Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 11

Deluxe Hardcover
Any infomation yet on what exactly this will be? I heard something about them using recycled paper... dposse 13:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all of the editions have "gone green", to various degrees of percent recycled paper. Info: (Time Magazine) --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But is there any infomation on the difference between the "Deluxe edition" and the normal? dposse 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From Amazon.com ... The Deluxe Edition includes an exclusive insert featuring near-scale reproductions of Mary GrandPré's interior art, as well as never-before-seen full-color frontispiece art on special paper. The custom-designed slipcase is foil-stamped and contains a full-cloth case book that has been blind-stamped on front and back cover with foil stamping on the spine. The book includes full-color endpapers featuring the jacket art from the trade edition and a wraparound jacket featuring art created especially for this edition by Mary GrandPré. The Deluxe Edition cover shown at Amazon is the old example "Book 7 Release Date" template.
 * Barnes and Noble.com shows a Deluxe Edition cover that matches the US Mary GrandPre artwork for the Scholastic edition.
 * The Deluxe Edition Half-Blood Prince had a look completely different from any other edition but the out-of-print Deluxe Order of the Phoenix hardcover matched the regular Scholastic hardcover .  Thats pretty much all we know now.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary image
Does anybody feel that Image:Hp dh hangman.JPG should still be on the page? This was put up when the article had no images; now it's yet another FU image which I don't feel is as necessary as the covers. Thoughts? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we have now passed beyond the need to show that image.  It was the original "canonical proof" that this was indeed the title, and also served to show to all that it was "Hallows" and not "Hollows" as some press reports stated (thus confusing some editors and readers).  Since this canonical proof could only originally be accessed by "finding the easter egg" and completing the puzzle, it was felt that posting the image would also meet the requirements of serving those using incompatible web browsers, and those - umm - less skilled website users.  (I for one have still have not been able to draw a proper workable lightning bolt on that note pad on her "Extra Stuff" desktop to win the item there...).  Anyway the Hangman Game title can go.  It served it's purpose.  If there is a wiki-article on J K Rowling's Web Site Easter Eggs or something, then perhaps it could go there.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is an actual real world out-universe fact about the publicity used to promote the books, and really ought to survive right through to the final DH article after publication. It is just the sort of real-world information about the books which tends to get completely lost. The build up to the books ought to be preserved in the future. I would imagine that what is now the introduction will become lumped into one section about the build up, and this might end up there. Sandpiper 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought I can accept that. I think that it would be good to have a perpetual "special section" in the article somewhere recording the extraordinary level of pre-release anticipation, which started essentially the day that HBP came out and everyone began screaming either Y killed X or X is not dead!!!.  I'm sure there will be all sorts of claims that this was the most anticipated book to come out ever (and maybe it is), and the little easter egg hangman would be a nice existing image to capture a moment in the time of the build-up.  I still worry that the Fair Use deletionists will continue to find all sorts of reasons to declare copyvio wars on all the copyrighted and otherwise promotional fair use images in the HP project, and strip them clean; so we need to choose our images carefully with moderation, and have very well documented fair-use rationals on each one we choose to support.  It might be difficult defending the hangman game - which is clearly using a copyrighted image, even if it is a screen capture.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I think the difficulty arguably lies in the fair use tag being applied. It says it is a screen shot (which it is), but we are not using it to talk about the website, rather about the event of publication of the title. It is appropriately fair-use because we are talking about the actual event uniquely depicted in the shot, and no other free image of the event is available (by definition, really, since this was the first release of the title). So arguable the tag is misleading, but I'm not sure what would be better. Sandpiper 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article currently spreads non-sense
The word "hallows" is clear reference to the five hallows (divine objects) of the Arthurian legends, especially that of the Fisherman King. This way it is clear reference to the horcrux collecting roadshow to come in HP7. The sacred "hallow" objects found in Arthurian tales correspond one-on-one to the currently in-the-wild horcruxes Harry has to find. Hallows has nothing to do with the saints! Please amend the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * There is no "Clear reference" to anything in just two words of the title, until the book is released, there will be no "Clear reference" to anything. As a matter of fact, there is more evidence to support the use of the word Hallow as having something to do with saints, as it has been translated that way, although none of the translations are official yet. However, I would encourage you to improve the Hallow article, which should be the definitive source for information relating to Hallows. Tuvas 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What "clear evidence" would that be? dposse 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the US cover art has something going on in the background that appears to involve shapes of spirits (hallows / saints?) in an area that might suggest tombs or shrines (also hallows). I am leaning towards the possibility Deathly Hallows being a previously unseen place, perhaps involving tombs - and perhaps where the Four Founders and/or other ancient revered wizards were laid to rest.  The Horcruxes are Hallows concept never made any sense to me.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You really want to get into this? I took the illustrations as a possible nudge towards the mysterious dark doorway to the land of the dead in the ministry of magic which Sirius fell through, and many have speculated may reappear in the books. (The magic mirror [last seen with Sirius] will be important-Rowling.) Can you really see Slytherin agreeing to be buried with the others? Sandpiper 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well so anyway that's the US cover. Who knows what the hell just happened on the British cover: Has Harry now turned into Bilbo Baggins, thieving a cup-horcrux from Smaug's lair?  Or perhaps Harry turned into Beren, recovering a Silmaril from Morgoth for Lúthien-Hermione as Bride price?  Stay tuned kids. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to fall into this, I have to say that I agree. The veil and the mirror will be vastly important. I believe I stated a week ago that, because the veil leads directly to "the land of the dead", Sirius, and possibly other dead people (Harry's parents, Dumbledore, everyone else that has died so far), will be able to communicate with Harry, probably before/during/after Harry's battle with Voldy. Also, the Hallows could easily be the Horcruxes (objects), the resting place of the founders (tombs), or we all might be wrong and Rowling has another trick up her sleeve. But really, this is not the place for speculation. And I am a hypocrite. User:Chrisalbro, sorry, but I can't log on right now, as I've been saying all week.
 * Don't remember where i saw it, but it was correctly observed that the UK children's cover looks more like a pratchet book than an HP one. Dont know where all the treasure comes in. It was the Uk cover that I meant appeared to be the doorway. The US apparently features people in the background, not tombstones (someone official commented on it, can't remember who that was, either["The structures around Harry show evident destruction and in the shadows behind him, we see outlines of other people," David Saylor, Scholastic's art director, said in a statement.(Sandpiper 20:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC))], so I'm not convinced the covers show any evidence for anyone's tomb. I don't recall if the ampitheater depicted there matches the OOP description of the Mom? At present it look to me suspiciously like both covers are showing more or less the same thing. The house elf in the uk version is carrying a sword which matches the description of Gryffindor's (rubies on hilt), while the Uk adult has Slytherin's locket and the US shows Harry wearing something locket like. Founders relics on the covers then?
 * to the original poster: the issue of saints rather depends what you believe a saint is. Saints are ordinary mortals believed to have carried out miracles, and who are revered because of it. While I agree it is possible that this is not the concept intended in the title, it is consistent with the way the Hogwart's founders are described and revered in the books. The objects are themselves revered because they are relics of the founders, so even if they do 'fit' arthurian hallows, in the context of HP they became 'hallows' because of their association with the saintly founders. It is very nice layered meaning. We shall see how it comes out.
 * As the debate has slipped way into the past, I would point out again that the foreign titles are not necessarily translations of the English titles. I just noticed today that the french title of book 1 is HP and the sorcerors school. Not exactly a translation, the translators obviously thought the exact meaning of the english title did not translate sensibly. It should not be forgotten that Rowling claimed to have two other titles nearly as good, which might translate better. Sandpiper 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted above that it looks like a Pratchett novel - largely because a) it does and b) it is a serious leap away from the previous British covers (and made me miss the illustrator(s) of the first four).


 * More to the point, I don't think the American cover matches the MoM as described in the book. And I'm baffled by the curtains (all the world's a stage?). Personally, I'm just dreading the first editor who tries to add to this article that Kreacher or Dobby will be playing a major part in the book, involving the use of a sword. Michael Sanders 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Knew I read it somewhere. I agree, I wondered what the hell the curtains were about. However They were standing at the topmost tier of what seemed to be stone benches running all round the room and descending in steep steps like an ampitheatre...There was a raised stone dais in the centre of the pit, on which stood a stone archway that looked so ancient, cracked and crumbling that Harry was amazed the thing was still standing. Unsupported by any surrounding wall, the archway was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil... OOP ch34. Ampitheatre? Curtains? So a bit of artistic licence and some added curtain ties?
 * Now, what was the quote about Rowling insisting that Kreacher had to remain in the film?. He's in the article already, though to be fair, so is practically everyone. Nice and rounded. The Black family has been much maligned, but then that's what happens when sons fall out with their parents. Sandpiper 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of "this is not a forum" don't you guys understand? dposse 01:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you sometimes feel that a little light relief is called for around here?Sandpiper 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Better Images for the Article
I think the article needs images of the full bookjacket, currently all images of the UK and US book jackets depict only the front. The US edition has a depiction of Lord Voldemort on the back section, as well as it appears "ghosts" or "hallows" as an editor mentioned above which ties into the title. Thanks. Zidel333 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a source: Maybe we can just post the link and let it be.  Adding more and more "Fair Use" images to the article becomes a problem of copyright abuse - see Fair Use Images; and we'll have the "Fair Use Inquisitorial Squad" all over the HP article deleting images before you can say "Promotional Image!"  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, the might contain images that are just as ugly and silly looking as the cover. John Reaves (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to replace the picture we have now with the real cover which was released today, March 30th, 2007. (I do not know the original source of the content I am quite sure this is the real deal.)If anyone has any objections please say now.Thanks.GoldenIrish 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Snape
This text was recently added to the #Unresolved plot elements from previous books section, and promptly removed as it was "irrelevant". It seems very relevant to me (even if it's not very well worded), especially when Snape's true loyalty has not been revealed. Brian Jason Drake 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"The nature of why Dumbledor was so insistant that Snape was no longer under the influence of Voldemort, as well as his complete trust in him, has never truly been explained."

Snape's loyalty already gets a mention in the following section, where it is accompanied by a quote about him from Rowling. It doesn't need to be in twice. Sandpiper 11:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fulfil or fulfill
I do not think that fulfil (jacket text) should be written as fulfill or fulfil[l] as fulfil is the correct spelling from an UK English point of view - where the book (and the quote) has originated. --  soum  (0_o) 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

semi protection
I just discovered that the article is semi protected, though it doesn't say so at the top. I further see that chrisalbro requested it be semiprotected for 4 months, which john reeves turned down, though he seems to have semiprotected it for two weeks. Why gentlemen? I don't see any evidence in the edit history that there was any difficulty more than usual for this article. Just some people seeking to add the new information about the book covers and the occasional vandal.

I also think the recent month and then weeks of full protection was excessive and premature. In both case we argued endlessly about it, but once some outsider noticed the pages had been protected for ridiculously long times and removed it, nothing particularly happened. It is not clear to me that the page would not have settled down all by itself after a few days if no one had done anything. Allowing a few more people to join in and make edits to demonstrate which version of the page they favoured would have brought us to a consensus much more quickly and with a lot less fuss. Wiki is the encyclopedia everyone can edit, remember? Sandpiper 00:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for a template, when a new/anon user sees the page it days "view source" at the top, not "edit".  The full protection was neither excessive or premature.  Edit warring achieves absolutely nothing and the only way to stop it is is protection or blocking. If you have a problem with a protection, take it to WP:RFPP. John Reaves (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All that was achieved by protection was a month of non editing. Maybe that is considered preferable? Depends on what you believe wiki really is. But my point was that I did not see that edit warring had set in, only that some people were sparring. Unless people can be given the chance to show what they feel by voting with their edits, it does not get resolved. Sandpiper 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you support and fully endorse the practice of edit-warring? John Reaves (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I support allowing people to show their differences of view by editing to favour their version of the article. This only becomes a war if people are repeatedly and continuously reverting each other over an extended period. Surely the reason for the 3RR is that people are allowed to make clear their position by defending a page as they would see it. The idea is two people=6 edits= their version stays on the page when opposed by one. The mathematics makes the decision. Then, if someone refuses to accept 3rr, they get banned. But this method of resolution seems to have gone out of the window with the notion of banning all edits as soon as two people start reverting each other. There are more than enough editors interested in this page for a decisoin to be reached without a continuing stalemate which becomes a war.


 * Wiki is turning into the kind of encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but only if they don't want to make any changes. I certainly do support reverting what I consider are bad edits to make a point to the person who made them. The alternative is permitting anyone who fancies to rubbish any page. I don't support repeated three times daily reverting as it becomes pointless, but equally locking a page does not make people agree with each other. We don't agree on what should be in this article right now, we are simply accepting the staus quo. We would have reached this same point without banning editing. Both Folken and Michael are very stubborn, but neither is setting out to vandalise the page. They have agreed on other, lower profile, pages. I agree their is a difficulty when new people turn up and do not appreciate what they are stepping into, but still their opinions need to be considered if they are in good faith. Sandpiper 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An Announcement
I am going to replace the picture of the cover we have now and put in the US childrens edition. If you would like to see it click here: For the UK childrens cover click here:
 * Why? all the other articles use the UK childrens cover for the lead picture, because the convention is that it is a british book so the british artwork takes precedence. Sandpiper 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You basically, no you're not. John Reaves (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I have to add external links for other covers.GoldenIrish 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of links here already, and all the covers are in the box at the bottom of the article.Sandpiper 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice somebody added the American cover. And I forgot that there were external links for the covers. I wish I was more informed with these things.Thanks for your helpGoldenIrish 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Yeah, no one reads the article (not just this one) before they add to them. I understand why, but it is hard to make good edits without understanding everything in the article first. Sandpiper 01:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Summaries
Seeing as how most of the article is speculation, the official jacket cover blurbs released today should have a place in the article. Hopefully an admin can add this, or else unprotect the article - 2 weeks is a very long time for such a high traffic article. "Harry has been burdened with a dark, dangerous and seemingly impossible task: that of locating and destroying Voldemort’s remaining Horcruxes. Never has Harry felt so alone, or faced a future so full of shadows. But Harry must somehow find within himself the strength to complete the task he has been given. He must leave the warmth, safety, and companionship of The Burrow and follow without fear or hesitation the inexorable path laid out for him…

In this final, seventh installment of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling unveils in spectactular fashion the answers to the many questions that have been so eagerly awaited. The spellbinding, richly woven narrative, which plunges, twists and turns at a breathtaking pace, confirms the author as a mistress of storytelling, whose books will be read, reread and read again."

and

"'Harry is waiting in Privet Drive. The Order of the Phoenix is coming to escort him safely away without Voldemort and his supporters knowing – if they can. But what will Harry do then? How can he fulfil the momentous and seemingly impossible task that Professor Dumbledore has left him with?'"

Taken from http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9653. GrahameS 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that directly quoting the entirety of the jacket summaries is appropriate, but taking information, putting it in your own words, and citing the summaries is. I think the direct quotes of the art director make sense, explaining the covers, but not the word-for-word entries that appear on the books themselves. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (I moved this discussion down because it had received no notice higher up on the page due to the large number of sections.) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the US version longer
Why is the US version longer then the UK version? At 608 pages for the UK version of Deathly Hallows thats around the same as the half blood prince wheres the US version is around 180 pages longer.User:Arlika1507 14:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The US version uses larger font than the UK version and has those chapter pictures that are inserted in. dposse 14:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just about to say that and when I clicked the edit button your comment was there¬ :) -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha. I'm just too fast for ya. :p dposse 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I know, thanks User:Arlika1507 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you want extra infomation, i suggest checking out websites like Mugglenet.com. dposse 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some debate that the extra length in the US version is not quite consistent with how much longer it ought to be judging from the previous books. People are still thinking about that, but these are the figures we have at the moment. Sandpiper 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here know J.K. Rowling's email address so i can write on behalf of wikipedia and ask her why the U.S. version is longer than the U.K. version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.202.144 (talk • contribs)
 * Almost certainly the US version is the same as the the UK one, with a few words changed here and there. The US books use bigger print so there are less words on each page, and so more pages are needed. Also, it has illustrations which take up more space. Sandpiper 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can wait a few more months. dposse 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it still semi-protected?
If so, why are Anonymous editors able to edit it? If not, please semi-protect this article asap. Madhava 1947 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no overwhelming vandalism, certainly nothing to warrant semi protection. Viridae Talk 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

More magazine quote
The quote I added is from this month's issue of More Magazine, a magazine for women over 40 (before you all freak out, I am a guy, my mom showed it to me). Was I allowed to do this? If so, I am sorry there is no citation...Quatreryukami 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it as being not notable and having no citation, per WP:A. dposse 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not notable? It is! This establishes that she could still write stories about Harry, contradicting previous quotes. Maybe that is not notable....Quatreryukami 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's true, why hasn't the media or anyone on the internet picked up on that story? Why is it only in this one magazine? Also, this supposed interview contradicts what even JK Rowling herself said on many occasions, including on her own website, in front of fans, in front of the national media of two different countries, ect. dposse 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The sword on the cover
is probably the same one from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, it's silver and has rubies in it. This should probably be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EamonnPKeane (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Well - we don't really deal with "probably" here. We can say that the UK cover shows a sword being held in the air, and it appears to have something red on the handle.  That's about all we can say.  We do not know if those are rubies, and even if they are - if it is Griffindor's sword, as seen in Chamber of Secrets.  I expect we'll find out in July.  Until then, unless Rowling comes out and says something like - "yes those are rubies there on the handle of Griffindor's sword that you see there on the UK cover", then we just can't say.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in this case. It is quite likely the same sword, but it might just be the artist getting carried away with the general theme of redness, so we can't really say that it is. If the man from Bloomsbury admits it is, or if the fans as a whole come to some consensus that it is, then we could report what they have said, but they havn't.Sandpiper 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also the "treasure in general" - and the significance of the serpentine S "brooch" on the adult cover version. Jackiespeel 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * as others might imagine, my view is that when some of the fan sites get round to publishing an article on the collected opinions re the cover pictures and their interesting content, then we can comment on it here. Sandpiper 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Post-release
Just a thought. What should we do with the information on this article post-release? I think it might be interesting to archive the article a day or two before the release, and in some part start over, but keep the archived article for history. Yes, I know, you can go through the history and pull up the same thing, but in this case, I think it might be better just to archive the whole page and leave it be. Thoughts? Tuvas 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Haven't you already asked this question? John Reaves (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I made mention to it, but in a only semi-related post, I thought though the idea deserves attention in it's own right. Tuvas 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's an interesting idea. Sometime around July 21, we can get the permanent link of a the current version (e.g. today's is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows&oldid=120327738) and post it in the archive box of the talk page. John Reaves (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

amazon.com adds a "muggle counter"
amazon.com has added a "muggle counter", which contains the amount of books that have been pre-ordered so far. I think that should be added to the article. (The current number is 468,628) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.87.212 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Wow. Almost half a million books already? dposse 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very impressive considering those are the pre-orders on Amazon alone and there are still 107 more days until it's released.

completely bogus quote
Has anyone noticed that in the "After Deathly Hallows" section, JKR is quoted as making a reference to "Harry's upcoming death" as though it's an established fact? She never said any such thing, as anyone can see by clicking on the link to the text of the interview this is supposedly taken from - someone must have put this in as a joke. Someone with more Wikipedia experience than me needs to fix it. Rebecca 206.21.128.67 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the Jeremy Paxman interview? Because that text seems to be in the interview. I did removed a bogus quote with no source this morning, but I don't think it's still there.  Leebo  T / C  16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the Scholastic interview. The article as it stands now quotes JKR as saying that "Harry's upcoming death in 'Hallows' makes writing an eighth unlikely." The actual text of the interview just says she has no plans to write an eighth book. Rebecca 206.21.96.137 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, where do you see that? I do not see any such quote in this article. dposse 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's gone now - I think my computer must have been accessing an old version of the article for some reason, and this has already been taken out? Sorry for causing any confusion. Rebecca 206.21.128.67 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Table of Contents
It is possible that the table of contents was leaked online through a bit torrent server and posted online at http://deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com. It may not be real, but shouldn't we maybe make a reference to it in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.17.114 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I promise you, for one thing, that this is not valid, unless somebody is one good guesser. And in any case, thanks for alerting us to this, but it's really not that unusual for something like this to be "leaked." I got at least three chapter lists emailed to me before HBP. I could make one up right now and send it to you. It's not notable enough. Thanks for asking though. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That, and if other "leaks" turn up ... we'd be obligated to report all of them. I remember before HBP came out, there were three or four lists doing the rounds. One of them was genuine, but there's simply no way of telling this far out. Unless it gets picked up by the media or something. Daggoth S 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And JK doesn't do titles like that. Most of the chapter titles are names of characters. It's obviously "made up". Berserkerz Crit 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that a website like "deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com" is a totally made-up freely-hosted fan web site, and not in any way any sort of reputable source. If the Mugglenet and other well known semi-reputable sites, which Rowling has at least acknowledged as useful or interesting on her website, take up the cause and can provide some reliable sources for their information, then we can discuss posting it as an encyclopedic entry on the Wikipedia.  Otherwise we damage the reputation of the Wikipedia by posting the latest unsourced nonsense made up by the crazy fanatics out there.  That's not what we should be here for.  The Wikipedia should strive to have a bulletproof reputation, given the policies and guidelines.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think mugglenet et al have adopted a policy of not posting, and removing on sight, any information like that unless it comes e.g. from the publishers. Some chapter titles may be officially released before publication, it happened before. On the whole, as a matter of not spoiling the books for people, I think we should only be hosting information based upon things which have been officially released. It is fair game to report what people are saying about it based on official information, but it is not our business to release anything before the publishers do, and certainly not if it is wrong. Sandpiper 08:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

http://deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com isn't available anymore

Criticism of North American Launch
I want to add a very brief "Criticism of North American Launch" section as North America is receiving the book several hours (depending on time zones) later than the rest of the world. I will write it, I just don't want to write it, then have people delete it and have it go to waste. So feedback now would be appreciated. Many wikipedia pages have various criticism sections so i think it would be fair. And it doesn't have to be big, just a little paragraph at the end of the article. --Mariokarter
 * You will have to source it with reliable sources that are not fan created websites or personal blogs or it will be deleted as original research. If this is your own personal opinion, then it has no place here on wikipedia. dposse 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the feedback. I'll just wait to see what some other people have to say first. If I do write it i'll make sure to post it here first to make sure that it has that formal tone and proper citations. --Mariokarter
 * Sounds good to me. dposse 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and write it down, and we'll critique it once you've written it. As long as it's sourced, it should be fine. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the criticism is just this only, it should better be inlined (provided it comes with an acceptable ref). --  soum  (0_o) 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wraparound Cover
I think someone should include a description of what a wraparound cover is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.38 (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Why? dposse 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well on the news it was stated that this cover was a "wraparound cover", and that there hadn't been a wraparound cover since book 3, but after examining all the covers myself (I own the American versions of books 1-6), they seem rather similar. I think the notion is that a fair bit of people won't get what a wraparound cover is, and that some clarification could be used. --Beep Beep Honk Honk 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a brief description of a wraparound cover. Does it make sense? Squidward2602 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)
I think some discussion on the matter of the films article being redirected to this page is needed. There is info about the film from reputable sources (See & ). --RockerballAustralia 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, the extrapolated date for the release of a hypothetical film version of DH is Summer 2010, unless Warner Bros. chooses to accelerate the HP production schedule. Similarly HBP is anticipated to be late November 2008.  Any speculation outside of what Warner Bros. has officially announced would be highly suspect, and probably disallowed - WB has not said much about HBP yet, much less DH.  We are not required to report on the ramblings of folks at low-credibility news ragsheets who know less about the subject than most of the semi-respectable information gathering depots - like the Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron.  I expect that when there is sufficient notable information available at the usual sites, and WB has at least acknowledged the intent to produce the film, then we can start an article on it.  Until then - probably not.  Thanks for asking though. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that this will be made a film; in fact, it's been confirmed that the actors will return. But see WP:NOT. With information only that those three actors will return, and David Heyman back as producer, it's such little information for something so far in the future that it just doesn't meet the guidelines for the existence of an article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in apropriate to redirect films article being redirected  to the Book, because anyone who wants information about the book would not type (film) in their search for the article.  So, if they get to  films article, it is obvious that they want information about the film and it's production, not information about the book.  Even though there is little known at this point, there is more than nothing, and the artlicle should reflect the known details. -12.218.155.57 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that if someone types …Deathly Hallows (film) they're looking for the film and not the book, but the film is too far in the future for it to be an article now. Consider that pre-production is only just beginning on Half-Blood Prince. By redirecting the film article to here, we're saying that they're such little information about this for it to be a real article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I think there is enough to have an article, but even if there isn't, a better redirect would be to the article Harry Potter (films); and whatever is known about the seventh film should be included in that article. -12.218.155.57 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think it should be a redirect. It should better be deleted, for now. --  soum  (0_o) 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, probably the best place to post the bits and pieces of info on the hypothetical DH film might be at Harry Potter Films, until it can grow well beyond a 2-sentence stub on when it might be targeted for release, and who might be returning as actors and crew. Perhaps the redirect should be sent there.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the redirect should be sent to Harry Potter Films. After both the release of the book and the availability of more information about the film, then a separate article should be created. Tuyvan 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I think the DH film qualifies as a verifiable, widely interesting, noteable, almost certain to take place (money has already changed hands), preparation already in progress, not a member of a recurring sequence (eg 2012, 2016, 2020 election) and is entitled to an article under the terms outlined in not-a-crystal-ball. It may not be a very big article, but since everyone out there knows perfectly well there is going to be a film, inevitably people will keep trying to create it. Even if it is little more than a redirect referring people here for likely plot inclusions, it seems to me a lot simpler just to create it as an article. Sandpiper 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As most of the discussion on this page suggests, I have added a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) link to the template, and changed the redirect of that page to Harry Potter (films). Please DO NOT undo these changes without posting here first.  As for the article, I also feel that there is enough information on the film to constitue a separate article.  It not, we could try adding a Film section here, and change the template to redirect there. Lutherjw 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - and if anyone wants to expand on the scant information posted on the Deathly Hallows (film) entry at Harry Potter (films) as a sort of a stub-section, I think that would be fine. The current format of the (films) article includes some history, especially of the early films, along with some basic information like release dates and such.  The latter films are basically just listed, along with links to the main articles for each of the respective films.  In the case of Deathly Hallows, until there is enough reliable information to post beyond a stub, I think we can break with the convention at the (films) article and allow a special section for what little information we have (confirmed returning or new cast and crew members, pre-production information, locations, etc.) as it comea available.  I agree there is no sense in denying what is known (and can ve verified with reliable sources), but having a separate "full article" on the DH film, but presented as a two-line stub, seems to me to invite more vandalism and trolling, along with the honest-to-goodness good faith edits from the kids that heard something from a blog page somehere, and have just GOT to be the first to post it in order to inform the rest of the world.  Once the (films) section for DH grows to resemble the HBP film article, then it is ripe for converting to a separate article.  I guess however we will have to watch out for back-door editors who may try to create and build surrogate articles like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - The Movie".  Oops - did I just feed the Trolls?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholastic interview - further HP books
I'm sure that most people would agree with me that the phrase "she doesn't plan on further Harry Potter books" refers to Rowling's current plans. This can only be justified using an interview from 7 years ago if you also provide evidence that her plans have not changed since then. Lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. The quote says it all:

"At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say 'never,' but I have no plans to write an eighth book. (emphasis added)"

I have already edited the article in the past over this issue and been reverted. Brian Jason Drake 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your point. Certainly she is free to change her mind, and may do so (if the money ever runs out) or not. But using definitives like never would not be a true statement. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? She has said it many times that this book is the last one. On her own personal website, she stated "I always knew that Harry's story would end with the seventh book, but saying goodbye has been just as hard as I always knew it would be. Even while I'm mourning, though, I feel an incredible sense of achievement. I can hardly believe that I've finally written the ending I've been planning for so many years." That's from the author herself. How you can argue with that or speculate about it on an encyclopedia is beyond me. Anyway, you cannot add speculation to this article, we can only report what we can verify. For now, what we can say is that JK Rowling has no plans to write anything after the series except for, perhaps, "an encyclopedia in which I could have fun with the minor characters and I could give the definitive biography of all the characters." dposse 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that she plans for this book to be the last. I am disputing the use of interviews from so long ago to justify such statements. We should at least add a better (more current) reference alongside the Scholastic interview. Brian Jason Drake 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just gave you two. The most recent one is the blog entry she posted on her website. We'll use that. dposse 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the blog entry as a reference. Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, that's nice, but her comment from her website is already quoted in its entirety as the last entry in that section. Has been throughout this discussion. Does no one read the articles? Sandpiper 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that shouldn't necessarily stop us from referring to it! However, I am happy with the current state of that section. Brian Jason Drake 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars
There has recently been a good deal of edit warring on this article, including at least one violation of the three-revert-rule. Note that the rule prohibits any one editor from reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, no matter how the reverts are spaced out within the 24 hours. Not also that any change that effectively restores a prior state of the article, or re-inserts or re-removes disputed text counts as a revert, even if done in conjunction with other edits. Note also that edit warring is a very bad idea even if the 3RR is not technically broken. Please try to come to agreement by some means other than edit warring. I have closed a report on the 3RR noticeboard with a strong warning, because the reverts involved stopped 2 days ago. But further violations of the 3RR are likely to result in a block for any and all editors violating the rule. Thank you and happy editing. DES (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship?
There is zero mention of the british tabloid press leak (widely reprinted worldwide in newspapers) which says in HP7 namesake hero Harry Potter will have to give up his magical powers in order to stop Voldemort and save his friends from "eternal darkness", whatever that means. This is highly significant info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * A tabloid is probably not a reliable source. By the way, how exactly is it censorship if no one has even heard of this supposed article? Give a link and we'll consider it. dposse 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hem Hem Hem. We should not even consider this (key word: Tabloid!). If you can provide a reliable source, then we can consider it.Quatreryukami 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that newspapers aren't the most reliable of sources but I think you're underestimating the quality of the british tabloids. The Times, the most respected newspaper in England (Unless you're a Telegraph person) now comes in tabloid form and if you ignore the sensationalist overly-conservative anti-labour propogands in the Daily Mail that's not a bad paper either.  Of course the Sun, Star, Sport and anything with topless chicks on page 3 is not to be trusted.  On another note, the information may not be correct but if it's in a newspaper then it might gain widespread recognition, even though it's false, it's good to know about it in advance incase it does become worthy of note- noting that innacurate rumours were being spread in the newspapers as 'fact'.
 * Sign your post man. Anyway, I don't know much about the british papers, I'm an american, so sorry bout that. Quatreryukami 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tabloids can be accurate sources - sometimes. Occasionally. Rarely, even. Show us a link! Our local paper usually picks up on absurd British stories, but I haven't heard of this one over here in AU. Daggoth S 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the hurry to put such info even if it is true? The book will be out in a few months. Let people enjoy reading the book and finding out for themselves what will happen. Berserkerz Crit 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume this is censorship. None of the top fan sites, usually quick to report any information, had any story about this. None of the three papers in New York (I just searched) had anything about "eternal darkness" recently. If you tell us where you found this, we may decide to put it into the article, but it sounds highly unlikely -- not for censorship, but because Wikipedia does not carry rumors. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I did notice, however, that at least one website was adopting a spoiler policy of not posting anything unless it was from a cast-iron source, and officially released. This might not include newspaper reports. I would suggest that Harry is likely to lose at least one magical power if he kills Voldemort....his link to Voldemorts mind. (well, I hope so anyway. Haunted by Voldemort?). That may sound like a daft quip, but it is not necessarily: I don't know where this report is supposed to come from, but a quip like mine might get blown up into a story, 'Harry loses powers'. Sandpiper 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagenumbers of UK version based on wrong rumours
Although the number of 608 pages for the UK version of DH can be found all over the Internet, it is based on wrong information. Bloomsbury have never confirmed the number of pages. The source of this rumour is probably an erroneous entry on amazon.co.uk which has been copied by numerous other sites. The number 608 should be removed from the article and it is perhaps worth mentioning that this unconfirmed information is based on a mistake. AberforthD 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Leaky and Mugglenet reported when the covers were released, that they confirmed the 608 page count with Bloomsbury somehow. That's good enough for me. Daggoth S 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaky reported that 608 first turned up on a bookseller's website, and the number was then confirmed with Bloomsbury on the day of the cover release. There's no link to a Bloomsbury announcement or anything, but I don't see how we can remove the info from the article when there's nothing in the media (that I can see anyway) saying "Amazon probably got the number wrong". Daggoth S 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the statement of 608 pages is too strong given the weak basis of our sources. I don't want to cast any doubt on Mugglenet's or Leaky's sources, but I can hardly see how a statement on their site that they checked with Bloomsbury can be taken for an authorative confirmation. In my opinion there is still no official confirmation of the UK pagecount and the article should reflect that. I propose to formulate it as follows: "The book will be 784 pages in the US edition and is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition". AberforthD 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Horcruxes
There were seven pieces but two got destroyed, weren't there? Simply south 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * His soul was split into seven pieces. Six were used to create horcruxes.  The 7th piece was the one which never left Voldemort's body.  We assume this one "was destroyed" (at least as far as we of this plane are concerned) in the incident in which Harry received his scar.  At least, if I am interpreting this all correctly (haven't re-read HBP since it came out).  I also assume that one horcrux was "used" at tis point to bring Voldemort back in diminished form.  We are also led to believe that Tom Riddle's diary was a horcrux, and was destroyed in Chamber of Secrets.  Then there is the ring that Dumbledore found and destroyed.  So, 3 horcruxes down, 3 left (which, including the soul piece that is Voldemort's current incarnation, still makes 7).  We know one of them is an amulet.  That leaves two unknown, one of which may be that giant snake (but we don't know for sure).  So, there you go. --Reverend Loki 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's wrong... That's the same thing I thought at first, but after re-reading it, it states that Horcruxes act like anchors, they keep the soul here. So Voldies soul wasn't destroyed in the incident at the beginning of the series. That piece can't be destroyed until every other piece is destroyed. So the correct count is, two down, 4 to go (The soul in Voldies body isn't a Horcrux). Tuvas 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that's right. Harry has to find the horcrux's and destroy them before he can attempt to take out the seventh and last piece of his soul, which is in his body. dposse 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clearing that up you two. --Reverend Loki 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK BUT IF U THINK ABOUT IT HE SENT A SPELL TO KILL HARRY IT WAS REDIRECTED BACK AT HIM SO IT KILLED HIM AND WHO KNOWS WHAT HE DID TO SPLIT HIS SOUL INTO SEVEN PIECES IT COULD IF INVOLVED HIS OWN DEATH IN ORDER TO SPLIT HIS SOULWHEN HE DIED AFTER ATACKING HARRY I WAS PROBABLY LIKE (SUPER MARIO) WHERE HE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A NEW SOUL PIECE AND AUTO MATICALLY DESTROYING A HORCRUX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.246.176 (talk • contribs)

The guy at the top is right, Harry has only 3 Horcruzes to destroy then he can attack and kill Voldemort. Voldemort made 7 Horcruxes. When Voldemort attacked Harry as a baby, he sent a killing curse at Harry which deflected and hit him (resulting in the scar) killing Voldemort, but one of the horcruxes replaced his soul, keeping him barely alive. 1 Horcrux down, 6 to go. Then the next one was destroyed when Harry destroyed the Riddle Diary in "Chamber of Secrets." 2 down 5 to go. In "Half Blood Prince," Dumbledore destroyed the black ring belonging to Voldemort's grandfather. 3 down, 4 to go. And then the one Harry and Dumbledore went to get in "Half Blood Price," but had already been taken by the mysterious "R.A.B." Well R.A.B said he destroyed it anyway, so that means that one is gone as well. 4 down, 3 to go. Well he might not have accomplished it, but that would mean its 3 down, 4 to go. One of those anyway. So the 3 are: possibly the snake, the other piece of jewelry from Borgins & Burkes, and a mysterious one. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.183.122 (talk • contribs)


 * No, sorry. If you look in ch. 23 Horcruxes in the book Half-Blood Prince, roughly halfway through, Harry asks Dumbledore: "He made seven Horcruxes?", and Dumbledore replies: "... no Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six.  The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body."  Dumbledore goes on to tell Harry in the following pages that, with the destruction of the Riddle Diary and Marvolo's Ring, what remains are four:  the two "probables" - the Slytherin Locket and the Hufflepuff Cup Horcruxes, which Riddle stole from Hepzibah Smith; and then two uncertain ones - "something of Ravenclaw's or of Gryffindor's", and perhaps Nagini, as Dumbledore explained to Harry.  While Dumbledore could have gotten it wrong, this is the ONLY source we have for canonical information from Rowling, and we will not know the "truth" of the matter until July 21.  There is no basis whatsoever for the occasional claim from some speculators that Voldemort "lost" a portion of his soul when he first attacked Harry.  Quite the opposite.  Voldemort's "body" may have been destroyed, but his soul fled to a Forest and resided there, to be found by Quirrell (Book 1) with Voldemort's "body" becoming a face on the back of Quirrell's head.  After the second disasterous encounter with Harry at the end of Philosopher's Stone, Voldemort's soul fled back to the Forest, to be found again later by Pettigrew (Books 3 and 4), and placed first into the crude baby-like creature, and then to his "current" form, reformulated with Pettigrew's assistance, from his Father's bone, Pettigrew's hand, and Harry's blood.  The point is, the soul goes on, whatever happens to the body: the remaining soul "in his body" or otherwise, lives on until all six fragments stored as Horcruxes are destroyed.  Please feel free to read the books again before July 21 to get properly "caught up" with what we "know".  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are rumors that perhaps Harry himself is a horcrux. Evidence that suggests this includes the fact that Harry Potter can see what Voldemort can see (such as the scene in which he kills the gardner at the Riddle house)and feels his thoughts and emotions. Harry also has the power to speak parseltounge and see through the eyes of Nagini, Voldemort's snake and possible Horcrux. Should Harry himself be a Horcrux then there is the taunting question of how he is to go about destroying a piece of Voldemort that lies within himself. Perhaps suicide? 9:55 May 6, 2007
 * Thanks - but this is all pure speculation and unsourced original research, which does not conform with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We can post what Rowling said, and possibly what a renowned expert in Horcruxes and English Literature might have to say, but beyond that, sorry.  The many Harry Potter fan sites and blog pages absolutely rejoice in such speculation however, and expound on it - perhaps you can present and debate your theories there?  Thanks again!  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

R.A.B is proboble to stand for Regulus Black, Sirius Black's brother that was once a Death Eater and first mentioned in Harry Potter Book Five. Regulus is said to have not been an important Death Eater, but obviously he knew about the Dark Lord's horcruxes. Noone has mentioned what happened to him however. May 6, 2007
 * Right, and these things are discussed at the respective articles on R.A.B., Horcruxes, and Regulus Black - at least to the extent allowed. If you have some notable, reliable, verifiable, and neutral information that does not constitute original research to post there, then please feel free. Thanks!   --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, there has been lots of talk about Horcruxes. Now, I would like to point out, ==Harry is NOT a Horcrux!!==. Lots of people think that the spell rebounded and made Harry a Horcrux. JK Rowling has confirmed that this is NOT the case. I would also like to point out that there is a fake version of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows has been released. Having downloaded and read some of this fan-fiction version, merely speculation of what COULD happen, I have realised that this is not correct as it supports the "Harry is a Horcrux theory." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -x-Bekah-x- (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Plagiarism
The entire Translations section of this article appears to be copied directly from the page Harry Potter aur Maut Ke Tohfe - Hindi Verison of the Deathly Hallows. It appears to be unabashed plagiarism. I propose that this section either be rewritten properly or immediately removed. --N-k, 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but extremely doubtful. Chances are it was exactly the other way around.  Lots and lots of outside web sites that provide information such as this start by quoting and mirroring entries from the Wikipedia; and they often show our previous versions due to continual updates at the original Wikipedia source.  You can examine the history of this article to see "which came first", and you will undoubtedly find that the wording has evolved just about continuously for the last year and a half - from when the name of the book first was announced, along with (eventually) the translated titles.  Many many editors (including this one) have worked on and revised and improved the article, and supervised the editing of others, to make sure that original research by "us" and uncredited research by others is strictly excluded.  That said, if you can produce clear proof that "we" copied the information from your source (and not the other way around), then please either provide that proof, or be bold and delete the offending section as plagiarism.  Those that created the latest version can defend it if they wish, or they can provide counter-proof to salvage the content as appropriate.  Thanks for the heads-up though!  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked to see which came first, but it really doesn't matter. Even if the external source copied Wikipedia, we use that as our sole citation, so this information is essentially unveriable. --N-k, 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood! Are you saying that "we" copied and pasted the Translations materials, verbatim from the INDORE360.com web site, and then provided that site as a source?  If that is the case, then you are probably right.  We should not be blithely slapping on amateurish copy-paste operations of copyrighted materials from other web sites, unless we need to directly quote something - and then the quoted material needs to be inside some quotation marks or a separate text box or something, so it is clear that we are using someone else's material directly.  We are absolutely not in the business of copying other people's work.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)