Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 20

message: 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)
replies: text: The sources disagree. All will be clear when the book is released, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do agree that the leak in question is quite authentic, I also have to agree with Carl: all will be clear in just 24 hours or so. No need to argue over this right now, we'll have plenty of time to squabble over every little detail in the article AFTER the book is out. RiftDoggy 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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..."  (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There is no page difference between adult/child editions, it's just the cover. - Biomech ( talk ) 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: From what I've heard, the 759 is the normal US version, while 784 is the deluxe edition which has some pages of artwork and...stuff.Crazybizi 00:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page count 

message: 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:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2 books sold in Finland 

message: (Also posed same q there) What happens o the RAB article one HP7 comes out? Simply south 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets re-written as well.  Some of the existing material regarding it being a significant mystery in the series for 2 years would still be notable.  Most of the speculation and rationalization on why it might have been this or that character would probably be considered moot, and would tend to whither away in time.  It would probably be good to keep it as a  separate article, rather than merging - just as Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort are separate. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAB 

message: Any hints should be classed as possible spoilers with a appropriate warnings
: why? people should expectto see spoilers here (since they are reading about the book). Spoiler tags are redundent.harlock_jds 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point we will put  at the top, which is an explicit warning. Right now we have the prerelease tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hints 

message: Am I out of line for suggesting that all these arguments are moot, since once Saturday arrives, this version of the article will pretty much be buried under thousands upon thousands of edits, well-intended or not?  I mean, why bother writing a plot summary now when it will undoubtedly have been replaced a few hundred times by Sunday?
Besides which, if anyone posted a summary now, it would instantly be reverted, and the poster would just have to deal with another hundred-paragraph essay on the various factors that determine verifiability.  I know I sound like an ignorant farm boy, but why can't you all just wait for the book to come out?  Then, everything will be clear.  Peace, and happy reading.  RiftDoggy 00:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm... 

message: A plot summery is fine after the book is officially released (12:01 a.m. Saturday morning).
: by 12:01 am, saturday i assume you mean UCT/GMT, correct? I believe that is the time it comes out in most english speaking countries (actually, strangely enough, that is when I am getting my copy, but I am getting it from a store in Portugal, which, obviously, is not an english speaking country, but i digress). I only make note cause i believe the USA copies are actually coming out several hours after that. User:Epocalypse 02:50 UCT, July 20th, 2007. (getting near zero hour ^_^ )
::Yes, this is correct. The book is being released in the UK at 00:00GMT July 21. For timezones before that, the book is embargoed until the UK release time. For timezones after (the Americas), the book is released at 00:00 local time. For the USA, I have no idea whether they'll all get it at the same time, or if some other arrangement is in place across the multiple zones. Daggoth | Talk 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it's safe to say... 

message: Please place a spoiler warning over this section or get rid of it entirely as there are many key plot points revealed in this section (namely concerning the end of the book).  GoatSmoke 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: any reasionable person can tell that a section called "Hints from Reviews" will contain spoilers without a tag. heck any reasionable person can expect to find spoilers anywhere on this page so if they were worried about them they should avoid the article.harlock_jds 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since it's inside a section called "What is known about the plot"... — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundancy should not be an issue.  Actually being helpful instead of spoiling the book should be what this article is for.  And as a frequent user of Wikipedia, I think that a section with spoilers should be marked with the appropriate warning, regardless of its title. GoatSmoke 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  spoiler tagging overall is silly in wikipedia... if you are looking for infomation about something it can be assumed that you will find 'spoilers'harlock_jds 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is for providing confirmed and relevant information about the book. Spoiler tagging has been in disuse as a policy for sometime now. Girolamo Savonarola 02:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, however, retitled the review information section - "hints" seems a poor choice of words when the section includes brief mention of some of the ending elements. Girolamo Savonarola 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. GoatSmoke 03:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hints from Reviews section 

message: The plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows wrongly refers to the Resurrection Stone as the second Horcrux, rather than the second Hallow. Could someone edit this? Thanks.
Alycia Smith Cerrsmom (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're forgetting that it is both the second Horcrux and Hallow. chandler · 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Resurrection Stone