Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Archives contents summary

• /Archive 1: original research complaints; unfounded theories (49k, July 2005 - February 2006)
• /Archive 2: speculated release date; plot speculation; questions to be answered by the book (51k, February – August 2006)
• /Archive 3: references; fake titles; more speculation; failed requested move (48k, June – November 2006)
• /Archive 4: real title; questions about "hallows"; trimming of speculation (68k, November 2006 – January 2007)
• /Archive 5: cited fan speculation; real release date; the meaning of "hallows" (52k, December 2006 – February 2007)
• /Archive 6: long debate on inclusion of speculation on the meaning of "hallows"(173k, Feb 2007)
• /Archive 7: Spoilers, film version, meaning of Hallows, hallows in literature (47k, Feb 2007)
• /Archive 8: continuation of above debate; minor article questions (49k, February – March 2007)
• /Archive 9: continuation of Hallows debate (150k, February – March 2007)
• /Archive 10: end of Hallows debate, release of the covers (52k, March – April 2007)
• /Archive 11: more talk of the covers, image questions, film, books after 7 (64k, March – May 2007)
• /Archive 12: leaks, alternate titles, sneak peaks, Harry's eyes (68k, April – May 2007)
• /Archive 13: "Deathly Hallows" section, more leaks, edit war over DH references (61k, April – May 2007)
• /Archive 14: spoiler policy, MuggleNet spam, speculation (67k, May – June 2007)
• /Archive 15: Pre-release spoilers, Advanced copies, Series Background, Claimed Scans of Text posted at online sites (53k, June 2007)
• /Archive 16: More pre-release discussions, spoiler and post-release strategy, article protection, scans of text posted at external sites, plot elements (64k, June - mid July 2007)
• /Archive 17: Pre-release leaks, spoiler strategies, reliable sourcing, "straw poll" on need for full protection, matters leading up to release (61k, mid-July 2007)
• /Archive 18: Source of leak materials, photographed copies, verifiability and reliable source discussions, spoiler handling, Not Censored, Page Protection protests (61k, mid-July 2007)
• /Archive 19:...(mid-July 2007)

NY Times

Can we at least put in info from the New York Times. Just stuff like clarification of what the deathly hallows are, and how many people die etc... I think that the NY times is a reliable source. -Mbatman 72 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you guys accept a plot summary now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semiprotected

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

Plot section developed in template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-encyclopedic tone

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

Resolved

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

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

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

Mr. Ollivander

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Potter and the Battle of ASDA

Resolved

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

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

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

JK Rowling Responds to Spoilers

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

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

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

Legal Action

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To admins monitoring this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoilers are fine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Place To Discuss The Leak!

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

Opinion for revert

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

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

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

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

Baltimore Sun review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Potter and the Mid-Life Crisis

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

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

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

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

Israel/Sabbath issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler warning?

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

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

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

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

Plot Summary A

I'm currently writing a plot summary of the book; it will probably be up later this evening. It will replace the "What we know about the plot" section. Should any of that section be preserved? Titanium Dragon 01:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to put up a summary before the release, since we don't (as far as I know) have any confirmed sources for the plot. - Biomech talk 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do. Many copies of the book have been mistakenly sent to people ahead of time. Stingmans 01:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't put up the plot summary. First off, there's no way to tell you have a legit plot summary. Second, it could lead to legal issues since the plot is not supposed to be revealed.-Wafulz 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT put up any plot summary. It will be removed within minutes, so it would be a waste of time on your part. It will not be able to be verified before the book is released, and would be original research. Also, this subject has been discussed ad nauseum above, and if you'd read it, you would know not to post a summary. Faithlessthewonderboy 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you even AWARE of Wikipedia policy? A plot summary is NOT original research; a plot summary is just that. Something can be classified as a reliable source on itself, so it would be perfectly legitimate to write a plot summary on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows given that the book itself is the source of this plot summary - I am adding no frills to it whatsoever, it is a summary of the plot of the book. Please come up with a real objection, not just "I don't want the book spoilered." Numerous people have copies of the book or access thereof, and can easily confirm or dispute the plot summary. Titanium Dragon 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Unless there is a verifiable source, I believe that any summary of Deathly Hollows would count as OR, as there is no way to tell whether it would be accurate or not and nothing to compare it to. Though this is an unusual situation, and I could easily be wrong, and would appreciate being told if I am. But again, there's no reason for the hostility. And the objection which many people, including myself, have already stated is very "real": as the book isn't available to the general public and there are no reputable sources from which to glean information, any account of the plot is not verifiable. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It has been said enough times now: verifiability covers this scenario. Unless the leak can be explicitly authenticated (the two reviews get oh-so-close...), we cannot use information from it, as it is not a reliable source. (And for the record, my "real objection" is not "I don't want the book spoilered". I've read the leaked copy already. Go figure.) Daggoth | Talk 06:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since people seem to have moral objections to your posting of this, how about you just post it on the discussion page so people can edit for when the book actually comes out (since when the book comes out the leaks will then be confirmed to be true). Stingmans 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The objection to it lies with the fact that it is impossible to verify a book summary before said book is published. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Titanium (et al) - because we have no way to verify that you have an authentic copy of the book to create an authentic plot summary, nor can we verify that your summary is correct, then the summary cannot be allowed per the verifiability policy. Please feel free to compose and refine your plot summary offline, but it MUST NOT be posted until others (in principle) can verify your summary by checking the source - which is the book. This cannot happen before July 21st. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a farcical argument. This is simply censorship; YOU don't want the plot spoilered, but it is VERY verifiable. The book exists, has been published by Scholastic, and has been released early. There is absolutely nothing in WP:V that states that we cannot use a book which has not been released officially yet. Period. This is simply you not wanting the plot to be up in this article before the release date, despite the fact that the book IS out; people have already read it. Just because Scholastic doesn't want it to be out yet doesn't mean it isn't out. Your argument could easily be applied against anyone citing any book on the grounds that you haven't read it and thus don't believe them. You can verify what is in the plot summary. Titanium Dragon 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur, no plot summary until after July 21st. I know there are a lot of impatient people who just can't wait, but there is a date for a reason. Both for verifiability and on the principle of respecting the author's wishes it would be a huge mistake to put anything up prematurely. Brianopp 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The wishes of JK Rowling are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion. Wikipedia is not censored. Titanium Dragon 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As has already been stated countless times, sticking with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines regarding citations and verification is not the same as censorship. You can play semantics all you want, but the large number of copies which were distributed earlier than they should have been are not a verifiable source. Do I have access to them? No, I don't, I only have access to a handful of allegedly leaked copies on various bit torrent sites, and I have no reliable (and legal) way to confirm which one, if any, is genuine. Therefore, in line with Wikipedia's accepted guidelines, even genuine copies are not yet citeable. This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with integrity of articles and verifiable accuracy of information. Saying the phrase "you can verify it" does not magically change Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Denying reality doesn't alter that reality, no matter how much stoner philosophy you wish to impart to the contrary. - Ugliness Man 05:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If the Baltimore Sun or the NYT were to publicly state that their review copies were identical to the leak, then there would be a case for writing the plot summary. Unfortunately, even if you have a legit copy of the book in your hands today, you still cannot summarize it unless there is a way to verify this through reliable means. I wouldn't hold your breath. You are right in principle that there exists a method by which the plot can be written. However, the necessary pieces are not assembled, as of yet. I highly doubt that anything will happen in this regard prior to release. Girolamo Savonarola 04:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You said it. Becuase the verifiability point is being pushed so hard not because it's a wikipedia guideline, but because of a vehement desire by some people to not "let the spoilers win" by allowing them before the book's release. It's clear that emotion is ruling over sense here. Liu Bei 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who says they can't get an early copy of the book...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-BEFORE-RELEASE-Rec-7-20_W0QQitemZ200130440237QQihZ010QQcategoryZ377QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

There. Buy that and verify it. (Please note, the auction isn't mine and I don't expect anyone to buy it) ;) 71.171.184.179 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK so the auction closes and FedEd promises overnight delivery (in the US) at 10:30AM Friday - or 3PM at the latest - just a few hours before the official release? Yes that is clearly worth $500. But it still does not satisfy verifiability (for the winner of the auction) until it is delivered, nor for the rest of us until midnight Friday night. Much pain for no gain. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure he's kidding. Then again, we have quite a few potter obsessed wikimaniacs here....-Wafulz 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to run into the fan who pays $499 to get a book less than 12 hours in advance.-Wafulz 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, looks like this isn't the first auction.-Wafulz 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some stuff

this source seems to confrim that the photo book leak is at least, partly real. http://www.privet-drive.com/viewnews.php?id=430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhang999999 (talk • contribs)

It may very well be; that isn't the point. It simply can't be verified until the book is released. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Zhang, but I think everyone agrees (and has for some time now) that copies of the book have been improperly released. This is not the issue. What is forbidden, per Wikipedia Policy, is posting, for example, a plot summary or spoilers that the rest of us cannot validate until we can check in our own authentic copies on July 21. I could claim I have a copy right now, and make up my own plot summary, and nobody could tell if it was correct or incorrect; therefore it is unverifiable and forbidden. See WP:V for the verifiability policy. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguing as a devil's advocate, why doesn't this standard seem to be universally applied? Some information stated by J.K. Rowling is presented on the page as flat-out fact on the article page: "Viktor Krum is set for a reappearance" and "Arthur Weasley's flying car, which was last seen in the Hogwarts forest, will reappear" can be sourced only to Rowling herself but are stated as fact. She could make up any elements she liked and "nobody could tell if it was correct or incorrect." In fact, her information could already be described as unreliable, as when she reversed herself on whether "scar" was or was not the book's last word. The only consistent policy I see here is "no spoilers," which, admirable as it may be, is not a Wikipedia policy; I guess NY Times and Baltimore Sun are apparently unverifiable, non-reliable sources. This is one of the few news stories I've seen where Wikipedia has less information than most of the major news sites. 24.121.174.22 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling is universally considered a primary source. Even if she's lying, it would still be notable. Girolamo Savonarola 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

About Rowling - you are absolutely correct, except the standard is being applied universally. To quote the Verifiability Policy, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. This is the most basic and fundamental policy we have. Yes: Rowling could say The sky was lime-green; and right or wrong, truth or lie, we can quote that if it is a notable part of the Wikipedia article. It might be phrased something like: "According to Rowling, who was asked in a Rowling Stone interview why it was that Harry was staring upward in a daze on the cover of Book 9, "Well, the sky was lime-green, and he was thinking about having some pie..." [4] (fake ref. link there). It could well be that Rowling was making a joke or telling a lie - but the fact is it is on the record and verifiable to that extent - that it was said, not whether it was the truth. It is the fact that we can link to the reference (or quote a published work) that provides verifiability, which we must have. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 09:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're simply wrong T-dot; people CAN check it. There are at the very least 1200 copies of the book floating around in people's hands already, and probably a great deal more than that. YOU don't have to be able to check it; simply SOMEONE has to be able to check it. You probably can't read a lot of scientific papers or books either, either due to rarity or expense, but many of us can do so. If there were errors in the plot summary, the many people who already have the book or have access to it will be able to correct it. Titanium Dragon 04:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, T-dot's right. Go back into the archives and look at how many times it's been said: Even if there are copies out there, they can't be cited, because no one can be sure that those copies are legit. It's not such a big deal. We can have all the legitimacy we want on the 21st, so why push it so hard right now when you're fighting a losing battle? 24.110.59.83 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers part three million

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

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

Page count

The New York Times review, which is now sourced late in the article, puts the number of pages at 759. (See the NYT reference which reads, 759 pages. Arthur A. Levine Books/Scholastic. $34.99 on the sidebar of the book review). This corroborates with one of the leaks, which is a series of digital images that is known to be spreading through peer to peer and BitTorrent networks and shows the page count at 759. The Scholastic press release cited earlier (Reference 8) says the book is 784 pages, however, this may be the total page count including blank pages, about the author page, about the illustrator, table of contents, dedication, copyright, title page, etc. The numbered pages end at 759 according to the New York Times and the one leak. Which number ought to be used? Shouldn't it be 759? --Ademine 11:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Different versions (adult, child), different editions (US, UK). Isn't it really kind of useless unless you specify, or at least include all the figures? Liu Bei 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no page difference between adult/child editions, it's just the cover. - Biomech ( talk ) 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we "go with the best source(s) we can verify", provide a link to source, and correct it later if needed. Verifiability trumps "the truth". --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of leak

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

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

Solution to the Plot summary dilemma

Well, Friday is fast upon us. Someone should simply prepare a plot synopsis offline and post it immediately at the official release time. As a side note, it's not "illegal" to disclose information about the book before its release- book sellers were simply entered into binding contracts with Bloomsbury and Scholastic. A publisher can't make it illegal for anyone to disclose a summary of their copyrighted works- doing so violates the first amendment. So you need verifiability? Someone ought to link to a JPG of the last paragraph or so- and simply note that this is the plot of one of the texts purported to be book 7. It's fair use to quote a paragraph of a book- and it's verifiable (verifiably a purported leak). No, we can't go posting every page of the book here, but if it's fair use to quote a section, it's fair use to take a picture of that (and only that) section when quoting to verify that such text is indeed a part of a purported leak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymothy (talk • contribs)

Someone's already going to do the plot synopsis thing. We can't legitimately verify any plot summaries now- even if we add copy an image of the last page, there's no way to tell it's the real thing. It's been discussed to death.-Wafulz 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to know it's the real thing in order to say it's a claimed leak of Harry Potter. There's a big difference between "this is the plot synopsis of Harry Potter" and "this is the synopsis of a text found on the internet claiming to be Harry Potter." It's the difference between verifying that "there are pictures of aliens" and that "there have been pictures taken that are claimed to show aliens". The first requires a massive amount of evidence and scrutiny, the second requires only a picture of any man in a green rubber suit. A picture of a single quoted paragraph would be enough to verify that it is a document purported to be Harry Potter- not that it is Harry Potter, only that it's purported.

That's extremely pointless, and probably original research. We don't need a section stating "This is what the plot summary could be, but stay tuned to see if it's right!" If it's the true text, it will appear in the plot summary in two days. If it's fake text, then after the book is released we can mention it, assuming other sources point out the differences.-Wafulz 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To resolve the argument on the verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." WP:V It is uncontested that Deathly Hallows has been published. Moreover, that publication was done by Rowling and Scholastic, which are, of course, reliable sources. Since all of us are aware of the book's publication by this reliable source, a plot summary DOES NOT violate the verifiability policy as it is written. You might have a personal definition of "verifiable", however, since that word is explicitly defined in the policy, your personal definitions don't matter. Since a plot summary satisfies Wikipedia's verifiability policy, please stop deleting plot summaries and substituting your own ideas of what the Wikipedia policies mean. If you don't want spoilers, simply don't read this page.

I'm finally going to jump into this argument. Yes, its been published, but we don't know (or at least shouldn't know) anything about it. It's been published, but it has not been released, and as a result, it cannot be varified. Smartyshoe 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not require that it be released, it merely requires that it be published. Again, since the policy explicitly defines the word "verifiable", a plot summary would be in compliance with it.

'"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' The material that is guaranteed to be true and legitimate is not currently available to any reader.-Wafulz 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) It's not an issue of spoilers - this article will contain spoilers. The issue is that the book is not "published" in the sense of being made publicly available, and that is the standard we use to gauge when a source can be used on WP. It isn't an issue of legal grounds, either. We certainly can cite what other reliable sources say about the plot, although blogs are not considered reliable sources. If you can find a plot summary in a publication like the NY Times, I'd be glad to see it referenced here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that the book must be publicly available. The requirement is merely that it must be "published." WP:V. The book has been written, it has gone to the printers, its been bound, and its been sent to 1200 people. That constitutes "publication" under the very plain meaning of the word. Thus, since a plot summary complies with WP:V, pursuant to WP:CENSOR, you cannot delete it.

Unless you yourself have read the book, you cannot add the plot summary. If someone who received the book early can actually prove it is from the book, then yes, they can edit it. Until then, sorry. Smartyshoe 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"If someone who received the book early can actually prove it is from the book". The only way to "prove" that the edits are coming from the book would be to post pictures from the book. While plot summaries are not copyright violations, pictures and quotes from the books are. As such, your "proof" would violate WP:LEGAL (as well as general copyright law). However, through WP:FAITH and WP:CONS, Wikipedia's policies explicitly encourage putting up information in the hopes that incorrect information will eventually be removed through the consensus of multiple editors. Trying to set a "burden of proof" that can only be satisfied by breaking the law is nothing more than cloaked censorship in violation of WP:CENSOR.

Nothing is being censored by requiring that we first have widely distributed copies of the book before using it as a source, especially when the book will be released in under 48 hours. Until the book is released, it won't be acceptable as a source here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the requirement is something subjective that you made up, it is the very definition of censorship. The verifiability policy DOES NOT require wide accessibility. WP:V. Since a plot summary does not violate ANY of Wikipedia's policies (please read WP:V again if you keep claiming accessibility), keeping that plot away from Wikipedia constitutes censorship. Now, the way I see it, you can either point to a clause from the policy section that you believe this violates, or you yourself can stop violating WP:CENSOR. Either way, lets get a consensus.

(←) Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. The verifiability policy doesn't require wide accessibility, but it requires public accessibility. Suppose I want to verify the plot summary - how do you propose I do so? Unless the public is in principle able to verify a source, the source is not acceptable for us. Just wait two days and a plot summary will be here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the policy: "means that any reader should be able to check that material added". Good faith is great, but this is a widely read page and trolls would love edit warring by saying "I HAVE THE BOOK TOO THIS IS WRONG!" Consensus for no plot summary has been clear for a while. Just wait it out. The world can survive.-Wafulz 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stated this below and I'll state it again here - the book is out there (legally and illegally) and accessable to pretty much anyone who wants to spend enough cash and (perhaps) the drive time to pick it up. Just because *you* don't want to spend $500 for a copy from Craig's list, then drive three hours to pick it up doesn't mean that the book isn't accessable.

As for trolls, what's to stop them from coming in every day *after* the book is released and stating "I have the book too, this is different in mine!"? Are we going to start keeping infomation out of Wikipedia just so we don't have to deal with trolls? 71.171.184.179 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The day after it is released, hundreds of editors who own the book will be writing and correcting errors on this page. Until then, yes, we will prevent possibly false plot summaries being added when there is no realistic way to verify them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone with an account send this thing to arbitration? As 179 correctly pointed out, the book is accessible to the public and there is no reason to keep it out of Wikipedia. Just reading this thread, most of the people who want to suppress the plot repeatedly write that "it will be out soon". Again, unless someone points me to a policy saying that things coming out soon are judged under a different standard, I believe this suppression violates WP:CENSOR.

Note - posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion as a step in dispute resolution. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Really, this should not be at 3O because you appear to have more than two parties (excluding later respondents such as Carl), but since this a simple issue, I will respond by pointing you to the discussion that T-dot initiated with a question at WT:V and the responses to it. These editors have quite correctly pointed out that leaked material from an as yet unpublished book (or other printed source) cannot meet the requirements for verification and accessibility. I have to agree 100% with their interpretation of this policy. The desire to include material based on what may be an ostensibly reliable source is understandable, but there is currently no way to verify whether leaked material is actually accurate. It may not be. If you fail to reach agreement, consider asking for informal mediation. Adrian M. H. 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this then...We make a new article called "Leaked Harry Potter pages" (there's probably a better way to word the title) and link it to this article. We talk about the leaked page images and summarize the leaked page images (I know there are multiple sets of images, but only one set has the pics with the hand and the carpet in the background). The "leaked" pages obviously hold a sufficient public interest and their contents are easily verifiable. Since the topic of the article would be the page images and not deathly hallows, this gets rid of the necessity for the book itself.

I wouldn't support this. Firstly, I don't think that the leaks are notable enough for their own article; secondly, I don't think there's enough information to justify it. What were you thinking would be included in the article? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how such an article would evolve, but it is certainly notable, considering the media publicity of the many leaks. It's acually a lot more notable than many wiki articles. Joshdboz 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just something along the lines of "someone claiming to own a book took photographs and the photographs revealed the following information." Since this event was featured as a major story in multiple prominent newspapers, I don't see how its not notable.

Discussion of the leaks themselves can be included in this article and probably does not warrant a separate stand-alone article. You raise an interesting angle on this debate, though. If the leaked pages and plot summary are not claimed by Wikipedia to actually be the text of the published work, it is reasonably verifiable that there are files available for download from the Internet that are purported to be the text of Harry Potter 7. So... if there are caveats placed around plot summaries and plot details, do the "leaked versions" then become verifiable, not as precise copies of HP7 but as purported copies of HP7? After all, we could always use {{cite web}} to prove that there is a real downloadable file that has what are claimed to be copies of page x to page y (or the entire book). The key phrase in this approach is use of the phrase "what are claimed to be copies of ..."

--Richard 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oh yes, it's notable enough, without question. But, it would still be subject to the letter and spirit of WP:V and that, at this time, would prevent the leaked material from being referenced directly. It would have to be handled with care and, just like other material, the secondary sources come first, so you might be able to write about the leak as it was reported be only referencing those reports. With this sort of material, how you phrase the statements becomes extra important (sort of related tangentially to parts of NPOV). There is a need for a cool detachment in reporting the leak and the material that was leaked should only be described in the context of the leak. ie. "the source of the leak claimed that...." (Post EC) And as Richard wrote, it would be best treated here. Adrian M. H. 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Covers

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

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

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

Why does the article mention "GameFAQs message boards?"

The original site was LUElinks, and it's been already proven several times [5] [6] [7]. And LUElinks isn't a message board on GameFAQs: someone might have confused it with the board LUE on the exact site. I don't want to start an edit war over this, though, so I'll just ask if it's fine to change it here first. -Smobey 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, I posted it on GameFAQs, but I doubt that was what the article means.

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. And yes, I know that LUELinks leaked it (I'm a member myself), but the source says GameFAQs. Will ^(talk) 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Well, Ive been reading the discussion for quite a while now and been holding off on expressing my opinion until I was sure that it all made sense. So, heres the finished version of it:

First, I'd like to say that I'd love nothing more than for there to be NO plot summary on this page because I wish to adhear to Rowlings wishes, however Wikipedia is not cencored and thus doesnt obey the wishes of others.

The main issue here seems to be the "verifiable information" hang up. Its been announced that a possible 1200 books made it out. That means that it is definately possible for someone to write a plot summary and for other editors to come in behind them (who have access to the book as well) and revise the summary. At this point we should be treating the book as no different than a sold-out limited-edition book. Just because EVERY editor cant get their hands on this book doesnt mean there arent editors out there who can and are able to add to this article. Many are wary to allow such editors to post this information for fear that the aforementioned information isnt verifiable. What ever happened to assuming good faith? No body complains about the 0-60 time of a Ferrari Enzo because they cant get their hands on one to verify it, whats the difference? The book itself serves as source enough. There are plenty of other books out there with plot summarys written for them that cite the book and nothing else. We, as editors, need to understand that just because WE cant guide this article to bigger and better places, others can't. I think now is the time to step back, allow those who can write accurate plot summaries to do so and ensure that the vandalism stays to a minimum. But, adding a plot summary itself is NOT vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk • contribs)

A quick thought experiment: Let's say one editor claims to have the book and writes a summary. Another editor claims to have the book as well and write a different summary. People takes sides- who do we believe? With whom do we assume good faith? A plot summary doesn't serve much of a purpose now anyway - the world can wait 36 hours for a plot summary. This has been discussed to death already.-Wafulz 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Just wanted to point out that my comment below repeats a lot of what you said, but I was typing it while you were typing that, and I didn't want to take the time to re-word it because if I did I would probably end up with another edit conflict) - Ugliness Man 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true. I took the time to add "I agree with Wafulz and wound up in an edit conflict with Uglinessman. ;^) --Richard 17:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument falls flat almost instantly, because what you're actually saying is that you think that Wikipedia's guidelines are too restrictive. You may think there's more to it than that, but that's pretty much a summary. Simply put, I work in a book store, I could claim that I managed to sneak a copy home (I think we probably got our shipment today, I'll find out in about an hour), and write up a plot summary. You would simply have to take my word for it. The problem is not only that less than 0.0001% of Wikipedians can verify anything offered before the actual release, but also that there's no way for us to verify if the person doing the editing actually has the copy they're claiming to. Considering how some of the people in this discussion have been insisting that the copy they downloaded absolutely must be the real deal (with no proof), it's quite possible that someone with one of these copies, real or not, could take it upon themselves to "improve" the article with a plot summary, since they feel that their version of the truth is more important than established guidelines. Ignoring for a moment that I already explicity said the above situation was hypothetical, can you prove that I don't have a copy? If I claim to be one of the early recipiants and I claim that Hedwig was actually Victor Krum in disguise (the same way Scabbers was actually Pettigrew), you would be completely justified in removing this as unverifiable. No, now is not the time to "step back" and let chaos reign over reality. We have no way to verify who belongs in your tidy little category of "those who can write accurate plot summaries". Besides, we're now only two days away from the release, exactly why is it important to allow unverifiable (by Wikipedia's standards) information? This debate will continue and continue and continue until the book is released. A handful of malcontents who want to see information added 2 days early is not exactly justification for ignoring or changing established Wikipedia guidelines. - Ugliness Man 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wafulz. Here's what I wrote before I ran into an edit conflict with him.

Right on the "Wikipedia is not censored" point. Good argument on the 1200 books. It made me think and almost convinced me. Verifiability is a really difficult question. First, a minor point regarding the 0-60 time of a Ferrari Enzo. You don't have to get your hands on one to verify the time. You simply have to be able to get your hands on a published source which has reported the 0-60 time.

Next, regarding the 1200 leaked copies. The "acid test" of verifiability is that it should be effectively possible for anyone to get a copy of the cited source and verify or disprove an assertion made in an Wikipedia article. I don't think that a "limited edition" book which is limited in the sense of being substantially less than a few hundred thousand copies meets the test of verifiability. Might be a reliable source but it doesn't meet the full test of verifiability. To be verifiable, there must be a definite procedure by which anybody can get a copy of the book. It might take a while to ask for it through a library or you might even have to travel to a library but the access to the book should be open to the general public. That means citing a secret document in the CIA archives doesn't count.

--Richard 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - we can only cite such sources indirectly based on what other reliable sources say about them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following lithmus test: we get a reliable source (presumably from one of the magazines that have reviewed the book) which mentions that the published scans are indeed correct. After that, anyone can read the scans and have a reliable source to assure their credibility. NY Times has reviewed the book AND published an article discussing whether the scans are authentic. I can understand that they do so, but the matter is hardly unverifiable. Info about the book is de facto available all across the world, and the ethical matter is what remains.Sponsianus 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there is such a reliable source, and even if there were, how do we know the scans they are looking at are the same as the scans we are looking at? There were apparently several contradictory scans circulating. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal on the status of the book. It's been published and it is out. Just because every single editor here on Wikipedia cannot get a copy of it, does that mean we shouldn't allow infomation to go in the article based on it? If so, I suggest we start deleting the majority of the article on Nintendo's [Wii], since they're still virtually sold out and any editor cannot just go grab one off the shelf to verify what's in the article. Price of crazy eBay auctions too much? Well, $499 is too much for a PS3, so, perhaps we should delete PS3 infomation from that article.

The book is out there. It can be gotten (legally and illegally) by someone who wants to to put enough effort and spend enough cash to do so. 71.171.184.179 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

why the rush? Verifiability is clearly questionable so why not wait till it's not questionable (since NOT everyone can go out and get the book no matter how much money and time one has). this seems to be a rather silly debate since it becomes moot in a day or so.harlock_jds 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same thing. The Wii and the PS3 have been released to the public and even if you can't buy one directly, odds are you know someone who has a copy. Thousands of editors can verify anything on those two articles. Only a few people who either recieved the book in advance by accident or illegally obtained it can verify anything on Deathly Hallows. There's no reliable way to check it. Legendary 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a Wii to read about the specifications written in gaming magazines.-Wafulz 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So then, how many copies need to be out before it's "verifiable"? 1,000? 2,000? 1,000,000? Who gets to decide what the magic number is? As for the "everyone can't check it", go look on Craig's list - there are a few copies up there. Sure, it might cost a bit more (plus gas for local pick up), but any editor on here who's willing to invest the time and money could do this. 71.171.184.179 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero copies need to be out for it to be verifiable. The point is that we should be able to go and guarantee ourselves that we can get authentic material. Wikipedia is not a breaking news website. This is not that big of a deal.-Wafulz 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If Zero Copies of the book are out, then how can anyone guarantee that it's authentic? 71.171.184.179 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By "out" I meant "sold". The second sentence is key.-Wafulz 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, again, Go look on Craig's list, fill up your gas tank and take a road trip. You can get the book and get all the guarantees you want that the material to be added is authentic. 71.171.184.179 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Im the initial commentor. I think the best point I've seen made so far is simply "Why the rush." Its true, just because we MAY be able to do something it doesnt mean we HAVE to. And with all the controversy surrounding this topic is may just be best to error on the side of caution and just wait it out. Thanks for the stimulating argument all!

Note - posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion as a step in dispute resolution. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See Third opinion for a response. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please, can anyone add to the interwiki: gl:Harry Potter e as reliquias mortais? Thanks. --83.36.196.130 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.-Wafulz 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just two days!

Yeah, we know it's just two days. And it's not that big of a deal. So why does everyone who thinks two days doesn't make that big of a difference keep saying "it's just two days"? If two days doesn't make a difference to you in having a Plot Summary added to the article, then I suggest you stop worrying about it being added two days eariler. If you feel that a Plot Summary should not be added to this article due to Wiki policy, then please, state that. The amount of time until the product is released doesn't really have any influence in this situation. Thanks. 71.171.184.179 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. You are comparing 48 hours till a release date and the insertion of a spoiler-ridden plot summary. I could simply use the same logic back at you and assert that if 2 days doesn't make a difference, then why bother putting in a plot summary early? GoatSmoke 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Per GoatSmoke. 71.171.xxx.xxx are missing the whole point here. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to get out the plot summary before any other website. Frankly if any Wikipedian manages to put a plot summary up before Saturday tea-time I will be disapointed - enjoy reading the book first. The encyclopedia can wait! Pedro |  Chat  20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously any further discussion about plot summaries/spoilers is moot, regardless of their validity, because the admins will not allow anything further along those lines to reach the article. My question is, what if someone posts a plot summary the minute after the Britain release time? Would that be immediately deleted anyway or could it now claim verifiablity? 24.121.174.22 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not true - Joshdboz has just added a well-sourced description of the Baltimore Sun's review that includes some plot details. I see no reason why it needs to be removed. And yes, a plot summary can be included the very second the book is released to the public, and I expect it will receive heavy editing for some period of time after that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A plot summary will be verifiable at 23:01 UTC, 20 July (i.e. 0:01am Saturday, British time). Will ^(talk) 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just deeply wish that the wonderful editors who were lucky enough to receive an early copy, and who are so eager to post a plot summary right now, would instead go back and commit the next 24+ hours to very thoroughly read and re-read the books they have. They would then have an outstanding, reputable, and authoritative understanding of the overall plot elements and the flow, and can thus compose a flawless, accurate and wiki-acceptable summary, using a good word processor with spelling and grammar checker; and then perform an orderly transformation of the article just as Big Ben strikes midnight (or whatever). That would be far preferable to the random sporadic edits that the rest of us would have to attempt as we speed-read and skim through chapters looking for the highlights, and missing all the sweet subtleties. This is exactly what i would be doing right now if I had a copy - studying it so deeply that I know as much or more about it than Rowling. I very much envy you folks who got your copy already. Best wishes. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2 books sold in Finland

In case someone finds this interesting... It was on the news today that two copies of HP and Deathly Hallows have mistakenly been sold also in Finland (and for price less than 20 euros, while those who had pre-ordered it will have to pay about 30 euros). Do you know has this kind of mistake happened anywhere else besides US and Finland? Here is a link to news by Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE: [8] I haven't found that in English yet but I will look for it. Is this big enough news to mention in the article? :) Music-melody 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonably important. After the dust settles, we should have a section dedicated to leaks and early deliveries.-Wafulz 21:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RAB

(Also posed same q there) What happens o the RAB article one HP7 comes out? Simply south 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)