Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 19

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

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

text: (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)

text: I agree with Carl on this one. Miles Blues 14:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Plot section developed in template? 

message: 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) 
 
: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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic tone 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harry Potter and the Battle of ASDA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  JK Rowling Responds to Spoilers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Place To Discuss The Leak! 

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Deathly Hallows" arrived in Maryland 4 days early!!! 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To admins monitoring this article 

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

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

message: I included a mention of the review of HP7 published today by the Baltimore Sun , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You may confirm that I've nothing to do with the Baltimore Sun, or any newspaper.  :)  --EngineerScotty 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Not a problem--I fully support WP:COI. --EngineerScotty 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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: , 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Baltimore Sun review 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Israel/Sabbath issue 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You can use the  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)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoilers part three million 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confirmation of leak 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is no difference.-Wafulz 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The children's book has always had more pages, as it has a bigger typesize. Neil ╦ 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: The original site was LUElinks, and it's been already proven several times   . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why does the article mention "GameFAQs message boards?" 

message: Toby jones is returining as Dobby http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/1/9/toby-jones-to-provide-voice-of-dobby-the-house-elf-again-for-deathly-hallows  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.67.93 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  fyi