Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 13

Comments on "Deathly Hallows" section
Okay, I've now made a signifigant change to the section, and there's a few reasons for it, that I would like to make very clear. These changes were made because I looked more into the facts than had previously been done. They are:
 * 1) JKR stated she had been considering two possible titles, not two other titles. It's an easy mistake to make...
 * No, She said she had a title, then she said she thought of another, then she thought of yet a third. Some of this (at least) was mentioned in reports of the radio city book reading, when she also said Dumbeledore was definitely dead There is a cryptic quote from her somewhere about her favourite being ahead by a vowell and two consonants, or something like that. Sandpiper 21:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Theres a mugglenet news item here : the information was posted on Rowlings website.


 * 1) The phrase "Deathly Hallows" was trademarked by an alias at the same time as 5 other phrases. If someone really wants to include all 5 of these, I suppose it would be alright, but none of them are even known to be possible titles. Including only two of them is OR.
 * The only person who seems to believe the other two were ever real titles is Folken. the ref he gave me from mugglenet only mentions two alternates, and states they had been denied as possibles. The mugglenet report remains unclear, because it only specifically mentiones and denies the two alternates which were in the article. This may mean that the representative had in fact only denied those two. Sandpiper
 * No I don't believe the other two were ever real titles, contrary to you. But WP rules are what they are, and we cannot hint at speculations if we have no valid ground for it.Folken de Fanel 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand: this is a point in logic. You cannot say that the titles are false any more than you can say they are true. However, under the rules which you quote so much we are expected to collect together information about a subject,However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
 * I think you lack logic. If you cannot say that the titles are false any more than you can say they are true (to which I agree), then you can't arrange the article so that it hints that it is true (which is your opinion).
 * When you're refering to the OR rule, please don't forget WP:SYN.Folken de Fanel 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) When including the Hallows names trademark, well, there is a certain aspect of OR. I haven't even found on a fan site (Although I haven't looked very hard) anyone who is connecting the two ideas. Perhaps it would be appropriate to simply state that many titles have been registered, including a few that seem similar, and leave it to the reader to decide?
 * what ideas are you suggesting are being connected? Myself, i am stating that the rather unusual word hallow had been registered by warners reps on two other known occasions amongst HP titles. My view is that most of these, maybe all, were almost certainly totally bogus. But I have not seen a ref commenting on that. I find it very hard to imagine that such an unusual word, never mentioned before in the books, could have been registered before unless there was some connection to the current title. But whether it was registered as a possibility, or maybe it was purely invented by ideas men, then somehow later rowling picked it up, i have no idea. Sandpiper 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I just thought I'd make my points a bit clearer. Please don't just simply revert back and forth, first of all, it's a violation of WP:3RR, not to mention a bad idea according to WP:DR, but it also doesn't accomplish anything... Tuvas 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a question...For the "solstice..." part, could you find more (reliable) sources to substanciate this parallel than just a self-published fan website ? Otherwise I can't really see the notability of the thing in this section. Folken de Fanel 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, I'll admit, there isn't a reliable source on that. If that bit is removed, I wouldn't have my feeling hurt too badly... But it is an interesting tidbit, and the quote is real, the only question is if it refered to the releasing of the title, which I doubt can be given from a reliable source. Tuvas 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting, that's for sure, but you know our opinion doesn't represent much in the notability criteria. Well, maybe it's possible to find other sources, I won't revert it for now and let you time to find it.
 * However, concerning my last revert, don't you think there's a little problem with this sentence: " The name of the The release of the title has resulted..." ?Folken de Fanel 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't check the statement, good catch... Next time I'll have to try and pay a bit more attention. Tuvas 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" template
I removed the template that absurdly suggested that the whole article is unreferenced. The fact is that there are currently nearly 50 external references, and many other book-related sources, liberally placed throughout the article. If there are specific areas of concern or controversy, then please use a template at the site of the concern. Using the global "This article is unreferenced" template as part of an edit war or dispute over reliable sources or whatever reeks of disrupting things to make a point and is bordering on vandalism. As to those involved in the reversions and edit wars over allowable content, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution and properly dealt with. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who put the template there probably missed the fact that this template says "article" instead of "article or section". I have replaced it with Unreferencedsect. Brian Jason Drake 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There does appear to be a small frequently overlooked section there that makes some general statements about the Harry Potter Series, with no references.  This is because is is essentially a brief summary adapted from the main Harry Potter article as linked there - it is likely that it was felt that the facts were already well established at the main article and as common knowledge by now.  Anyway adding a few references to that short section would add value to this article for those folks who don't click over to the main article for a more thorough treatment of the subject.  The tag was added and changed around during an edit reversion war (and you were there!) on or around the 10th of April, over claims of Original Research within the article and section.  Thanks again for setting it straight.  I gather you are not interested in actually helping to find the references and improving the article though, only in posting warning templates?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite having read all the books, I only own a copy of one of the books and I do not frequent news and fan sites. I thus assumed that other people would be able to find better references than I could, and do it faster. I also don't enjoy finding references! Brian Jason Drake 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows leaked affair
How does any of that pass notability standards? There's always gonna be fake stuff with everything released, i don't see how any of it is notable. You don't even have any news storys that report this. The section should be deleted unless someone can establish notability. dposse 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For those who don't watch the history as closely as I do, the section was removed in this edit. Brian Jason Drake 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with
...saying The book is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition, 784 pages in the US edition, and 816 pages in the US deluxe edition.

We don't have any clear evidence that the book is going to be 608 pages in the UK version59.100.200.42 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk should be reliable sources for a new book set for release in the not-too-distant future. Bloomsbury is quoted as confirming the UK editions are 608 pages, and Bloomsbury.co.uk links book sales to Amazon.co.uk, which also shows The UK Children's and Adult's versions listed as 608 pages  .  The UK Special Edition also shows 608 pages .  The Scholastic info link in the article lists the US edition with 784 pages, and so does Amazon.com:  and the Deluxe Edition also shows 784 pages .  What I cannot find is a source for the statement that the US Deluxe Edition is 816 pages.  There is reportedly "an insert" with some artwork, but this may not be included in the page count.  The 816 page count might be for the so-called "large-print edition", but again I have not yet found a source for that. Bottom line, the respective Publishers and Book Sellers support the claims of 608 pages for the UK editions, and 784 pages for the US editions, so I think we can echo those sentiments as verifiable.  If we all find out in July that this information is in fact not true, then we can update the page accordingly.  Remember, verifiability trumps "the truth" in the Wiki-policies and guidelines, and what we can "verify" at this time is 608 (UK) and 784 (US).  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hogwarts Student-Teacher
Some editors have been posting this:


 * Someone from Harry's class, not Harry or Ron, and not "the one you think", will become a Hogwarts teacher. This seems to indicate that Hogwarts will indeed re-open, though possibly not until after the main events of Deathly Hallows have occurred.

The source says no such thing about Ron as far as I can see. The version I substituted included Rowling's exact quote:


 * Someone from Harry's class becomes a teacher at Hogwarts, though it is uncertain who it might be. According to Rowling, "...one of Harry’s classmates, though it’s not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts. But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint. Yeah, one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts...". This also implies that Hogwarts will re-open at some point.

Can someone explain why "my" exact-quote version keeps getting reverted to an unverifiable and improperly interpreted version? If we have a quote about "or Ron", then please produce it. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never seen one.Keep his quote. Quatreryukami 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then I post here, does anyone read the references?. I have even answered exactly this same query before, when someone didn't believe it said Ron. The ref says:
 * JKR: Well, because all your kids said ‘hello’ so nicely in the background there, I am going to give you information I haven’t given anyone else and I will tell you that one of the characters, one of Harry’s classmates, though it’s not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts. But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint. Yeah, one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts, but


 * Do the kids want to guess at it, Kathleen?
 * JKR: Do you guys have a guess as to who it is?

(Kids shouting in background) Ron


 * They say Ron.
 * JKR: No, it’s not Ron. I can’t see Ron as a teacher. No way.

Its not Ron. Please stop taking it out. Sandpiper 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sandpiper. I did actually search the original interview for mentions of Ron in the same contextual area and for whatever reason it did not show up.  I'll add Ron back in, with the additional quote material.  Thanks again.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way kids: This is an example of how to avoid an edit war, and properly illustrates the use of the much-more civil 1RR rule, as opposed to going after 3RR and working very hard to try to get in the third reversion just beyond the 24-hour personal time limit rule, but still constituting illegal edit warring which has brought such disgrace to some of these HP pages. Revert once, and then take it to the talk page; and don't continue endlessly reverting until the issue is resolved.  T-dot was wrong, Sandpiper was right, and proper sourcing and quoting, with a civil tone, fixed the problem and made the article better.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 07:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed myself how nice this conflict was resolved. Now, if every conflict could only be resolved so nicely... Tuvas 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats on solving this in such a civil manner! Martin Hinks 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

btw: "Not the one you think will become a Hogwarts teacher" means clearly it will be Neville Longbottom! (no proof possible, of course) ;) 84.20.182.71 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) xymx
 * Well, actually I'm pretty sure the Neville question has come up to JKR, and the answer is, not him. Of course, I could be creating that based on the fact that I've heard Neville's name alot in conjunction with this theory, and so he's obvious to me, but... Tuvas 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything points to him: the teased underdog, orphaned, raised by his granny, big coward, linkish, showing no big magical talent & almost considered a squib, but then his first moments in Lupin's class, his big progress in the DA meetings, his heroic performance in the Ministry, where he outpaces even Ron and Hermione, ... returns to Hogwarts as an adult to help form next generations of students and guide other hopeless cases like himself ... To me this looks exactly how JKR is thinking ;) Can't wait for July! 84.20.170.152 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) xymx
 * Ok, come on guys, Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussions like this, even though it is interesting. (I don't think it can be Neville because everybody is expecting him to become a teacher, and JKR said it's someone we're not expecting...Malfoy, maybe?)  But this is getting off topic, and Wikipedia isn't the place for it.   Arwen undomiel  20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Teasers Leaked?
20ofDecember over at http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=26817 has been posting teasers of DH, which he has begun reading. I have tried twice to mention this on the page, but both times the page was reverted. I think we should at least mention such an important revelation in the Potter series on this website. Don't you people know that wikipedia is like the number one place that people go to to look for harry potter stuff? I know this is an encyclopedia with standards, but we have a duty to represent all sides of the HP phenomenon, and not just the official one. And that doesn't include OR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Algiersy (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * A fansite is not a reliable news source. For all we know, its completely made up.  I could go to a forum and write what I think is going to happen in a way that makes it seem as if I actually know, but that doesn't make it so. MelicansMatkin 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. I reverted one of those entries. Guy On The InternetTM isn't a verifiable source. If they start spewing out spoilers, which the media then picks up, then yes, it'd be definitely worth mentioning. But there is nothing to say that what this person is writing is genuine. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the net saying "I'm reading the book, it rox0rz!" or something similar. And I'll make an educated guess that 99% of them are full of it. If this does turn out to be a genuine leak, then we'll find out in time. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Daggoth | Talk 09:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also reverted this one of yours, FYI. Daggoth | Talk 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question to more experty people : Is there any place that does allow potential spoilers? I know most of them are fake, but they're still fun to read while we're waiting for the last book. HPANA, Mugglenet and Leaky don't allow anything remotely spoilerish :( Thanks! 4.248.62.75 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)HP Fan
 * It is an interesting question why they dont. I can think of some answers. One, they do not wish to endanger their own relationships with the publishers, Rowling, etc, who do slip them bits of definite information from time to time. Two, that their business is working out the final book from what has been officiallly release so far, so just looking at the real book is in fact the end of the game and kind of cheating. Three, it might be totally made up, in fact there is quite a good likelihood of this given how many people are keen to have some fun and know enough to make up a credible last book. Now, from out point of view I don't think we should be reporting illegally acquired information (not saying this is, but generally very few people have a legal right to publish info from the book), and there is a difficulty about how reliable the information is. Then, there is the spoiler aspect. People come here reasonably expecting to learn what people think about the book, not to be given 'definite' information about it. (again, not saying this is valid, but if it were I would not want to suddenly read it in a middle of the general info about what the book may contain) Sandpiper 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they're also just trying to fulfil an obligation to (presumably) the majority of their readers, who don't want to be spoiled without having to lock themselves in a box without oxygen for 2 weeks before release. To answer the original question - not that it really belongs here - I do recall a few people on SA posting genuine spoilers 2-3 days before HBP was released. There won't be any "teasers" or unsubstantiated BS on there though, they don't tolerate that sort of thing. Daggoth | Talk 07:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i have read it voldermort kills ron and dudly saves harry life as there is fail show down at the end of the book as voldermort cannot hurt harry at the durles houe it was an exelt read! any should that be incruled in the plot bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.22.118 (talk • contribs)


 * Me thinks Hermione would jump into a well if Ron got killed, which would be most unfortunate, since Harry alone is no match for Voldemort and also becauee JKR is promising He+Ron will have a kid, if I read the bottom of this page correctly: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)


 * One - Harry's protection at the house expires on July 31st - in the summer between his sixth and seventh years. Two - the book is not released yet, and you can't have read it.  Three - learn how to spell. MelicansMatkin 16:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The novel found at dhleak.info.ms seems to be geniune, it passed 91% to 97% compared to HP1->HP6 corpus when tested statistically according to Prof. Sukhotin's method. Anything over 80-85% is undeniable. But you don't need college math to see it is genuine, the chapter titles alone are enough to convince any educated HP fan that it is the original. Every part of the HP mistery is referenced there, even the opening Deathly Hallows dragon-poem can be traced back to the first year "non titillamus" motto of the Griffin house! Face it, the JKR-empire has a leak in the primary loop and if they don't patch it quick enough, they will have a core meltdown and a kind of literary net-Chernobyl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Edit Wars
Okay, we still have the constant edit wars going on now, and while they are somewhat better than before, it's still crazy. The main thing that I've noticed is the references that have gotten added/removed at least a dozen times, probably a lot more... So, I've created this part in the talk page to discuss it, rather than have it continue, and reach something we can agree to. I'm not taking any point of view at this point in time, rather, I'm going to attempt to remain impartial for now. Anyways, what I'm going to do is to add a section for each commonly- reverted tidbit, right now there's only one that I know of, but I'll leave it opened for future. Please rather than revert the change yet again, post it here. Thank you. Tuvas 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows References
This section is relating to the inclusion of references relating to the meaning of Deathly Hallows as seen by several fan sites.

Arguments to keep references

 * 1) there exists a debate. This is agreed by all parties.
 * 2)Inserting a newspaper cutting as the sole ref admittedly confirms that the debate exists, but says absolutely nothing else to explain to readers what the debate consists of.
 * 3) Inserting a ref which allows the reader to see the debate (ie online) is not pushing a particular view. Even if it were, this is not grounds for deleting the reference, merely for finding a better one. I have requested Folken to find any ref which demonstrates that the ones I have used misrepresent the debate, but he has been unable to do so. I conclude from this that the refs represent the matter fairly. I have inserted several refs, all supporting the same point, to illustrate that they do not misrepresent it. This does not seem to satisy him on the point, but it seems to me absurd to keep adding to the string.
 * 4)There must by now exist a number of printed refs. I have inserted one for Mugglenet's book. This is a bestseller, and can not be described as self-published, which Folken seems to be somewhat upset about. The authors are acknowledged experts on HP. (I tire of saying this, 'Rowling says so', she even invited Spatz to visit and interview her. Mugglenet has been mentioned in all sorts of media). Sandpiper 07:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that "no one knows what it means", nothing more. It's universal. That a minority fans have come to certain speculations and conclusion is non-notable fancruft. Fans on forums and websites don't even represent one per cent of the global HP readers.

Priviledging one view and sourcing it, and only it, through primary and subjective sources such as personal websites and forum, is a violation of the neutral pov and indeed including unencyclopedical, non-notable content. If such a "debate", "particularly suggesting" this or that, was not reported in any reliable, third party, perfectly external and notable sources such as newspaper, it indeed shows it deserves no mention.

Your new version is even worse that the previous one. It was agreed by voting that we wouldn't mention so as not to influence readers. You merely re-included the theory, again priviledging what you think is likely.

Mugglenet book is non-notable, as its authors are not notable. They are not experts. They are mere fans. Rowling has never said what you claim she said.Folken de Fanel 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: It's high time I paid homage to the mighty MuggleNet. Where to start? I love the design, (I currently favour the 'Dementor' layout), the polls (I actually voted in the 'Who's the Half-Blood Prince?' one), the pretty-much-exhaustive information on all books and films, the wonderful editorials (more insight there than in several companion volumes I shall not name), 101 Ways to Annoy Lord Voldemort (made me laugh aloud), the Wall of Shame (nearly as funny as some of the stuff I get)… pretty much everything. Webmaster Emerson, Eric, Jamie, Damon, Ben, Matthew, Rachel, Jaymz and Sharon, I salute you.Rowlings websiteSandpiper 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments to remove references
The article says "considerable speculation".

The sources sandpiper wants to add reflect only one theory, and the source used is the theory itself, posted on blogs and forums.

There was a poll, in which the majority was against the inclusion of theories explaining the title, because it could influence the reader and it was non-neutral: it was therefore decided to remove all theories from the article, and to let the readers form their opinion by themeselves with the help of the Hallows article.

What is then the point of having the same theory, using the same reference that the previously deleted content used, in the article while it was made clear that no theory was wanted here, so that the readers would not be influenced by the beliefs of one or 2 editors ? It's still a npov breach, because it imposes a certain view to the reader: why only one theory cited, if there is "considerable speculation" ?

Also, why citing directly the blogs and forums in which the theory originated ? It's the very example of unreliable sources, according to WP:SELF.

What I propose is to have only reliable, perfectly external (that is, not entirely related to the HP world) and neutral sources, and a web article of the Washington Post appears to me the best solution. The ref I added perfectly reflects the fact that no one really knows what the title means, and that everyone is trying to guess. But to develop or even directly source the theories is an attempt at influencing the readers. Folken de Fanel 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point us to the poll on the references, please? I want to check the history of these refs out for myself, but I've had a quick look through the archives and I can't find it amongst all the text. Daggoth | Talk 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure: . Folken de Fanel 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And after that debate, the article was left with a short description....including the refs I wish to stay in the article. Has anyone noticed that folken asks for something to be removed, then when he gets it asks for something more? He only wants one section removed from RAB here, but on the french wiki he wants the whole article deleted? Folken, do you believe that most of this article should be deleted? Sandpiper 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The ref were only forgotten, not accepted. Since everyone said "no theory", it would indeed be ridiculous to leave a theory in the article.
 * Has anyone noticed that Sandpiper involves in a revert war, then when he gets it he find another pretext to start a revert war ?
 * Sandpiper, the rest of your message is personal attack, and I advise you to stop it now.Folken de Fanel 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Your editing history suggests that your intention is to delete any information about what may be in the next book, which is most of the article. While you have access to all the sourced material in this article, and have a good grasp of the french language, you have not added any of it to the French vewrsion of this article, which you edit. What you have done is delete other's insertions in the french version. The french article is quite small. I would take it from your position on this, that you prefer the smaller version of the article and would prefer that this one looked like the french one? This is immediately relevant to us here. It is not a personal attack but a statement of fact, and to claim it as one is an abuse of wiki procedures, . Sandpiper 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said repeatedly, if you believe the refs do not reflect the actual debate in a fair way, then show us some other refs where different arguments are shown. There is no right to remove references unless you can show that are not representative. The ref shows what the considerable specualtion actually is. That is the point of it. We are here to educate people, right?, not to censor information. Sandpiper 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said repeatedly, if you can't provide neutral, npov, perfectly external and reliable refs, then they get deleted. You have to find rule-compliant refs, it's not the others who have to deal with your pov violations.
 * No, I have given you refs. Refs do not in any way have to be unbiased or neutral, they are how they were written by their authors. If you feel that by themselves they give a biased view, then it is up to you to find others which show a different view. Sandpiper 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no censorship of information. We're not here to educate people (tell them what they should think).Folken de Fanel 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Deliberately omitting valid and relevant information is censorship, but in this particular case you aren't simply omitting it, but striking it out when it is already there. Sandpiper 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop saying nonsense ? If you have nothing more to say in this respect, maybe you should just stop wasting your time.
 * There is absolutely no ommitting of so-called "information". The readers have all they want on the subject of Hallows in the Hallow article, so that, as many voted, they can form their own opinion without being influenced by another POV (yours).
 * That isolated fans on forums elaborated theory is non-notable. Their theory isn't "valid", unless you have already read book 7.
 * There is no "censorship". Stop saying ludicrous things just because you are unable to find a valid argumentation. It's like your usual Godwin Point, it's just stupid. Each time someone doesn't agree with you, you cry murder. It's becoming boring...And maybe if you stopped adding unencyclopedic content, contributors wouldn't have to remove it.Folken de Fanel 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, what's this way of behaving ? User:Tuvas specifically wrote a comment saying "Please do not add/remove references from this section, until a consensus has been reached. If you think a change should be made, please direct your comments to the topic in the talk page", and you just rush to reinsert your refs ? It's seems to me you don't give a damn about what others could think (and after that you dare to talk about "consensuses"), or even about the articles: what matters to you is only to impose your POV...If you're so eager to have your own wiki, I suggest you to go and create it, but in any case WP isn't your own.Folken de Fanel 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How can anyone form an opinion about something unless they know it exists? For example, how could anyone in britain have a view about Hitler slaughtering millions of jews, when no one told them it was happening? (sorry, couldn't resist, but it is a valid comparison, since you mention it.) As to references, well, I thought it best to confine myself to reverting alteration only once a day. Folliwng the example of some editors, doing it three or more times a day, is too tiring. Sandpiper 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Godwin point.Folken de Fanel 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading ''Mugglen et.com's what will happen in Harry Potter 7'', authors emmerson Spatz and Ben Schoen, isbn9 781569755839, Ulysses press. What it has to say on the subject of Hallows is ''The moment JK Rowling announced the title, a million different theories sprang up on discussion forums across the globe as to what the deathly hallows could be. These ideas ranged from the persuasive to the wildly speculative, but one emerged which stands head and shoulders above the others. That theory concerns the four hallows of the holy grail, commonly associated with the legend of King arthur and the knights of the round table.....'', and goes on for two more pages explaining about hufflepuff's cup, Gryffindor's sword, Slytherin's locket and Ravenclaw's wand being the likely set by analogy with the four legendary hallows. I would say this ref entirely supports the comment about widespread discussion, and is in a printed form since some people don't like websites (indeed, it is a bestseller). However, it would be more true to say that as a ref it does not support the existence of a debate, but rather a consensus that the most likely identification is as it says. It would appear that the debate is significantly over, and the legendary hallows has won the popular debate. This is entitled to be included. Sandpiper 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable, unsourced and unreliable, and in fact, completely ridiculous.Folken de Fanel 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

''Speak roughly to your little boy And beat him when he sneezes: He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases. (Lewis Caroll)

Possible compromises to the references
Okay, the only possible compromise that I'm seeing here is to include a section that allows for theories to be put forth. Of course, there would have to be some very serious control in this section. I would venture to say that for anything to be posted there, it must be included in at least 2 major HP sites, not including forms. That way the content is allowed on this site, but isn't intruding in the main article space. Comments anyone? Tuvas 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think the issue boils down to what constitutes notable materials, verifiable from reliable sources as necessary for neutral documentation of fan-based theories, while avoiding any hint of original research. One side believes that most published materials, from recognized and fairly respectable sources (Mugglenet, Leaky Cauldron, HPANA, HP Lexicon, et al), which have been noted by Rowling, can be used as a reliable source, with the assumption that such material is continually reviewed and critiqued and updated.  The other side claims that self-published sources, such as the fan web sites and, for example, the John Granger materials, cannot be used as a source or even mentioned in the articles, and that any sort of fan theories are not notable and therefore forbidden - constituting "original research".  This difference of opinion has proven intractable for many weeks now, and probably cannot be settled without intervention - either through a Request for Comment, Request for Mediation, or even Binding Arbitration by the Arbitration Committee.  Unofficial discussion and mediation has thus far failed to gain any traction - and has only continued to produce some fancy dancing around the three revert rule and nearly non-stop edit warring, not to mention some extremely uncivil language and behavior.  Good Luck though with attempting, once again, to host a civil discussion here, or at any of the other articles effected by the edit wars.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what my thoughts are now on the subject. I should also add that before this debate, my only opinion I had relating to the matter was that I wanted the edit war to stop. First of all, the references that have been constantly added do not address the point they are trying to address, namely "The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings.". Rather, they produce some of the speculation that has been created, and not the fact that there is speculation. Secondly, if we allow theories to be posted with respect to the title, we must also include theories about EVERYTHING that has been release, the cover, analysis on the jacket summaries, etc. I think most everyone here will agree that that's not really a good idea, based on the fact of, where do you stop? There is a part of me that wants to allow the references in, I will admit it, but I can't see how to do so in a way that is fair, and won't let things get out of hand. This article has a very difficult task right now, that of gathering information from a large range of sources, putting them together in an organized manner, and making sure that every point has been proven, without introducing speculation. It's done an amazing job at that, considering everything it's been through.
 * Anyways, I digress. What my decision is, if we included even just links to this speculation, we would have to include speculation for every topic that we have information (cover and jacket summaries, for instance), and that's really not practical to do so in a way that isn't biased. Tuvas 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * erm, you appear to be saying that you agree the material is admissable and sourced, but you are going to edit to remove it anyway? (think carefully how you reply to that!) Sandpiper
 * Well, not quite... What I'm saying is it interesting information, but not really for this article. I almost find myself wishing there could be a way to include this kind of speculation somehow, but I can't think of one that follows Wikipedia's guidelines... But the real problem is, if we allow any speculation into the article, we have to allow more. If we do this, we have to link to, for instance, places where people are guessing as to if Neville will be the teacher that JKR has referred to. We have to allow for links like this to any kind of theory equally, so as to not be giving preference to anything else. If you can give a good reason why this should be the sole exception to what has been done in this article, I'd like to hear it.Tuvas 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you just repeated what you said before: If this one item has an acceptable source and is includeable (which you are implying it is, by saying we could choose to put it in), then so are all the others. The OR rules, about acceptable content, are in principle cut and dried. Either it is sufficiently sourced, or it is not. So, you are saying that this is sufficiently source, otherwise there could be no question of including it. Sandpiper 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced about your argument that the ref does not illustrate the point. If you watch the news on Tv, you will customarily hear an announcer saying that 'the prime minister has resigned' over footage of him walking about and resigning. This is much the same, the ref is intended to show that the matter is being discussed, and the choice of ref should be governed by giving a good example of discussion. You would not see TV news where the announcer was talking about the PM resigning, with footage of a different news announcer saying the same thing. The original source, showing the act in question would be shown, not someone else saying it was so, not least because it is more informative. Sandpiper 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * News media is quite a bit different, and the specific example that you gave is even more different, in the case of the PM resigning, he is a personal source to his own life, or his staff, etc.Tuvas 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was an earthquake, they would show it. If a public debate about abortion, they would show the people taking part. Yes, the item referred to is a primary source of the material in question, which is why it ought to be mentioned, but it makes no difference whether it is showing the evidence of collapsed buildings, the prime minister chatting, or people talking about something. Here, we show Hallows being written about. Sandpiper 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you still haven't given me a reason why this should be the one exception to the previously established policy. In fact, I'm beginning to think we should just remove the whole sentence, and leave it at that. Also, please don't try and re-post the references again until the debate has been completely satisfied. As you are the only one who is definitely claiming that the information should be included, it's certainly not a good idea to keep posting it. If you continue, well, some kind of action might have to be taken. I really don't want to have to try anything like that, I can see you've made some good contributions to this article. But please don't try the patience of the other editors of this article again. Tuvas 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You still havn't answered my point: that you concede the material is admissable? Sandpiper 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as an aside, I think everyone should go look at WP:LAME. I think we might be able to get ourselves pushed up to this list, for something, I'll have to figure out exactly what though... Tuvas 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't think it's admissible for this article, but I would almost like to see it placed somewhere on Wikipedia, just not here. However, I can't think of anywhere it could go except for here, and I certainly don't think it's admissible enough to place here, Wikipedia just isn't the place for theories. At this point in time, I think we should just sit back, and wait for the book to be released. It's coming soon enough. Tuvas 21:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There we go again, the same problem Folken has. Knowledge is all theories. I have a theory there is a car in my garage. Maybe it isn't true, maybe someone nicked it. Maybe it was dematerialised by aliens. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is certain. The point of having a sourcing policy, in so far as there is a point intended to improve articles, is to make a distinction between widely held or otherwise noteable theories, and ones which are not. The only issue is whether amongst those people who think about it, something is considered accepted. Not whether Blair and Bush have issued a joint statement on it, not whether a newspaper has claimed it, but whether the actual real world debate - conducted on the internet, so that is where one looks to see it - is going one way, or another. It is relevant that there exist websites discussing what will happen in the last book. It is relevant that this has reached the stage of people writing books about it. Claiming that the most repected members of  an existing  debate which we are reporting are nonetheless unreportable is somewhat absurd. Their noteablility and referrability is essentially automatic, because of their preeminent positions. If you are claiming that despite being sourced and so generally admissable it should be excluded here specifically, I'm hard pressed to see how you can justify it not being admissable here. It is certainly relevant. You havn't made any argument which actually justifies excluding it.... Sandpiper 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And so you make the difference between "what is widely held/notable" and "what is not", eh ? In fact it is between "what you think will happen" and "what you think will not happen".
 * It's the same for everything else you say, it's only you who are defining what is "accepted".
 * You haven't made any argument which actually justifies including theories just because you believe in some. Folken de Fanel 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit convenience split)
I think one of the issues here is the weight given to JK Rowling praising a website. If something is a self-published fansite, it doesn't stop being that because Rowling praises it or talks about it. Perhaps she just likes such sites. It's possible she wants to encourage her fans and build up a relationship with them. She wouldn't be unique among creators (authors, TV show producers, video game producers). Encouraging such sites is also sensible marketing in the today's world. Hobson 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The point though is that simply because something is a fansite does not automatically make it a bad source. Reliability and reputation make something a good source. Rowling commenting that these places are good sources of information about her books boosts their credibility. The phenomenon of fans  (ie you and me and every other of the millions of readers) discussing this, and collectively creating a web community which has produced research on the books is entirely reportable. As is the conclusions they have reached. If all the world experts on gravity come up with a theory they agree upon, it automatically becomes reportable. It would not cease to be reportable because an expert on catching fish claimed he didn't believe it. Sources should be judged according to the context. What exactly do you consider is a good source for information relating to readers theories about the books? I know these theories exist, you know it. We all also know what the theories are. How did we find out? We looked at a source. maybe a book, magazine, website. Some of these sources are naturally better than others, but their existence is simply a fact. So, which are the best ones to quote? Sandpiper 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are professionally published books full of speculation and theories out there. Flicking through Amazon quickly, there are a few listed. I suspect this debate has more than two sides. Some editors may simply object to including speculation (I *don't think* anyone objects to reporting the fact that there *is* speculation). My bugbear is a concern with WP:V slipping, in particular the section of the policy which reads "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Now if we are actually talking about well-known and professional researchers here then there's no issue in my opinion, but what I'm trying to say is that whether or not Rowling approves of a site or a contributor is irrelevant. By the way, I'm not claiming that a website written by knowledgable and literate fans is necessarily less reliable or in some way worse than a professionally published book. But even despite that, I think the verifiability policy needs to be followed strictly (even on those occasions when it might seem to hinder an article). Hobson 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People seem to have slipped into the notion that these websites are self-published. They are only self-published in the same sense that the Encyclopædia Britannica is self published, or many national newspapers are. Self published properly means that the same person writes it as publishes it. This is not true of these websites. There is editorial control, judgement and oversight of what gets published (I think mugglenet said it has a staff of 200). This is not self publication, so we ought to hit that one squarely on the head. Sandpiper 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If a group of people start a website it doesn't stop being self-published because more than one person is involved. I write articles for a friend's website, and strictly speaking they are not self-published as it's his site and not mine. But really it's just a fansite run by half a dozen people, even if only of us pays for it and gets more of the glory (or shame!). If I publish my friend's book for fun or as a birthday present or because I think it's a great book, technically it's not self-published but the Wikipedia rule isn't based on a dislike of people doing things themselves, it's meant to be a form of quality control. I do accept that a website, even when not run by a professional business or professional or trained editor, might have high standards (and of course I don't argue it needs to be up to the standards of Encyclopaedia Brittanica:)Hobson 01:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate has become rather focussed on the technical point of whether the website is self published, or not. You are agreeing, I think, that technically it is not self-published. In fact, it is also somewhat commercial, since it has to cover its operating costs, which I presume are significant. The argument which has been made is that something self published is per se inadmissable. As it isn't, then it isn't. The issue reverts to whether it is reputable and respected, which it is. I also remind people that simply because something is operated by fans also does not make it inappropriate as a source. I imagine most doctors are fans of modern medicine. Does this invalidate them as sources on medical articles? I also point out, again, that mugglenet does not post the work of the editors 'friends'. It is open to all comers to submit contributions, which are then editorially vetted for inclusion, and open to all comers for criticism after publication. It is rather a good example of peer review at work. Sandpiper 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "It's not because a group of person is involved that it is not self-published", that's what he said, and it's clear that websites like Lexicon are self-published. That's a fact. These websites are self-published, period.
 * And I can't see what "commercial" has to do here.
 * I remind you that if Wikipedia specifically asks for relibale sources, from professionals and experts, it's because "anyone can say anything on a website or pay to have a book published", that's why not all sources are good, and mere fans on the internet, because of their very status, are always the least reliable sources.
 * The issue isn't about being reputable and respected. It's about being reliable. Any source can be reputable and respected among its own audience, however it doesn't make it necessarily good and compliant with the criteria of Wikipedia, because we can't sacrifice WP's integrity just because of a few members trying to promote the projects in which they are involved. We don't juge the people, we judge the sources themselves, and if they aren't good, there's no reason we could accept them.Folken de Fanel 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, if we allow one theory to be posted, how about Harry is a Horcrux. Or how about if Snape is Good. Maybe we should talk about Possible couples The question becomes, where do you draw the line? Compared to any of the fan sites, the statements in this article are verifiable, and NPOV, to an excellent level, I think this is article is an example of Wikipedia at it's best. I just don't want to see it go into the realm of speculation. Tuvas 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If we want to report there are speculations, and that speculations are an important phenomenon blablabla, then I think an article about it in a national newspaper like the Washington Post is enough. As for the reliablity of the sources, well, the rules are clear, and I can't see why there would be an exception to it just because an editor wants to see his favorite theories on the article.Folken de Fanel 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The place where we draw the line is that place where the editors here as a whole decide that the article has sufficient content, and will not be improved by adding more. The trouble with the specific reference to the washington post is that it gives no detail whatsoever about the debate. This is bad writing. A reference should inform, should provide more information about a point being made. The idea is that a reader may click on it and learn something more. Not read an entire newspaper piece and find nothing more than was in the article already.
 * This article is in a difficult position. Frankly, leaving out fan theories is leaving out a very important aspect of what ought to be in the article. There should be a third section, after the one about the existing plot and the one about Rowlings comments, containing comments of third parties. It is hardly true to claim that the article is well rounded with such a glaring omission. Rather, it would be more correct to say that it is glaringly biased towards the 'official' line presented by the publishers, and totally contrary to policy of including alternative views. However, my view has always been that this should be an introduction to the subject rather than the last word. The correct place for the theory about Harry being a horcrux, for example, is in the horcrux article, which should be linked from here, so anyone wanting to read more on that particular topic would come across it. Last I looked, snape was already mentioned here. I don't regard possible couples as a big issue, it has mostly been settled in the last book, but write a para if you want. Sandpiper 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The washington post ref gives all the details to the debate, that no one knows what the titles means; going further and developping (and supporting) a theory from a fansite is already taking positions and a violation of the npov rule.
 * If you've read the various policies here, then you know that fan theories from forums ought to stay out of articles. WP isn't a forum, nor an extension to these forums. Inclusion is based on notability and reliablitily, so obviously, little theories from fans on forums are totally uninteresting and non-notable for such a general encyclopedic work as WP, they only concern those who are involved in these forums and thus don't have their place here. Moreover when users like you have selected their favorite theory and try to impose it as the truth.Folken de Fanel 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that, exactly, about fan theories? I quite agree about noteability and reliability, which is why these are excellent sources. Why are yuo, Folken, so determined to prevent any mention of certain theories on wikipedia. All in all, it is quite odd that you have such a negative view about facts concerning, or potentially concerning, horcruxes.Sandpiper 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, fan theories aren't notable and reliable, they are the worst sources possible.
 * Why am I so determined to prevent any mention of "certain" theories on wikipedia ? Because i respect the rules and they define that these theories are unacceptable, that's all. By the way, I don't prevent the mention of "certain" theories but all theories, unlike you, I'm not subjective.
 * But I have a completely positive view on facts about horcruxes, my dear Sandpiper, the problem is that we're absolutely not dealing with facts, here, but merely crystal-balling. As long as it is not in the HP canon, I don't care. I've always liked Rowling's work and I'm a fan of the authentic HP book, but, you see, I don't have much interest in fan fiction.Folken de Fanel 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious line
"This theory is supported by the fact that translations of R.A.B. consistently correspond to the Black name." This line appears in the discussion of the R.A.B. phenomenon. What is it supposed to mean? Translations of R.A.B. into what? Greek? I recommend deletion of the sentence unless someone can make sense of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.71.202 (talk • contribs)
 * I've tried to make it a bit clearer. If you're still confused, read R.A.B.. - Nunh-huh 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Insert the word "foreign" before the word "translation", and it should make perfect sense. Daggoth | Talk 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is supposed to suggest that, in versions of the book in other languages, the initials correspond to what the initials would be in other languages if the name were Regulus Black, eg. in the Dutch edition of the book the mysterious persons initials are R.A.Z., which corresponds to the Dutch name for the Black family: Zwarts (there are other examples here) --Thaddius 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably got mangled as part of the Folken-Sands edit wars, or some other raging conflict. It was meant to explain, and provide examples, that in foreign translated editions of Half Blood Prince, the "B" in "R.A.B." (or the equivalent last initial as translated) consistently corresponds to whatever translated name is used for the Black Family name (eg: Sirius Black).  In some foreign language cases, the Black Family name remains the same, and so does R.A.B.; while in other cases, the Black Family name is translated to a word that corresponds to the color black, and the initials in R.A.B. change with it.  This lends some credence to the theory, or at least does not contradict it, that R.A.B. is/was a member of the Black Family, and Regulus is, as Rowling said, "a fine guess".  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I don't think that one had become part of the dispute. Perhaps it will now. Sandpiper 23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if you want it...Folken de Fanel 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Release date
The article states "In the U.S., however, the book will be released at 00:01 local time, which will be 8 hours after the other English-speaking countries for the first U.S. states to reach 00:01." Surely the first states to reach 00:01 will only be 5 or 6 hours behind BST? 86.144.205.161 13:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was probably written by someone on the US West Coast (eg: California), where 8 hours may be correct. Changed it to say:  However, In the U.S., which spans several time zones, the book will be released for sale within each time zone at 00:01 local time, a few hours after the other English-speaking countries. Hopefully this avoids the math and POV problems.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Leak/Spoiler Section
I found this reference and if anyone wants to expand a section about leakage or spoiler on the upcoming book, this is it. I am not talking about spoilers per se but the controversy surrounding the book that many people are coming out saying they know what happens etc. etc. and JK's response and fansite responses and so on. Berserkerz Crit 08:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to write a piece for Wikinfo about the development of spoilers-in-general? (There is probably room on relevant Wikipedia pages about films, books and similar, for spoilers-and-their-proved-wrongness-after-the-event.

Minor obvservation - we are probably at about the last point at which someone could start reading the Harry Potter books and have to wait to read the last one. Jackiespeel 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reception?
Many articles on Wikipedia that are about popular works of fiction, eg LotR, have a section dedicated to the reception, or Critical Response, once the book/movie has been read/viewed and reviewed by the target audience. However no such section exists for this book. There is no way to know how the book was received by critics and fans alike from this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Critical reception" section for this article was recently deleted by a vandal; it's back now. Andrea  ( talk ) 05:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)