Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 27

message: under the category Plot, the work artifact is spelled wrong, last sentence "Scrimgeour claims it is a historical artefact."
Plot
Leaving the Dursleys
Lord Voldemort and his followers plot to ambush Harry Potter, who is about to leave Privet Drive shortly before his protection at the Dursleys' home expires. Order members escort Harry using six Harry-lookalike decoys, but the real Harry is identified en route and attacked by Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Harry manages to escape to The Burrow, although Hedwig and Mad-Eye Moody are killed.
A few days later, Minister of Magic, Rufus Scrimgeour arrives to give Harry, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger bequests from Albus Dumbledore's will: Ron is given Dumbledore's Deluminator, Hermione receives a book of fairy tales, and Harry inherits Godric Gryffindor's sword and the Snitch he caught in his first ever Quidditch match. The sword is withheld, however; Scrimgeour claims it is a historical artefact that did not belong to Dumbledore.
:It's not an error but an acceptable way of spelling the word in British English.  David Underdown 10:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Mistakes 

message: What the differences in the adult and children's editions?
From what I've read, the only difference is the cover art for each book (apparently for maketing purposes). The text is the same. PNW Raven 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I work in a book store and I get asked this nearly every day.  PNW Raven is correct, the only difference is the dust jacket, and the fact that with the children's edition the cover under the dust jacket is identical to the dust jacket, whereas with the adult edition the cover is plain black with the title in gold print on the spine.  If you're at a book store and see the two together, just turn to any random page in both editions and you'll see their exactly the same.  The only difference in actual text between editions that has ever occured in the series is differences between the UK/international edition and the US edition. - Ugliness Man 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone with the Adult version remember if they say f-ing or fucking, because that would be one of possible changes i can think of. CHANDLERtalk 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy, thou hast a Dirty Mind. Nay, there is no obscene language in the adult version. The only difference is the cover Art. Erudil 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When you take part in a conversation, it's a good idea to actually read what's been said to see if your question has been answered before you ask the question.  Again, as Erudil reiterated above, there is no difference in the text between the children and adult versions.  I don't know how many more ways I can phrase that before it becomes plain.  It was the adult version that I purchased and read, and they said "effing" or however it was spelled.  There were no profanities, and the only "almost" profanities (Ron getting cut off while saying "Merlin's saggy left-" for example) are the exact same in both editions. - Ugliness Man 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in Editions 

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

message: Rowling has long since said that the PoA filmmakers had put in stuff that was foreshadowing the seventh book. Now I KNOW that this isn't the place for a general discussion, but is it relevant to mention it in this article? Furthermore, what was it? I can't think for the life of me what it may have been. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless WB or JKR publicly says something, not worthy of mention in this article.  Worthy of hours and hours of debate on some fan sites (I'm sure you are aware).Bryanc 00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two things that occur to me; at one point Ginny looks disapprovingly towards Chang - implying she's still "interested" in Harry; this wasn't in the book. The other thing is JKR has said that originally the film script excluded Kreature, but she told them that if they missed him out they'd have real problems in book 7. I agree that this kind of stuff belongs in POA (film)'s article - if that.Apepper 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kreacher wasnt in PoA. CHANDLERtalk 15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Apepper was referring to the fifth film, as neither Kreacher nor Cho appeared in the third one. Personally, I think Rowling was referring to Fred or George's line in the hospital wing after Harry's fallen off his broom because of the dementors -- they say something like "let's see how you'd look if we threw you off the Astronomy tower"; Rowling said it foreshadowed stuff in the last two books, not just the final book, so I think this made her shiver because of Dumbledore's death. I do hope she says what it was some time soon. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  You're quite right! I'd just seen OOP. Apepper 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the foreshadowing in the third film that JKR approved of was the budding romance between Ron and Hermione. IIRC, in the film, when the trio think they're hearing Buckbeak being beheaded, Hermione clutches Ron (not Harry!) and sobs on his shoulder. —Angr 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoA film 

message: Various of the minor and passing characters in the book are advised to flee abroad, and it is clear from the previous books that there are various regions/states (in the sense that we would use them).
Why was no action from outside the UK taken against Lord Voldemort? Jackiespeel 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in the book, Grindlewald's exploits where not well known in Britain, because he primarily operated elsewhere.  Similiarly, Voldemort operated primarily in the UK, and as such, his actions where not likely well known in other regions.  -- Bryanc 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: People must stupping removing the line where Bellatrix's death is included. As she has developed into a major antagonist in the movie, her death is very relevant to include in the section. Wikiburger 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be inferred from the 'look' on her face, comparing that with the look on Sirius's face in an earlier book. Rowling is actually doing some subtle writing there. Only an unsubtle writer would carefully say "they are dead" everytime someone dies. Carcharoth 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellarix' Death 

message: * 'Radcliffe was desperate to know Potter's fate', reveals Rowling, Y! India Movies
I'm not sure if this is more appropriate here than on Daniel Radcliffe's page but it seems it talks more about the book's importance than the importance of DR. So if anyone wants to add this, please do in the appropriate section. Berserkerz Crit 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: As the book is British, why are info about the American edition in the infobox, introduction etc. I only think the original version should be in the info, or els all translations might as well be added. CHANDLERtalk 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English-language Wikipedia, therefore, English-language editions get noted. --Guess Who 03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Edition info 

message: Harry potter y la hermana de ron se casan y tienen tres hijos y su favorito se llaman albus cerberus potter. Todo este sucedio en el septimo libro de estas novelas
Su deletreo esta incorrecto. Your spelling is wrong. Lo correcto es: Casamiento, Potter, Ron, Albus, Severus, Potter. Cerberus is the true name of Fluffy. Erudil 16:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cazamiento 

message: The guidelline for spoiler warnings says it's only a guideline and may be broken for the occasional exception. I think given the notoriety of this book, an exception is justified, don't you? 23skidoo 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. Dlong 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it justified here? Are Harry Potter fans so stupid that they will not recognize the significance of a section titled "Plot"? Popularity does not make the spoiler warning more relevant. ' 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can a redundancy be justified? It's been said over and over and over again that the warning at the very top of the article is more than enough to tell a user what to expect. And if that don't suffice to warn them I doubt anything will. Chinfo 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Can we really say Rolf was the name of Luna's husband? Upon reading the article in which she explained everything, it seems more like a typo of rofl (rolling on the floor laughing). I'll paste the quote below:
She ended up marrying (rather later than Harry & co) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander (Rolf)!
THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a stretch to say that it was a typo, especially considering that she capitalized the 'R'.  However, we don't know that Rolf's surname was Scamander, just that that was his grandfather's surname. Ariadne55 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolf 

message: I don't know about the truth of this, as I've read the book, and it seems whole and complete, but I've heard rumors that the initial release was missing 30 pages(mostly directly from other people, I haven't seen any online sources to confirm or deny it).  Has anyone else heard/read/seen anything to indicate the truth or falsehood of this rumor, one way or another?--Vercalos 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true.  Some Scholastic US copies are missing 33 pages after page 306.  These can be exchanged for free.  ref - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19936826/ .  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I understand it, the missing pages, were mixed up with other pages, so the books had 30 pages repeated, so the book was the same thickness. Bytebear 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Pages rumor 

message: There is information only on the sales of the first day or days after the book's release. Does anyone know the total sales so far? (USA or worldwide)
:Well, as of Aug 2nd Scholastic reported US sales after 10 days of 11.5 million (of the 12-million unit first printing run).  8.3 million were sold in the US the first 24 hours on July 21st.  source: http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/221527.html .  Have not yet found any more recent news stories.  Not sure if there is an overall book sales tracking system in the same vein as the overall box office sales figures used for movies.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Sales 

message: For some reason when I point out the ways Harry Potter qualifys as the literary device known as a christ figure other users keep reverting my edits. I am not a religous fanatic, but Christ figues are common in literature in books and movies like the Old Man and the Sea, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Cool Hand Luke. In many ways Harry has suprising similarites to the christ archetype. This is what I have been posting:
There are a remarkable number of similarites between the events of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the story of Jesus:
* Both of their fathers reside in afterlife/heaven. 
* Both have a band of loyal followers/Apostles 
* Both willingly go to their deaths to save the world, that is, both sacrifice themselves because of their love for humanity. 
* Both resurrect when everybody believes them to be death. 
* Both meet the ire of the establisbment. In Harry's case it is the Ministry of Magic; in Jesus's it is the Pharisees* Both are prophesized to confront evil. 
* Both are known for their capacity for love. 
* Jesus is said to defeat evil in a last battle according to the Book of Revelations. Harry Potter defeats evil in the Battle for Hogwarts. 
I am not saying that Jesus even exsists. I'm just showing similarites between Harry Potter and Jesus when he is looked at as a character. All the evidence I have is verifiable. Read the plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and read the wikipedia article on Jesus. It's all there. --The Professor (of Faith) 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had many similar discussions about parallels between the books and Marxism, Nazism, Communism etc. It is all original research because it s just the way that you have interpreted - you could easily find parallels between Harry and any literary hero. The important thing is that it is original research which we do not include. Also when you start a new topic, put it at the bottom of the page, not the top. asyndeton 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a review etc., that makes the same comparison, then we might be able to include it.  However, even then it would probably be better suited to either Harry Potter or Harry Potter (character) as it applies more to an analysis of the whole series or the character rather than this one specific book.  David Underdown 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter as a Christ Figure 

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

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

message: Can the active editors at least agree among ourselves a guideline for “unnecessary detail” versus “necessary detail”?
Here’s my suggestion:  Unless the detail is important to actually move the plot of this book forward, or unless it is an important link to a prior book, it doesn’t belong in this plot summary.
At this point, at least the following italicized details do not appear to meet this guideline:
* 
* George Weasley's ear is severed by a glancing spell
* Emotionally affected from carrying the locket, Ron fears for his family's safety and is frustrated that Harry has no real plan for finding either the sword or the Horcruxes, and he decides to leave.
* Peter Pettigrew enters to investigate the noise
* The trio plot with Griphook to infiltrate Gringotts
* and the trio barely escape with the Cup
* to secretly enter Hogwarts from behind picture of of his dead sister Ariana
All of these are nice “flavor” points, but none of them is necessary.  Can we active editors agree that they can be removed (as they repeatedly have been)? GiveItSomeThought 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% agree with you.  chgallen 22:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I missed this conversation until just now... I do have one minor objection, I think the loss of George's ear should be in the article somewhere.  It's not necessary to the plot, but it's one of the more "intense" or "extreme" occurances.  It's a major injury caused by a spell which may have killed him if it had hit him in a slightly different spot, and while it's not as severe as the deaths, it does seem to be worth mentioning as one of the "casualties" of the flight from the Dursleys.  If "essential to the plot" is the main criteria, then Colin Creevey's death could very well be left out.  A lot of other, more important people die, so he doesn't need to be mentioned.  Some "unnecessary" things do belong in the plot summary to give a feel for the severity or intensity of what's happening.  But, as I said, the objection is minor, and I won't bother to put it back in, I just wanted to state my case. - Ugliness Man 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Here's how I understand the guidelines about not having "a personally invested tone." 
A personally invested tone is where the words convey an emotional reaction by the writer to the events in the book.  The following, to me are "personally invested tone:"
*"Harry manages to escape" should be the more neutral "Harry escapes" 
*"Unfortunately Dobby has been fatally stabbed" should be the more neutral "However, Dobby has been fatally stabbed."
Reactions please. GiveItSomeThought 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Who knows, maybe someone is happy that Dobby got knifed.  I support making such changes in the tone of the article.  Bryanc 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In my estimation (I've just re-read the entire article) such edits have been completed.  I've removed the notice.  -- Bryanc 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Harry manages to escape" is actually reasonably neutral, I think (you could equally say "Moriarty manages to escape" or "Hitler managed to survive the plot on his life"). "Unfortunately" and the like are not acceptable.  --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Although the word "trio" is normally treated as a singular noun (at least by U.S. speakers), the convention being followed in this article is to treat the word "trio" as a plural noun; we are told that is a standard British usage. 
Hence, "the trio go," "the trio escape," "the trio sneak," "the trio discover" are the subject-verb pairs used throughout the article.  
If there are British English speakers who believe that this convention is in error, please let us know here on the Talk page, so that we can make this change throughout the article.  GiveItSomeThought 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just asked this question on the reference desk, and they said that, like band names, using trio as plural is a British convention. I would agree that trio should be treated as a plural noun here. i said 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the one who argued that the word "trio" should be treated as a singular.  Even though I am Canadian and we share much of our language style with the UK, I was not aware of the British convention of using the term as plural.  I personally think it sounds very clumsy and counter-intuitive... after all, you can refer to "a trio", or "that trio" as opposed to "those trio", suggesting singularness.  However, this is personal opinion, and I will not start a futile campaign against an established convention.  I concede the point and apologize for the misunderstanding. - Ugliness Man 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also notional agreement and collective noun for discussion of the grammatical point. Jheald 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The MSN article says things like Ron working in the joke shop with his brother George, but didn't she say that Ron and Harry were a team of Aurors in the Today Show interview "In the years since Voldemort’s defeat, Harry and Ron have revolutionized the Auror Department at the Ministry of magic and Hermione is “pretty high up” in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement." Which interview do we trust? Valley2city 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A story in the Otago Daily Times claimed both (joke shop then Auror). It probably came from Reuters, as most of our international stuff does. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to nitpick, but isn't all of our material necessarily "international"?  From my point of view, for instance, Reuters is a local newsagency that happens to have an international presence (as do my national newspapers, the Telegraph, the Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian, and not forgetting the BBC).  All of these news sources have their own reporters and generally will only quote Reuters or other wire agencies when there is breaking news overseas and they haven't had time to send a reporter to the spot. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say "our", I mean "New Zealand", with particular reference to the ODT. From MY point of view, it is a small regional newspaper and does not have the resources to have reporters in every possible country. Thus, it imports from Reuters, AAP and other associations. I apologise for the lack of clarity my response gave. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ron could easily have done all of those things.  Rowling said he helped his brother at the joke shop then went on to become an auror with Harry.  He could then have cut back on his hours and done most of his work at home so he could take care of the kids.  Nineteen years is a long time. Ariadne55 16:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, there is no citation in that section to the Today Show interview. Shouldn't this be used as a citation as well because the info came from bothe the articles?  Bella Swan(Talk!) 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free.  Be BOLD.  If you have a good high quality and accessible source for a notable addition that improves the quality and feel of the article, then by all means add it. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing in the canon that contradicts the idea of being an Auror who has a joke shop, particularly this one; if you have forgotten, Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes already had a special relationship with the Auror Headquarters, selling defensive magic products for Aurors. Knowing what George has gone through, I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling announces that WWW is now owned by two Aurors. Besides, they could always employ a shop manager, can't they? -focoma 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I meant was that it was put in the article that Fred and George were aurors, but was not cited with the interview, not that they had to be aurors and not owners of WWW because the article said so.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information in news articles 

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