Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Length

This always happens. I make a plan, it looks nice and neat, then I get to actually write the book and realise that Harry can't possibly do all that in just one chapter. So what I thought were going to be two chapters have now become four. I still don't think the book will be as long as 'Phoenix', but if that keeps happening... no, it won't. I'm looking at the plan, and it can't. Surely. Please. Discuss

I think that this might mean that this book will be as long a Pheniox! I wish it was longer than an unabrdiged dictionary of all languages including slang words (LOL). Chris Chaud 21:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the past, I'd heard that JK Rowling said that book 7 will be as long as Encyclopedia Britannica, and at other times, simply just "very long." I don't see how it could be shorter than OotP.

last word

• Er...isn't the last word supposively Scar, not Potter?

• True, that should be fixed

• According to Mugglenet on July 6, 2007: Scar is no longer the last word. It was for a while, but has since changed.

• Yeah, the last word was "well" from the sentence "All was well".

---

I think (I feel) that ‘the prophecy’ has long been fulfilled...

Voldemort was ‘vanquished’ years ago, on the night when Harry got that‘scar’...

...but neither can still live, when the other 'survives'...

saratchandrashenoi@yahoo.co.in

---

name of the book

i understand the name was given on JKR's site, but since i missed it, does anyone know if the flash game is still available somewhere? I'd very much like to see it with my own eyes... :D -- 86.121.160.187 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Time of release

I just wanted to clarify an edit I just made. The statement was that the release would be one minute after midnight local time for locations in the United States, and one minute after midnight BST in the UK "and other English-speaking countries". I work at a book store here in Canada, and I can say for certain that we're also observing the "local time" release. For example, folks in my previous home of Prince Edward Island will have access to the book a full 3 hours before our store is allowed to sell it here in Alberta. - 68.146.226.69 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"spoilers"

While I am not personally bothered if I find out key information about this final book before I get the chance to read it, and I don't have an objection to "spoilers" being contained in articles if they're well-labelled, I think that until the book is actually released, we should leave out any information that comes from "leaked" copies, since these are unverifiable and unreliable. Faked images claiming to be scans from "leaked" copies have surfaced, and I think that between now and Saturday, any spoilers from "leaked" copies should be deleted immediately. Verifiable (or mostly verifiable) spoilers, such as the translator who revealed the identity of R.A.B., are acceptable. Unconfirmed twaddle is not. - UglinessMan 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

House elf on cover

I just removed a bit of trivia stating that there is a house elf on the cover of the British children's edition holding Gryffindor's sword. I removed this for two reasons. First of all, I'm not convinced it's Gryffindor's sword. I have a poster which is a blow-up of the cover (we got a few dozen of these at the book store where I work), and it looks like a dagger of some sort, but it appears much too small to be the sword, and doesn't have any identifying markings which would indicate that it is indeed that specific artifact. Second, there are several objects on this cover that might be cause for speculation, such as two pieces of what appears to be a suit of armor, but without further information, simply mentioning these objects seems pointless. In fact, all of the covers which have been released could be the subject of discussion and speculation, but nothing encyclopedic. A trivia section is fairly worthless when it only contains one piece of information which may or may not be accurate. If this is to be restored, I humbly request that 1) there be some sort of citation or information provided to support the idea that it's Gryffindor's sword (aside from the fact that it looks like a long pointy thing), and 2) that other relevant trivia items be added, making it an actual trivia section rather than a single tidbit. - UglinessMan 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

*Spoiler Warning* Here are some points that I feel are important to add to this section. There are only two things that the knife/sword on the cover could be.

• 1) Bellatrix Lestrange's Dagger.
• 2) Gryffindor's Sword.

The art on the book matches the description of Gryffindor's Sword, even tho it is quite small. Remember this is a kids cover, and the art is supposed to be for kids.

Which House Elf is it? There are only two named house elves of significance.

• 1) Dobby
• 2) Kreacher

If it is Dobby, then the dagger could be Bellatrix', as it is used to kill him. If the dagger is in fact Gryffindor's Sword then neither House Elf really comes into contact with it. Could it in fact be, not a house elf, but a goblin? The goblin Griphook aids Harry in his assault on Gringotts in exchange for the goblin made Sword of Gryffindor. Harry intents do trick Griphook, but is double-crossed by the goblin who steals the sword. The surrounding stuff on the cover, the coins and various shinies, seem also to indicate that this is infact the point when Harry and friends break into Gringotts. This lends more weight to the theory that Griphook is the unknown creature on Harry's back on the cover.

The only combinations that really work are:

• 1) Dobby and Bellatrix' Dagger
• 2) Griphook and Gryffindor's Sword

Thoughts? --Majushi 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the chapter in question, it is quite obvious that choice #2 is the correct one (it is Griphook the goblin, who is holding the Gryffindor sword). Yes, the sword appears small, but that was what Griphook made out with as they spilled out of the vault, which was a major plot point. --Dlsimon 05:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers 2

These are confirmed copies from a stolen book from an unnamed internet community I belong to. They are absolutely reliable, for they are pictures and there is absolutely no person in the world capable of photoshopping 770 pages.

They are absolutely real, if they came from the right place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.1.35.217 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2007.

I don't know if I've ever seen such a complete piece of rubbish. It's almost too easy to pick apart every part of your assertion.

• These are confirmed copies from a stolen book

Confirmed by who? By what source? Saying the word "confirmed" does not make for confirmation. This is an online encyclopedia, not a gossip club.

• from an unnamed internet community I belong to.

As long as it remains unnamed, then it is a completely meaningless claim. Anyone could come here and add nonsense, and claim "it's from some community I belong to which I can't tell you the name of but I promise it's true!"

• They are absolutely reliable, for they are pictures and there is absolutely no person in the world capable of photoshopping 770 pages.

Nonsense. First of all, there are countless people out there with twisted imaginations and lots of time on their hands. Second, the assertion is not that they are "photoshopped" (manipulated), but simply that there is no proof yet that the "leaked" copy is genuine. Someone wouldn't have to manipulated images, it's possible that someone obtained a fanfic, used a publishing program to give the same layout as the previous books, then printed it out and bound it to look like a book.

• They are absolutely real, if they came from the right place.

And what would that "right place" be? Making an unsourced unreliable claim to support an unsourced unreliable claim is circular logic. It proves nothing, it means nothing. I work at a book store, I could claim that we got our copies early, and I have one right beside me, then proceed to give details about the storyline. And you would have no way to prove me wrong. And you wouldn't have to, either, because the onus would not be on you to prove a negative, the onus would be on me to prove my claim with something more than another claim.

In summary, an unsourced unreliable claim cannot be proven by another unsourced unreliable claim, especially coming from someone using an anonymous IP and providing no details whatsoever. - UglinessMan 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

where can i stichk this spoiler?

Dumbledore is rumoured to survive, meaning that Snape is on his side and that Malfoy is being led into a trap!!!!!!

-*spoiler alert*He dies, but Snape killing him was planned, because one can only obtain the Elder Wand by killing the person who possesses it. Dumbledore knew he would not live much longer due to age, so he thought snape deserved it. Also Snape is on DumbleDore's side. Read the last book thoroughly ;) -Chicken Lord/Darth Poultrus/BrickLand Admin 00:06, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

--Minor detail: one can only obtain the Elder Wand by *besting* (not necessarily killing) the person who possesses it. --Napoleon 9th 07:06, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

—True. But Dumbledore did not necessarily know that and his plan did not work as he wanted anyway. It was Draco that disarmed him. Dumbledore did not know a couple of stuff about the Deathly Hallows like for example he didn't know that the Stone of Resurrection could only restore the souls of the people but will not truly bring them to life and could not bring their bodies back.

Dennis Creevy

Why is Dennis Creevy listed as a killed? Having just read the book I have no recollection of reading about his death anywhere. Colin's body was found, as stated in his article, but there is no mention of Dennis anywhere in the book. Alive or Dead. --Majushi 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I took Dennis Creevey off of the people killed list on the page. --Sonic80 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Harry's Horcurx"

Here, it is explained he cannot be killed by Voldemort whilst Voldemort lives, since he used Harry's blood to recreate his body, and Lily's protection binds the two.

hmm, would this mean that Voldemort was something like Harry's horcrux and nobody would have been able to kill Harry while Voldemort lived? or was just Voldemort unable to kill Harry.

Neville Longbottom and Gryffindor's Sword

OK, I'm dense, but could someone please explain how Neville Longbottom ends up with Gryffindor's Sword to kill Nagini?

Basically, as Dumbledore says in Chamber of Secrets, only a true Gryffindor can pull the sword from the Sorting Hat. Harry did it in the Chamber, regardless of the sword's location in Dumbledore's office. Neville, having shown that he is a true Gryffindor through various brave and selfless acts in the previous years, was able to pull the sword from the hat regardless of the fact that it was in Griphook's possession at the time. - Cavalier One 07:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems a little obscure. I would have thought the point would have been made clear in the immediate text. As it stands it looks pretty much like deux ex machina. Bill Willis 12:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all to do with mirroring - Harry gets the sword in Chamber of Secrets and kills a snake - the Basilisk. Neville gets it in Deathly Hallows to kill Nagini, another snake. Its a symbol for the Gryffindor victory over the symbol of Slytherin. She set it up years before, just like the dragon rumour at Gringotts that allows them to escape. - Cavalier One 12:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

After Deathly Hallows facts

J.K.Rowling has already given a bit of information that was noti included in the novel about what happened to the characters after the book ended. Should this information be included in a part of this page or on another page. I know it is on the character's pages that it pretains to, but what if you do not know everything that has been given and you want to know what else we know about the characters? Just a thought. I could easily have it's own little place on the Deathly Hallows page, or if there ends up to be too much we can give it it's own page. I vie more for a spot of the Deathly Hallows page though. I suggest this because I was trying to find out more about the characters after the book but didn't know what all had been said and about who to find it. If I am just blind and/or stupid and it does have a spot already it wouldn't be the first time I did something like that. --65.93.164.243 01:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think the place should be on the Deathly Hallows page - its for the book. I think it might be appropriate to make a page containing a summary of facts released during her subsequent interviews. Is there any fact in particular you felt didn't have a home in a character (or other) article? -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just any fact it was all the facts. I was just making a suggestion of putting them on this page, but if you think it would be better on a seperate page of its own. That is cool. (oh, if the user thing isn't the same, this is 65.93.164.243) --65.93.164.243 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see, well I think if its all the facts it would definitely be better to put it on a seperate page. And yes your IP address is the same. Have you ever though of registering? :) -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You know something. That is a very smart idea... --64.230.38.145 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I noticed a little while ago a timeline page of what occures between 1998 and 2017, but that just has dates pretty much. Is there a page that has the events that occure after the book, and if there isn't one maybe we should make it. It has been discussed. Oh, and I now have a login:) PS: If no one objects to the creation of this page then I will begin the preperations. --Meraculas 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have a mini makeshift draft of what the page could be with the information I could find, posted on my talk page. Check it out to see if it might be alright and feel free to add to it as more info comes. If anyone thinks it would make a good article then by all means post it. Just put a link on the talk page and I will remove the stuff I have on it, or remove the info and replace it with the link.--Meraculas 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Secret Keeper of Shell Cottage

If Bill was the secret keeper of Shell Cottage then why was Ron able to tell Dobby where to take everyone when they were trapped in the Malfoy's basement?

From closer reading of the text, it seems that the Fidelius Charm wasn't cast on Shell Cottage under after Harry and co's arrival. Bill makes mention that it's because the Death Eaters know Ron was with Harry, and they could only have known that from the events at Malfoy Manor. The Charm was probably was cast as a result of Harry's arrival, not before it. We just didn't see it. - Cavalier One 12:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Revieled Details section

I think that this section can be deleted because we know what happens in the book now and this is just pointless.Me_Potter_Fan 10:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who was it that completly removed the book information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 09MurphyM (talk • contribs).

Rated R?

Does anyone think The Deathly Hallows movie will be rated R? I would like as many opinons as possible. I, personally, hope it isn't, because then I won't be allowed to watch it. Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.220.128.22 (talk • contribs).

The End of the book is pretty dissapointing to me. It seems that JK's writing reached a peak at Phoniex, then it started falling after that. This is only an opinion.Helix Armada 18:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It won't be an R (15). The story is for children. 90.199.56.252 22:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It will more than likly be rated R because Harry appears naked in three different times in the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.51.203.176 (talk • contribs).

Please keep your theoretical and forum discussions to their proper place. The banner at the top of the page states the purpose of this page as a "discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic." Thanks WorfoSAUR 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides, this talk page is for the book, Not for the film adaptation. For those who want to talk about the movie version of Deathly Hallows, Go to Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 --ÈnŔîčö DC^{(Send me an Owl!)} 06:56, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

HUGE inconsistency

I have found a huge flaw in the literature.. In the beginning of Deathly Hallows, when Hermoine is explaining to Harry the sacrifices she made, she explains that she wiped her parents memories clean and made them think they had no daughter, as well as instilling the desire to move to Australia. Later, however, in the cafe after Bill and Fleur's wedding, she says she's never performed a memory charm, but understands the general theory of it, and performs one upon the Death Eaters and the Muggle waitress.. Inconsistency??

Nope, they're two different charms. The charm Hermione used on her parents altered their memories, while a Memory Charm removes them. --Cubs Fan2007 ^(Talk) 07:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

im wondering

how Harry Potter has images of the movie before it even came out. — Balistic

Nevermind. — Balistic

Canadian adult paperback edition

We're not really supposed to include "original research", so I'll just note here that the statement I added a few weeks ago regarding the lack of an adult paperback Canadian edition of Deathly Hallows, and the fact there is no immediate plan to bring one out, came to me through direct correspondence with Raincoast's marketing department. (I ended up ordering a copy from the UK so I'd have the complete set). Someone should add detail regarding the US edition and whether a similar disconnect between the adult and children's paperback editions has occurred. 23skidoo 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

How did this become a featured article with dozens of places with missing plot and grammatical errors. I have made at least 10 significant edits and I'm only up to where they get caught by snatchers. --Hcoknhoj 09:01, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Errors & BTS?

How come this article has no "Errors" or "Behind the Scenes" section to it? I'm sure that there must be SOMETHING in at least one of the versions of the book that would qualify for one or both of those sections. I'd make them myself, but I don't really like editing the actual articles...Gerokeymaster 02:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

There should be. I am working on coming up with policy on how these articles should be uniformly organized. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 10:56, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Bellatrix Lestrange killed?

I don't recall the book saying she was killed, just defeated... Did Mrs. Weasley use an unforgivable curse?71.42.87.2 15:01, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

It says in the book that "both women were dueling to kill". There are also other spells besides Avada Kedavra that can be lethal. 70.242.116.78 16:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Rowling never states what spell killed Bellatrix but it did kill her. --KiumaruHamachi 17:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPUjURJaQf4&playnext_from=TL&videos=etwJaVXTk5M&feature=subUmishiru 06:27, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Locket Horcrux and All the Misery It Caused

Is there any reason given for why Harry insisted on wearing the locket, "resting on his chest next to" his conveniently located and extremely secure mokeskin pouch, rather than INSIDE the pouch, where he might have been protected from its unpleasant influence by the obviously powerful magic that makes the pouch so secure? EmmyG 00:42, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in the book

Hello. I wanted to bring attention to a mistake that JK. Rowling herself has made. Few chapters into the book, Hermione explains that she has obliviated her parent's memories. Later on however, in the cafe after Dolohov and Rowle have been defeated and Harry suggests that Hermione erase their memories, she says that she has neer done the spell before. Anyone else notice this? --Unicorn Blood 15:53, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the Memory Charm article in the BTS section, Rowling addresses this, as the charm she used on her parents was not the same as the charm she used on the Death Eaters. The charm she used on her parents was the False memory spell, where he parents memories weren't "wiped" but "altered", the Memory Charm wipes the memories of the person. --BachLynn^(Accio!) 16:24, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow, quite understandable. Thanks. :) --Unicorn Blood 17:30, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

—Also the "Obliviate" spell is rather permanent. No legilimency or anything else can reverse or penetrate it. Think of the memory like words written with a pencil and obliviate as an eraser. That's the opposite of the memory charm where some skilled legilimency can penetrate it and is reversable. --Firefox1095 22:26, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Except that the term 'Memory Charm' is a generic one, not the name of a specific spell like "Obliviate". Note how Rowling used Memory Charm in both singular and plural forms when she had Gilderoy Lockhart introduce them in chapter 16 of Chamber of Secrets. So it wouldn't matter what the specific spell was that Hermione used on her parents, it would still be a Memory Charm, just not the "Oblivate" spell. So Hermione's statement in chapter 9 of Deathly Hallows is still a continuity error, and Rowling's "False Memory Charm" is just a poor attempt at covering herself.

W. Browncoat 17:40, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

The Prince's Tale mistake

In the Chapter the Prince's tale it features Snape talking to Dumbledore's portrait in the Headmasters office talking about confunding Mudungus and giving the right dates of Harry's departure. He also tells Snape to protect the students from the Carrows. However this happens before the ministry falls and Death Eaters take control of Hogwarts. How can Snape be at Hogwarts talking to Dumbledore when he is seen as an criminal at the time and how would Dumbledore know specifically that the Carrows would be the Death Eaters posted at Hogwarts? Am I right about all this and should this be mentioned in the article. Oni Dark Link 22:47, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and should definitely put it up. You should also add that, just like Dolores Umbridge in OotP, Snape being appointed headmaster by the Ministry Of Magic was illegal because they didn't have the authority to do it. That authority lies with the Hogwarts board of governors, as established through Lucius Malfoy in chapter 14 of CoS.W. Browncoat 18:01, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

There is one point I disagree. Okay, in the time before the fall of the Ministry, it was illegal that the Ministry appoints the new headmaster. But laws can change when the politicians - here the Minister - changes, so under the new circumstances it could be legal that Snape is the new headmaster.

When Umbridge was appointed Headmistress, the office refused to open to her, but it doesn't refuse to open to Snape. O. k., it could be that Dumbledore has hexed his bureau, but perhaps the bureau only follows the laws of the Ministry and when this does something illegal, the bureau refuses to open.

The other points are very good. That I think, too. Harry granger 20:05, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Except the only difference between the events of Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows is the names of the characters involved. Instead of Cornelius Fudge changing the law and appointing Dolores Umbridge, it's Pius Thickness changing the law and appointing Severus Snape. Six of one, half dozen of the other. So the results should have been the same - a sealed office.

But that's DH all over: Take the plot from OotP, change the names and other superficial details, add lots of continuity errors, and call it a new book. If Rowling had done it with a book written by anyone but herself, they'd call it plagiarism.W. Browncoat 18:08, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Errors Surrounding the "Deathly Hallows"

Since we've been discussing some of the other continuity errors in DH, I thought I should bring up those concerning the "Deathly Hallows" themselves.

The Elder Wand doesn't make a wizard unbeatable in battle. If it did, then Dumbledore couldn't have "won" it by defeating Grindelwald in a duel (ritual battle), because he would never have been able to defeat him!

The Ressurrection Stone does not bring back the dead. All it does is put images of them into the holder's mind, as stated by the Sirius-image as Harry was on his way to commiting Voldemort-assisted suicide. But more importantly, the stone had been BROKEN by Dumbledore prior to the start of HBP. If you have to damage a Horcrux "beyond all magical repair", in other words - destroy it, then it shouldn't have done anything.

Finally, identifying Harry's Invisibility Cloak as the fabled Cloak of Invisibility is based on Ron's false assertion that Harry was never caught while wearing it. Actually, he was spotted wearing it no less than four times in the earlier books. Once fighting Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle outside the Shrieking Shack in PoA. Twice by Mad-Eye Moody's magical eye in GoF: first in Hogsmeade, and the second time after leaving the prefect's bathroom. Lastly, Malfoy glimpsed Harry's shoe as he snuck into the Slytherins' compartment aboard the Hogwarts Express in HBP. And by the way, the Marauder's Map can see through the Cloak too (PoA, GoF)!

W. Browncoat 20:46, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point about the Elder Wand. The Elder Wand was not an 'unbeatable' wand; it was just a magically powerful wand that changes allegiance as easily as no other wand. Being unbeatable goes against all the Master of Death thing; the acceptance of the inevitability of death. In fact the characters that claim that the wand in unbeatable forget its bloody history: starting with Antioch Peverell, almost all (if not all, except for Gregorovitch, Grindelwald, Dumbledore, Draco and Harry) its masters died whilst with the wand; the ones who did not were defeated in battle. As for the Resurrection Stone, what Dumbledore did was destroy the ring beyond all magical repair. The stone was only left with a crack. As for the Cloak, that's what it is, a cloak. If Harry bumps into someone, or shows part of his foot or anything, people will be able to see it. The cloak hides from sight, not from movement or sense. Rowling herself says that the cloak is an old family heirloom, and given the description of how normal cloaks turn opaque or wear off in Deathly Hallows and given the uniqueness of a cloak like Harry's, it must be a Hallow. As for Moody's eye, and the Marauder's Map, I repeat, the cloak hides from sight. It does not hide from other magical means of detecting persons. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:27, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes: the wand-ownership thing. Unfortunately, "wandlore" is completely bogus. Every instance under which DH claims a wand will "change owners": a wizard losing a fight, having their wand yanked from their hand, being hit with the Expelliarmus charm, or having it stolen all happened to Harry at least once in the other books, with no apparent effect on his ability to use his wand. Plus, Harry WAS NOT the "owner" of this so-called "Elder Wand" during the battle at Hogwarts despite his "wandlore" claim. Voldemort was! Rowling not only wrote that the wand was "ready to serve a new master at last" when she had Voldemort steal it from Dumbledore's tomb, but had it show its acceptance of Tom's "ownership" THE EXACT SAME WAY the phoenix-feather wand showed its acceptance of Harry's the first time he picked it up in Ollivander's shop back in SS!

Actually, the black stone being cracked was the ONLY damage to Marvolo Gaunt's ring discribed in HBP. Otherwise it seems to have been perfectly intact and wearable, as Dumbledore wore it when he picked up Harry at the Dursleys in chapter 3.

In reference to Mad-Eye's magical eye, I'll quote the false Mad-Eye chp. 19 of GoF, "Yeah, it can see through Invisibility Cloaks". So, it didn't block Harry from his sight. Also, despite Dumbledore's words, there's no evidence of Harry's cloak doing anything special for him in DH or any of the other books. It certainly didn't seem to work any differently for Snape than it does for Harry when he used it to sneak into the Shrieking Shack in PoA.

You say that the characters' belief in the Elder Wand came from them ignoring its history. Well, the acceptance of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a legitimate ending to the series comes from fans ignoring the previous books, assuming they ever read them.99.96.128.134 01:38, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Elder Wand's allegiance

So, Harry was the master of the Elder Wand because he disarmed Draco, whom disarmed Dumbledore. But when Voldemort killed Harry in the Forbidden Forest with the Elder Wand, shouldn't it be loyal to Voldemort now? Glenohumeral13 (talk) 02:41, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup On "Choice of title and symbolism"

Much of the information in this section is poorly researched and grossly inaccurate. The shoddy allusions to Celtic myths as the background of the three hallows in Rowling's book is completely unfounded, and completely fail to adress the notion of symbolism in the subject heading. There are stil numerous themes and archetypes in the book which should be explored and expanded upon, however, and would make for an enriching article. 76.232.148.136 19:12, August 21, 2011 (UTC)Anon.