Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Will you guys accept a plot summary now?

The book is out on the internet and even for sale in some south pacific countries. I have read a little of it but won't bother starting a plot summary if its just going to start an edit war.--Dacium 09:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have difficulty sparking an edit war, as the page is currently fully protected. I say give a plot summary a go, perhaps in user space to avoid being hammered by indignant readers for posting 'spoilers' to the talk page. However, I would say that, obviously, a 'running plot summary' is probably a bad idea, and its actual addition to the article should wait until after somebody's read the entire book and written a full plot summary. JMHO Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a caveat to the above comment — after the book has been released — I thought it was legally for sale; however, I misunderstood: the 21^st date is a worldwide release date. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but NO. The plot summary is not verifiable until July 21 - and so it would have to be sourced from unofficial and questionable sources that are subject to deletion due to copyright prohibitions. Wiki Policy demands verifiable over the truth, or what we "believe to be true", no matter how firmly held - and that is inviolable. Yes we know someone allegedly broke into a warehouse and stole a book off the pallet and photographed some or all the pages. We know that others scanned and posted fan fiction pages posing as the real thing. We know some people may even have been inadvertantly shipped copies from their online bookstore. Any publication of scanned or photographed materials that are in fact authentic is a clear violation of international copyright laws. Since there is no way of knowing what is authentic and verifiable, without a hands-on authentic copy of the book, then we are stuck at disallowing the posting of a plot summary. Any spoilers or summary plot elements that may have already been posted are (or should be) verified and linked to authentic reliable news sources; not from fan forums, blog pages, or someone's hosted web page. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently, one would have to commit a crime to verify the content of a plot summary. That is not acceptable. Neil ╦ 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Downloading the illegal material isn't a crime, although distributing it is. Finding a non-P2P site (the automatic sharing part of the P2P download is where people keep being caught out with, for example, music downloads) with it would work, or receiving the text from a friend would work (although it would be illegal for the friend to give you it). It does depend on the country, however: for example, simply linking to copyvio material is illegal in Australia. Please note: I am in no way condoning actually seeking out the text, I'm simply pointing out that it wouldn't necessarily be illegal to verify the claims. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Using illegal material for reference and wittingly providing a link to a copyright violation (which is what we would have to do - edits must be referenced) is not allowed. Neil ╦ 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether it would be legal to obtain or read or refer to it, it still doesn't work; random crap you download from the Internet isn't WP:RS. How do you know you're not looking at fanfic? Marnanel 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Neil, and I support that. I also realise that it wouldn't be a reliable source, as Marnanel has pointed out. I was just pointing out, as I say, that the legality wouldn't be quite so strictly defined. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, receiving stolen material is also a crime, so if Billy swiped a copy from the pallet at the warehouse (breaking and entry, tresspassing, and theft) and then passed it on or sold it to Tommy (receiving stolen property), then Tommy is just as guilty as Mike. If Tommy also copied, scanned, or photographed copyrighted material and posted it to his hosted web site for the purpose of distribution, then he is also in violation of copyright law. Anyone who then downloads and uploads the stolen and copyrighted material may also be culpable. The rights to regulate distribution of copies of the materials belong to the copyright owners - Rowling, Scholastic, etc. - not the thieves. See the Copyright Information page at the front of your other Harry Potter books for more information. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I want to show you a rather beautiful picture:

For why it's relevant, see here: [1] The photo was taken by a photographer in a botanic garden. The garden requires visitors to agree not to publish photographs commercially (which would result in a nonfree licence). However, in that discussion it was decided that, since copyright clearly belonged to the photographer, the enforceability or otherwise of that contract was a matter between the garden and the photographer, and did not affect the photographer's ability to supply the content to Wikipedia under whatever licence zie saw fit (or, indeed, to release it to the public domain). Marnanel 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that the scans have the same chapter names as the official book - and that the chapter names can be reflected in the text of the scan text - verify beyond reasonable doubt that the book is authentic? Along with the illustrations, which are made in the same style as the official artist.

IMHO the only question remaining is whether it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to publish an extract. The ethical matter is not unimportant, but this is a web encyclopaedia that finds it fit to publish the birth names of adult performers - much to the advantage of any potential stalker - and the harm a plot summary would do to JK Rowling's life or anybody else's would not be in the same league.Sponsianus 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 13:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not until a reliable source says so that we can cite. Got one? Marnanel 13:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Marmanel, Wikipedia publishes matters that are of public interest, and the high likelihood that this book is genuine warrants such interest. Therefore it should be considered for summarising.

It would be easy to get an outside article that points to what I said in my previous post, and then the summary could be published interim as the contents of the scanned book, possibly the original, not as the authentical work. In the unlikely event that it is a fan fiction work, then we would of course treat the book the same as other fan fiction works. Wikipedia indeed summarises fan fiction, for instance we inform the public of what they could expect from the rework of the fourth Star Wars movie The_Phantom_Edit, which of course is perfectly illegal.

If we should publish a summary of the scanned book (with the doubts proberly expressed), there are logically two possibilities: a) We have summarised the real work in advance, and then the ethical question remains as in my previous post. b) We have summarised a piece of very skillful fan fiction which obviously had access to Rowling's personal manuscript in advance, which is clearly a sensational event that many books would be written about. Sponsianus 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm curious as to why you guys wouldn't write a summary under the caveat that it is still not completely verifiable until July 21. Plenty of wiki articles (especially intel related) present information that is the best available but under the qualifier that is from a particular source and not necessarily true.--Joshdboz 13:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Information must be verifiable, from a reliable (and legal) source. If it is not necessarily true, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Neil ╦ 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that information must be verifiable, but there is no policy that says it must be legal. What I mean is, we cannot illegally publish copyrighted material, but summaries of that material are fair use, whether the publisher has set an artificial embargo date or not. We are not the Harry Potter police, and calling people criminals is not helpful. -Rjm656s 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice picture. But there is a very significant difference between photographing and posting outdoor natural scenery, even if disallowed or discouraged by the property owner (a privacy matter), and scanning or taking electronic photographs of copyrighted text for the specific purpose of distribution of the copyrighted materials without the explicit consent and permission of the copyright owner. Copyrights cover published books and such, not a pretty garden scene. Also remember - non-film digital cameras actually scan the image and store a direct electronic bitmat version, just like any scanner - there is no photography in the sense of films and developing solutions. The scanning and creation of a digital electronic image of the text, for the purpose of distribution, is illegal, per copyright law. However, taking a picture of your child holding his signed copy of the book (on the 21st) while wearing cute little Hogwarts robes and a wand, even if the book is open with perhaps some text visible, would not be a violation of copyright law, since the intent is not to bypass the rights of the publisher to distribute the contents of the book without compensation to the copyright owner. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no need for a reliable source. Simply write about these images in the context of the thousands of news articles written about them. You currently have a situation where every major newspaper is writing about something in a somewhat skeptical context...and wikipedia is not doing the same? That's censorship. Joshdboz 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not censorship. There is always a need for a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability; "Verifiable means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Neil ╦ 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

@T-dot: Sorry, I think I didn't make my point clear. Obviously it is a copyright infringement to post scans of the pages, or the actual text of the book. That would be true before or after the release date. But if in three days' time I write a summary of DH, I own the copyright in that summary, and so I can GFDL it; indeed, that will happen (but not by me), on this very page. So how is that different today from a week from now? One argument advanced to answer that question on this page is that you can't know the contents of the book today without committing an illegal act; I was merely pointing out that this generally does not stop us recognising content as free. (The other argument, that any supposed content of the book known by an editor today is non-verifiable, is much harder to refute.) Marnanel 14:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't illegal. The problem is that until the book is released nobody else has a way to verify your plot summary. Anyone with a little skepticism will not trust that all the scans online are for the real book. So until the real book is released, a skeptic would be unable to find something that was definitely the real book to use in verifying a plot summary. That's why we have to wait for the book - not because of legal issue, just because of verifiability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Goodness' sake, you're agreeing with me! What I just said was: people have advanced two arguments here today for not posting information on the scans. The verifiability argument is a good one. The "you would have had to obtain the book illegally and therefore Wikipedia cannot publish your summary" is a bad one. Marnanel 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we agree about that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit the verifiability is a reasonable argument, but isn't it just the result of widespread self-censorship? The media has every right to write about the contents of these leaked pages, but for one reason or another they are not. This allows people on wikipedia to use the verifiability arguement, saying that since no "reliable" source has summarized the contents of these pages, we can't either without linking back to the images themselves. This is somewhat of a "who's going to blink first" situation, and I guarantee the mainstream media will be talking about the contents before the 21st. Joshdboz 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The legality argument is relevant; in order to meet the requirements of WP:V, one would have to post a link to the copyright-violating and illegal content, to act as the reference. Posting a such link is illegal. Neil ╦ 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, yes, that's pretty much what I said: verifiability is the big deal, rather than how the author of spoilers came by the information, as someone was saying earlier. (Of course, if some WP:RS publishes the contents of the alleged leak before Saturday, we can just link to that.) Marnanel 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(This is getting offtopic for this section, but:) I don't know why the media is or isn't printing anything, and it's interesting to consider why that might be. But the trouble is that it's not the contents of the alleged leak which are unverifiable. Any idiot can verify the contents of the alleged leak by installing a torrent client or spending a few minutes with Google. We could quite happily write a page about "2007 alleged DH leak". What is unverifiable is the contents of DH. This cannot be known for sure until Saturday, apart from the hugely unlikely event of an official statement otherwise, and anything otherwise is speculation. [EDIT CONFLICT: Oh, true, perhaps there are DMCA concerns; maybe this whole paragraph is crap. Is there a lawyer around?] Marnanel 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Marnanel: it's not a DCMA situation, because we are not infringing any copyrights. The idea of what happens in a book can't be copyrighted.

Joshdboz: if and when the mainstream media comment, we can certainly say things like "According to the New York Times, ..." and "According to cnn.com, ...". What we can't do is include claims about the plot as if we ourselves had verified them to be true. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that if any news source, web site, or even a good quality blog anywhere on the planet summarizes the plot of the alleged leaked version, that you can cite them as a reliable source and tell people what they say here. The tougher question is what to do when your only source is a putatively illegal torrent download. (I say putatively since as people keep insisting, it might be a fanfic hoax posted by consent of the author) I'd say that verifiability is defined de facto (as is the law nowadays). In other words, if you post your plot summary with a reference, and I can still follow the reference, then it is verifiable, no ifs ands or buts about it. Somebody can go on and say that linking to that reference was/is illegal... fine. But if they're asking for censorship of the entry based on legal grounds SAY that, don't give us a song and dance about verifiability. 204.186.218.83 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

Any comments on my revision and proposal to make an editprotected request to delete the spoiler stuff in the intro and insert a revised 'leaks' section lower down in the article (feel free to edit the 'Deathly Hallows' section I've linked)? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should be like most book pages. It needs a spoiler tag on the plot summary, whenever that is written. I'm currently working on one. Titanium Dragon 10:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, there aren't any spoilers — just discussion of purported leaks (in the interests of being bold, I've removed the spoilers from the lead, and replaced the very small 'controversy' section with mine). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you don't need spoiler tags on the plot summary — the fact that it's under a header 'Plot' or something similar is enough. See WP:SPOILER guideline ("When article sections are properly titled, it usually becomes redundant to include spoiler tags that, for example, warn a reader that significant plot details are about to be revealed in the "Plot" section."). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed what else would one expect to see under the plot heading other than spoilers? We can't just say "the book has a plot"harlock_jds 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When the book si released, it would be good if we could keep the plot to its own distinct section, at least initially, and avoid giving anything away other than broad strokes (and no actual spoilers) in the introduction.

Also, the plot section should not be too long ... I have no doubt we will end up with around 50k of recap in the most finite of detail by lunchtime on Saturday describing a blow by blow account of everything that happens in the book. Then, even worse, some bright spark will suggest splitting it off into its own article (nb: do not do this). If it gets any longer than the one for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which is already longer than it should be, it's too long, and will end up being ruthlessly edited by me once I've finished reading the book. Neil ╦ 12:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the plot summary needs to be kept under control - 1000 words is a good suggestion for the overall length. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected

I have returned the article to semi-protected status. Please be aware of this. Thanks. Neil ╦ 10:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot section developed in template?

I was just thinking--once the book is released legally, there's going to be a ton of editing, and it's really going to overwhelm anyone trying to edit the article. One possible solution to minimize the amount of edit conflicts would be to simply to have the plot summary developed in a template, and that template would be shown in the article, as part of the article. After two weeks, or whenever editing dies down a bit, it simply would be merged entirely with the article.

So basically, if you wanted to edit the plot, you'd edit {{template:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows plot}}, if you wanted to edit anything else, you'd just edit the article itself. The article itself would look exactly the same to readers, but it would greatly reduce edit conflict errors for us editors. -- Zanimum 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't there be tons of editing conflicts in the template itself? Joshdboz 13:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There would be exactly the same amount of editing conflict in a "Plot" section as there would in a "Plot" template. Neil ╦ 13:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(I think possibly the source of this confusion is that not everyone realises that, if two editors simultaneously edit different sections of a page with the "[edit]" section links, it doesn't cause an edit conflict these days.) Marnanel 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The template idea wouldn't cut down edit conflicts more than just editing one section at a time normally, but it would add another page that has to be watched and reverted, and would be confusing to newcomers. I think it's better to leave the article in one piece. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carl on this one. Miles Blues 14:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the sections are treated as separate? I didn't remember that. So long as everyone know to always click the section edit buttons, as opposed to the overall edit this page, then my idea is bunk. -- Zanimum 16:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic tone

While there are smatterings of this throughout the article, this sentence is particularly egregious: "But sadly, you can get the sites by using Google still! I will not post the spoilers here."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.106.200.194 (talk • contribs)

Resolved

Good catch - apparently it has already been cleared out though. You should probably expect this sort of poor editing to appear and disappear in the next several days, as vandals and trolls stop in to post their nonsense. The article is protected from anonymous posts and brand new accounts, but it is still vulnerable to drive-by vandalism by regulars, sockpuppets, and sleeper accounts. If you go ahead and get yourself registered now, in a few days you will be able to help us clean up the messes as you spot it. How about it - give us a hand? Thanks! - T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

vandals and trolls -- You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. OP was non-encyclopedic, but far from malintentioned. Please Assume good faith Liu Bei 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh now. I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to hypothetical future vandalism of the article by hypothetical vandals and trolls "in the next several days", but of which we have already had plenty this week. The article has been hit pretty hard and fast in the last few days, spawning protection debates and such. Well I do apologize if it seemed I was referring to a specific user as a vandal. But apparently you missed the whole point that we could use the help with cleaning up the article, whenever anything unencyclopedic is spotted? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Battle of ASDA

Resolved

The fight between Harry's UK publisher and Wal*Mart's UK brand (ASDA) has been interesting to say the least. Considering the size of ASDA/Wal*Mart, this is probably something that should be included in the article.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1275755,00.html

I've had a stab at it. I think it could do with another editor taking a look at it, however, and certainly another few sources. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling Responds to Spoilers

On her website, JK Rowling, pleads with people and fans to stop posting spoilers and ruining the experiance for everyone else. Also interesting to note, that her lawyer has confirmed that SOME of the content on the internet is indeed genuine. I think the part about her lawyer should be added into the article as confirmation. After all this guy was SITTING on the manuscript on the plane to States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.141.65 (talk • contribs)

The Rowling site only asks people to keep the info to themselves. It does not even mention a leak specifically. Do you have a link to the lawyer's statement? Girolamo Savonarola 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree - she's not acknowleging that anything posted online is authentic, she calls it misinformation, but nevertheless asks that we all "ignore" it. Here's a currently live reference link - http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ - which displays her comments as of today the 18th (UTC). --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are fine

Wikipedia has plenty of spoilers. Adding a spoiler is NOT vandalism and is NOT illegal. I think the spoiler should be included in the article, properly sourced of course. XM 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be illegal, but it puts Wikipedia in very hot water if it's there. And the thing is, we can't source it until 23:01 Friday UTC, as the book isn't officially out yet. Will ^(talk) 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And seeing as there are no proper sources, there will be no spoilers. Until, we have confirmation from a reliable source that these scans are indeed legitimate, we will wait until the release date for the plot summary. GoatSmoke 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If a book was shipped early then there ARE legitimate sources for spoliers. In any case, if someone leaks copyrighted information saying "whatever" (and this is reported), Wikipedia is justified in adding that to the article. XM 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

the spoilers would have to be published by a verifiable source (aka not a blog, not some random guy on the net's picture account, not in a forum etc) I don't see that happening.harlock_jds 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• If a book was shipped early then there ARE legitimate sources for spoliers.

Wrong. We have a verifiable source that a copy or copies of the book was/were accidentally shipped early, and we have dozens and dozens of unconfirmed spoilers and allegedly leaked copy. You're claiming a connection between the two which simply isn't there. - Ugliness Man 21:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no confirmation that these "leaks" came from that batch of books. In fact, there is evidence pointing towards the contrary. The "leak" pictures were taken 2 days before Scholastic's EARLY book shipment. GoatSmoke 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also some guy posting a picture online is not a verifable sourceharlock_jds 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This ultimately comes down to WP:V, so if no one has an implementation - based on material and media coverage currently available - in accordance with the policy, it's not worth the effort of any further discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally new, but just going by gut instinct, posting a plot summary here NOW seems like a really bad idea. Even if we were ABSOLUTELY SURE that the leak was real, and could verify it somehow...it wouldn't be a good idea to post a summary before the official release date. Am I making any sense here? RiftDoggy 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's wrong - if we had a way of verifying the content, it would be fully permissible. Furthermore, deletion of verified information of that sort would constitute a POV violation, as well as going against both the MOS rules for writing about fiction and the Content disclaimer. Girolamo Savonarola 21:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys, ever read the Venom(comics) article, before Spider-Man 3 came out? It was riddled with spoilers! Look it puts Wikipedia in hot water, I understand, but it's an online encyclopedia. Therefore if information about the book has been leaked, it's the right theing to do. Not just in this article, but the article of any characters effected. 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for putting the rumour in the article. But I stated there that «some fans say (...) but this is not confirmed». I saw that rumour many times, so I thought it was significant.--Midasminus 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm totally new, but I think that's that whole thing where there needs to be a verifiable source, and all that. Or no original research. Basically, if you just heard a rumor, then that doesn't cut it...I think. I could be wrong. RiftDoggy 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not a rumor. There are many, many articles already on the web about this. You could even go and find the leak yourself as its not that hard to locate through google. Stingmans 21:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still not CONFIRMED, we can't use it till it's proven info. - Biomech 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The book isn't out yet, and I don't know what Wikipedia's official take on all this is, but I really, REALLY don't think that we're supposed to use ANY leak info, at the very least not until the book is out. On Saturday, do whatever you want, since the Paolini's gonna hit the fan anyways, if you get my drift. So many idiots are going to replace the entire page with "A killed/loves/is the father of B" that none of this will really matter until some time has gone by.

Yes, I know that the page might be locked, that there are probably going to be a few dedicated souls keeping watch over the article (or not, though it would be nice), and that not EVERYONE on Wikipedia is going to rip this page apart on Saturday, but things are going to be pretty nasty.

To repeat: the leak isn't verifiable information until the book is out. And once the book is out, the leak material won't matter. So, the leak isn't relevant at all. Ooh, logic is fun! RiftDoggy 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Place To Discuss The Leak!

So I noticed that much of the stuff pertaining to the leak has been reverted. So I decided to create a place to discuss the leak: HEREUser:Stingmans/Deathly Hollows LeaksHERE, so this infomation can be directly transfered to the page once it is allowed. In this page everything pertaining to the leak is allowed to be discussed. (note, this page was created so that the info can eventually be used to improve the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article.). Stingmans 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Mid-Life Crisis

As a newly registered user, I'm unable to edit this page for a couple more days, so I'll ask someone else to do it. Under the After Deathly Hollows section, there's a mention of Rowling making a joke about writing a book after Deathly Hollows. She didn't say this on her website, but rather in a chatroom interview hosted jointly by Barnes & Noble and Yahoo!. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-livechat-barnesnoble.html Faithlessthewonderboy 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw that on either/both the Rowling article or/and the Harry Potter (series) article. I don't know if it's relevant to this article, since it was, admittedly, a joke. She has said that she might do a sort of encyclopedia-type thing, so that might be good, if it isn't already in the DH article.

I'm newly registered too, and am fairly new (have only been an active editor for a few months total, but my old account had a name that pointed more or less directly towards my identity, so I deleted it), so feel free to not listen to a word I say. RiftDoggy 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, any constructive input is appreciated. I would argue that it is relevant to the article. Yes, it was a joke, but it was Rowling answering a question about whether she intended to write more about HP after DH is released. Therefore, I think it's very relevant to the section of the page that it's under. It just needs to be cleaned up and properly sourced. Again, I'd be happy to do this if I was able to. As it is, I provided the link and hope someone else will do the dirty work. :P Faithlessthewonderboy 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Deathly Hallows" arrived in Maryland 4 days early!!!

The Baltimore Sun, in a July 18th, 2007 article, states that Jon Hopkins, a 25 year old software engineer living in Davidsonville, Maryland, received a copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on July 17th, a full 4 days before the Saturday, July 21st release from DeepDiscount.com. Scholastic became very shocked to hear about a person in Maryland getting a copy of the book 4 full days before release:

Neither did Scholastic Inc., the Potter publisher. Scholastic has cracked down on Web sites purporting to have obtained the book, going so far as to send one a subpoena. Libraries were made to sign strict contracts to keep the book locked up until Saturday. And pallets of the books on delivery trucks have been fitted with alarms.

So the publisher wasn't happy to hear of the case of Harry Potter and the Early Delivery.

"You're kidding me," said Kyle Good, a Scholastic spokeswoman. The company has spent millions orchestrating the launch of the last Potter book -- and Internet leaks or early delivery of the novel could spoil that plan. Readers are eager to learn what happens to their beloved characters. Author J.K. Rowling has hinted that one or more of them might die, perhaps even Harry himself.

At Scholastic, after Good looked into the early delivery yesterday, she said she was satisfied that a "human error at the distribution level" had caused the book to be shipped earlier than it should have been. Asked whether DeepDiscount would suffer for its transgression, she said, "We'll have to talk with them about how we handle it."

The article itself can be found here: [baltimoresun.com The spell is broken Despite publisher's efforts, ... one Md. reader gets his copy early] KSweeley 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Added this to the main article since it is unprotected now. KSweeley 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote a famous starship captain: "Oops..." Liu Bei 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

didn't this happen with book 6 and 5 too? I'm starting to think it's just a publicity stunt that they send people a copy early.harlock_jds 12:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been an Anonymous for many years, and to my knowledge nothing that even came close to this scale or magnitude before. Page scans, yes, but not the entire book. Liu Bei 12:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So now that legal copies of the book are obtainable, this would seem to imply that a full plot summary could, in fact, be included with the article, n'est-ce pas? 71.171.184.179 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if a person in possession of a copy confirmed to be real were adding the plot summary. In other words, no.-Wafulz 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, even after the book is officially released, how does one go about "confirming" that they have a real copy of the book? 71.171.184.179 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We assume in good faith that they're telling the truth. Since the book is officially released, official verification will be an easy and direct process. Since the book is currently manifested as several purported leaks, we can't verify the information, so it shouldn't be included at this time.-Wafulz 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, we assume bad faith until the book is "officially" released? What if several "editors" start popping up (along with several news storys) about their copy of HP arriving in the mail earily even? Because I have a feeling we're going to hear more and more news storys like this one in the coming days. 71.171.184.179 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"So, we assume bad faith until the book is "officially" released?" Yes, pretty much. There's no rush- I guarantee by noon Saturday EST we will have a 400 paragraph plot summary fully detailing every action and word.-Wafulz 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, I said the same thing below! Plagiarist! :p Neil ╦ 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this... It is a toughy isn't it? Is it a matter of numbers? How many copies need to be "stolen" or "inadvertently shipped" before it becomes enough to make it a quorum of reliable sourcing? Or how many copies have to be sold and read, starting at midnight British Summer Time or whatever, for a reliable plot summary to be formulated? I wonder if we should say: "OK all you thieves out there with your early ill-gotten copies, start to read now, and prepare your book reports err 1000-word themes err plot summaries (btw: using a good word processor, with British spelling and grammar styles, and including reference mark-up links to "chapter and verse" please) for posting at midnight GMT, then we can start to prune out the weeds." Oh, but then we'd know who to prosecute. Post anonymously? Can't - it's protected from newbies and IP's. Should we *gasp* lift the semi-protection so the, umm, "early acquisitioners" can post anonymously without revealing their secret identity? And then reset semi-protection after a grace-period? Just when do we say "OK now it is reliable", and on what basis? Time of day? How come - that is, what changed from 11:59pm to 12:01am, besides the lawful sale of a few thousand copies? Hmmm... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, none of them are reliable sources until it can be checked by anyone who has the real copy, wikipedia has no release date, it doesn't matter how long it takes to write an article on the book, as long as it's accurate and uses RELIABLE SOURCES. Not someones cheap photoshoped "copy". 86.6.17.37 10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ollivander

No-one has mentioned the wandmaker, Mr Ollivander, in the section about "unresolved plot elements from previous books" - he is currently missing in action.82.20.131.211 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ollivander had been previously mentioned in the article, and subsequently removed, repeatedly, as part of the fan theory edit wars. It was not clear whether Mr. Ollivander will reappear, or whether he even needs to reappear (at last check everyone had good wands - Neville got the last one sold). It was briefly noted in Book 6 that his shop (and many of the others in Diagon Alley) appeared to have been abandoned, and his wand inventory gone. Many other wizards were reported to have disappeared, or reported killed by Death Eaters. Now it may be that Rowling will bring Ollivander back to rain his remaining nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic wands upon the assembled Death Eaters in the Hallows of Death. That would be pretty remarkable. In any case Ollivander's role diminished to almost nothing since the first book/movie, so his disappearence was considered relatively trivial compared to some of the other plot elements that seemed profoundly important by comparison. That said, if someone wants to re-install that line item, feel free to be bold!. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ollivander indeed appears in the last book and so does another wand maker. Indeed the thing that happens in GoF with the wands, something like that happens at the very start of book 7, err so im told.

Olllivander does appear according to NYT review. Joshdboz 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - now that's a source! Feel free to be bold and post something to that effect then - that Ollivander, who disappeared with his wand inventory before Book 6, has a role in Book 7 which is notable enough that he appears in The NY Times review. Please include a link to the article in the NY Times so other editors can verify your addition. Good work! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Action

Resolved

http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/show/1112

"We are taking immediate legal action against DeepDiscount.com and Levy Home Entertainment. The number of copies shipped is around one one-hundredth of one percent of the total U.S. copies to go on sale at 12:01 am on July 21st."

I think that should be included. Hmm? - Biomech 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wary of using a fan site as a source, although I'm sure it's perfectly accurate. *Googles* However, I have just found the press report elsewhere and so I'll take a look at whether it's possible to integrate it. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Since Scholastic, the U.S. publisher of the book, is printing an "unprecedented" 12 million copies for the July 21 release, then that implies that about 1200 were shipped early? Yikes! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's why they're desperate for people to keep it shut. Pretty big mistake. - Biomech

Was 12 million the US only number? If so, wow: that would be pretty significant even for a worldwide first print run! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholastic is only the publisher in the US, so it's 12 million in the U.S. The publisher outside the U.S. is Bloomsbury.

Ah, I see. Thanks, I didn't quite understand the Scholastic-Bloomsbury relationship. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WOW, Look at that indent! WHOOOO!!!!! Scholastic and Bloomsbury are both publishers. They publish Harry Potter. GoatSmoke 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that they are both publishers, I simply hadn't quite twigged that they were separately publishing the book on a regional basis. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And Raintree in Canada.75.18.109.233 03:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To admins monitoring this article

I know there are other admins monitoring this article to keep idiots from inserting spoilers. Rather than the usual 3-31 hours, I suggest to block IPs until after noon (EST) Saturday, which is around 72 hours at this point, and an indef block for any sleeper accounts (I've already blocked three).-Wafulz 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

72 hours may be a little long, but I think once we are within 48 hours it will definitely make sense to block IP vandals until the book is released. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin monitoring this article. Thanks you for your time. GoatSmoke 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The placement of spoiler information is not by itself a problem. Placement of spoiler information as vandalism is. I'm not convinced that the level of vandalism yet reaches the level where we should semi-protect. Individual IP addresses can be handled at an individual level. If the situation changes we can handle that when it gets closer to the relevant time. JoshuaZ 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to try unprotecting this article, as well. It seems to be monitored very closely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the onerous difficulties even getting the full protection downgraded to semi-protection, I would have to disagree. Plus, semi-protection is a standard application for vandalism. While the article is being closely monitored, the semi-status also prevents much would-be vandalism from even seeing the light of day. Girolamo Savonarola 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're good with semi protection. I will monitor it as much as I can, but I will have nothing to do with the article once the book is out, until I've read it. Neil ╦ 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone indicate where I can find the consensus and rationale for semi-protection between now and release time? (other than to prevent spoilers?)

Also, can someone indicate where I can find the consensus and rationale for semi-protection after the release time?

WP:PROT strongly discourages protection of pages. Seems to me we should lift semi-protection either now or immediately after release and only put it back on if the vandalism seems to be unmanageable.

--Richard 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion for revert

A user just removed some content relating to a controversy in Israel over the release date: diff saying "They matter since when?" as the edit summary. Revert: yes or no? I'm tempted to think the information is perfectly notable, and it's certainly sourced and under the right header and so I would revert, but I'm looking for other opinions. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it kind of random putting that in the article, I hadn't even heard of it until I read it here. I dunno though, I guess it could fit in. - Biomech 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary to include in this article. I do think the reason for the edit is very inappropriate though. Miles Blues 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's notable and worth including. Drachemorder 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun review

I included a mention of the review of HP7 published today by the Baltimore Sun [2], which was reverted by someone on the grounds that "no review copies have been sent". I guess the claim here is that the review published in the Sun (which contains no spoilers, for those keeping score) is not based on a verified copy of the book (per the claim that no review copies have been sent)--thus fails to meet WP:V.

The critic who wrote the review claims to have "read the book in advance"; I assume that means either she did get a copy from the publisher, or managed to get her hands on one of the other copies sent out accidentally (the Sun broke that story as well). Given that the Sun is a major newspaper, I think it is highly unlikely that the review was written based on the various online leak versions out there. (Of course it's possible, I suppose--few plot details were included in the review that might be contradicted on July 21--but were that to occur and be discovered, I bet that both the critic in question, as well as her editor, would be losing their jobs).

At any rate, the Sun deserves better credence than a review published in a blog somewhere.

--EngineerScotty 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really very sorry for asking, but can I confirm that you do not have a connection to the paper? You have my most humble apologies if you don't, as I'm sure is the case. As for inclusion of the review, the paper is a reliable source (and I'm sure they have a very high certainty that they've reviewed something genuine, because otherwise, as you say, someone's neck is on the line) so I guess it could be included — but further to that, I guess a bit more consensus would be good to avoid a revert war as so easily happens. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You may confirm that I've nothing to do with the Baltimore Sun, or any newspaper.  :) --EngineerScotty 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you: as I say, I'm really sorry for having asked, but I hope you can understand why. :-) Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem--I fully support WP:COI. --EngineerScotty 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that the intent was for the Press Reviewers to get their copies of the book at the same time as everyone else (midnight local time in the US) and that there would be a blackout on any sort of published reviews before July 21. The Baltimore Sun received one of the inadvertent early deliveries, and then published a review today. This has now been publicized in the news - eg: [3], more examples are available in a Google or Yahoo news search. It is pretty clear that this was part of the apparently accidental shipment of around 1200 copies, as discussed earlier, from Deepdiscount.com. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that The Sun is a major newspaper and the review corraborates all of the plot elements from the leaked book, isn't the authenticity of the complete book leak now beyond a shadow of a doubt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 (talk • contribs)

I don't think there is (or was) really any question that some copies of the book were lost, stolen, or improperly shipped, thus "leaked". What is unverifiable, and therefore holding up anyone posting a plot summary, is any information from such copies of the book. We have no means to verify that EditorXYZ, who claims to possess a copy and wishes to post such a summary, actually has an authentic copy, and therefore is posting valid plot information. I could say I have a copy and make up my own pet plot line, and nobody could challenge that? Without the ability to verify and validate EditorXYZ's plot claims by looking at freely available copy of the book, then his posts are unverifiable and therefore disallowed. Please see WP:V if you are unclear on the verifiability policy. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This has also been reviewed by the NY Times. Very good review, I think.BornToRun86 04:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel/Sabbath issue

User:ChibiMrBubbles has twice deleted mention of groups in Israel objecting to the book's being released on the Sabbath, in particular this passage:

The book's early Saturday morning release in Israel was criticized for violating the Sabbath; Trade and Industry Minister Eli Yishai commented that "It is forbidden, according to Jewish values and Jewish culture, that a thing like this should take place at 2 a.m. on Saturday. Let them do it on another day."

One of the user's comments was "They matter since when?"--take that as you will.

Not knowing much about Israel politics and such--does this constitute an official act by the Israeli government (or by an arm thereof)? Are the "threats of legal action" something which ought to be taken seriously? In short, is this bit notable?

Certainly, official action against the book is notable according to lots of Wikipedia precedent. Complaints by religious groups (that have no force in law or other effect) may or may not be.

--EngineerScotty 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Christian right and their dispute about the promotion of wizardry as a source of controversy? This has no force in law, yet is undoubtedly relevent, depsite one's personal feelings on the matter. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Christian right angle definitely needs mentioned, but my understanding is that that particular objection is to the entire series, in which case it should be mentioned at main series article (and it seems to be, as well as at Religious opposition to the Harry Potter series). I also feel that the Israeli objection to the release date should be mentioned because an objection by a high-ranking government official definitely seems notable to me. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Christian response is covered in detail in Religious opposition to the Harry Potter series, as is the Muslim response. I didn't spot anything on that page about a Jewish response, though. User:ChibiMrBubbles was right to delete the reference, since it doesn't belong in this article, but it certainly deserves a mention elsewehere. --Drekadair 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

Is YouTube a reliable source in this edit? I can't find anything else to support it, using Google News search. On the one hand, if it is true, it's a primary source. On the other hand, we don't have any evidence (without begging the question of whether or not the source is reliable) that it is genuine. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

YouTube is never reliable for anything, from copyrights to sourcing. So no, it's not a good source.-Wafulz 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my belief, but I wanted to check to be sure (most of edits are either starting articles or vandalism reverts, so I'm not sure of consensus on such things). I've removed that claim, now. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw a video that was removed by Schoolastic, it could be reliable.

Sorry, but "could be reliable" is not good enough for an encyclopedia - see WP:RS. And if it is "gone" now, then it is also unverifiable - see WP:V. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?

Would it be fitting to have a message saying that there could be possible spoilers in the article/talk page? - Biomech 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a spoiler tag, it should be applied to the plot summary section, when it goes up. Titanium Dragon 01:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone a while back suggested using the Current Event template during release. Given that spoiler tags were taken out and are generally frowned upon on specific subject pages, this one might be worth using. Dunno. Daggoth | Talk 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can use the {{current fiction}} template at the very top. Spoiler tags used to mark a section that is already titled "plot summary" are deprecated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers part three million

Any objection to adding spoilers for plot elements documented in either the New York Times or Baltimore Sun reviews? Both meet WP:V, after all... --EngineerScotty 03:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything reported in a reputable news source is verifiable. However, note that I said "reported". Anything that they state as absolute fact, not speculation, heresay, or rumours. For example, if a newspaper says "one person who claimed to have read a leaked copy of the book told me that the owl known as Hedwig turned out to actually be a toad in disguise", then it would not be acceptable to include a statement that "Hedwig's toad-like nature is finally revealed", and use the article for a citation. This may seem like a silly example, but keep in mind that a few days ago several editors decided that a news article about "what appears to be" a leaked copy was sufficient citation to report supposedly "confirmed" spoilers. Use the sources if the information they provide is blatant and relevant, just tread lightly. - Ugliness Man 05:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of leak

Well, this article here states that Rowling/Bloomsbury representatives have confirmed that SOME of the leaked material is genuine, but they've declined to say what said material was. Should we put this in now? (and I still personally think the whole thing is genuine, but meh). Blue Mirage | Comment 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. The article needs a general "leaks" subsection (probably a merge of "online leaks" and "early delivery").-Wafulz 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Covers

Is there any difference in the book/text between the children book and the adult book. Or is it just that they have different covers?83.204.132.148 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference.-Wafulz 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The children's book has always had more pages, as it has a bigger typesize. Neil ╦ 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the article mention "GameFAQs message boards?"

The original site was LUElinks, and it's been already proven several times [4] [5] [6]. And LUElinks isn't a message board on GameFAQs: someone might have confused it with the board LUE on the exact site. I don't want to start an edit war over this, though, so I'll just ask if it's fine to change it here first. -Smobey 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The links you provide are not reliable sources. Therefore, you should not change the article, which is based on a mainstream source. GlassFET 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, you're right. Kinda sucky it's not true, though. Enlighten me a bit: if no further confirmation for the whole GameFAQs deal will appear, will the mention of GameFAQs be removed? After all, it's just a single news site that's not even sure about the whole deal. -Smobey 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the sentence would probably specify "one news source reported it was GameFAQs..." but given the powers of the internet, I'm sure the truth will become mainstream soon enough.-Wafulz 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

fyi

Toby jones is returining as Dobby http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/1/9/toby-jones-to-provide-voice-of-dobby-the-house-elf-again-for-deathly-hallows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.67.93 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)