Fanel 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

3) You face the conseuqences, please.

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

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

"Original research is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it." If it is cited to a reliable source (i.e. not a chatsite, etc, which isn't reliable), it is not Original Research. And please don't talk about 'dumbly reverting' - it is either inaccurate (the reverts were not silent) or offensive (if you mean stupid).Michaelsanders 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Answers to Sandpiper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to comments by Folken

Dear dear me, I love a good discussion. Folken:

First perhaps, I do not think anyone is arguing that the hallows are horcruxes. According to Dumbledore, some of them almost certainly are, but that is not the issue here, that is an extension of the argument. The issue here is whether the relics of the Hogwarts founders are Hallows. Having read the definition posted in this article, and then checked the cited sources, my understanding of the word Hallow accurately describes Gryffindor’s sword, someone’s cup and Slytherin’s locket. They are things which are revered by wizards. We are told that in the books. Before Rowling dragged up the word, no one would have used that word, but now that we all understand its meaning, well it is correct to use it in its general sense to describe these objects. That is, or may be, different to the sense in which Rowling uses the word Hallow. But it is correct to describe these things as hallows.

The legends are a necessary part of explaining what a hallow is. They are a clear usage of the word in exactly this sense. It is correct that they are rather more than this, since not only do the Hogwarts Hallows fit the definition and usage in the legends, they also are an exact item for item match. This is the source of our difficulties. It would appear that the one and only existing example of literary hallows uses exactly the same Hallows. You are arguing that because this example is a precise match to Rowlings story it may not be used. Unfortunately it is still the only sensible example anyone has come up with.

My opinion is that this is absolutely not a coincidence. Rowling is a literary scholar. Rowling has even confirmed it by using the bust of Hermes for her little message about finishing the book. My further opinion is that if Rowling can squeeze a different meaning into the words as well, then she will have done so. I can’t guess what her plot will be. I would not be at all surprised if it contained elements found in Arthurian legends, or celtic legends, but I have no way of knowing how these might work into the story, and nor am I minded to insert any of that into the article. It is also my opinion that the title is a soluble puzzle in the same style as RAB or the black family tapestry. It is intended to create discussion (just like this, here), but actually gives away absolutely nothing which is not already know about the books. The fact that something has been written in a foreign language does not make it inadmissible to wiki editors. All they have to do is translate it. Well, what we have done is translate 18th century English into modern. With notes.

As to your specific comments:

No one has established what is Or here and what is not. That is what we are still discussing. You jump the gun by assuming that something which has been in the article for a little while now (and is self-evidently important) can be removed without fuss. An editor who read the discussion page would realise that he is dropping into the middle of an existing argument, and tread cautiously.
Literary professors’ opinions are not per se more valuable than fans. You are assuming that a fan is ignorant because he is a fan. I am pointing out that in this particular case it is likely that a fan, certainly a fan who is sufficiently involved to have had his work published in a respect medium such as lexicon or mugglenet, is deserving of respect and reputation. This is ‘’fantasy’’ we are discussing, and new fantasy, at that. There is no better authority on the books than a diligent fan. Rowlings herself has commended Anelli and Spatz, who operate TLC and Mugglenet as experts on her work. She has also said she has used hp-lexicon to look up information about her own books.
What other literary experts do you suggest we report? Why is the opinion of someone who has been paid to do something (a ‘’professional’’ researcher) more valuable than that of an amateur? The professional has an automatic bias in that he is required to produce what his employers have paid for. Personally, I have maybe spent 100-1000 hours researching HP. Just how many professionals have been paid to spend that amount of time on it? I’m not nearly the best out there. This was not my research, I didn’t put it here. But it is clearly accurate. It is accurate in the sense that something, once pointed out, is self-evidently correct. It is correct because it is simply (or at least with a bit of rewording) an explanation of the meaning of terms.
My personal opinion does matter. My opinion is that this is a good source to quote. It is a necessary function of all wiki editors to assess what are the best available sources for something, and quote them. That is what is presented here. You pinpoint the self-contradiction in the OR policies which some editors have sought to impose. No article can be written without editors exercising their judgement of the best material to include. It is impossible to create any article without doing what is normally considered original research.
JKR does not want to say openly what Hallows means within the book. Nevertheless, she has. In book 6 she told us all about the hallows, their becoming horcruxes, and that Harry has to go destroy them. But as I mentioned above, my opinion is that her objective is only to create interest, because the title of the book simply does what any title does, encapsulate the story, which to the level of detail needed for a 7 word summary, we already know.
The four founders are saints, read the books. But they fit even better the kind of characters which owned the legendary hallows. The analogy is an ‘’exact fit’’. The necessity for having the example of the legend is that it shows the usage of the words in a non-christian way.

Please forgive the interruption. Exactly where in "the books" does Rowling state or imply that the "four founders are saints", and that therefore we can infer that their belongings are now Hallowed Relics and therefore Hallows? Random relics are not Hallows, in spite of the assertions of some HP fans and wiki-editors. Hallows are Hallowed Objects - ancient relics which carry religious significance to the Church, and often are claimed to have miraculous properties, and generally belonged to, or are traceable to, or were somehow directly associated with the Saints, the Lord, or other notable Persons mentioned in Scriptural Texts, or in the Early Church. Just because Hallowed Objects are relics does NOT mean that a relic is a Hallowed Object, and it certainly cannot be said that relics and hallows are the same word in the general sense, nor in the context of HP and the Deathly Hallows. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought someone might object. There are no overtly christian references in HP, and I use the word loosely. The founders are indeed revered, but they are more akin to the legend characters who owned the 'hallows'. I agree with you, the book is not consistent with interpreting 'hallows' in their christian usage because there are no christian references. I pictured them as saints to show they do have some of the chracteristics, but as you say, it is a bad fit.Sandpiper

The article should not be imposing a meaning on Rowling’s hallows, but it should explain the accepted literary traditional meaning. I have absolutely no problem with expanding or amending the article to make it clear that Rowling might mean something other than the traditional sense. The difficulty, is that doing this would then potentially lead us into OR and presenting other explanations.

Response from FdF

But you have the right to have any opinion you want, and in any case I'm not disagreeing with anyone thinking the Hallows could be Horcruxes. For all I know it might be the solution (or it might not be). The problem is, opinion, moreover when it's not backed up with reliable sources, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. That's all, and I'm only refering to the base principles of Wikipedia.

N°2 : I'm saying that a fan can make theories for all his life, an analysis by any professor/doctors etc will always have more value than a fan theory or fans making their own analysis. Mainly because professors or whatever will always have more literary knowledge and experience than fans. And that's why Wikipedia itself states that fan-writings cannot be accepted as reliable sources (and there are indeed young professors that are interested in HP. The thing is that because they did studies, have been formed and supervized by older and more experienced persons, they wrote papers which have been graded by teachers, they are more qualified to write essays about literature than fans. However, I don't mean that fans are forbidden to write essays, or that fan-essays are doomed to be utter rubbish. Just that Wikipedia has established a certain policy for years now, and that we have to respect it. And take into account that Wikipedia's aim is not "crystal-balling", and element that is predominant in most fan-essays until the release of book 7.

And sorry but, whatever you opinion might be, Wikipedia's rules come first. You can argue for a whole year, the rules won't change.

N°3: Your opinion doesn't matter as it is deliberately ignoring (at best), or blatantly violating one of Wikipedia's rule, just because it doesn't say what you'd like to hear.

Fansites are not reliable sources and will never be.

N°4: wow, now you're blatanlty OR-ing. That's good for you if your crystal ball allowed you to read book 7 before anyone else, however you won't convince me with any of this.

N°5: the 4 founders are wizards, read the books. Saints have a religious connotation which does not seem to appear in HP. Unless JKR goes public about it, or state in book 7, it's doomed to remain your own, personal thoughts on the matter. And this can't appear in the article.

Again, I'm not arguing about what each one of us believes concerning book 7, I'm arguing about what can, and what can't remain in the article.Folken de Fanel 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are falling over each other here, because I am still writing replies to your previous comments, while you are already replying to what i have written, and vice versa.

In particular I would point out contrary to what you suggest above, that Mugglenet. TLC and HP-lexicon are all reliable sources recommended by Rowling. She has said how good they are. She has said she uses lexicon. In an interview she told Anelli and Spatz who run TLC and Mugglenet that they are experts on her books.

Hopefully, JKR will maybe be invited one day to contribute to the rules of Wikipedia, however that's not the case right now. Fan-theories were being used as sources, and that's just not possible. Folken de Fanel 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

er, if Rowling is not a fit judge of who is a recognised expert on her own work, then who is? It is false to say that information is barred because the author is a fan. The rule merely states that being a fan is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. It is normally accepted that an author is an expert on her own work, and competent to say who else is to be considered knowledgeable. Sandpiper 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The published book 7 will be the perfect proof on who is expert or not. However JKR has not said a word about such theories, and they were probably not written and the time when JKR awarded the site. I'm sorry, it's not enough to publish hundreds of theories to make someone a "literary expert" as Wikipedian rules mean it. Folken de Fanel 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not an issue whether Rowling has commented on this particular case. You are arguing that these are not resepcted sources in general. On the contrary, Rowling has said that they are excellent sources. They are therefore entirely acceptable sources for us. I am sure Rowling will be happy to explain everything herself after publication, but until then we rely upon the experts on her work. Sandpiper 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume what JKR would say, were she involved in Wikipedia's administration. JKR has NOT said these sites were good sources according to WP standards. They are what they are: unreliable self-published crystal-balling fan-theories.Folken de Fanel 01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming what she she would say. I am quoting (or paraphrasing) what she has said. She invited the website founders to tea! [1][2][3]Sandpiper 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great for them, but that doesn't make their theories, predictions and crystal-balling true or reliable sources. Folken de Fanel 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and these websites are not self-published sources, or people writing on their own websites. There is a truly excellent self-published website by red hen, which will tell you every theory you ever wanted to know about HP, and it is all her own work. Also, incidentally, some of it published in books. But the websites we are discussing here are run by editorial teams and accept external contributions which they vet themselves, and which are subject to peer review from readers. In 10 years time it is very likely that all peer review will be online, (paper journals are fast becoming uneconomic) so someone is going to have to think carefully about this. However, right here we are discussing peer reviewed articles which are not self-published.

...peer reviewed by fans. And please don't play on the words self published and personal websites. That the webmasters self-publish only what they want on their personal websites doesn't make them more reliable sources. Every one can make theories, and theories aren't relevant, they're merely "crystal balling" of a still unpublished book. So theories are not relevant on Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed means reviewed by people who are as good as you are. Exactly. Fans. These forums are open to everyone to review what has been written. Everyone in the whole world has the chance to point out errors and criticise. This is a far higher standard than most journals. It is normally considered that the choice by owners of a website/journal of articles which they will publish is precisely the process which makes them good sources. Self publication means publishing your own work, it does not mean selecting which articles from others you will publish. Sandpiper 00:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So no one with good knowledge has reviewed them. They're only fan theories, and crystal-balling is not the aim of WP. That webmasters that are not reliable themselves choose what they publish doesn't make them more reliable.

Self-publication is publishing your own work, and that's exactly what these websites are doing. Fans publishing the fans works.

No. If you wish to stick to the letter of rules, then you must follow the letter of rules. It is not self-publication if you publish someone else's work. Sandpiper 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about non-professional and non-expert people using their personal websites to publish personal theories, their theories and others' theories. So = unreliable source.Folken de Fanel 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A good source according to WP standards, are source coming from "professional researchers", and are not in any way fan theories self-published on personal websites.Folken de Fanel 01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't remember a rule about 'professional researchers' at all. But I repeat, this is not a case of self-publication on a personal website, so that other particular rule is irrelevant. Sandpiper 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Lexicon is a personal website, not supported in any way by any professional researchers. It's not a recognized scientific or literary publication. That they publish other fans' theories is the same: unsupported claims. Folken de Fanel 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We may have to agree to differ on the subject of professors. My definition of the best source is the one who knows most about the subject. Formal qualifications are often a guide to this, but in this case are largely irrelevant. It is impossible for any professor to have known anything about these books more than 10 years ago, since they did not exist. In 10 years time I am sure this debate will be academic, because there will be clear published sources.

Right now, the best experts on these books are the people who read them in detail. Rowling has recognised that Mugglenet, lexicon and TLC come into this category. Publication on any of these sites is endorsment by them, and indirectly by her. She has acknowledged they know what they are talking about even though, for obvious reasons, she cannot speak about this.

As to wikipedias rules, if you go back one year, as you suggest, I think you will find them surprisingly different to how they are worded now, and in another year no doubt they will be changed again. Sandpiper 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new article on 'Hallows'

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

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

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

You will be able to say the objects of the Founders are forms of arthurian hallows, only if you find reliable source saying so. If you say that you concider than some object might be similar to a holy relic from arthurian legends, it will remain OR.Folken de Fanel 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we already have sorces which are peer reviewed and endorsed by Rowlings.Sandpiper 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Sources which are not self-published material, and which are not original research themselves, will be accepted according to the rules of Wikipedia. Self-publshed theories from fansites won't be accepted. You don't like that ? Change the rules or create your own wiki.Folken de Fanel 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

but these are peer reviewed and not self-publishedSandpiper 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

In any case, personally attacking me will not help either. You face the risk of being warned if you continue to qualify me in such bad terms, while I'm only talking about your edits and no what I think about you. In this respect, it won't hurt you to read again the WP:NPA, because you seem to have forgotten some essencial principles like "Comment on content, not on the contributor.".Folken de Fanel 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He also has to accept that he has broken the rules. It is his opinion that I or Lulurascal broke WP:OR and WP:RS. It is undeniable FACT that he broke WP:3RR. His denial of this is NOT helping this dispute. Michaelsanders 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to accept you have broken the rules. It's not my opinion that you violated WP:OR and WP:RS. It's the rules that say so. You have written original research, backing it with unreliable sources, and when your irrelevant edits were reverted, you started an edit war without further debate, thus ignoring the risk of breaking the 3RR rule. Face the facts. Folken de Fanel 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of personal attacks and denial of the facts will not help you. Stop being so combative, stop being so offensive to other editors, and stop lying. Michaelsanders 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's only denial of the facts from your part. I'm not combative (and if by that, you mean stop contradicting me, and stop having a different opinion, then be sure I'll never stop to be "combative", ever). I'm not "offensive" to other editors (not having the same opinion is not an offense). And I'm not lying.

You're only making false accusations on me, which can be concidered personal attacks. Folken de Fanel 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By 'combative' I mean "you are deliberately prolonging this dispute by denying your own culpability, failing to assume good faith by accusing others of OR and speculation, being rude to other editors, accusing them of personal attacks, provoking an edit war, and somehow failing to accept that by making more than 3 reverts in the space of 24 hrs, against 2 editors, YOU BROKE THE RULES." If you cannot even accept your own failings in a situation where you believe yourself to have the moral highground, go away, and stop causing trouble here. If you want to stay, accept that you broke the 3RR rule, and stop talking down to others. Michaelsanders 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not deliberately prolonging this dispute, I have the right to argue, if I don't agree with you I have a right to say so.

2) I am not "guilty" of anything. It's you who have written OR in the article and have reverted without justification.

3) I assume good faith on everyone, I just see your edits for what they are: blatant OR. I have documented my claims, if you don't agree with me, find your arguments in the rules. But not personal agression and threats as you are doing now.

4) I have never been rude with any editor. You are however accusing me of being "self-righteous and conceited ", which is "being rude" with me.

5) When you do personal attacks, I can only notice it. I won't let you force me or threaten me.

6) You have provoked an edit war, in reverting several times without justification. I have merely rewritten a section that greatly needed it.

7) You are "somehow" failling to accept that by writing OR without reliable sources, you have violated WP:OR and WP:RS, and you have started an edit war, and you were going to violate the 3RR rule, and you broke the "no personal atacks" rules.

8) No, you go away, because you're the only one causing troubles here. If you want to stay, accept that you have violated WP:OR and WP:RS, and you have started an edit war, and you were going to violate the 3RR rule, and you broke the "no personal atacks" rules.

9) And I'm not "talink down" to others.Folken de Fanel 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All right you two, don't make me come up there and put you both "on report". Please take a deep breath and read the essay on remaining calm. I was about to hand out some barnstars but I just don't know. Maybe we all need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, Im not necessarily against the idea of a separate article about Hallows. But there are still difficulties. We have no consensus here on whether we have acceptable sources, which seems to be the heart of the matter. FdF is arguing that these are unacceptable sources, whereas (sticking my neck out, having been too busy writing to check precisely what we are disputing) I take Rowling's own endorsement of these sites in general as making them noteworthy and includeable as good references, if only as 'noteable fan theories'. The argument above about deleting this stuff rather falls away if it is accepted that Rowlings has acknowledged these sites as reputable. Introducing a spread of noteable fan theories was something I was hoping to avoid with a simple (well, extended) definition of the words. Did you know mugglenet had split the debate into four threads following different meanings?

There also seems to me to be a problem in that if hallows was never previously felt to merit an article, how much content is there? The specific subject 'hallows' probably already has a mention somewhere in the context of the various legends. Likely there is an article on 'the many coloured land' novels by Julian May which use the same root celtic legend. But this is going to come back to arguing, inside that article, about exactly how far the relevance to arthur, DH and MCL should be mentioned. If it doesn't get mentioned there, then it will simply bounce back here. But if the whole article becomes unsupportably short and plainly about this one subject really, then it will also bounce back here. Sandpiper 01:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea of splitting off a separate article for Hallow would allow some of our beloved editors to go ahead and work together and freely compare all sorts of examples of historical "Hallowed" objects - such as in the assorted relics of the Saints, along with the Holy Grail (cup of Christ), the Lance (which pierced His side), pieces of wood from the Cross, and the other "hallowed" items associated with early Christianity and the Crusades and the Legends of King Arthur; and Tarot Card suits, and work in if they wish all sorts of comparisons and correlations to the original 4 "natural elements" of earth-air-fire-water elements, and so forth, and let those concepts stand or fall on their own merit. There would be no need to continue the argument there as to whether Rowling had any of these other things in mind when she invented the Deathly Hallows title. Since we cannot yet see into her mind, we cannot be certain what she had in it then. Now a brief mention could be made that Rowling used the phrase Deathly Hallows in the title of Book 7, but it is uncertain exactly what she meant by it. Meanwhile in this (the Book 7) article, the section on the meaning of Hallows could include a "see Hallows for more information" line for people to refer to if they wish. Fan and "professional" speculation and analysis can also be provided in an appropriate "Speculations" section, with external reference links provided to prove that "some fans", the Mugglenet, and Uber-Professor so-and-so all believe that the title Deathly Hallows perhaps refers to some of the remaining "Relics" of the Founders, which might now be Horcruxes. These action would provide the needed information, without necessarily impling that Rowling's Deathly Hallows have anything to do with Arthurian Relics Legends and Tarot Cards and such, which is the aggravating OR point that has caused so much trouble. As for notability - well as you can see, since Rowling kicked it off, Hallows is now an extremely hot topic here in the wiki-world, not to mention in HP fandom. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that some people might still not see the topic as noteable. I've no problem at all noteing here that there is a fan speculation connecting the founders relics with the hallows, and expanding at length elsewhere about hallows, except that I suspect the sticking point is making any connection between the legend and the founders relics. I think the uncontroversial bit is probably an exposition of hallows. The controversial bit is the connection, particularly one at any length. The mere mention of four legendary hallows at all seems likely to cause dissent. But there would also be the issue of who will write this new article. I am not an expert on this, but the bits I have read recently here and there suggest what we have is by no means a complete account. Sandpiper 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary position

It seems to me that the heart of this dispute is to be found here: [4]. This is an essay on parallels between legends involving Hallows and Hp on HP-lexicon by Bandersnatch. That has a number of references including [5] by Erin Dolmage on TLC. The second article was written before the title of book 7 was released, and addresses the introduction of the Tarot into the last book. It discusses relics of the founders as horcruxes and how they match the tarot symbolism of cups/swords/wands and coins. It would be my view that:

These essays (and no doubt others) accurately summarise existing thinking about a possible connection between Hallows and content already published in the books. As such are noteable theories.
Are not in the terms defined above self-publication. Different people have been involved in the process of their publication to those who wrote them.
Are published on noteable and respected websites, recommended by Rowling as places to look for information about her books and as such represent acceptable sources.
Are subject to ongoing peer review
Are immediately and obviously relevant to the subject of this article. Rowling has stated that the meaning of 'Hallows' is central to understanding the plot of the book. (though it would not surprise me if the word itself never gets a mention until the last page)

As such, are entirely acceptable for inclusion here. Indeed, it would be a singular omission not to comment on this as an existing debate in the world of HP fans.

Ultimately though, having gone through all this lot so thatI understand what Hallows means, I thought 'so what'? it is exactly the title we might have expected given what is already known about the books, just dressed up very cleverly in archaic language. Rowling has been pulling our leg. Sandpiper 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not ours to determine what Hallows means in the world of HP, and fan-theories self-published on personal websites, that are not owned by any professional researchers or experts are not to be taken as valid sources, as per WP:RS.

That JKR praises the speculative strength of some fans (while she has never said anywhere that these fans were right) doesn't mean that these fans suddenly become literary experts. These sources simply don't meet the quality standards of Wikipedia, and JKR has never praised these websites in the context of Wikipedia.

Finally, I insist that Wikipedia's role is not to assert the meaning of a word that we will only understand in a yet to be released book, and that the author herself has refused to explain. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Folken de Fanel 11:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

However, merely mentioning that there are many speculations on this matter on the internet, would seem valid, with mentions of the websites, etc. However thoroughly developing these theories and asserting that some are likely to be true (as did the previous "meaning of Hallows" section) will not be acceptable on WP. Folken de Fanel 12:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

well this is getting tedious. we seem to have staked out in the sand our opposed interpretations of the situation. Rowling and I feel that these particular websites are 'recommended reading' for anyone wanting information or theories about the books. I don't imagine for one minute that Rowling personally cares at all what the rules of inclusion on wiki are. Why should she? She has merely recommended these sites to everyone. Please, however, go off and research the meaning of 'self published'. I would also point out, that strictly speaking the three websites in question are now all profit making concerns (or at least self financing, though I have no access to their financial details). The people wroking there may once have been doing it solely out of interest, but it is now undeniably 'professional'. The people concerned are thus both experts on the subject of HP, and professional. So I would return to my own comment: I do not need a crystal ball. All I need is a suitable dictionary, dare I say an encyclopedia, and the English language meaning of 'Hallows' becomes apparent. I don't really want to wotk up a section listing all the most popular speculations in a balanced way, but we can go that way if you insist. Sandpiper 13:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points. However, I am concerned with Rowling's most recent statement: Some of you have expressed a (much more muted!) mixture of happiness and sadness at the prospect of the last book being published, and that has meant more than I can tell you. If it comes as any consolation, I think that there will be plenty to continue arguing and speculating about, even after 'Deathly Hallows' comes out. So if you're not yet ready to quit the message boards, do not despair... [6]. This suggests to me that Rowling actually relishes the arguing and speculating that is going on (perhaps even right here). It is not that she endorses the fan web sites as somehow factual and authoritative, but it is that she enjoys reading them, and sometimes even contributing to them, and occasionally she referred to them as a crutch if she was uncertain of some factoid, in hopes she would refresh her memory there to avoid continuity problems and contradictions. Thats what I take from her various comments about the Lexicon, Mugglenet, HPANA, Immeritus, Leaky Cauldron, and now Potterish.com [7]. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain she enjoys the fuss. But there is another recent quote somewhere where she talks about the conflict between wanting to tell everyone everything about the books, and the fact that she can't, not least because although everybody does want to know, they want to find out in the right way. it is no fun if she simply tells us the ending. So these games aren't simply for her to have fun, they are for us to have fun as well. And publicise the books, of course, keep the money men happy. But I'm sure she does it for the pleasure of pleasing her audience. But my take is that the fan sites are her way of saying what she can not say. They allow people to unofficially work out the plot, which she endorses and encourages, and I am sure enjoys. The websites allow fans to run at their own speed. Those who are determined can get all the detail there is, while others can just read the books. If you read through the Anelli/Spatz interview with her after the last book, she plainly tells them that she expects them to work out details of the plot. Her difficulty is to manage the information to keep everyone going at the speed they want to go. So obviously she cannot simply blurt it to the newspapers, she has to do it by dropping hints which she tells us are soluble puzzles. Now, my chief concern when editing articles is sometimes how far to make clear what has been said. Whether to similarly hold back information to allow people to find out for themselves. I've done the discovery bit on hallows, looked up the meaning, so know I know what the words in the title mean. I understand the english sense of them, which is not necessarily what Rowling may finally make them mean. These are two different meanings. The plain English one, and the Rowling one. The english one is clear, the Rowling one is not, although it will not ignore the plain english one.

I don't want to go into alternate meaning which Rowling may work into the books. I think that too complicated, messy, not reliable information, and really beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. My question to myself, is whether the plain english meaning should be clearly explained in an article such as this, or deliberately obscured. This is exactly Rowling's own problem. The debate with FdF is an important issue of principle, but as to the application of an outcome from it, I'm still not convinced precisely how I would word the 'difficult' section if left entirely to my choice. What is in the article at the moment is not too bad, though I would insist on at least a sentence noting the ongoing debate over whether the four founders relics are the hallows in question, and references to the sources from lexicon. I don't like the way the section previously was worded to make an argument, and I had been minded to do something about that, but I could see already that it was a touchy subject. I'm not convinced an exposition of literary hallows is really controversial, but there are plain parallels between these and other myths which show up in elements of Rowling's plots. For that reason it might be better to have them separated, so that only determined readers would go to the trouble of checking. But that would still leave us with the problem of who knowledgeable is going to write such an article, and making it stick as an indepndent article. Sandpiper 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some people have speculated on the Internet is not notable. If there is a reliable source which states what hallows means in the context of this book, it should go in. Discussion about what the word means in other contexts is thinly-veiled speculation about what it might mean in this particular book, but it is based on no reliable source. It does not belong here. Hobson 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, but the issue is whether a website which Rowling has recommended to anyone seeking information about the books constitutes a good source of information. Which way do you take her views? Sandpiper 13:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to take her views, and really it makes no difference what I think she meant. Look, after some thought I think I was wrong in my comment above - I personally think it is notable that in the run-up to the book being released there has been a lot of speculation and discussion among fans as to what the title might mean and what secrets the book may reveal. The fan community surrounding Harry Potter is well worth mentioning (whether it exists on the internet or elsewhere). It's huge and reflects the books' success. But what I think what Wikipedia can reasonably say is that there is a large fan community, it discusses ideas on the Internet and this has included a lot of speculation about what might be in the final book. But the important point imho is that it musn't cross the line into joining in that speculation. Hobson 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to detail speculation. It's sufficient to say that there is speculation and link to where such speculation can be found, if necessary. Only the author knows what the word means in the context of the book, so until she provides some hints or the book is released, it's all speculation. --Dave. 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, Wikipedia is not the place for developing spectulations. While it might be noted that such speculations exist, it's not our to develop or accreditate them.

If you " don't imagine for one minute that Rowling personally cares at all what the rules of inclusion on wiki are", then why are we talking about it ? She wasn't talking about Wikipedia so don't use what she said in a completely different context.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it is necessary for Rowling to have said something explicitly about wiki. How many references here come with an endorsement that they were specially intended for inclusion on wiki? Sandpiper

You have yourself said that the quotes from JKR made the fansites notable in a Wiki context. It merely told you that such quotes couldn't not work in a wiki context, as they were not said in a Wiki context. Folken de Fanel 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fan speculations remain fan speculations. Only JKR knows what will happen in her books. Thus fan sites cannot to be cited on Wikipedia as sources on "what will be on book 7".

Please Sandpiper, do not use the word "professional" lightly. Fans running websites are not professionals. Professionals are people who have officially recognised jobs, and who are getting paid by employers for doing these jobs. Fans who are still students, or who have other jobs unrelated to literature or the specific study of HP, and who run HP websites in their free time are not professionals.

People whose official job is "doctor of potterian literature" would be professionals, however.

But 18 year-old fans running websites and selling t-shirts or whatever are not "professionals".(FdF)

Experts are whoever they are. As far as I am aware, there are no professors of potterian literatue, so it is rather pointless trying to get the opinion of one. I seek the views of those who know most about the field, and in particular those who have a demonstrated and acknowledged track record of achievement in this sphere. (That is what 'peer review' means) Sandpiper

So mere fans are not experts.Folken de Fanel 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fans are also not "experts", since they did not study "potterology" and none of their work has been graded by recognized by professors of literature. (FdF)

exams to not measure ability, except in answering the questions asked. Have you seen the nonsense of current British education? People just look things up on the internetSandpiper

I'm not talking about highshool, mind you. But professors...There's a big difference. Folken de Fanel 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As WP:RS says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

interesting, but so what? this is not self-published, not a personal website, nor anonymous, nor a blog.Sandpiper

Lexicon is of course a personal website and contains self-published work. Folken de Fanel 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon was founded by Steve Vander Ark. I know he does write articles on it, but I doubt he is even the major contributor now. Nothing can be a 'personal website', if it is dealing with the work of other people. Wiki was founded by Jimbo Wales, who still retains editorial rights to alter ANYTHING. Does that make wiki a personal website? Sandpiper 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very clear, fans, no matter how many times they've read the books, aren't "experts". Experts have been officially recognized by academic institutions. (FdF)

Oh dear me no. So the Nazi holocaust was all ok then, because the legitimate authorites at that time said it was? Sandpiper

There is a line, you know... Michaelsanders 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GODWIN's POINT FOR SANDPIPER !!!!!!!!!!! And about Harry Potter, moreover...Really...You should pay attention to what you write, sometimes.Folken de Fanel 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so pathetically juvenile. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll have to stop behaving like an ape dancing in a judges robes. Michaelsanders 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you learn something new every day. But I don't think this is an application of hyperbole. Did no one ever explain the consequences of slavish rule following? Sandpiper 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of Hallows in book 7 might be apparent to you, however since you're not JKR (and if you were, well, I'd advise you to contribute publicly, it would solve a lot of problems) well, you cannot guess anything nor make any claims that you have found the solution. Because you don't know the story. (FdF)

I don't need to know the story, I am not commenting on it. I am merely commenting on the meaning of the words. Sandpiper

Comment only on what you know, and not what you think you know. Folken de Fanel 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proving that you haven't the slightest conception of what you are talking about. On wikipedia, you don't comment on what you know or don't know, you comment on what can be sourced. Michaelsanders 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As for "listing all the most popular speculations in a balanced way", if you refuse it (ie if you want to favor the theories you agree with, over all others), then you'd be contradicting the WP:NPOV rule...Folken de Fanel 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

what I want to do is make clear the meaning of Hallows as applied in english usage. This is how I would approach any problem on wiki, by explaining in greater detail. But I am not concerned with Rowling's meaning, only the english one. In fact, I would prefer the section to be re-worded to make this clear. Sandpiper

Edit: T-dot has a point about how JKR really regards fansites. As I've tried to say, what she enjoys is the speculative process among fans, the creativity that has spawned from them upon reading the books. However she has never said these sites were factual or authoritative. Whatever you might say, there's a difference between an author liking one particular aspect of the fandom, and the criteria of validity in an independant encyclopedia. Folken de Fanel 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On what criteria do you base 'expertise'? Michaelsanders 14:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia's criteria concerning reliable sources: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Folken de Fanel 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the conditions were met. The Lexicon is the foremost credible publisher of Harry Potter critical analysis and consideration, as indicated by Rowling's endorsement. Similarly, those who contribute to it are amongst the foremost researchers and writers in their field of expertise, namely, Harry Potter - as, again, indicated by Rowling's endorsement. Similarly, other material was taken from credible sources. I fail to see the issue. Michaelsanders 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't. "Critical analysis" on a book that no one in the world has read, expect the author herself and the people wroking for her editor, are totally pointless. This is mere "crystal balling" and we don't need/want this on Wikipedia.

Besides, the webmasters of these websites are not at all experts (the only expert I can see is JKR herself, because she's the only one who really knows everything. How can you be an "expert" if you ignore crucial pieces of the story you're talking about ? As Wikipedia itself says it, experts are not autoproclamed, but have to be officially recognized, and fans aren't and cannot be "experts").

That you fail to see the issue doesn't matter. Various contributors have pointed out the issue. And what you fail above all, is to understand Wikipedia's priniples. Folken de Fanel 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"...and we don't need/want this on Wikipedia." Don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone other than yourself. You don't. You fail to understand the policies of wikipedia, you consistently flout its rules. You have been accused of wikilawyering. No one else supports your unique and creative interpretation of wikipedia rules.

'Have to be officially recognised' - Rowling has, as you have been repeatedly told, recognised the expertise of websites such as the Lexicon. Why do you continue to deny this?

Wikipedia is a place for speculation - providing that the speculation is derived from reliable sources and is not the original thought of the editor himself. That is one of the ways in which Wikipedia is set apart from other encyclopaedias - it allows readers to read all viewpoints, instead of those which might, for whatever reason, have been excluded from Brittanica, say. Similarly, it allows, encourages, and indeed expects literary analysis - provided it derives from a reliable source. That is the case here. Shall I state it so you understand? Rowling has stated that she regards the Lexicon as an Expert. Therefore, it is a Reliable Source, if not The Preeminant Reliable Source, for Harry Potter. Speculations, analyses, and all. Accept it. Or are you planning to troll off to the Shakespeare articles and remove every piece of sourced critical analysis there, because 'the only expert you can see is William Shakespeare'? Raise the issue there and try it.

'Fans are not experts'?!?!? Have you heard of A.C. Bradley?

Oh, but you are right in one respect. "Experts are not autoproclamed, but have to be officially recognized". Why, then, you are setting yourself up as a Doctor and Promulgator of Wikipedia policy, in defiance of all others, is a mystery. You are not an expert. You are one person who has misinterpreted Wikipedia policy, and who is now trying to subvert these articles to those misbegotten interpretations. Stop it. Michaelsanders 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand all of Wikipedia's policies, and I'm not talking for everyone, just making you notice that you're not the only one in this world, and that others than me weren't agreeing with you on this subject. You don't need to be agressive when you don't find any arguments.

I have never been accused of "wikilawyering".

7 other contributors said essencially the same things I said.

Rowling has not recognized the "expertise" of Lexicon. Why do you cling to such irrelevant statements ?

Wikipedia is not a place for speculations.

Speculations can be mentionned if they originate from experts and professionals. Lexicon is neither.

Speculations concerning unreleased books are irrelevant on Wikipedia.

Rowling has never recognized anythin. Lexicon is not a valid source. No one is a valid source as far as divinations about the content of Deathly Hallows are concerned. Exept Rowling herself.

Shakespeare and critical analyses have nothing to do here. Shakespear has been studies for many many years by many many academics and professors that are abilitated to talk on the subjects. Critical analyses have been published by literary experts, professional journalists, professors...And above all, they are what they are, critical analyses.

Fan speculations on an unpublished book are in no way "critical analyses".

"Defiance on all others" ? First who are you, who don't tolerate to be contradicted ? Who are you to make such rants each time someone doesn't think like you ?

Then, as I have already told you, 7 other contributors expressed the same opinion as me. If for you, that's equivalent to "me against all others", that's your problem, not Wikipedia's.

And that's purely hillarious, you speak about interpretations, while you're the only trying to impose interpretations on wikipedia. Be carefull about the rules of civility here, please. Folken de Fanel 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit: can you see the Horcrux article, Michaelsanders ? Can you see how its "possible remaining Horcruxes" section is constructed ? Can you see that the only speculations in there are directly quoted from a character inside the story ? Can you see how absolutely no fan theory is explicited or developed ? That is what reliable sources means as far as speculations go.Folken de Fanel 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point. Anyone writing an article strives to use the best available references. If Rowling wrote something directly, then the simplest thing to do is quote it. If you can supply us with an advance copy of book 7, then we will happily quote from it exactly what the title means. But until we get that, we have to use those sources which are available to us. Sandpiper 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely we shouldn't be discussing critical analysis of the book title in the article though, since even the critical analysis is only speculation? --Dave. 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean. I don't think we should be discussing whether it is a good title, or a bad title. We have to have a stab at explaining what it means, however. Not to do so is rather absurd. Sandpiper 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't explain what it means. You can only say that nobody knows execpt JKR, and that fans have speculated on this matter (however you can't develop these theories and say which ones are likely to be true either). Folken de Fanel 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We can, however, source the speculations of reliable figures. Just as every other unexplained literary title does. Not that you would know. Michaelsanders 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion about New Section

Here's what I think. Fan speculation has been an integral component to each Harry Potter publication since the wide popularity of these books. Reputable sources have published noteworthy, well researched, and well argued speculation. So far, this is really the only information we have about these books, even if the information is not fact, but steeped in opinion. I see no reason why we should not have a section on this speculation, title "Noteable Fan Theories, Speculation, and Analysis of Title" where we can summarize the different mainstream views on this issue and their arguements. We could have a set of criteria in what constitutes "Noteable." I believe that this should be the criteria (which should be presented at the beginning of the section): a)The Fan Theory has to be published by a reputable source (not self-published nor taken from a blog) where there is a peer reviewed system in place. These generally include the fan sites recommended by Rowling, where they have established their credibility for years. b)Each Fan Theory must be well researched, with only the use of material from canon and academic sources (meaning no information from fan fiction). I believe this information is important to the book currently, as the publication of the book has come to be viewed as an event, and people react to pending events. I see no reason why we should not note that reaction, especially when there are essays that are significant to the general fan base that is waiting most ardently for the publication of this book. Then, when the book is published, we can go back and see if any at all were correct in their analysis and prediction. --User:Lulurascal

What the Harry Potter articles really need are proper critical opinion. And the above is a very good suggestion of how to work it in, not just in terms of speculation here, but in terms of general critical consideration everywhere. The internet is the foremost resource for HP critical opinion, and Wikipedia is in a superbly advantaged position to use it and reference it. And yet, we do not. If we were to use literary consideration (e.g. an analysis of Hermione's nature, or a consideration of themes in the books, or source-based speculation) from sites vetted by the above criteria, it would dramatically improve the quality of Harry Potter articles. And, possibly, even get the GA team on our side. Michaelsanders 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Although there is some literary analysis on the general Harry Potter page, there needs to be a discussion about critical opinion and literary critism for each Harry Potter book. So far, all of the articles on each of the Harry Potter books remain relatively short and not very informative, with no critical discussion. This really needs to change. --Lulurascal 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I also agree that in general what is missing from many literature articles is analysis and comment. The difficulty is that someone will come along and write a perfectly sensible piece which anyone who knows anything about the work will recognise and accept, then 6 months later someone comes along and says 'where's your source?', and strikes it out. This is a big failing in wiki. It has a lot of trouble with subjects which are inherently opinion rather than exact facts. I wait to see how this contradiction will finally be resolved. I think probably a number of editors simply don't like fiction, particularly popular fiction, and are perfectly happy with rules which make it very difficult to create good articles. Sandpiper 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well at least we have some guidelines to work with and defend the articles from. There is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), both present the consensus view, and some clues on how fictional works such as the HP universe should be documented. These guidelines should help us create good articles and possibly featured articles if we can come to consensus on the relative minutia. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, here is wikipedian policy on Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." So, we know that the event will take place, that book 7 will be released. So, according to wikipedia policy, we can "report discussion and arguments" about the material. I believe noteable fan speculation exactly constitutes this. --Lulurascal 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for rumors and speculation, but it is an encyclopedia for documented sources. Therefore, I suggest putting a link on this page to the [Harry Potter derived works] page, and explaing that it documents many of the researched theories experts have thought of. That way, people who want reputable, published speculation will know where to go. --valeriefrankel , 12 February 2007

Yes, but Wikipedia is a source for "discussion and arguments about...whether some developments will occur." As far as I have searched, there is no page called "Harry Potter derived works." There is a page for Harry Potter fandom, but that is mostly stuff from fan fiction. It is entirely appropriate to put up well documented and well researched analysis of the title, including speculation on what it means, just as long as the reader knows that it is opinion and not fact. I think the above stated would cover this. Anyway, in a few months time, it won't really matter because the book will come out. Moreover, I think it safe that some of the fan speculation is not so much speculation as analysis of the previous book (at least good and well researched speculation is). (Lulurascal 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

It is my position that a great deal of this discussion hinges upon the definition of a word. In this case the word in question is Hallow. The printed definition of the word (ie Middle English word-To consecrate etc etc etc) has been looked up, kicked around, bent, folded, spindled and mutilated and then tried to fit into any number of differently sized boxes to fit all types of speculation. Since no one knows how the word is being used (noun, verb, adverb, adjective) in this context, it would be folly to attribute a value to the word other that what is in the dictionary. Attempted speculation in the field of Harry Potter has yet to actually hit the nail on the head in advance of the book, so anything else is just screaming and hand waving until July 2007. Elfich 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I read some well argued speculation before book 6, and it turned out to be entirely true. It predicted that Dumbledore would die, and that Snape was the HBP. But, nevertheless, most of the speculation that I am talking about is not so much speculation as it is critical analysis of the story as a whole. (Lulurascal 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

That is the point though, it was speculation. As an encyclopedia, this page cannot traffic in speculation. And I have to ask, for every theory that turned out to be true, how many more were there that were not? It is my opinion to report exactly what is known and can be confirmed by a reputable source in this matter. Speculation, well founded, justified or researched does not, as it is unconfirmed as cannot be reported as fact. Speculation cannot hide under the guise of critical analysis. Because then you will gored gored on one of two horns: Either it is outright Speculation or it it Original Research. Either does not have a place on this page.

If you are looking to do a critical analysis of the book and don't want to get your material immediately tossed overboard, you may be more looking for an analyis of the themes in the book and how the characters compare to the standard archtypes of various types of stories. For example, the boarding school theme, the hero coming of age theme (Joseph Campbell), young mystery themes, comparison to standard religious themes. The themes of Life, Death, Rebirth, Redemption, Sacrifice, Predestination versus Choice. You could easily compare the story to The Arthurian Legend (Using Harry as Arthur and Dumbledore as Merlin), but then you could just as easily use Luke Skywalker/Obi-wan Kenobi (Star Wars) or Garion/Belgarath (The Belgarion) or Shea Omsford/Allanon (Sword of Shanara) for comparisons. Each is introduced into a larger world where the main character is given a magic token, guidance from a mentor figure and companions to help them against a larger and more powerful evil that he alone must defeat. The hero goes through a series of Ordeals and Challenges that strengthens him (one of them being the loss of the mentor figure) until he can challenge the evil on his own. The obvious conclusion being the final entry into adulthood from childhood/adolesence. Whether such analysis would be proper on this page or a different one would still be subject to discussion.Elfich 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you entirely on this point. It is speculation to assume that book 7 will even be published. We do not know for certain that this book will even be published, not really. We know that the publishers say that they plan to publish it, we know that JKR has finished the book, but there still remains that possibility that book 7 will not be published. So, in a way, it is speculation to assume that the book will be published. Lost of speculation is posted in an encyclopedia, speculation about humanity, about human nature, about our world; all the theories of physics are just speculation, albeit speculation based on observation. Most, if not all, of history is steeped in speculation. Yet, we report on this speculation in encyclopedias. Why? Because it is all we know about the world. We do not know the absolute truth, but we do know what we see and what we experience, and we use this evidence to form ideas, theories, about our world, our universe. Is the theory of relativity fact? No, it is a theory, just like any concept in science. What is a photon? we talk about it like a particle, and discuss it in terms of a wave, but ultimately the very concept of a photon is speculation based on observation, granted that this type of speculation is probably the most accurate of any other type of speculation. What about philosophy? All speculation. Religion? All speculation. As our observations improve, there will be speculation that is proven false, there will be scientific concepts that are proven false, concepts that have been written in many encyclopedias (Think about the theory of everything, this is nothing but speculation, yet there is an article about it). A scientist will observe nature phenomena, and speculate about it, come up with a theory about it, and will publish this theory. The theory will then be considered by other, and if they like the theory, it will be considered true. The theory will find its way into text books, encyclopedias, etc. Then, another theory comes along and proves that this theory is only true to a certain extent, and to another extent, it is false. Nevertheless, it has been published in sources of information. However, these types of speculation are veiled under complex names. To assume that all speculation should not appear in an encyclopedia is just absurd, because the very basis of an encyclopedia is to explain concepts and indeed speculation to people. Why not explain theories (and speculation) on literature? It is entirely permitted according to wikipedian policy (see above). This would make for a more rich and interesting article. Lulurascal 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Elfrich, is that you are confusing speculation on the part of editors - which is largely, if not totally, forbidden by wikipedia rules, with speculation on the part of external sources, which wikipedia is expected to include if they are notable enough (which is where the problems arise - it is difficult to judge if a theory is 'notable' or not, and really needs a case-by-case consideration rather than a Procrustean rule). For example, the article on George III of the United Kingdom contains speculation on the nature of his madness - but since it is all sourced, and all worthily so, it is not only allowed, but helps ensure the article's FA status. You can also see Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile for a case of little apart from speculation - but all derived from outside sources, rather than created by the editors themselves. Thus, in this case, it does not matter if any included 'theory' is proved wrong - if it is notable (and I'm thinking here chiefly of the 'Scarcrux' theory, which is probably the notable theory), we are allowed to include it in the encyclopaedia. Provided it is sourced. And it does not matter if it will possibly prove wrong or not - it would remain until it was proved wrong. And, if it was notable enough, remain as an example of what was thought that was wrong. Michaelsanders 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So I have this right: The person who edits the page cannot speculate themselves but can report on the speculations of others? As long as these speculations are from "reputable sources." That then boils down to what is a reputable source (Yes, I noticed the small war above on this subject). Then I would ask the question: What constitutes an 'expert' in the field of discussion? A BS, an MS, you run a website on the subject, you have worked twenty years in the field and others in that field consider you an expert. At this time there is no governing body (like the bodies that certify schools, hosptials and licences) that certifies experts in the Field of Harry Potter. Only the author has the answers that people are looking for, and she isn't talking (and has said that she isn't going to be talking). So anything that is outside of the 6 books and 2 references and numerous quotes from the author is back to screaming and hand waving (whether it was speculated here or speculated somewhere else and then reported here).Elfich 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

People are getting confused, here. Wikipedia is not a SOURCE for "discussion and arguments about...whether some developments will occur". Wikipedia CAN report discussions and argument if they are well-cited and notable (but it is in no way mandatory), however Wikipedia will NEVER EVER become a "source" for "discussion and arguments".

Then, some of you have compared theories concerning the plot of HP books, and theories about historical figures. Please realise that the latter were made by professors of history, and that's why they are notable, and they are in no way similar to fans speculating about what will happen in the next HP book...

Someone mentions that in the crystal ball article, it is said that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced". However the contributor should be careful about the context of this sentence. Here, we're talking about a fictional work not yet published. So we should rely on Wikipedia's guideline about notability in fiction-related articles. And there, we can read that: " Fiction not yet written may be considered speculation (again, not by default, but often so) which is grounds for deletion because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games, etc., unless there has already been substantial press coverage about the to-be-released item."

So please, pay attention to these guidelines when you're debating...

And still, an article named "theories about the plot of future HP books" will be likely to be speedy-deleted, as it will inevitably contain original research since it would be based on unreliable source (people who have not read the final book are simply not able to say what will happen in it, no matter how many times they have read the previous book. This is "crystal balling". And please, remember the guidelines for articles about fiction before quoting a certain line from the "crystal ball" article...).

Remember that the WP:V guideline defines a reliable source as "produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist", and that mere fans running their personal websites are not likely to be a reliable source as far as speculation is concerned. It means that no matter how well they are documented about already published material, they'll never be seen as "professional researchers" when they're making pure divination (and not research work) about the plot of a yet-to-be-released book. Folken de Fanel 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people are getting confused here. Namely, you. No one has said that wikipedia should be a source for rumours - what I, and everyone else is saying, is that wikipedia should not be a source for speculation, because if it was the source, then it would have produced the speculations through OR. What I said above (as you would know if you weren't too busy ranting yet again) is that wikipedia is allowed to reference and use the work of external writers - since that is neither OR or speculation on the part of the editor, but rather a NPOV presentation of the reliable sources.

Let me emphasise - you are the only one who appears to think that the speculations of interested and reliable parties has no place in an article on a literary work. And Professorship has nothing to do with it. What makes someone an 'expert' is not whether they have managed to score a place at their old university, but whether they are acknowledged as experts by their peers. Professor or not, if a man or woman had a theory (say) that black men and women were less intelligent than their European counterparts (and there really was a Professor suggesting that somewhere in Britain last year, who I think - I hope - was forced out of his job), he or she would be regarded not as an expert but as an imbecile. By contrast, the Lexicon is acknowledged as an authority not only by most, if not all, fans of Harry Potter, but by the author herself. Stop lawyering, and accept that it is perfectly in line with Wikipedia criteria regarding acceptable sources. If you continue to be confused about this issue, or the meaning of wikipedia policies, find an admin, and ask them to explain them to you. You clearly need assistance in understanding the policies which, even as you quote them, clearly contradict your own statements. Michaelsanders 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be carefull about personal attacks.

Same to you. I pointed out several personal attacks you made on others - you dismissed it as 'harassment'... Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I never made any personal attacks on others.Folken de Fanel 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, technically, Wikipedia cannot use the works of just any external writers. They have to be reliable, which, as far as speculations about a book not yet released go, is impossible for anyone but the author.

If you think that, rewrite the rules. And rewrite the standards for articles on literature. Because 'reliability' is not defined as 'the author'. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not written the rules, I merely report them. If you don't like them, you can create your own wiki. Folken de Fanel 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just the presentation of others' original research (and they are original research, since they cannot be substanciated in anyway). And reporting OR while taking it as "reliable source", is also OR. Since OR is characterise by a non-sourcing, or a use of bad sources.

Stop confusing Wikipedia with the outside world. In wikipedia, you cannot write your own creative interpretations - you have to write what others have written, either in the books themselves, or in external sources. And of course external research is Original Research!!! What do you think it is??? That doesn't mean that external OR is forbidden - it is required for wikipedia, because the alternative is internal OR. If a piece of research is well-sourced, well-researched, and is largely considered adequate by the community it was written for, it is permitted - and expected - for wikipedia. I understand that in Manga comics, there really isn't much in the way of external thought, but this is a book. People do tend to write about it. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot write what others have written if those "others" are not reliable sources in the field they're writing. Then since theories aren't well-sourced and well-researched, they don't fit Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

section break for length

Let me emphasise, there have been 8 different editors (and you're forcing me to name them, they are: User:Dposse, User:T-dot, User talk:Hobson, Dave, User talk:Valeriefrankel, User:Elfich - I permit myself to add User talk:Hobson- and me) have expressed a strong reluctance either to include fan theories in articles or to create an article entirely dedictated to these theories. However, you're, with User:Lulurascal and User:Sandpiper, the only who still concider fan divination to be "reliable", even though each one of you failed to prove how it would be so (and whatever falacious arguments you might use, you still haven't adressed anything to the "expert"/"professional researchers in their own field"/"no personal websites" issues).

I have repeatedly addressed the personal websites issue, but no one is listening. A personal website is one where you post your own stuff. It is not one which posts other peoples stuff. An expert is someone/ some thing pre-eminent in their own field. Lexicon endorses articles which it hosts, and lends them its reputation. This is not an issue of right or wrong. It is an issue of 'best'. Rowling's endorsement of Lexicon extends to all its content, including on book 7. This article is about book 7. Book 7 is part two of book 6 (according to R). We know an enormous amount about book 7. Sandpiper 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This comes down to the definition of the word 'expert'. does what the author believe is an expert match what Wikipedia deems to be an expert? Elfich 03:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Those editors didn't want fan theories in the article. None of them questioned the adequacy of the sources, or your unorthodox attitude to sources. Indeed, one of those you claim support you (Valerie Frankel) said, "Wikipedia is not a source for rumors and speculation, but it is an encyclopedia for documented sources." Which seems to be an agreement with what I have been saying, and you denying. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It means what it means, that speculations are not documented.Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want unsubstantiated rumors in the article. Yes, there is a lenghtly section on 'known plot details' and 'Information from JKR' these are points that either the author has confirmed/denied or are known to be outstanding from the previous books.

The appearance of the (in my opinion 'contrived') speculation trying to: tie Harry Potter to the Arthurian legend, assign items/attributes not known about the founders of Hogwarts, what a 'Hallow' (beyond the accepted dictionary definition) is, etc. is no more than a million monkeys with a million typewriters producing the works of Shakespear. Eventually someone will guess it correctly, but no one will know until the book is released.Elfich 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): " Fiction not yet written may be considered speculation (again, not by default, but often so) which is grounds for deletion because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games, etc., unless there has already been substantial press coverage about the to-be-released item."

Oh, are you denying that there has been substantial press coverage about this book, now? There has been more than enough for it to qualify. And crystal-ballery applies to wikipedians saying, "Well, such-and-such did this, so that might happen in this book." - which, unfortunately, makes up most of this article. It does not exclude legitimate critical opinion about the book.Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been no substantial press coverage about this book to allow speculations. Speculations are not critical opinions.Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In these conditions, I can't see how fan theories would be "reliable sources". It can be mentionned that there are theories, however developing them of even presenting them as "reliable" is against Wikipedia's policy.

I repeat, they can if they have been subjected to the approval of peers on a site approved of by Rowling.Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Peers that are unreliable themselves, and the site has never been "approved" by JKR. Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About professors saying that black people would be less intelligent, this is of course completely out of context (and I really cannot see where you hope to go with this), but about 2 centuries ago, it was still a "valid" theory that had been supported by various scientific researchers with enough credit, however as scientific experiments and discoveries went during the 19th/20th, it was completely invalidated, with concrete proofs.

The point was that your continual insistence that an expert has a title, and anyone with a title is an expert, but that anyone without a title cannot be an expert, is rubbish. A person can have a title and claim himself an expert. It doesn't change the fact that 'expertise' is defined by the opinion and judgement of peers, not personal claims or titles - Professors are just as, if not more, capable of spewing rubbish as anyone else. And one doesn't have to be a Professor to be considered an expert by ones peers. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's policy states, anyone can say he's an expert. Official titles are here to mark the difference between true experts (reliable) and autoproclamed experts (unreliable).Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays, if a professor said that, it would be his personal opinion, and since various serious studies directly contradict it, it would probably be un-notable and unreliable as a source, however it might be mentionned that some professors have certain opinions going against scientific proofs. It would not be up to Wikipedia to develop it, though.

The point is, such Professors would not be considered experts by their peers. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The concideration (personal opinions) and the actual title those persons would have acquired are 2 different things.Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The process "might" be similar in a certain way with HP, as fan theorists have no more credits than "scientists" refuting established scientific knowledge without valid proofs...

The difference is that 'theorists' offer valid evidence with their theories. And subject them to the glare of consideration, and of testing by their peers. On sites such as the Lexicon, and others, theories are subjected to scientific testing. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence is book 7 and nothing else. There is no scientific testing on Lexicon as a book not yet published cannot be used in scientific tests. Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the lexicon, it has never ever been recognized as an "authority". It has no scientific/academic approach. As for JKR's comments, that have no relevance in the context of Wikipedia. She likes the creative process of fans concerning speculations, however praising the Lexicon has never been a way for JKR to accreditate or authenticitate their theories.

It has been recognised as an authority. Rowling has said so, even saying she goes to it for details. If she has approved it, it automatically makes it suitable as a Reliable Source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It has never been recognized as an authority. JKR has not approved it. Are you suggesting that it was in fact the Lexicon guys who wrote DH, as JKR just stole their ideas ? That JKR visits the website and use it for documented details on previous books (which is the competences of lexicon) doesn't affect the reality about fan theories. Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, while the Lexicon has done a great job in compiling facts from the published books, and doing intensive and documented etymologic research about the words and expressions used in the published books, as far as speculations about unpublished books go, they are no more reliable than a 11-year old kid saying that "Dumbledore is not dead" or "Harry will marry Hermione". Because the speculations themselves are not substanciated in any way. It would need mind-readers, seers and oracles to have any reliability in this respect.

Well, no, they are more reliable, because they subject their ideas to peer approval. You really need to grasp that in articles about literature, critical opinion and thoughts are expected, if not required. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, they are as reliable as 11-year old kids, their ideas are not approved by any one having the slightest knowledge of the content of book 7. Unsubstanciated speculations are non-notable OR, not thoughts.

So while we can report that theories are one of the important aspects of the HP fandom and mention the websites like lexicon which publish them, we cannot go into details about them, or worse, dedicate entire articles to them, since these theories themselves are unsubstanciated and unproved. And see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) in this respect.

Yes we can. We are expected to publish critical thoughts and opinions in literature articles. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No we can't. No one can have critical thoughts and opinions on an unpublished book, without falling into OR. Or else, the contributor is an oracle, a seer, or a mind-reader. Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If I "clearly need assistance in understanding the policies", I wonder why 7 other contributors seem to think the same as me concerning speculations on Wikipedia. Also, could you point out your so-called contradictions, please ? Folken de Fanel 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. Michaelsanders 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop talking for other people, moreover when you are heavily altering what they've said ?

I've asked you concrete examples, where are they ?

another view (section break for ease of editing)

Back to the original suggestion - this line "Here's what I think. Fan speculation has been an integral component to each Harry Potter publication since the wide popularity of these books" had me nodding my head. Yes it is, and this is well worth mentioning and perfectly proper to mention. But Wikipedia is not the place for repeating these theories or making any judgement about which are the most well-researched. By definition, they are speculation. We just need to accept that there is a limit to what any encyclopia entry can say about a book which has not yet been published. Hobson 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

People's views about the forethcoming book may be speculations, but their existence is fact. Moreover, when it occurs on the scale we have here, it becomes a noteable fact. So far, I think we agree. Where we may diverge is that they are also published, peer reviewed and from reputable sources. I do not claim they are right, and nor do their authors. They merely claim to be informative and accurate. Wiki does not claim to be corect in what it says about anything. It merely seeks to be well researched and reporting widely held views. If wiki editors discover that a significant body of reputable reviewed experts believe that the world no longer exists, then they are entitled to report it, however unlikely it is that what they are writing is true. Paradoxical, isn't it? Wiki is not about truth. Sandpiper 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculations are notable in the sense that they exist and are an important aspect of HP fandom, not in the sense that their content would be even remotely accurate or likely. In this respect, we can only mention that there are theories, however we won't develop them or say which ones are likely to be true. See the Horcruxe article for a good example of notable and reliable sources...Dumbledore himself ! That is, JKR, NOT the fans !

Wikipedia do not care about theorists claims to be "accurate" or "informative", as they are talking about something that doesn't exist yet. There can be no accuracy or information, and there's no one to verify it (verification being an important point concerning the reliablility of the sources).Folken de Fanel 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is extraordinarily POV to claim that speculations are not remotely accurate. It is in the nature of a 'speculation' that it could be absolutely and entirely correct, or totally wrong. I said before, wiki rules paradoxically are not concerned with whether something is right or wrong. They merely concern themselves with whether something is widely held or accepted. If it is widely held that Harry will kill Voldemort using a bar of chocolate, then that is exactly what we write here. If it is widely held that the 'hallows' in the title refers to Ron's marble collection, then we say that. If the best available source, recommended by the best authority on the subject, says what hallows means, then we say that too. In fact, lexicon does not say what hallows means. It puts forward an analysis of what it could mean. This is respected analysis about the books and is the best available information. As such, it should be reported here, at least if wiki has any pretensions to being a good encyclopedia. The proper course is to present respected information, but explain its limitations. Just as lexicon has done, that's how it works in the real world. Now...back to wiki editing. Sandpiper 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily POV to claim that speculations even remotely accurate when talking about a book that is not published yet.

And it's extraordinarily to predict that Harry will kill Voldemort using a bar of chocolate or anything else.

Theories are one thing, who are you to say which ones are "wildly held" ?

Theories concerning HP are what they are, divination and "cristal-balling", attempts at reading the mind of JKR, but not notable in any way.

The best authority on the subject is JKR and no one else. Fan speculation won't be on wikipedia as it's the very example of unreliablitiy and unverifiability.

A good encyclopedia does not contain fans theories on what doesn't currently exist. Folken de Fanel 11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that is incorrect. What is correct is that this is an extraordinary series of books. The situation is much more like someone has taken a novel, and ripped out the last three chapters. There would be much information in the earlier chapters which could be used to make statements about what must be in the missing chapters. That is precisely why we are all here arguing about this. The article starts by quoting Rowling saying exactly this. It is not extraordinary to predict that either Harry kills Voldemort, or vice wersa. The books contain a prophecy that this will happen. Sandpiper 12:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then use the HP plot device that said this. Not what fans speculate about who will die or whatever...Folken de Fanel 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this has been a long debate. The page is still protected, and until we come to some consensus, it will continue to be protected. I would like to remind everyone, especially Folken de Fanel, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about how many people are on your side, it's about building a consensus. As long as there is a minority who vocally disagrees, there is no consensus. I would also like to remind everyone, especially Folken de Fanel, that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As quoted in wikipedian policy, "Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Please take these two policy statements into consideration. Here is my position (for details about speculation and such please read the beginning of the section): for this article to be fully informative, we must discuss the reaction to the anticipated publication of book 7, this includes noting the argument and discussion about fan theories, speculation, and analysis of title. I do not suggest that the article endorse one fan theory over another, but I do suggest that wikipedia only publish fan speculation that is consistent with the idea of reliable sources (meaning no fan theories from blogs, vanity sites, self-published sites). These reliable sources include established fan sites. This requirement is to be consistent with wiki sources, and so that there is no OR in the article. So, far, no one has convinced me that there shouldn't be a section on Fan Theories, Speculation and Analysis of Title. This all is just information. I really don't understand the controversy surrounding this issue. The book is going to be published in approximately 5 months, so this section will be posted for that lenght of time. Honestly, anyone looking up the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows does not expect to read the actual plot line, but they might expect to read about fan theories, speculation, and a summary of different analyses of the title. Lulurascal 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've read the "fiction articles guideline", so I have nothing to add. Also, please realise that quoting wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not a democracy can also be concidered as wikilawyering and "following the letters of a rule".

Also, please read what I write, instead of altering it in order reproach things to me. Michaelsanders says I'm alone against the entire world, I merely showed him that he was alone. Folken de Fanel 11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My goal by informing you about what wikipedia is not has been to spur you into an act of consensus building, and I hope that you will take my advice. Folken, please, lets try to work together to come to some consensus, and stop fighting (I would also like to explain to you that my comments were for everyone as well, not only for you). Lulurascal 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But you won't accept anything that I say, any time I use the WP guidelines and official rules, you always say that these rule have to ignored and that we should go by your personal opinion. Where's the consensus attempt here ?

Concidering what we've said during about 3 days, I really can't see how we could reach any consensus if you're automatically rejecting every rules and guidelines that are here only to help us write good articles.

There is no possible consensus. I think it's best for the article to stay blocked for the remaining 5 months. In this way we won't have any edit wars, we won't argue for weeks about which speculations should be added, etc. We will wait for the book to be published, and finally we will reach the perfect consensus since we'll have all the answers we're waiting for, there'll be no need for speculations and no disputes about it. Currently we have nothing more to add to the article, and actually, we won't have much until the book is published (except perhaps an extract from the book, later on, or the covers). So it's better to wait the book, which will end any debate about those speculations.

It can be avoided if we can find a consensus, but as I see it, it's not possible. We're only repeating the same things all over again.Folken de Fanel 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, wikipedia is not run based upon what you think, or the articles would be impossible to write. If you had the slightest grasp of the purpose of wikipedia, you would know that keeping an article blocked for any length of time is discouraged, and in this case not an option. Just because you refuse to understand the manner in which an encyclopaedia is written, and refuse to drop your absurd little campaign against the use of sourced analyses, doesn't mean wikipedia as a whole shares your views. It doesn't. You are the one who caused this issue, you are the one who persists in his ridiculous attitude. You are damaging wikipedia with your attitudes, your refusal to work with others, and your attempts to alter the meaning of the rules to fit your own POV. Stop being so ridiculous, start working with others, and stop trying to demolish the basis for article writing. Otherwise, it would be better if you'd go away. Wikipedia does not tolerate those who edit solely on the basis of personal crusades, nor does it tolerate those who throw around bad faith accusations of vandalism, threats, and harassment, and it certainly doesn't tolerate those who rewrite the rules for personal benefit, or who disrupt articles to prove a point. If you can't work with the rest of us, you shouldn't be here. Michaelsanders 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on "what you think" either. Until a consensus is reached, the article will stay blocked, and you're as responsible for it as I am.

It's only you who refuse to understand the manner in which an encyclopaedia is written. There is nothing "absurd" in my "campain" (which is not a campain), because WP rules and guidelines are not absurd.

You were not using sourced analyses. You merely used fan divination.

Are you trying to say the whole WP shares your views ? From what I have seen of the rules and from other contributors, that's certainly not the case.

It would be my considered view that the majority of people who have contributed usefully to HP articles would favour a better explanation of the historical usage of Hallows. (indeed, I have still not seen any example of the word being used in a different way in any similar literary context, it is becoming perverse to argue that it could have any other meaning, It is OR to argue that someone using a word is in fact departing from the established meaning of the word, without some evidence that she is.) Sandpiper

1) The one who cause this issue is the one who did these OR edits in the first place, and that would be Lulurascal, if I'm not mistaken.

This issue was caused by Rowling releasing a title containing archaic words. It was inevitable that we explain the meaning of the title, which is frankly necessary in a topic of this importance. No encyclopedia would omit such a thing. It happens that lulu got here first (my apologies if it was in fact someone else and Lulu only happened to me here at the time this issue arose, trying to improve it) Sandpiper

2) Any contributor has the right to question or discuss the relevance of any edits (and that's why talk pages exist), and in any case raising concerns about certain edits is not a crime. No, having a different opinion than yours in definitely not a crime, and not forbidden on Wikipedia.

3) I wasn't even the one who first questioned these edits. If you don't go beyond your personal hatred from me, this article will remain blocked. You're currently not trying to reach any consensus, you're merely comming here to bully me and to say to the world how evil I am...

Please, I understand that you have had rather a history of conflict with other editors. But no one hates you. Sandpiper

As far as I know, being concerned about the rules of Wikipedia and about the quality of the articles is not ridiculous.

I am not "damaging" wikipedia, as i am not the devil. You are however continuing your personal crusade against me, and you are preventing this issue to be resolved.

I tried to work with others since the beginning, only you have ignored me from the beginning, and know you're merely refusing to listen to me.

I have never EVER "altered the meaning of the rules". Before saying such things, you should provide proofs to your claims. I'm still wainting for them...

You however, have tried to alter the rules to fit your own POV.

I'm only reminding you the basis of article writing. You're merely rejecting them to turn Wikipedia in a giant crystal ball.

So what is so very wrong with a crystal ball? There is only one rule on wiki, which is that it's founder has the right to veto anything. Everything else is just an agreement between the people who volunteer to work on articles. The aim is to create a good encyclopedia. The overriding aim is to create a good ecyclopedia.

You'll never make me go away and you'll never manage to intimidate me. If you don't drop this attitude, it will only backfire at you, ultimately.

So Wikipedia doesn't tolerate you since you are only here for your crusade against me.

I have never ever made any bad faith accusations of anything. Everything was documented and proved. You have insulted me several times, you have vandalised my talk page several times even though you were warned not to do so. It's fact that you are harassing me.

I'm sorry. The reason self-published sources are not allowed is because no one has checked what the author says. You have presented an argument regarding which rules you believe were infringed. I have not seen anyone agreeing your arguments. In general, yes, but point by point, no. This is not proof.

You're the only one who have tried to rewrite the rules. I still wait for your proofs backing up your claims that I would have rewritten anything, which is ridiculous since I have always precisely quoted the rules and never rewritten them. Again, SOURCE it.

I have not disrupted an article to prove a point. I have made the article better by deleting original research that tried to prove a point.

Don't try to threaten me to make me leave, because I will not leave. Never, ever. Folken de Fanel 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In general when compiling this page I have been content to leave out fan speculation, even when that speculation has reached the point of widespread acceptance. For example, we might have had sections explaining the debate over Snape's loyalty, Dumbledore's role in the next book, Harry's possible death. But this would inevitably have been highly controversial, and I feel also would have presented unavoidable spoiler information which readers might retrospectively decide they would rather not have read. However this stuff would be potentially includeable. It is establishished information.

It would indeed be a mess to include all possible published fan theories on all topics in the HP novels. The suggestion was only to try to come to a consensus, which obviously did not happen. Lulurascal 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, this topic is slightly different. I continue to have an issue because of the spoiler nature of the information, but my conclusion is that the information is really only a spoiler for the meaning of the title, which is already published work. When it comes down to it, the title is most likely referring to the founders relics. This is a clever way of saying 'HP and the horcruxes', which is what we knew the book was about already. We need not mention 'horcruxes' at that point in the article, but the link between the relics and horcruxes is well established in book 6 and also must be mentioned somewhere as part of the known plot. Do we agree on that narrow point, about the probable meaning of the title?

I say 'probable meaning', because there is room for other meanings and also additional meanings. What is written in wiki articles does not have to be correct. As I just posted above, wiki seeks to give an accurate representation of accepted information, not correct information. However the article should seek to explain the limitations of what information is available.

There is a better explanation of this topic on Lexicon than has ever appeared here. My knowledge on this subject is absolutely not OR. It comes from reading other people's work. None of this is original research. That is why we are arguing about whether it is sufficiently reputable to be included. Frankly, that debate is a nonsense. People may not like that these sites are accepted sources of information, but that is what they have become.

I do not believe in wording sections so that they make arguments. This always leads to trouble, even when the argument being made is that the stuff is not 'wiki OR'. Writing stuff to be wiki rule-proof spoils the text.

I think it is necessary to explain that there exists a set of four traditional Arthurian/celtic Hallows, and to say what they are, and reference the relevant wiki articles as well as external ones. However, I have also seen reference to a set of 13 hallows, and perhaps these ought to be mentioned to make clear that there are other possible interpretations. Any other suggestion for alternatives which ought to be mentioned would be welcome...?

While there were 13 treasures, there were only ever 4 hallows. This is a very important thing. The number "13" only comes from the celtic treasures and never appears in Arthurian legend. There are only 4 hallows in the Arthurian legend. I am still wondering why JKR decided to name where Harry lives as "#4 Privet Drive." Knowing her, I am sure the number is important. Lulurascal 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do about the founders houses equating to the four elements. Again, this is something Rowling has said. It is consistent with another traditional meaning of the four legend Hallows, though what I have read suggested that there is some debate over which relic should correspond with which element, and whether Rowling has matched them correctly. Perhaps this might be reworded so that it does not appear to be an argument, but so that it explains another aspect of 'hallows', i.e. that the traditional symbolism of four elements may refer to the aspects of the four houses, which Rowling has previously commented on.

This was one argument in one of the sources connecting the founder relics to the celtic treasures, and I believe they also mentionned the discrepency. Lulurascal 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As a further point, it is not correct to presume that anything Rowling says is 'true'. She might have her own reasons for lying. This is a general point which applies to any reporting, whether it is statements by George Bush, Tony Blair, or the archbishop of Canterbury. It is up to us to make the circumstances clear, and leave the rest to the reader. But the information should be reported, because of Rowlings noteability and respected position as a source of information about HP. With particular reference here, Rowling has essentially given notice to readers that the statements of some of her characters, including Dumbledore, are more reliable than others. Characters speaking within the books are not precise statements from Rowling about how the story will go. They are people commenting 'in character' within the competence of that character, and almost always filtered as appropriate information to give to Harry. Obviously, some comments are more reliable than other: where we are given a textual description of a scene in a pensieve, then it is essentially a 'primary source' with impeccable accuracy. If Dumbledore tells us about a chat he had, then the information may be influenced by his interpretation. It is important to consider the reliablitiy of any source. A very important aspect of the books, is that virtually all information is filtered by Harry's (often clueless) interpretation, and indeed Harry's speculation. Generally, people do not seem to mind including this speculation.

On the whole, I think we should avoid drawing a further parallel between Arthurian legends and Harry's character, or other aspects of the books. While I entirely agree that there is existing referenceable material on this topic, my view is that this is not directly relevant to a section explaining the meaning of Hallows. This, to me, is again trespassing into the unknown area of the plot of book 7, and I think we should not mention it, as a matter of pitching the article at a correct level more than because there is no includeable content. Sandpiper 12:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article that was providing a parallel between Arthurian legends and Harry's character was also providing a parallel between Godric's sword and the arthurian sword. But nonetheless, I agree with you, that it should be placed somewhere else in a different article (which is exactly what I have done), because if has to do with more of an over all analysis of the books in general. Lulurascal 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

"Hallows" meaning: Speculation and Original Research

Response to comments by Folken

Response from FdF

Proposed new article on 'Hallows'

Summary position

Suggestion about New Section

section break for length

another view (section break for ease of editing)

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search