Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 15

Do You think that the Marketing campaign behind deathly hallows should be mentioned?
For instance, scholastic is launching a multi--million dollar "there will soon be 7 campaign" and sending a 'knight bus' around the country to visit certain libraries. Should we mention any of this?
 * It was mentioned, where did it go? Sandpiper 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was probably deleted. marking campaigns aren't really good encyclopedic information.Angielaj 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was always there and seems to have spawned a section, see below.Sandpiper 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible spoiler on YTMND??
My friend linked me to a YTMND page (unrelated to harry potter) and i decided to look at the holy shit it's a dinosaur one for laughs and i noticed at the top of the page it says that someone dies trying to save someoneelse (not saying names so people don't get accidently spoilt but it's on the YTMND site) how could they know this or are they just saying it to annoy people? Luminaflare 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That Snape dies thing is a fake. Not saying that it definitely won't happen in the book, but the one circulating right now is a fake scan. Voretus 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Didnt the YTMND page for Half Blood Prince turn out to be a real spoiler? Is there any conformation that this spoiler is a fake? Spooky16 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any confirmation that the spoiler is real? So far, all the "spoilers" have been&mdash;forgive me if I offend anyone&mdash;very obvious, poorly done fakes.  We don't have any proof that this one is real.  Arwen Undomiel  talk  17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is YTMND?Phoenix1304 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this its a website.  THE  DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  ( ( (¶) ) )  03:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You missed the point of the question. We know what YTMND is. We're questioning the validity of the spoiler on one of the YTMND sites that's been circulating around.Angielaj 20:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is asking what the source is missing the point of the question?Phoenix1304 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I didn't see the question on You the Man Now Dog was. I thought someone was just telling us what it was with out us asking.
 * All is well. :)Phoenix1304 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Delux cover
Should something be said about the delux american edition of the book? The new pictures (outside and inside), limited copies etc, etc. Jammi568 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because quite frankly who cares? It's just the cover, there's been far too much discussion about the cover, potential titles, past titles, foreign titles and fake releases...00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I rather thing it should. Not to mention the section about the other covers which seems to have quietly been deleted by an anon withou anyone noticeing Sandpiper 11:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it's agreed then that something about it should be posted. After all, everything else has! Jammi568 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Deathly Hollow Spoilers
Say if someone had a transcript of the real book can they post the spoilers without needing to post the pdf as proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.219.150 (talk • contribs)
 * No. And even if they did post spoilers with cast iron proof I'd still strike it out as 1) inappropriate and 2) a copyright infringement. I can't see how anyone in a position to legally release details of the book would do so before publication day. Sandpiper 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even if some people have physical posession of a real copy of Book 7, which perhaps they swiped Mission:Impossible-style from the locked stock room of the neighborhood Borders Books by hiding out in the ventilation system over the Starbucks kiosk and crawling through the firewall and bursting through the back door in a great Fast and Furious-style escape with the goods; without fully independent reliably-sourced verifiability available online from a major news outlet, or otherwise available to the average reader, we still cannot post information allegedly extracted from said stolen books until July 21.  Verifiability trumps "the truth", and certainly gossip, speculation, and dubiously ill-gotten information spotted online somewhere, every time.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? 90% of what they show on CNN isn't verified or verifiable. Djdowns 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is illegal to post spoilers and not in the spirit of wikipeida to do so even if it wasAngielaj 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Post reals ones that isAngielaj 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * DJdowns - you may have confused truth and verifiability as it applies to the Wikipedia. Whether CNN or BBC or The Times or The Post might be correct or truthful is frankly irrelevant.  It is the fact that something is published and reported on that makes it verifiable.  The Wikipedia requires verifiability from external reliable sources.  Suppose it happens that CNN reports that a shipment of copies of Book 7 was hijacked, and then crashed on the freeway, spilling hundreds of copies of the book on the highway, and that in the rush hour traffic, all of the spilled copies were snatched up by passing motorists.  Then some of those motorists came forward to the press announcing the spoilers, even showing the pages.  If CNN covered those spoilers in the course of their reporting, right or wrong, good or bad, legal or illegal, for better or worse, in theory we could and probably should post that information, and provide verifiability links back to CNN's reports as references.  Now it could turn out that the copies were elaborately prepared fakes, and that CNN and all those motorists were duped by an elaborate plan and that it was all a wonderful joke.  Undoubtedly we could post that as well, and maintain the "faked" spoilers as part of the phenomenon of the closure of the series.  It does not matter if CNN is right or wrong in their reporting or the conclusions, it is that something happened, and that we can verify it with a reliable source.  See WP:V for more information.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Locking of editing until July 21?
I wonder if the current lock on editing should be extended until July 21. I suspect this article will become the target of vandals and thouse releasing unauthorized spoilers as the release date for the book approachew. 68.252.95.208 13:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article isn't locked, just semi-protected, which prevents unregistered users (IPs) and accounts of less than three days of age from editing. As for extending it, wait until the protection expires. If there is a large amount of vandalism, then semi-protection can be requested again. MelicansMatkin 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles are only suppossed to be protected based on vandalism, not to prepare for vandalism... although I believe you're right in thinking it will be needed sooner or later.Miles Blues 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is definently needed! Look at what somebody did to the aricle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.225.41 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 June 2007
 * 5-6 IP vandals since it's been unlocked (~18 hours). I'll give it about 8 more hours - if it keeps happening I'll request protection again. Daggoth | Talk 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for locking it for a few days on July 21, for obvious reasons. --Kizor 21:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. HBP's article was nightmarish for weeks after it was released. &mdash;Cryptic 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To me this is a no-brainer. Look at the edit history.  Has ANY recent anonymous edit been constructive?  Not that I'm aware of - they're all either vandalism or speculation.  It's just going to get worse as the day approaches.  Why suffer the headaches?  We should do ourselves all a favor and semi-protect this thing until about August 1.  If a non-user really, really wants to make a constructive edit, they can register and wait three days.

--NetherlandishYankee 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or ask a veteran to post that constructive contribution. I vote for semi-protection, FWIW. -- Jokes Free4Me 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support semi-protecting the page. Od Mishehu 10:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Add section for UK adult cover artwork
I think we need to modify the subsection head under "Bookcover artwork release" from "UK edition" to "UK childrens edition" and add a new section titled "UK adult edition" with a description of the adult edition book cover. I propose this because the adult edition cover art is sugnificantly different from the childrens edition cover art, and the publisher always released distinctive covers for the childrens editions and the adult editions of the books in the Harry Potter series, even though the text of the book itself is identical.

I also think examples should be shown of the cover art that is described. I realize this was a long and controversial discussion recently, but since we are describing the cover art, we should at least have an example of what we are describing. 68.252.95.208 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The US Hardcover edition and the US Deluxe Edition are very different as well.  Should we have them described and illustrated as well? We still have to watch out for fair use abuses of copyrighted images.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what i mentioned above. I agree with thisJammi568 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument for deleting galleries of cover pictures was that they were not being discussed individually, so showing them all just for decoration was a copyright infringement. In this case each cover is being discusssed, so I would have thought showing a small image would be entirely legitimate. I do not think we should have large images. Sandpiper 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved Plot Elements Revisited
I wonder if we should think about moving the sometimes controversial "Unresolved Plot Elements from the previous books" section over to the Half-Blood Prince page. It seems to me that it keeps coming up as "original research" and "crystalballery", in the context of Book 7, since it is being implied or could be inferred that the issue "will" be dealt with in Book 7. It seems to me it would fit better at Book 6. Besides presumably the whole section will become obsolete on July 21 and replaced with a plot summary. I think the material in and of itself is interesting and encyclopedic, but it makes sense to remove it from Book 7 with a forwarding link to "see Book 6 for information regarding...". Besides, based on some of Rowling's comments, there may come a replacement section in Book 7 called "Unresolved Plot Elements from the Series" where some loose ends were never really conclusively resolved; or maybe that belongs at the home-base Harry Potter page. Just thinking ahead here. I don't want to jump on this until there is a clear consensus to do so, since it may aggravate some folks. RfC - anyone? --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in the HP7 article. It is not original research, because those plotlines are unresolved - no one ever said they'd be resolved in HP7, just that if they will be resolved, it will be in this book (which is completely true, not original research).  Putting in HP6's article wouldn't make sense, because none of the other HP books' articles have a section mentioning unresolved plotlines.  After HP7 is released, I think all unresolved plotlines should be moved to the main HP article, since they will remain unresolved forever. Miles Blues 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The "spoilers"
I know it was talked about, but I have a small question about the so-called "spoiler" currently making the rounds. I lurk the SA Forums and first noticed a link to somebody's LiveJournal in the HP thread a few weeks (at least) before the spoiler hit YTMND, which supposedly contained DH spoilers. I didn't click it but the fact it came from LJ made it a bit less credible anyway (especially considering it was 2 months before release). Is this "spoiler" (which I am refusing to believe or visit the YTMND page) the same one that was on LJ? WorldsTallestMidget 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed above. most think it's fake.Angielaj 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The missing girl
I removed the bit about the missing girl: the parents say in the article that "we are thinking about getting bookmarks with Madeleine's photographs and getting authors agreement". Now, the "we" in the beginning of the article is indeed the parents. Not the parents and J. K. Rowling. And so far the parents are only "thinking about it", there's no direct quote that would implyt Rowling is thinking about it. There's no quote from Rowling or her publishers, and the name of the article is what it is just to catch people's attention.--83.145.240.253 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A very good point. The media hype about her is a bit rediculous in my opinion, this section was a bit too much. A reference to it on the Madeline McCann page itself might be justifiable, but not here. Anyone could say they were thinking about asking JKRowling her, thats not really notable is it? I'm thinking about asking her if I can put an advert for my myspace on a bookmark... Doesn't mean I should get a section in this article. I'm agreeing with you, I just wanted to help make your point to pre-empt any long rambling discussions about the ethical implications of the media frenzy over this poor dead girl.18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

marketing campaigns: where to mention them?
We now have a section on marketing campaigns. I am of two minds what to do about this. Logically, all the marketing stuff ought to be in the same place. So the mention of the natural history and Carnegie hall stuff ought to be in that same section. On the other hand, I quite liked mentioning them in the introduction. It struck me that it might give people a more sporting chance to notice that there are events open by ballot, so if they are interested they can try for tickets. Any comments? Sandpiper 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time to place a comment in the discussion area, so please forgive me if i am doing it wrong. It seems to me like we should leave the natural history reading and that stuff in the introduction until July 21st, when it becomes history, and then we can move it into the marketing section. Twump 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Twump

New Purported Spoilers
I'm not too involved with this article, but I noticed a claim on the Inquirer that some hacker got into the publisher's database and downloaded a copy of book 7. They proceded to post spoilers from the book on a webpage. The motivation apparently comes from the "hacker's" desire to ruin the series due to the many themes which Christians could find offensive. I didn't check out the link, (don't want to ruin it for myself just in case!) but the Inq article can be found here. I'm personally skeptical about the claim, and would probably suggest waiting until the publisher issues a statement before throwing a paragraph in the article. However, the Inq (despite it's tabloidy nature) is generally not too far off concerning tech news, and hence I would view the article as a reliable source. Anyway, I'll leave it to the editors who put more blood and sweat into this page to make the right decision. →Bobby ← 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doubt it, i think the person who wrote that spoiler is just trying to stop people from reading Harry Potter. Also I've read somewhere that the publishing company is deleting many of the spoilers. So if that is a true spoiler i think it would've been deleted by now. MamaMia22 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read this "spoiler" and it very unlikely it's real. One the grammer is horrible. It contains no excerpts like the dumbledore spoiler did from the half blood prince and the claims made by this "hacker" are silly and stupid. I'm 99.9% sure it's a fake.AngielaJ 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

When will you learn that these spoilers are real? Of couse they're out there to stop fans from reading the last book. Duh. Saying it's fake won't help you at all. You just proved your immaturity over an overrated stupid book. Angiela, your grammar is horrible as well. You have no reason to speak. OfficerPhil 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody block this dude... please. --NetherlandishYankee 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pedant, OfficerPhil - alright, I do, but AngielaJ's error involved incorrect spelling, not grammar. I suggest that you do some research into common linguistic concepts before making personal attacks. --Pyreforge 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler?
Anyone know if this is real?

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2007/Jun/0380.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurauth (talk • contribs)

It doesn't look real, or sound real. Most/all of the spoilers, as stated above, are fakes. They claim that they got the information by hacking into the accounts of a Bloomsbury worker, yet they fail to see that not everyone who works at Bloomsbury has a copy of the book. From what I've read, the only people who have read the book are the editors, JK, and the artists, all of whom are responsible enough not to leave a copy of the book so accessible. It's hogwash. Tynedanu 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw it too (look at above comment). I have the same feeling you do, which is that it's unlikely anyone at the publishers was so dense as to leave one of the more anticipated novels of our time lying around (either digitally or physically) where it could be accessed.  I'll keep an eye on the Inq, since they are following up with Bloomsbury.  →Bobby ← 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The single sentence the purported hacker Gabriel has on the hacking's tech details is full of abbreviations, but it is quite believable, such directed attacks have been trivial in corporate hackings since at least two years. But I still think the very sad story ending disclosed by the hacker Gabriel is a fake, as it contradicts the leak published by the Daily Star tabloid in April. That one has a more positive oucome and that came from a verified informant and JKR's cohort tried to squash that story, which lends credence to its genuinity. 82.131.210.162 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohh okay, well I reported it to Bloomsbury too anyway but it really sucks if that is how it turns out anyway, the week before the actual release onto after I finnsh it I won't be going on the internet or watching the news anyway so that I don't get spoilt by people who work at bookstores or get pre-orders sent early. 86.6.17.37 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone - it is extremely important to remember that it does not matter in the least if it is "real" or not, in terms of suitability this Wikipedia Project. What is required is verifiability from independant reliable sources, such as the news media or from Rowling or her publishers and representatives. What some "hacker" supposedly finds and posts on a web site is in no way encyclopedic, notable, nor useful for posting on the Wikipedia. We need to avoid giving these "hackers" the publicity they crave by posting their sensational nonsense, and publishing links to their web sites - see WP:EL. We are essentially advertising the web sites, which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and forbidden by Wikipedia policies and guidelines - see WP:SPAM. Continuing to post these external links may be seen as spamming. Therefore please resist the urge to post here the latest "discoveries" you may find while surfing HP fan sites and blog pages, unless you can back it up with an independant reliable source which is endorsing the material. I think it would not be inappropriate for us to delete any such links, rumours, gossips, and speculations, posted either here on the talk page or in the article mainspace. It is most likely inappropriate to continue these absurd discussions about gossip, rumours, speculations, and spoiler information supposedly harvested from some web site. See the information boxes at the top, regarding appropriate discussion topics. If you need a place to discuss the authenticity of this or that web site, please take it up at one of the many dozens of HP web sites or HP-related fan forums and blog pages. Thanks for your attention. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that, at the very least, the subject of all of these alleged spoilers should be addressed in its own section of the article. Reuters went so far as to report on it, at least: Sidatio 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia is not a news/media organization.  This is an encyclopedia.  We shouldn't report unfounded rumors.  If we did, I could get my "everlasting" fame by posting an entry in my blog saying I read the book and expose plot elements, then link to my blog entry in this Wiki article.  Regardless of whether or not Reuters reported on it is irrelevant. Ccrashh 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. I'm not saying we should post every spoiler that comes down the pike. I'm saying the fact that the hype surrounding this book has generated so much attention that people are allegedly trying to hack into the publisher's computers looking for the ending should possibly be addressed. Sidatio 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Okay.  I think that would be a good idea.  I think there is consensus below as well. Ccrashh 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we should have an article dedicated to spoilers, but we could take a section of this article to talk about all the hype, not the content of the spoilers. Any article that's written now will probably be deleted once the book comes out anyway. Tynedanu 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that if Reuters and other news agencies are reporting on the Hacker-Spoiler story and making it newsworthy, then we can certainly have a section that discusses that event as part of the larger story of the pre-release cultural phenomenon. What we should NOT be doing is randomly posting links to (for example) the Hacker's web site, whether intentionally as "vandal-trolls" might, or in passing as "naive newbies" might, and thereby promoting his work and increasing his notoriety (and his ad revenues).  The reliably verifiable News is what it is, and it would most likely be considered a POV problem to ignore it entirely.  That said we are not required to promote it, beyond a simple mention that it happened; we can legitimately omit the links to his web site, and any others that may come along in the next month.  Let Reuters and the fan-blog sites do that important work.  If in the near future it is judged that the Hacker-event warrants an encyclopedic Wiki-article on its own, then we can deal with the notability of that when we get there, and provide external links as part of the documentation.  For now however, it appears that this is just another minor twist in the story that really started and gained traction on Dec 21 when the Title was released.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 00:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Link to harry potter hacking leak news. I too think we should have a section on all the reported "leaks" and hype surrounding the book. Berserkerz Crit 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone else is going to have to write this, if they want to - I can't edit it as a newbie. :-( Sidatio 16:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think people are right that there ought to be a section discussing noteable leaks and scares (assuming there is in fact enough material, but I expect there will be before we are finished). However, We need to steer clear of reporting the details of those 'leaks' since either they are 1)wrong, or 2)right, and either way I would not want to be reading them here. Sandpiper 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can edit it either, but I'd be willing to help in any way, shape, or form. (ie. collecting information, ect...) Tynedanu 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a does not put up news then why do we have an article on that white british girl who was kidnapped in portugal? It has little article-worthy content


 * What does that have to do with THIS article? --Dave. 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think about it, everything that happens in history at one point is news. However, some news will be remembered, and some won't. But that has nothing to do with this article. Perhaps you could ask that question at the village pump. The whole point of this discussion is whether or not we should talk about the hype over the internet spoilers. Tynedanu 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover spine image
The article states that the symbol on the spine of the UK children edition has appeared on all other covers. It is true that all previous books had a symbol on the spine, but the way it is formulated here makes it sound as if this specific symbol (split triangle with inscribed circle) has appeared on all other covers. It should be reformulated or deleted. Also, the remark that the symbols happen to look like the greek Phi and Delta is also not of an encyclopaedic nature. It can have many interpretations. I propose to reformulate the paragraph as "Cover Spine: The top of the cover spine has a symbol of a vertically split upward pointing triangle with an inscribed circle; The meaning of this is unclear at the moment, but symbols on the spine of previous releases were always closely related to the central theme of the story".

AberforthD 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I got that impression too, it does need changing. I saw someone explaining what the symbol meant recently, but can't remember now what it was. Sandpiper 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not matter much what explanation can be given to that symbol at the moment, unless it is Rowling herself or the editor giving additional details. Any explanation at the moment belongs to the realm of speculation and has no place in this this article. Forums are the place for that. AberforthD 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * well not really, if the symbol has a recognisded meaning, then it does, and we are entitled to say so. Now, why it is there, that would be rather harder to comment on. Sandpiper 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely until someone can say what the symbol actually means, then there's little point in speculating in an encyclopedia? --Dave. 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well i don't remember what it was now, and I'm not going to make anything up or bother hunting for it. But it was something relevant and made me laugh. Sandpiper 11:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was not that there would not exist commonly recognized meanings of that symbol. My point was that Phi and Delta are interpretations that have no basis. The description of a "split upward pointing triangle with inscribed circle" is objective and therefore appropriate. To see a Delta and Phi in it is not objective. I can also see a sun and a pyramid in it for that sake. Besides, the vertical stroke of a Phi extends below the circle, which is not the case in this symbol. The Phi and Delta remark should be deleted from the article. AberforthD 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Updated the description, removed OR as recommended. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Locked
this thing needs to be completely locked down from the 20th of july to the 23rd at least. when HBP was released, the page was vandalized so much, it looked like wiki editors were completely unawares. Skhatri2005 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * you have a good idea and i agree with you but i think we are in the minority --munkee_madness  talk 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am usually not in favour of locking an article as a precaution. If excessive vandalism occurs it can be locked at that moment. However, I can see the point that the core editors of this page will not likely be monitoring the article for vandalism in the first few hours after release. It may therefore be wise to lock the article for about 24 hours after release in the UK. That will avoid editing of the page in the 8 hour span between release in California and the rest of the world, which is a perfectly acceptable period of time given the fact that this is not a news medium. An additional 15 more hours would be nice to give everybody the chance to digest the book without worrying about vandalism of the article. I am not in favour of a lock for longer than 24 hours though because the article should also be kept up to date. A 24 hour lag in being up to date is acceptable in my opinion. AberforthD 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Background to the series" section
Why is this section here at all? It has nothing specifically to do with the Deathly Hallows. It should be in the Harry Potter article. Ccrashh 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Think of it like this: you want to know what the fuss is about this forethcoming book so you look at the wikipedia article. Surely you need to be told  that it is part of a series and what the series is about? The whole of this article is essentially a quick summary of background information about this book. Sandpiper 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it is here is so that this isn't essentially a stranded article. FYI, it isn't wise to delete entire sections of articles without an extensive discussion and a conventional decision to do so.  It rather irritated me to see that.Phoenix1304 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Stranded article?  What do you mean by that?  Do you mean this section is essentially there to fill out the article so it doesn't seem so sparse?  Or do you mean to add that same "Background to the series" to the articles of the other 6 books? Ccrashh 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It means, the other six books have been released. This one has not.  We have to connect this article to the others somehow.  I imagine that once the book is released, it will be replaced by a plot summary.Phoenix1304 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So it will be removed once the book is released? To match the articles for the other books in the series? Ccrashh 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't belong here. Same reason we don't have an "Overview of the United States" section on every state article. TheCoffee 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But presumably you know quite a bit of definite information about each state? The basic information about the story in this book is that it will follow the existing story. It will be a traditional school story. It will be a whodunnit. It will resolve mysteries set out in the earlier volumes. Rowling has siad this will be the case. This is all known stuff immediately relevant to the issue of what is in this particular book. Sandpiper 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How fake or real is this?
http://rapidshare.com/files/37123276/Harry_Potter_the_deathly_hallows.pdf.html I must know if this was a very elaborate prank, because this thing is 660 pages, too many for the British version. I've scanned through it and it actually seems like a fanfiction. I understand if you must delete this but please leave my comment intact when you do. I'm also wondering if JK or her publicist should be contacted.209.91.61.251 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is real. I'm tired of you Harry Potter fans thinking any spoiler is fake because you want to live in a little magic land with fairies and princesses. Wrong, welcome to the real world. Harry Potter is a poorly written novel that needed to be spoiled, so someone did the right thing and scanned the book out. OfficerPhil 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad you're just a sad little vandal with no credibility =/ 209.91.61.251 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine anything worse than Harry Potter fans living in a fantasy world. It's just a shame that your "real" one consists of falsified information and antisocial tendencies.  It's also a shame that you missed that memo about the difference between "right" and "wrong".  Now, try not to get yourself banned with your childish little babbling.Phoenix1304 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is highly unlikely that there has been a leak, and if the above seems like fanfiction then it probably is. MelicansMatkin 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it fake? Well... the guy who wrote it admits it openly. Sorry OfficerPhil, seems we are in a fantasyland where the book hasn't been leaked yet. Do some research next time. --Thaddius 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!209.91.61.251 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is fanfic. It's been floating around the net for a while nowAngielaJ 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a fake. Some people went "behind the scenes" and discovered it was a very devoted person writing a great and very realistic piece of fan fiction. jj137 14:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sort of obvious it's not real, it's not quite got the right style, and I can't see Rowling writing some of this.

Improper synthesis

 * Background: Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 13

(I have no opinion on the other aspect of this edit war, concerning Rowling's quote about speculation, other than that I'm likely to go ballistic if I keep seeing it removed or added without discussion here.)
 * the matter has already been discussed and archived:the consensus was to keep itSandpiper 13:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No there was no consensus to keep them.Folken de Fanel 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The disputed sentence: "The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings.[ref][ref][ref]"

This is the sort of interpretive statement that cannot be supported only by primary sources, in this case the speculation itself. None of these essays provides adequate verification as to the amount of speculation, and are simply examples of it. (The second does mention in passing that "theories abound regarding the proper interpretation", but provides no proof of that other than the bald assertion. In particular, that it in turn cites our sister project Wiktionary for its own speculation should immediately set off warning bells.)  If this sentence is to remain—and I don't think anyone is truly arguing that it shouldn't—what is needed is a neutral, reliable source that specifically and credibly comments on the volume of the speculation; we must not require our readers to duplicate this research themselves by looking at the speculation and drawing the conclusion that there's a whole lot of it.

I count well over a dozen reverts by each party in the past week alone. Simply continuing to revert in this fashion is unacceptable, and I for one am finding my patience wearing quite thin. &mdash;Cryptic 14:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had found a valid source for this comment:
 * ...as it is a reliable professional source stating things like "but "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" may raise more questions than it answers"; "And that's causing a fair amount of confusion"; "admitted that people in her office had rushed to an unabridged dictionary"; "But we really don't know what the title means"; "No doubt there will be months of speculation about who might die as the epic story of the boy wizard draws to its conclusion"...
 * However, it kept being reverted and replaced by the previous website speculations, despite lengthy debates. One way or another, the revert war couldn't be avoided, so I chose to completely remove the disputed sentence (a solution that had previously been mentionned by another user in the last discussion), hoping that the revert war would stop, but it had no effect.
 * I'm not argueing that the sentence really deserves to be removed, on the contrary I've looked hard on the web to find this Washington Post article, to find a reliable source for the statement, so that it could remain.
 * But finding a good source doesn't seem to be the real problem, now. If we want to avoid permanent revert war, we'll have to find a way to stop the user who is constantly re-adding back the fan-websites refs (which, we all agree, are improper)...Folken de Fanel 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But finding a good source doesn't seem to be the real problem, now. If we want to avoid permanent revert war, we'll have to find a way to stop the user who is constantly re-adding back the fan-websites refs (which, we all agree, are improper)...Folken de Fanel 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is finding the meaning of the title so important before reading it? Why not just wait for the book to be released and then post the true meaning as long as it doesn't contain spoilers? I mean, you don't even know who the Half-Blood Prince was until at least halfway through the sixth book. You don't know what the Order of the Phoenix is until you read the book. The same goes on for all the previous books as well. Stop trying to solve the book before it comes out. If you really really want to speculate use this site's resources. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hallow 209.91.61.251 20:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * wiktionary has very much less on this subject than does wikipedia. My opinion is that people want to find the meaning of the title because Rowling has effectively set a challenge. She has written a detective novel, and the title of the last volume is essentially another clue. So everyone following the story in depth wants to have a go at understanding it. By now this is somewhat old news, the debate has taken place. As to spoilers, it is also my opinion that it is more important to have spoilers surrounding reports of analysis of the plot than it will be once the book is published. Anyone reading about the book after publication should reasonably expect to discover things about the plot in this article. They may not expect to find such revelations here before publication. On the whole this article as it stands does not give much away: the spread of information presented is pretty general. But it has always seemed to me the issue is that plot analysis is accurate, not that it is inaccurate. There is a risk of people discovering more than they bargained for. Sandpiper 13:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested the website references are improper. What was suggested was that while they explain the debate, they dont show the extent of the debate. I have no objection to adding Folken's ref as support for the existence of a widespread debate, but I do not see that it gives useful information as to the nature of the debate. I object most strongly to Folken's assertion that such websites are improper references for explaining the debate about the tiitle. Where else would he suggest we look for examples than where the debate is taking place? Sandpiper 13:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting the website "references" are improper above, in this very section. If these websites are being used as references, then that constitutes original research, again as explained above.  We forbid original research.  If, as you say, you are putting them forth as supplemental examples as further reading, they aren't references; they are simple external links, and belong in the external links section at best. &mdash;Cryptic 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Above, you clearly argue that the references do not demonstrate whether the quantity of speculation is 'considerabe'. You also state, however, that they are indeed examples of the speculation. Do you have reason to think they unfairly represent the specualtion, as examples? Sandpiper 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 theories chosen because they are your favorites unfairly represent the statement that there is "considerable" speculation. As Cryptic said, "we must not require our readers to duplicate this research themselves by looking at the speculation and drawing the conclusion that there's a whole lot of it".Folken de Fanel 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandpiper, the source I have provided shows very well that there are many speculations, either from fans or from the editors themselves who don't even know what the title means (which is a perfectly useful information as to the nature of the debate). If that doesn't show the extend and the quantity of speculations, then nothing will show it.Folken de Fanel 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a page should be referenced here where readers can go and look at a typical and representative example of that debate. That is what references are for in encyclopedias, telling readers where they can find more information about something. No encyclopedia I ever read was littered with references merely to show it wasn't lying every single sentence. Sandpiper 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite sources specifically states what we use as references. As it happens, they are exactly for showing that we aren't lying in every single sentence.  You might also be interested to read what it states about resources that have "usefulness beyond verification of the article". &mdash;Cryptic 22:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there's nothing "typical" and "representative", this is only a pov oriented list of theories you agree with. These websites are improper as references, because references are only here to prove that the statements in article are not the contributor's own opinion, and to prove what is stated is verifiable by the readers in reliable sources.
 * The refs you keep adding do not verify anything, they merely reflect your own opinion about theories.
 * As for telling the readers where they can find find speculations, there are enough fan-websites (including Mugglenet and the Lexicon) in the external links for that.
 * And finally, Sandpiper, stop constantly reverting things back to your version while there's still a debate about it, and while your the only one supporting your version. As Tuvas already told you, you're trying the patience of other editors.Folken de Fanel 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is your belief that these refs unfairly represent the debate, then please produce some other refs which show that they do. Either produce evidence or stop making unfounded claims. In the absence of any such, I see no reason to believe that these are unrepresentative. I'm afraid that your view of the purpose of references, to protect content from other editors wishing to delete it, is exactly what is wrong with referencing on wikipedia, and is very unencyclopedic. I shall persist in maintaining the article as it was without deletions, until there is reasonable evidence that a consensus exists to change it. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by a couple of newbies, though I agree that people with more sense have all given up any attempt to protect the page until after the new book is published. Sandpiper 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether these pages are representative of the debate, because the article isn't making any statements about it. What the article says is that there is considerable debate.  That's not at all what these pages are verifying.
 * Incidentally, I don't know who it is you're calling a couple of newbies, but if you continue to edit war, I will cheerfully show that I am not one of them by blocking you for it. &mdash;Cryptic 22:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that some editors I have met recently with a very good knowledge of wiki procedures seem to also have surprisingly short edit histories. Perhaps you have noticed that yourself? If it is you and I arguing about this, then I would suggest that my view of what ought to be in the article carries equal weight to your own. I said you made a good point that the ref does not support the argument that there is much debate. However, i said that the ref does shed light upon what that debate is. Whether there is specific text going into detail of what the debate is about is beside the point. The ref in itself gives useful information to readers. It was always my understanding that the principle reason traditional reference sources themselves provide references was to allow readers to find out more about a point. I agree also that this seems to get overlooked on wikipedia. It is a failing in anything aspiring to be an encyclopedia. Sandpiper 08:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And so, it gives you the right to call these editors a "bunch of newbies" and to dismiss their opinion, and consider that they don't count or "don't carry the same weight"? It doesn't work like that.
 * Concerning the refs, they don't shed more light to what the debate is than the proper source I've provided and that you keep reverting. Explain why a professional newspaper saying there are many speculations, either from fans or from the editors themselves who don't even know what the title means, wouldn't shed enough light to what the debate is.
 * Also, you still haven't answered about your reference not accurately sourcing the statement, because the statement is not strictly about the content of the debate, but the quantity.
 * "References" proving useful info to the readers are called "external links", and the concerned websites are already in the external links.
 * If you concider Wikipedia "fails in anything aspiring to be an encyclopedia", fair enough, and you're free to create you own, better and perfect encyclopedia (or even to contribute to the HP Wiki which correspond more to your ideal encyclopedia), however WP has existed for several years, and you alone cannot change the established rules that are accepted by the whole community. It would require months of debates, and obviously you can't do it just by revert-warring and calling your opponents a "bunch of newbies".
 * You were also specifically asked by Cryptic to stop revert warring...It doesn't seem you listened very well as you've still reverted the article. While you added my ref, you also re-added your refs, which Cryptic and I have qualified of improper...Ignoring others' opinion ? (Oh, yes, I forgot, we're only a "bunch of newbies").Folken de Fanel 09:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ladies... please... Twice now on this talk page we've reached lengths that are definitely WP:LAME-worthy.  Consider how silly and trivial your argument looks from the outside. --NetherlandishYankee 11:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but if Folken wants to play, then who am I to disappoint him? Yankee, you really want me to read yet another page of advice? how many dozen have already been introduced? wiki is a lawyers paradise. Yes, I can call newbies newbies if I want. normally someone with a short editing history would be unfamiliar with how things work, and would be more likely to misunderstand the debate. It took me months to begin to understand this place, and I most certainly did not parachute into the middle of ongoing disputes. Newbies who understand the rules very well brings in question whether they have experience of editing not apparent from their current username. It is an interesting thing. I think others have more than once already pointed out that issues are not decided simply by count of numbers, but also by the nature of the argument.Sandpiper

As far as I know, there are absolutely no rules banning people from including normal, sensible references, as a paper encyclopedia might include (or at least a scientific paper) which provide additional information not explicitly reproduced on a page. Simply using references to back statements on the page is, quite honestly, a rather futile use of referencing. This article is a bit of an exception, because it might be the case that someone really would want to look at the full interview in eg a quote from Rowling, but for the most part wiki references are editors tools used by wikipedia staff, and not there to help readers. This is not good. A real encyclopedia would not be putting all its background research onto the finished page. we also get into the ridiculous situation where eg folken demands a ref, I find a book with a respected author and give him one, then he claims I am 'advertising'. Yes, perhaps I am: because many others have also written similar boooks it is not fair to promote just one. But the peculiar process here demands references for keeping score.

Now, for the life of me, I have to say the obsession with restricting information given to readers becomes utterly insane. Exactly why does folken not want to allow readers to look up more information if they want. Why should we not make it easier for them by providing a link? How on earth can anyone claim that well known and noteable websites whose business is providing information on all things HP are a bad source for information about the debate amongst fans regarding the title? That's nuts, and everyone here knows it. Sandpiper 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest a nice cup of tea? :-D --NetherlandishYankee 03:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * might make me hyper. still, only 23 days to go...Sandpiper 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping changes
Can people stop making massive changes to the article without building a consensus on the talk page, please!Phoenix1304 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it's poor form to shout on the talk page. --NetherlandishYankee 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * but as things stand, you never know will disappear next. Sandpiper 22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Caps lock makes people notice. Especially the vandalizers.  I apologize if I offended you.Phoenix1304 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted to regular now that people have had ample opportunity to read.Phoenix1304 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sometimes a bit of shouting helpsSandpiper 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie Discussion
The seventh harry potter movie will be split into two parts. It was decided that the first part of the movie will be scheduled to be released sometime in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.244.182 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We know, and it is addressed in the article. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I may be thinking far ahead, but should we make a single page or two separate pages for the duology?

D arth B otto talk•cont 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends he much info there is I think. I don't know, Heyman says its one film released as two some I'll be treating it as one article. Gran2 07:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened with the movie Kill Bill, it was just so big they had to split it into two pieces. The way they decided to do it was put both of the movies in one article, which might be what they might end up doing with the movie, but whatever they decide, there's going to be one heck of a debate about it. ~ Bella   Swan ? 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)