Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →
Archive
Archives
1

Contents

Spoiler position

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

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

Article length

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

It is anticipated that this will be a much longer book than the first one. But while that's true it's not the real reason. I don't know if this book is unique in publishing history, I seem to remember Charle Dickens work was serialised and very much sought after at publication, but the technology, the timing and probably the type of book with frankly 'something for all the family', have all combined to make it rather extraordinary. Then again, the stuff here is still only 'a taster' of the things Rowling has said in 10 years while the books have been coming out. Despite moans about OR, this article has only a fraction (well practically nothing, really) of the analysis which has gone into guesssing how the plot of the last book will go. People would undoubtedly fight over inclusion of that stuff, and I don't really see the point of putting it in here since those interested can find other websites which will tell them. But wiki could have a page which explained the most likely course of the next book in great detail, based upon existing analysis available on the web. Its all out there, though generally badly organised. maybe some of those who are unhappy about this page do not realise just how much this particular book has benn analysed even before it is printed. There are indeed even published books discussing how the plot of this one will go. Personally, I hesitate to reference them on grounds of advertising (and I have enough to do without tracking them all down), but perhaps we should, and then include some of their content?
Similarly, some people get very upset (see above) when Rowling makes an allusion to a classical myth, and we explain it. Harry has a very bland name (though arguably it harks to 'prince Hal'), but people even argue when the names of characters are explained. This is pretty basic and mainstream analysis. Rowling chose the names, but didn't invent them, and they come with a traditional meaning which has nothing to do with her. As a good author who did literature, she knows all about it and chose the names for their meaning, but irrespective the meaning influences the reader who probably already has a vague idea about it. Choosing the name is part of creating the character's image in the eyes of the reader. Explaining the name is explaining our own culture as it relates to her work. I do sometimes wonder whether the reason for such objections has more to do with a deliberate aim of obscuring what we actually know about these books than some worry about technical rules. After all, this is a multi-billion pound/dollar work we are talking about here. Someone out there has a very big financial interest in everything written about these books. It does not improve an encyclopedia article to deliberately leave out obvious background information. Sandpiper 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I wasn't expecting a response. I didn't say whether there's a good reason for it to be long or not; just that it was funny. However, as long as I'm here, I might as well prod people: your use of the word "analysis" to describe uncontrolled fan speculation makes me smile. Also, when you correct te typo in the sentence which begins "As a good author . . .", so that it reads "As a mediocre author . . .", the second half of it no longer follows.
Hiya anon. Why not make yourself a name and then it's easier to know who's talking. (you don't have to always log in, if you don't want to). yes I thought it was funny too. I wrote the first sentence as a one-liner, then thought I would address it more seriously. I didn't write a wiki answer, I wrote a real-world answer. As a former research scientist I use the word 'analysis' 'with prejudice', as my former professor used to say when writing abusive letters to the government. As to good authors, goodness is significantly measured by success. My favourite Rowling trivia is when she went to an award ceremony, and at the same time Seamus Heaney was getting an award for his translation of 'Beowulf' too.Sandpiper 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, hello. I have a user name, two or three in fact since I tend to forget passwords, which is why I eventually forget and stop using them. I'm afraid I'm disappointed: I was expecting a more violent and shrill response to my unsolicited mouthing off. Oh, well. However, I do disagree, completely and without qualification, that goodness is significantly measured by success in attaining fame or wealth. If you mean that the goodness of a writer is measured by their success in writing well, well I'd never deny that. But someone who writes just ho-hum hasn't succeeded in writing well have they?
I think we can call this user "136.142.22.199", or I'll just address you as 136... So, 136..., goodness of a writer can mean just good writing, which JKR definitely does. I do acknowledge that her writing is not Shakespeare, but whose is? JKR has endorsements from various well known authors around the world, one of which got the Nobel Prize in Literature. Goodness can be a matter of opinion, but the success of JKR's books show that many people consider her a good author, because they are willing to buy and read her books. Lulurascal 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My tip is to pick a dead easy password and use it for everything which doesn't matter. say, 'password'. If this were written in the same style as Shakespeare I am confident we would never have reached the second volume. Shakespeare would get nowhere if he produced a brand new play today using Elizabethan (1) english. I just loved the idea that she was able to get her 'translation' of beowulf published without anyone even recognising it. Most people consider that the usefullness of money is that it is a way of keeping score on worth. I am a millionaire because people appreciate my woodcarvings so much they pay me lots for them. (I'm not, that's an example.) Another trivia; did you know her works are required reading for teacher trainees, because kids are willing to read them? I must admit, I always quite liked a slightly fairytale approach to some books, such as 'the wizard of earthsea'. In fact, now I think about it, LeGuin tends to write her books like that. I like morality tales. But for the adult, there is a whodunnit hidden in there too. Sandpiper 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the dispute

In a separate dispute, an editor complained about my earlier restoration of the information to this article. An admin replied (he seems to think I had added the information, which isn't true, but never mind for now): "As for MichaelSanders efforts on Harry Potter, his edits are fully sourced, relevant, and generally add to the topic and content, and should be restored.ThuranX 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

He later disputed the views of Folcan de Fanel, saying, " Actually, MichaelSanders' edits seem thoroughly substantiated by the links, and present the nature of the word Hallows. he cites OTHERS who construct the Arthurian parallels, Cites the Arthurian hallows, and so on. Perhaps the only place where he flirts with OR is in the parallels of House Symbols and which element each represents. However, The vast majority is well cited, and germane to the topics. I support it's inclusion. Finally, Consensus and Citation are the bases of Wikipedia, NOT argument and conflict You're becoming combative, FdF. Wait or more comment from outside editors and admins.ThuranX 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"

Does that cast any new light on the issue? Michaelsanders 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No because this editor doesn't seem to have thoroughly investigated the issue. The OR and RS problems are definitely real issues that have been pointed out by 3 different editors. Folken de Fanel 11:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the movie?

In recent interviews with Stuart Craig, Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe, there are so-called hints that they will return in this movie. I think Struat Craig will definately reprise his work as Production Designer. Even Rupert has given some hints about returning. So, what about a section in this article about the movie? I know it'll be foolish because even book has not released yet and movie has not yet announced. But only one section might be good enough for information we have. User:Bunty01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunty01 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

When Warner Bros. and other reliable sources start to release properly sourced and official information from the Producers, Actors, Actors Guild, Directors, or Crew about the film version of Deathly Hallows, and an actual article for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) is made, then we can start to assemble information on that movie. Actors and crew members dropping hints about a theoretical movie that might be 3 to 4 years into the future (estimates of a Summer 2010 release for "Film 7" at the earliest are common, based on the current release trends) is crystal balling and is not permitted here. Where will you be in the Summer of 2010, and what will you be doing? It is however juicy material for all your favorite HP fan sites and blog pages - so feel free to publish your thoughts there. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions (editprotected)

Some administrator please add the Greek interwiki [[el:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]--FocalPoint 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore not forgotten

I would be grateful if whoever gets the chance could amend the text in the section on 'information from Rowling', fourth entry from the bottom 'Rowling clarified that "Dumbledore is definitely dead..."' with the following extended wording:

  • Rowling clarified that "Dumbledore is definitely dead", when asked by Salman Rushdie and others at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. Rowling answered the same question three times, each time with increasing conviction.[1]. However, on the set of Order of the Phoenix film, She remarked; "Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble". When asked by Daniel Radcliff, surely he was dead, she explained; "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ...".[2]
Done. Proto::► 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OK well, technically that information belongs on Albus Dumbledore's page, and it is most likely posted there unless someone deleted it recently. A very brief mention of Dumbledore's status is probably appropriate here, but there is no sense in deep diving on the subject if it is already well covered elsewhere, and easy to find. That horse is dead; continuing to beat it more and more on every conceivable page in the HP project is not helpful; and if the motivation is to make a point because of ongoing arguments with the Dumbledoreisnotdead.com crowd, then that is not proper either. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather a strange reaction. Surely the point is that he, somehow, will continue to have an effect on the plot of this book, somehow, because, despite being dead, the issue is more complex. That is, unless you are suggesting that the trouble he was giving her will not be related to this book. Michaelsanders 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Is nothing easy? And I thought that one was business as usual. You are surely not suggesting that what part Dumbledore is going to play in the final book is non-noteable and not relevant to an article which mainly consists of comments Rowling has already made about the book? Please think calming thoughts. I had no idea there is an ongoing argument with Dumbledore is not dead. This quote also says he is dead. I put in the last one that said he is dead, too. User:Sandpiper 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My point was that comments regarding Dumbledore's status, including Rowling's comments reconfirming it, belongs on the Dumbledore page. Rowlings comments on the OOtP set might belong also on the OOtP (film) page, or perhaps more properly on the HBP page, since that is where the events unfold. I cannot think of any reasonable justification for noting it on the Deathly Hallows page. The only explanation I could come up with as to why someone would want it "here" is to help spread some "strange and fantastic news", as if this was a fan forum or blog page. I don't mind the information being posted in the appropriate places where it is relevant. I just do not think it is proper to slap up the latest "news" on "popular pages", like so many flyers nailed onto lamp posts. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
She remarked, whilst writing Deathly Hallows, that he was 'giving' her a lot of trouble, because, despite being dead, the issue was 'more complex'. That being the case, it is entirely relevant to the seventh book - there will of course be some sort of fallout from his death in this book, and whatever it is, she was finding it troublesome, and it will be of more relevance in this book than a simple "yep, he's dead, move on." How on earth can you think that shouldn't be in this article? Michaelsanders 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your description, of it being improper "to slap up the latest "news" on "popular pages", like so many flyers nailed onto lamp posts" is flawed. If it was something like 'Rowling says that she's planning to celebrate finishing the book with a bottle of tequila' or 'the book will be published on this day which makes it exactly five years since a book was published on the fifth day after the week after the Vernal Equinox' or 'Daniel Radcliffe hopes his character doesn't die' or 'whilst writing the book, Rowling dreamed she was in the Hogwarts Great Hall searching up a chimney for a Horcrux' (and that last one was genuine!), you'd be right. But this is something directly connected to the plot of the book. Michaelsanders 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What was the context of her remarks to Radcliff? I am not 100% convinced that we could absolutely assert that she was referring specifically to her writing progress on Deathly Hallows. In fact, I initially took it to mean she was referring to a scene they were developing for OOtP or something - perhaps they were having Dumbledore do something on screen that contradicted her vision, and that Dumbledore was giving her "a lot of trouble". If however it can be proven that she was revealing plot information to Radcliff about Dumbledore's "more complex" involvement in Deathly Hallows, then certainly that is of interest in this article. I would agree that anything Dumbledore "does" in Deathly Hallows, whether while in his Portrait in the Headmasters Office, or elsewhere, would presumably be a notable part of the continuing storyline. Still the "hint" she may have given here seems to be a little bit sensationalized now and tantalizing, and starts to have the feel of fancrufting. That is what I was concerned about. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look up the reference it explains the context. It says in fuller extent (Towards the end), "But honestly, he says [Radcliffe], he has no idea of how the series will end. Nor does he want to. He's a Potter fan, like everyone else. 'Jo came down to the set at one point and I said, "Oh hello, why are you here today?" And she said, "Oh I just needed a break from the book - Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble." And I said, "But isn't he dead?" And she said, "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ..." I was like, [briskly] "OK, I'm not gonna ask anything else!"'

OK well thanks - that's completely different. The only setting information described in the article, for establishing proper context, was that she was on the set of OOtP (film) with Daniel. There was no mention in this article of whether she was referring to Book 7, or something happening on the set, or if she was having more nightmares where she was being chased around by Dumbledore with his charred smoking fingers and hand bones crackling in her face as he slaps her silly. This shows exactly why any of her important and hint-revealing quotes always need to be carefully set in the proper context, along with proper foundation within the article. It should never be left up to the poor wiki-reader have to look up and study the reference links, and try to sort it all out and arrive at the proper interpretation what she was referring to. Besides, that reference link may or may not be "active" tomorrow, so the foundational context could be lost forever. In any case thanks - and I agree that is a facinating (if foggy) glimmer of a window into Dumbledore's possible role(s) in Book 7, and would be of interest to readers. All your quote needed to include was mention that she "needed a break from the book" along with how Dumbledore was giving her "a lot of trouble", and we would have sufficient foundation to understand the context, with or without the reference link. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The ref is also mucked up because I posted it wrong above. If you look at the ref itself rather than the label, you will see it is from the Guardian, not mugglenet, though I am sure Mugglenet must have it also. It usually takes me a couple of goes to get an insert correct, and this is an awkward way of doing things. The ref listing doesn't appear on this page. All this fuss about acceptable references, does no one apart from me actually read them? Sandpiper 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, well it's a judgement call. I wanted to keep the entry as short as possible. Once again, I don't think it really tells us anything surprising. Headmasters portrait, pensieve...... Sandpiper 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rowling clarified that "Dumbledore is definitely dead", when asked by Salman Rushdie and others at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. Rowling answered the same question three times, each time with increasing conviction.[3]. However, on the set of Order of the phoenix film, She remarked; "Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble". When asked by Daniel Radcliff, "But isn't he dead?", she explained; "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ...".[4]

and a reflist so we can see the results (is that allowed on chat pages? if not, please delete)

  1. ^ "[He Who Was Killed in Book Six] is Really Dead, JKR Rethinks Title of Book Seven, More from Radio City", news report, The Leaky Cauldron, August 2, 2006. 
  2. ^ "Interview with Daniel Radcliffe", news report, The Leaky Cauldron, February 12, 2007. 
  3. ^ "[He Who Was Killed in Book Six] is Really Dead, JKR Rethinks Title of Book Seven, More from Radio City", news report, The Leaky Cauldron, August 2, 2006. 
  4. ^ "Interview with Daniel Radcliffe", Guardian Unlimited, February 12, 2007. 

Fisher King

The fisher king is referenced twice separately in the article as it now stands. The two refs need combining. That seems a bit messy to post here for inclusion , but I might have a go in a bit if no one else with rights has volunteered to sort it out. I expect it needs a name and one ref replacing with the name. Sandpiper

External Links

{{editprotected}} Ok, I am suggesting pruning the external links section to the version below. I am even going to ask someone to please do it for me, despite the fact that somehow I can hear complaints already. Anyway. Could anyone with mystic powers please replace the existing external links section with the one here. The deleted items are either not very informative, or not very relevant. I have also amended the descriptions to be more informative. But I will understand if anyone responding to my quest to insert this feels it is too hot to handle. This is a pruning of items, so I hope the deletionists will not be upset.

Sandpiper 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, this has been here for 24 hours now, do we have any objections to the amended links? Sandpiper 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that's questionable is the book7.co.uk link. I've never heard of the site before, and I consider myself pretty active in the fandom (the rest all seem pretty notable to me). Has anybody else heard much of this site? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. I left it here, however, because it was the first time I had seen anyone have a go at writing the next book in advance. I have severe doubts that the plot will go as they suggest, but it was a novel approach. But I also felt that you might find this more acceptable than the previous list? I'm sure it is not going to be the last word on the subject. Sandpiper 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Done (although I moved JK Rowling's official site to the top). Proto::► 10:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem with that. Thanks. Sandpiper 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

"J.K. Rowling's Official Site (Animated version)"? It's the home page and has links to both the animated and text-only versions! Brian Jason Drake 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide the link you want it replaced with. Seeing as the site is run my Flash, I'm not sure you can bypass the front screen. —Doug Bell talk 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

www.jkrowling.com/en brings you right to the English version of her animated desktop.

The meaning of Hallows

Further to the discussion below, could someone please insert the following agreed text (copied to here from below with a couple of minor corrections to punctuation, ref format) into the article in substitution for the existing text of the section The meaning of Hallows: (Sandpiper 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Please note this proposal is still being debated and should not be included in the article while there are still problems with it. Folken de Fanel 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note Folken's actual last word on this (below) after having a chance to comment and before inclusion was requested, "This a preliminary version of course and others can share their knowledge of literary hallows, but it seems appropriate for a de-blocking of the article... Folken de Fanel 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)"
Okay, passage added. It'd be nice to unprotect the page if people will promise to stop edit warring. Trebor 14:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Sandpiper has manipulated my words and has copy-pasted a sentence that certainly do not correspond to my actual opinion. Please note that Sandpiper has conveniently picked up a sentence that didn't show any of the objections I had raised. Please note that Sandpiper has conveniently ignored every single word that I have written here these last days. Please note that Sandpiper has no right to decide when we can comment or not, and that merely proposing an text that has not reached consensus is not, in any case, an irrevocable and offical act. Please note that my opinion has been deliberately ignored and manipulated by someone other than me. Folken de Fanel 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted myself as there obviously isn't consensus. If you can't agree, try dispute resolution. Trebor 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."[1]. She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation amongst fans as to its possible meanings.[2]

Hallow is a word usually used as a verb, meaning "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate". [3] However, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the word hallows appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "All Hallows' Day" or "All Saints' Day," which is the day after Halloween or "All Hallows' Eve". Hallows can refer to saints, the relics of saints, the relics of gods, or shrines in which the relics are kept.[4][5] Since the essence of these saints or gods were often considered present at their shrines and in their relics, hallows came to refer to the saints or gods themselves, rather than just their relics or shrines. So, the hallow (relic) of a hallow (saint) is hidden in a hallow (shrine). Hallow is not to be confused with hollow, such as in Godric's Hollow.

The word ‘hallows' has been used in a number of legends to represent important and powerful objects. [6] The Tuatha de Danaan in Ireland possessed six hallows, Manannan’s house, Goibniu’s shirt and tools, Lochlan’s helmet, Alba’s shears, a fishskin belt and Asal’s pig bones. These were guarded by four Guardians of the Hallows, Manannan, Lugh, Cumhal and Fionn. As the legend changed, the hallows became four objects; the spear of Lugh, Stone of Fal, Sword of Nuada and Dagda's Cauldron. These became the four suits in a pack of Tarot cards and took on the representation of the four magical elements, earth, air, fire and water.[7] The coronation ceremony for monarchs still contains four ritual objects, now represented as the sceptre, sword, ampulla of oil and crown. Similar objects also appear in Arthurian legends where the Fisher King is the guardian of four hallows; the sword, spear, dish and holy grail. [4] Earlier Arthurian legends also refer to a set of thirteen treasures of Britain.

+++end of text for insertion+++

It is uncomplete and still biased (hallows are not only objects). Folken de Fanel 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're comment when it was posted below is: Well, sounds good. I guess this issue didn't deserve so much time and energy wasted, after all...Just a little comprehensive effort from Sandpiper, and almost a week of fighting is over. Congrats'. You even go so far as to say that the article should be unblocked on the assumption that this version will be included.
I took that to mean you were happy with it. If you are not going to take a debate on proposed content seriously, then there is a real chance that none of your suggestions will be taken seriously. I repeat my request for insertion of this version, on the basis that that it has already been accepted by the objector, Folken. Sandpiper 09:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You should read carefully. I've already said it was uncomplete and did not cover all the meanings of Hallows, and I have mentionned the shrine-hallows. Do not try to notice only what you like in what I said. I said there were things missing, so it needs to be worked on still. Hallows are not only objects, and by only mentionning object hallows some may concider you're trying to build a point (not to mention that it could also be concidered off topic, since a whole chunk of this wouldn't even be remotely HP-related).
Besides, opinion is not a fact carved in stone, it can evolve with time and reflexion (and still, I insist that I had already expressed these doubts a week ago), and you have to accept that I can "change" my mind. I thought and still think it's always better than all this nonsense about "hallows in HP are arthurian relics", however now that I see the proposed paragraph I can't stop thinking that there are still some remnants of it between the lines, and that any external reader might think, from the insistence on arthurian relics, that a connection is intended between "HP7 hallows/arthurian hallows". In it's current state the proposed paragraph is not perfect. Either we are to be thorough and we describe everything that the word has represented in literature (inculing shrine hallows or hallows as saints themselves) - and it that case a dedicated hallow article might still be better since a lot of content might then seem off topic in a HP article-, or we are not to be thorough and we don't spend time on arthurian hallows. But what we have in the current proposition (a very long paragraph on object hallows and absolutely nothing on other forms of hallows) is still uncomplete and not acceptable for insertion in the article. Folken de Fanel 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that sometimes it can be difficult to comprehend the meaning of words, but your last words on the subject were it seems appropriate for a de-blocking of the article, which can only be taken to mean that anyone would be free to insert the section. Sandpiper 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
My complete opinion is just above your last message. I've said all I have to say. Now, if you're not willing to listen to others' complains, that's your problem, but Wikipedia can't function like that. Folken de Fanel 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The title of the seventh book in other languages does not translate to 'Deathly Hallows', but usually to 'Deathly Saints'. Why isn't it taken for granted that 'Hallows'as Rowling means it refers to people? Curiousb0215 10:09 27 February 2007

Probably because no one has brought this up so far. Can you provide a list? I would observe, however, that when people have attempted to do similar things in the past - comparing translated names - somehow it all got deleted. I do see a difficulty, however. The english title relies upon the word being obscure, and indeed Rowling had a choice of three shortlisted titles. It must be extremely difficult to make an exact translation of a pun. It may be the case that the foreign titles are in fact translations of her alternatives (she refused to say what they are), so while they may be apt, and ought to be discussed, they may in fact be good titles for different reasons. Is the exact translation of the foreign title 'deathly', as distinct from 'deadly' (subtly different)? Sandpiper 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentions of Hallows

Perhaps we should be researching Hallows.

What do people think of this as a possible reference? [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

This is why I think we should go ahead and make an independant article on Hallow (the word as a noun), or perhaps Hallows or Hallowed objects, where the general meaning of Hallows and numerous historical examples can be explored openly and freely, without engaging in original research or speculation or other controversy with regards to Rowling's particular usage of the word. Editors can add all sorts of Hallowed relics of the Saints, including the Holy Grail and other items supposedly recovered from the Holy Land during the Crusades by the Knights Templar or whatever, the Aurthurian Legends, the origins of the Tarot suits, the four elements, and yada yada yada, along with similarly hallowed religious relics of past generations. Gosh I wonder of the Magna Carta would be considered a Hallowed object and thus a Hallow? Anyway I believe if we separate a hypothetical Hallowed Objects article from the Deathly Hallows article, and just let the articles refer to each other as appropriate, and avoid speculating specifically what exactly the Deathly Hallows might be, then I think all the major issues over OR and fan speculation and reliable sourcing would tend to evaporate. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I hear what you're saying, which is in part why I was looking for things like this. Only...its kinda a list, and there weren't any more google refs popping up fast. (mentioned wiki HP&DH!). I don't fancy writing an article on the basis of just this. Its one thing to create a section here, quite another to give decent coverage of an open ended subject. 'Hallows is a virtually unknow term, save that the forthecoming publication of HP7 has brought the topic to public attention....' Somehow I doubt mention could be given to magna carter without a reference, though I suppose it is no more controversial than stating that the founders relics are an example of hallows. If that ref was an article here, then I would be quite pleased. Unfortunately it isn't, doesn't have any references (who's gonna bet that people will argue?}, and, er, is copyright to someone else. Sandpiper 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Deathly Hallows" that the title refers to could be the hallows, or relics that Voldemort uses as Horcruxes, that eventually cause his (or Voldemort's) death. Deathly (causing death) Hallows (Horcruxes). I will PWN 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

hallows in literature.

discussion point 1

From going through the debate above and researching Hallows a bit, it seems to me that in fact the word as used by Rowling is only extraordinary because it is archaic. The fact that most people had no idea before she used it about what it means does not change its established meaning. It might mean the remains of saints their surroundings, etc, or it might mean revered artefacts. I'm afraid I don't see this as OR at all. In fact, i really don't see the explanation in any way reliant upon the contents of book 7, or even really the other books. If the exercise had simply been, 'write a short essay explaining the meaning of hallows', then it would still have included arthur, Mr fisher king, and celtic heroes. None of this relies upon the plot of HP7 at all. Hallows is not being explained by use of the arthurian example because of HP7, but because it is the pre-eminent example. Views? Sandpiper 08:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply, listing all the meanings that the word "Hallows" had with time is not OR, and picking up one of these meaning and saying "this is likely to be the meaning of Hallows in book 7" is OR. I don't think listing all the meanings was ever disapproved by anyone...Folken de Fanel 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion point 2

As a second point, in the hope of trying to break this problem into manageable issues. I was thinking about T-dot's suggestion of creating a separate Hallows article. My considered view is that at this time the only reason for creating such an article is because Rowling has used the word. As such, it would be a spun off article, which is really part of this one, and an important part. The only known part of the book 7 text is the title, and its meaning is a source of considerable confusion. It may be that in 6 months when an entirely different article to this one has been created about the book, that editors will think it worth placing the information here about Hallows into a separate article, if it has grown sufficiently. But at present I feel it belongs here, and it would be a gross omission not to have it here. Views? Sandpiper 08:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply, until the book is published, obviously the Hallows section in this HP article will be very short: it'll be a list of meaning, with example of its uses in literature (as is the article in its current form, in fact).
While being exhaustive on the subject of the arturian hallows is not OR or unencyclopedic, it will quickly become off-topic on a HP 7 article. That's why a dedicated article would be useful...Then, there'll be a potential risk of being redudant with articles precisely dedicated to arthurian legends...Folken de Fanel 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Suggested Hallows section

What do people think about the following text?


==The meaning of "Hallows"==

When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."[8]. She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation amongst fans as to its possible meanings.[9]

Hallow is a word usually used as a verb, meaning "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate". [10] However, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the word hallows appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "All Hallows' Day" or "All Saints' Day," which is the day after Halloween or "All Hallows' Eve". Hallows can refer to saints, the relics of saints, the relics of gods, or shrines in which the relics are kept.[11], [12] Since the essence of these saints or gods were often considered present at their shrines and in their relics, hallows came to refer to the saints or gods themselves, rather than just their relics or shrines. So, the hallow (relic) of a hallow (saint) is hidden in a hallow (shrine). Hallow is not to be confused with hollow, such as in Godric's Hollow.

The word ‘hallows' has been used in a number of legends to represent important and powerful objects. [13] The Tuatha de Danaan in Ireland possessed six hallows, Manannan’s house, Goibniu’s shirt and tools, Lochlan’s helmet, Alba’s shears, a fishskin belt and Asal’s pig bones. These were guarded by four Guardians of the Hallows, Manannan, Lugh, Cumhal and Fionn. As the legend changed, the hallows became four objects; the spear of Lugh, Stone of Fal, Sword of Nuada and Dagda's Cauldron. These became the four suits in a pack of Tarot cards and took on the representation of the four magical elements, earth, air, fire and water.[14] The coronation ceremony for monarchs still contains four ritual objects, now represented as the sceptre, sword, ampulla of oil and crown. Similar objects also appear in Arthurian legends where the Fisher King is the guardian of four hallows; the sword, spear, dish and holy grail. [15] Earlier Arthurian legends also refer to a set of thirteen treasures of Britain.

Sandpiper 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, though any other information found could be included as it turns up (any cited references to 'the Hallows' in LotR, for example?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Well, sounds good. I guess this issue didn't deserve so much time and energy wasted, after all...Just a little comprehensive effort from Sandpiper, and almost a week of fighting is over. Congrats'.
Just a little thing, your proposition is exhaustive as to relics hallows, it would also be interesting to cover some shrine hallows (anyone has an idea ? Stonehenge, maybe ?) Folken de Fanel 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I put this together, but as I pointed out above, I am certainly not an expert on the subject of hallows in legend. My paragraph about legends with hallows may be acceptable, but is it correct? It seemed to me that Lulurascal contributed considerably to this section, and we havn't heard her opinion yet. There is also the issue that we do not address the meaning of 'deathly', which I have seen people confusing with 'deadly'. Sandpiper 07:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, as far as speculations and "hallows in HP" are concerned, i have nothing against this version. This a preliminary version of course and others can share their knowledge of literary hallows, but it seems appropriate for a de-blocking of the article...Folken de Fanel 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another comment that could probably reasonably be made about the use of "hallows". Ostensibly it suggests a religious connection, but thus far the books have been solidly secular. To my mind (pure speculation) it suggestions that "hallows" will be given its own specific meaning in Rowling's wizarding world. --Legis (talk - contributions) 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all meanings of the word hallow suggest something 'special'. But I also think the paragraph of examples shows that this is not an exclusively christian thing. Sandpiper 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)