Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Change the "Patronus" link?

Should the Patronus link be changed to the "Patronus Charm" article? It is, after all, a reference to the charm and not an ancient Roman social term. DallasEpperson 05:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! Done. Thanks for the heads-up. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between versions

Why is the American version longer, is it because its a larger print? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.45.237 (talk • contribs)

There is generally less text edited out in the American version of the books. Also, the US version has illustrations, whereas the UK one does not. Brisvegas 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes - the US "childrens" edition (as it were), which features chapter artwork and other illustrations by Mary GrandPré, uses a larger font size, thus there are significantly fewer words per page and more pages. The US edition of Half-Blood Prince also contains some additional text - for example during the dialog between Malfoy and Dumbledore in the Astronomy Tower, but these kinds of editing changes do not fill several pages, much less dozens or a hundred. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The UK editions have font sizes that differ from volume to volume. In Half-Blood Prince a significantly larger font was used than in Order of the Phoenix. The font size between volumes of the US editions were less markedly so the page count is more directly related to the length of the story in the US editions, although the illustrations are an additional source of bias in this comparison. If the UK edition uses the same small font for DH as used in OoTP this may very well lead to seemingly discrepant page counts between the US and UK editions. AberforthD 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

High probability of genuine SPOILER leak

I apologize in advance for this; this isn't really an appropriate comment to leave for improving the DH article. This is more of an FYI for our experienced editors.

It appears that the book has been leaked. So far, nothing terribly significant, but a scanned TOC and chapter image (GrandPre's artwork and matching chapter to the TOC) has turned up online.

If any of you were thinking about taking a wikibreak, now would be a VERY good time to do it! Daggoth | Talk 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Dagg. However we have been dealing with all sorts of alleged "leaks" for a couple of months now. There is nothing new to announce here. Since any alleged "leaked spoilers" are totally unverifiable, there is nothing open for discussion, and nothing is presumed to be valid or encyclopedic unless it is openly validated by the media (BBC, CNN, The Times, etc.); or at least until 21 July when "everyone" has a copy of the book. At that time the spoilers that get posted can be either verified or refuted. There is nothing in the news at present about an "authentic" leak - just a lot of rumours (see this example). In the meanwhile, there is no point in trying to "warn away" the experienced editors to go on their wikibreak - it would be like telling the vandals and trolls out there that the Sherriff and all the deputies have all left town, and thus it is open season for the outlaws. Not the best approach for us. But thanks again - we know your intentions were honourable. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the thing is, I've seen the scans and they actually look like a good try at least, in all the other "leaks" the typeface, spacing, grammar and use of punctuation have been wrong, but this one looks good with the same syntax as the previous books. Also all other websites that "leaked" haven't been shut down, but the LJ that the scans were originally posted on was shut down within minutes. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Maurauth and I certainly admire your enthusiasm for the HP phenomenon and the fan base - but please remember that this is not a forum for discussing the possible quality, validity, or authenticity of allegedly scanned images that you found or heard about, that was posted somewhere online, and whether the site was "taken down" within minutes (etc.); nor is this a place for planting alleged spoilers supposedly taken from such dubious sources. We are here to discuss the content of the Deathly Hallows article, and making improvements in it. Thanks for your contributions, but please resist the urge to get off-topic by posting your "fantastic discoveries" here. I am sure there are plenty of HP fan pages and gossip sites and blog pages that would love to discuss the materials you found. Just not here - this is not the place for it. Now - if you do happen find an authentic news report from a reliable source, such as the BBC, CNN, The Times, etc., that reveals information about a true leak of HP7 materials, then we might be able to discuss adding such information in a neutral encyclopedic manner. Otherwise it is not allowed. Sorry to disappoint. Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it preety integral to the article to talk about how much work people went to, to either get a hold of a leak of the book or to make fake "spoilers" of it? Surely that's an important part of the whole hype that went into the release of this book, probably the most hyped book so far in history? 86.6.17.37 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I think it would be proper and encyclopedic and in accordance with Wiki policy to point out the fact that that there have been several reports of leaks, and alleged scans of pages, but none of them have proven to have any apparent authenticity - all appear to be fakes. If we could find a high quality reliable news source or two that gives a comprehensive overview of the alleged leaks and scans and spoilers, then we could conceivably make mention of that as part of documenting the pre-release phenomenon and hysteria. We must avoid hiding verifiable facts on the subject, but we also must not get ourselves caught in a trap of posting the latest sensational fake leak that someone found and posted somewhere. The people who make these fakes are trying to get online publicity, credit, notoriety, and web site traffic (ads!). We are not required to feed these trolls, in fact we are doing a great disservice if all we are doing is helping to spread gossip, rumours, and fraud. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I found this article which, at the end, talk about Rowling's upcoming ITV special as well as give the title of the first chapter and a small passage from the chapter. The title matches that of the leak scan. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2126717,00.html 24.90.191.123 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I managed to get a hold of the supposed leaked pictures, and I have 495 pages of it, seems pretty real to me, each page seems to be different and has real writting on it. Can't be 100% sure, but that would be a lot of work for someone to write 495 pages of their own material and put it together as a convincing looking book and take pictures of it. Follow up on that, chapter name and passage from the above source matches, and after reading over a chapter the writting style seems to match the other books. 74.97.157.108 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's a fake, it's a hell of a fake. In fact, I'd like to see this "fake" published along side the real book. The Frederick 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
So TDOT time to add it to the article then, as it's been reported on many news websites? 86.6.17.37 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

protect the page thru 21st evening

I think the page is as stable as it can get. From now on and up untill 22nd morning, there is going to be a lot of rumours and leaks that people would like to update the wikipage with. I suggest that the page be locked from any edits (outside administrators) till midnight 22nd. I have seen this example on a couple of high profile movies that were released recently but can't recollect the names of the movie. --Kalyan 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive protection is generally not done. So, it probably wont be done till it actually starts attracting unusual editors. Anyways, if it actually starts happenning WP:RFPP is just down the corridor.
Btw, why should it be kept protected till 22nd? Some sort of anti-spoiler policy? --soum talk 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art

Hi all. Can someone please replace the book jacket image with the real book jacket image. What's up there now is fan-art at best, a sarcastic caricature at worst. EjayHire 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean - the cover art shown at present is authentic and can ve verified at the respective book pubisher web sites. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's mocking the shitty book cover for the British version and request we use the American ones. 67.171.5.200

The brit cover may be bloody awful, but you have to admit that it is quite a bit of a spoiler. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. HP cover art has always contained plot elements, but you still have to read the book thoroughly to pick up on what exactly is going on in the artwork. For example, in the US edition of HBP there was no way of knowing that the cover image represents the scene where Dumbledore and Harry are working to retrieve a Horcrux from a potion-filled basin, before reading the book. You don't find out about any of that until very late in the book. Before it was released, some people swore up and down, speculating that it was a Pensieve scene (the pensieve had already appeared in the previous books). So, anyway people can speculate all they want about what is going on in the US and UK (children's) cover art. Doesn't mean a thing here. You can be confident that J K Rowling would not have approved of cover art that spoiled the plot too much. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The covers for the UK versions may be shitty, but the UK version is ultimate canon (as some translation changes are made when transatlanticising it), thus the UK version should be used. Will (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any plot leaks?

Some people are going nuts with alleged Deathly Hallow spoilers on message boards. Has there been any significant plot details leaked? Because I'd be very disappointed if what I read was accurate. - Throw 08:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard so many conflicting rumors I don't know what to believe.--71.113.231.189 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It has leaked. fully. Koala72 04:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The Frederick 09:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There are now 9 major spoilers spreading around the internet. Get ready for the vandals. I, on the other hand, am saving them for the release parties. Mwahahahaha. 24.214.45.60 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What's this DH cover?

I saw in a Finnish newspaper a picture of DH cover that I thought was UK adult cover, until I came here and saw what it actually looks like (locket). The one that I saw in the newspaper shows a photo of Harry's face. I scanned the image, here is a link to it (POSSIBLE spoiler?): [1] (Being a scan from a newspaper, the image quality is not best possible.) Does anyone know if that is real? (I'm new here, this might have been discussed here already though I don't know about it and the image really was in a newspaper, so please don't shoot me.) Music-melody 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper looks like it might be a mock-up of the cover using the same style. The offically released "adult" version cover that I've seen is the one with the locket.--Dave. 10:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree its probably a mockup. I have a hard time believing its official, as the person looks more like Dan Radcliffe than the portrayals of Harry in the other covers. --soum talk 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That cover's been floating around since before the official cover art was released. Its a fake. 75.53.113.68 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

News.com.au Spoiler

News.com.au (a part of Murdoch's Newscorp), reported the plot of the final Harry Potter movie here. Here is the original blogspot post of the spoiler. Does anyone know if there is any merit to it? Is there any need to include it in the article? The only reason I'm mentioning it is because it was on a reputable news site dr.alf 10:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) Neither link works; (2) No spoilers, since they can't be verified by the only sources that count (publisher/author/acyual book itself); (3) the final Harry Potter movie is a couple of years off yet - presumably you're talking about the book... --Dave. 10:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
From the news.com article, "OUR gossip blogging pal over in the US, Autumn, has seemingly got her mitts on how the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows ends". Do you need anything else to doubt its credibility? --soum talk 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The links work, but it's old stuff, and as Soumyasch points out, news.com.au is just the messenger here. (And just the week before that, they were discussing and encouraging people to participate in the lolcats craze on their front page. Reputable they are not.) Daggoth | Talk 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's as reputable as anything that comes out of Newscorp ;-) dr.alf 04:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed your links. As the others have said, these definitely look fake. focoma 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The giant squid?

On J.K.Rowling's website there is a bit of info on her diary that the giant squid is actually the world's largest animagous and will turn into Godrick Gryffindor at the eleventh hour. is this some kind of joke? Because i think that it's not and that it should be posted on the page because it's technically a plot spoiler that was posted by an official source. 68.117.82.5 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry...she was just being a smartass.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That's generally what we call scepticism. She made the comment simply to combat all the theories she was receiving. Gammondog 10:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Idea to split the speculation/"What is known..." section

I think it would be a good idea to preserve all the speculation and info leading up to the book's release into a separate article. Good idea or not? Thanks. Conman33 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, after the book has been released, and all the initial furore has died down, I don't think many people will care about what speculation there was about the book's plot. After all, imagine there was a separate article for speculation on the HP and the Philosopher's Stone; it would hardly be relevant, seeing as we all now know the real plot of that book. It does not matter now if there were rumours that Hogwarts, for example, was in fact a giant spaceship conning people into believing they could actually do magic...we know now it was nothing of the sort. Agree? Gammondog 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. What might be perhaps interesting and encyclopedic as a "keeper" would be a comparison of some of the leading fan theories and the "unresolved plot elements" and "hints from Rowling" currently being kicked around, with what turns out to be true in the book. I personally think it is highly amusing when we have these crazy fanatics earnestly insisting that they have "inside information" or a "scanned copy" they found somewhere, and that claim to know what happens and how it all ends, and then it turns out they didn't know squat. This becomes strong justification for firmly heading off all such nonsense in the weeks leading up to the release, as we are attempting to do now. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I guess you're right. I just thought it would be a good idea to preserve all the hype and anticipation that the world is going crazy over. It's definitely going to be one of, if not, the most anticipated book in quite a long time. I just thought the hype in itself is somewhat historic. Thanks for listening though. Conman33 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan fiction and "leaked" drafts

There are two extensive works of fan fiction that have been circulating on the web recently, frequently mistaken as leaked drafts of Deathly Hallows. I added a small section about this, hopefully to alert anyone who has DLed or been emailed a supposedly leaked draft. And also, I suppose, to alert fans to their presence. I just read The Seventh Horcrux, and the plot ideas in it are suprisingly good, although the writing doesn't live up to JK standards in several spots. Mark.Howison 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is even worth mentioning, let along giving any credence to. Elfich 05:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elfich, could you please back up your above opinion with some form of argument? Why is fan fiction not worth mentioning here? My arguments for including links to these two works of fan fiction are their length (659 and 280 pgs respectively), their quality of content, and their authors' intent to create an alternative canon for Deathly Hallows, therefore making them relevant to this article. Have you read either work? Mark.Howison 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I would lean towards allowing the article to mention that at least some of the so-called "leaks" scanned or photographs from "stolen copies" turned out to be pure fan fiction. That is far better than letting people wonder about the authenticity of the things, continuing the legend, and allowing false gossip and speculation to continue to spread. The legendary scans posted by "Gabriel" were indisputably proven to be poorly written fakes [2]. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The actual book leaked onto the pirate bay yesterday, but I'm not sure if that should be mentioned on the main page. Yankeefan1087 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)yankeefan1087

If it hasn't been reported by a reliable and verifiable source, then it should not be mentioned. MelicansMatkin 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

...And it begins...

Wonderful... Anyone think the page should be locked or something? Mendinso 06:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The book has been leaked. Repeat, THE ENTIRE BOOK HAS BEEN LEAKED! THIS IS NOT A DRILL! MAN BATTLESTATIONS!!! Seriously, let's wait until our friends turn up and start editing, then request protection. And even then, I question whether we can revert them. We can say "oh but it's not really out" ... but it is. Daggoth | Talk 06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, when and where was the book leaked exactly? 75.153.231.20 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as of this moment there are absolutely no, repeat, NO reputable news reports that any copies of the book have been stolen and leaked to the web or elsewhere. Search Google or Yahoo News (not a general search, a search of the NEWS) - and all you will find is authentic news reports of poorly written faked spoilers full of spelling and grammar errors, armed guards and strict security provisions at warehouses such as Amazon.com (example: USAToday and The Times) . The alleged scans and such that have been reported for the last week or two have proven to be pathetic fan fiction fakes posing as the real thing. If you have any documented, reliable proof of your claims that the book has been stolen and leaked, then provide a link to a NEWS source. A link to your favorite blog page or some fanatic's web site is not notable. If there was a real leak, then it would be on CNN, BBC, The Times, AP, etc., and it will be headline news. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The latest rumor is true. More than half of the book has been scanned (page-by-page - do you realize how much time it would have taken to hoax that?) and released. No, I don't have any reliable sources for this (but I have no intention of claiming it's noteworthy enough to go in the article). But I think the HP spoilers will be out in full force within 2 or 3 days. Might I suggest that this would be a perfect exception to the "no protection for preemptive vandalism prevention"? ugen64 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above. While I see your logic - that there has not been any documented leak and this cannot be used or referenced as proof in the article - the latest one to hit the net is absolutely, completely and utterly legitimate. I believe it has been active for about 8 hours now, and quite frankly, I am astonished that the news outlets have not picked up on this yet. If the copy that is circulating right now, which is 400 or so JPG files and was made by someone turning and photographing each page individually, *does* turn out to be a hoax ... well, IMO, it'll be the single most epic hoax that's ever existed in the entire history of the internet. <spoiler snipped> Daggoth | Talk 12:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I took out the spoiler, despite the fact that it revealed absolutely nothing important - just because it might cause more trouble than it's worth. ugen64 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
True, true, no probs. Daggoth | Talk 12:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I can also confirm this. The leak is not just a scan of text, it's actual photos of the pages of the book. Betterlucknexttime 12:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
We really need to lock everything down before the page is flooded with people telling us that [Possible Spoilers Here]. If we don't, more spoilers might also be released--71.113.231.189 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that someone has indeed leaked the whole thing. Can we please lock the front page? Full scans are available on Rapidshare (hopefully deleted soon).

Me thinks you just don't understand how the net works. Information wants to be free, it's as much natural law as E=mc^2. If it was that easy to remove things as you hpe, MPAA and RIAA wouldn't be so scared of copyrighted works swapping. If there is no other way because of massive takedowns, someone will write a worm to spread it and shout it out against the people's will. They will hijack comsats to broadcast it, hack teletext systems to spread it over TV, in addition to net.
Methinks you have a very odd view of people's abilities. Hijack TV to broadcast it? You watch too much TV. Come back to earth, man. Gscshoyru 15:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Me thinks you just don't understand that all we want to do is prevent people from posting spoilers on high-visibility pages for the next 5 days. If people manage to broadcast HP spoilers on satellite - well not much we can do about that. But since we can actually prevent people from posting spoilers on Wikipedia, at least at the obvious places (i.e. Harry Potter), I think we should... absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA, both of whom I disrespect as much as the next person :-). ugen64 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify - it is not our duty to block the posting of spoilers for the next 5 days. It is our duty to block the posting of unverifiable, unsourced, unreferenced, and unreliable information and material that has not been authenticated by an independant news outlet, such as the BBC or CNN or The Times. If it turns out that a copy was stolen, and pages were photographed, scanned, or otherwise published, and the reputable news agencies are able to verify that and they publish their findings, then we can add that information and work out a suitable consensus presentation. The Wikipedia is NOT censored. Our policy is for verifiability from reliable sources using a neutral point of view and presenting No Original Research (by us). --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The chinese Falun-gungho cult rather regularly takes over mainalnd chinese sat-TV, when the authorized uplink signal strenght drops and then they push their own worship-propaganda clips, usually takes 10 to 15 minutes to get back the link control for the red commies and arrest the perpetrator. Only thing they need is a briefcase with a laptop in it with a PCMCIA radio card and an umbrella-looking foldable dish antenna. Pretty amazing, but true.
Let me explain. Civilian TV broadcast sats are usually run with un-encrypted uplink, so that power requirements can be lowered in the orbiter's onboard computer (no extra CPU cycles needed to decipher up there, longer lived solid state components in power supply module due to less juice drawn) and with low uplink signal strenght to save on the electricity bill here on Earth. So if you broadcast with more power, the uplink control is easy to take over, provided you are nearer than about 0,5 kilometers to the original uplink dish. Of course when they notice the rogue takeover (may take hours in the middle of the night) the operators will crank up the juice and soon get the link control back to their 3-5 meter sized large dish, which a portable setup cannot match. Falun-gungho cult operatives are regularly executed by red commie chinese police for tricks like this. They are religious fanatics to dare to do this in a land of no legal rights.

The leak of the book is only the first 495 pages with more supposedly on the way. This isn't a text or PDF file, it's 500 photographs of the book. If this is a hoax, it's one hell of a hoax. --Guess Who 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the editor above who said it's not our duty to protect the page from spoilers. We should watch out for additions that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Therefore I think it's moot to argue the authenticity of this "leak". To do so borders on use of the talk pages as a forum, which is against Wikipedia policy.

AngielaJ 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone just added another piece of vandalism to the article, as follows

<snipped> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)

My apologies, I've accidentally flagged your notification on this talk page as vandalism here, where I shouldn't have. It's already been removed from the article. It's going to get a lot worse over the next few days. Daggoth | Talk 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

security surrounding the book release

while i am sure that there are a lot of press coverage to the security wrt the book release, this is one article (click here) that puts a 10 million pound cost to the security of the book. Can this information be moved into the article in some shape or form. --Kalyan 11:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it as a one sentence addition to the lead. I'm sure someone can do a better job with it than what I have. Daggoth | Talk 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it sharp people...

"We" are in the news - and all eyes are on us. It is our responsibility to keep it real folks. We are obligated to bear down and make it right. If there are not authentic reliable news sources for your pet spoilers and alleged leaks, then please DO NOT POST IT HERE. Let CNN and the BBC break the story if there is one - that is not our job.

  • The first six books have sold more than 325 million copies and been translated into more than five dozen languages, according to Wikipedia.[3]
  • J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels have been translated into dozens of languages - 67 by Wikipedia's count.[4]
  • If you've forgotten what's happened up to this point, read the plot summary on Wikipedia.org.[5]
  • Good said she discovered last week that the popular, publicly fed Wikipedia Web site is blocking new entries into its Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows page until after the book's release.[6]

Now let's get to work. KEEP SHARP! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just let me know if you want the article sprotected. Probably full protection cannot be done because there is not too much activity (read insertion of "leaked material") from established editors, but there is lot from anon. So, sprotection can be easily warranted. --soum talk 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is already semi-protected from anonymous IP's and "new" usernames and sockpuppets. There might be other HP article pages that may need similar protection though. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about "breaking the story" - I just think that we should fully protect the high-visibility pages. Many of the sites who have access to the leak fully intend to post spoilers in every place possible - some of the low-lifers already plan to hack major fan sites (like mugglenet) and spam message boards with the spoilers. What on earth could happen between now and release date that would be notable enough for Wikipedia? Oh yeah, a mass spoiler leak on the Internet... and if such a leak happens, Wikipedia is bound to be one of the first targets. ugen64 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added {{onlinesources}} to the header of this talk page. Look alive, folks. :-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Magician" Tarot card

I thought it was worth noting that the U.S. cover art (the way Harry holds his wand and positions his arms) strongly resembles The Magician, one of the Major Arcana in the Tarot. Particularly the Morgan-Greer deck (note the panoramic high wall in the background). --Amberjet11 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that JKR made Harry commit suicide according to the book epilogue photo leak, there may be indeed some eventual occultic or pro-cult/sectarian message in the famed wizarding series. Wasn't there some raellian cult in France and Britain that made its adherents kill self en masse to defeat evil in the name of the Sun? Possibly mid-1990 era, was all over the news. Tarot is associated with satanism. Maybe JKR isjust a puppet in the hands of a secret society?
Sorry, but I *highly* dispute your assertion that Tarot is associated with Satanism. It is associated mostly with Wicca, which has long been demonized and wrongfully associated with Satanism. I don't know anything about these "leaks" (I'm trying to avoid spoilers), but I doubt there's a secret demonic society that's somehow manipulating JKR. I just think there's an interesting synchronicity, since Harry is coming into his own as an almost-adult magician, and the Tarot card in question is early in the Major Arcana, at the beginning of the journey. --Amberjet11 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... OK well are there similar "hints of Tarot" (or Wicca or Satanism) on the UK (children's edition) cover art? If not, why not? What about the special US collector's edition cover art - it is different too, right? What seems to have been forgotten here is that J K Rowling had virtually nothing to do with laying out and specifying the cover art. The US edition artwork was done by Mary GrandPré. Perhaps you need to explore whether her artwork has Tarot and Wicca (or Satanist) connections. Her website is provided on her page if you want to research that. In any case it constitutes Original Research, which is forbidden on the Wikipedia, so it cannot stand, and does not belong on this talk page, which concerns improving the main article only. Thanks for the heads-up though - it is something else to make sure is not sneaked into the article while everyone is at lunch... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I *did* say in my original statement that the U.S. cover art resembles the Magician Tarot card -- which is, in fact, a positive card. I never said that J.K. Rowling had anything to do with the art, did I? Also, I really don't know what Mary GrandPré's interest is in the Tarot (which, I REPEAT, does not have Satanist connections). I just thought it was an interesting cultural reference, and maybe part of the collective unconscious if it turns out she's never seen a Tarot deck. I certainly don't see how my bringing up a possible cultural allusion within the cover art could be considered "forbidden" on Wikipedia. --Amberjet11 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOR: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading tarot for 38 years. If you want to know the de-mythified history, read History of the Occult Tarot. If I wanted to overinterpret, I could say that the U.K. cover vaguely resembles a cross between The World and the 7 of Cups -- about as much as the U.S. cover looks like the Magician. I would think that with all the pseudo-christian gibberish that's been spewed about HP since the beginning, the artists would probably be aware (or advised) to deliberately avoid anything that looked like a tarot card. They probably caught enough flak over the Goblet of Fire (a grail image) and there certainly has been speculation that the symbols of the four houses may correspond to the grail hallows, which Waite associated with the tarot suits. Just about anything can be misinterpreted as satanic -- everyone remembers what happened to the old Ivory Soap logo. --Bluejay Young 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Weirdest allegation of the decade

According to latest DA news, "HP7 stupid american edition" will see Harry Potter live in the end, while the "HP7 genuine european edition" will have Harry die!

Considering that JKR has said in interview she really regrets allowing the first volume Sorcerer's Stone name change for US market, the above news bomb feels like very far-fetched. And what about the poor net-aware fans, who will develop a split mind due to this? 82.131.210.162 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

High quality scans of the epilouge

Is this credibel enough to ad to the article on deathly hallows?

<snipped>

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.169.8 (talk • contribs)

It is not a reliable source and even if it were there are possible copyright violations. I would not include it and finally, couldn't you wait 6 days until the book comes out? Simply south 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, but <snipped> is not a notable news source like the BBC. It is what it says it is - a personal web page hosted by googlepages.com --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you snipped it and then mentioned it, right? Kinda defeats the purpose... Gscshoyru 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well my intent was to allow for a description of the external link, and why it is disallowed as a source (what made it wrong for our purposes), but to also render it non-clickable from this wiki page or any mirror sites that may be copying this. It is not so much a cover-up, but more a denial of an easy linking-service to a commercial external web site that does not comply with Wikipedia policy on external links. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal?

So, did LueLinks and 4chan.org leak the contents of Book 7 or not? Is it official? Anyone know for sure (besides the person who "leaked" them and JK)? 71.124.122.54 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


My post about this here was deleted. It was no joke! The 35 pages are deleted from 4chan now. I cant say the pages postet are REALY from the book but if not it was a BIG work!

Please don't delete discussions from talk pages that don't fit in with your point of view.
The subject the leaked pages is something this article needs to cover if it's true (similar to the mention made about the amount of security being taken to prevent the leak). Thanks. 71.124.122.54 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There have been 495 pages "leaked" so far. I think they might be authentic, however, due to the improbability of somebody going through the trouble of faking 495 pages of a HP book. 76.173.68.45 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please understands it is not a matter of fitting in with our point of view. It is a matter of Policy. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum for discussing something that someone found somewhere online, nor is it a farm for planting external links to your favorite gossip and rumour or scanned spoiler page. This talk page is strictly about improving the Deathly Hallows article. It has been clearly stated that we are not in the business of authenticating the latest spoiler leaks. We have stated repeatedly that we will only allow spoilers and leaks that have been investigated and published by reputable news agencies, like the BBC or CNN or The Times. As the templates say at the top, any discussion or links to questionable web sites that purport to reveal spoilers or scanned or photographed images or whatever will be deleted. the Wikipedia policy demands verifiability from reliable sources presented in a neutral point of view with no original research permitted. If you want to discuss the authenticity of your findings, you are in the wrong place - you need to take it to your favorite fan forum and let them sort it out. This is not the place for that. Because you are saying "needs to cover if it's true" - then it DOES NOT BELONG in the article, nor the talk page. I hope this is clear. Questions? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a question T-Dot. If it is revealed by the BBC, or CNN, etc, before the release date that the book has been leaked, do we post the known summary from the leak in the main article, or just say that the book has been leaked and wait until after the book has been officially released? MelicansMatkin 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent question! I think it would be encyclopedically valid, and in fact required per policy, since the Wikipedia is Not Censored, to summarize, in perhaps a paragraph or two, and in a special section entitled "Pre-release leak of text" or similar, whatever it is that CNN or The Times or the BBC chooses to publish. It would have to be bulletproof sourcing, with no doubt that it is authentic at least in terms of what the BBC or whatever publishes. We are depending on the sources to determine the facts from the rumours and gossip. Our criteria is verifiability and reliability. We should not attempt to draw any conclusions or make any inferences from whatever the News might say, we simply report that "the News Agencies reported ..." and then state the facts as they present them - no more, no less. If the BBC for example provides a link in their reports to the 495 pages (or whatever it might be up to now), then I think we can also post the link as part of the External links and references. This by the way is exactly the proper use of this talk page - to discuss our wiki-strategy if something is publicly authenticated. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The known summary won't be reported on any of the news sites which might carry a story about the leak; since hard copies of the text will still be unavailable any plot details will still be unverifiable. Mallocks 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, then if it is unworthy of inclusion in the Press News because it is unverifiable, then it is certainly unworthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia, since verifiability is a cornerstone and inviolable policy, and even more stringent than that of the Press. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You'd wait until the official release date, at least, my understanding is.
T-dot, you're not the editor-in-charge of this article and you're shure not the official moderator of this talk page. The purpose of my post was to determine if the leak had been declared official by *anyone* (in particular, one of the major news sources, but I guess I should have calrified that) to see if news of that needed to be included in the article. It's not up to you to determine what needs to be deleted from Talk Pages. Period. 71.124.122.54 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Press is now reporting on the 495 pages leak!

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3d5b7ceb-750a-4482-b4f7-13bf66c26a54&k=89380

http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=37b36e59-98fb-4783-963b-fb0044ff297e&k=95403

BTW, the BBC or any british source would never report it, they are under crown privilege. The notion of blessed 1st amendment bill of rights does not exist in the islands. Canada, being a member of the commonwealth is as close as a british reporting source as possible.

Face it, JKR wasted that 10 million UKP spent on HP7 isolation in vain. DH is leaking worse than that quake-struck japanese nuclear powerstation. 81.0.68.145 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF is "crown privilege". Whatever it is, the BBC or any british source are not under it. Face it, JKR wasted that 10 million UKP spent on HP7 isolation in vain. Apart from the redundancy in your sentence, I have to agree. Apparently three or four prospective purchasers will now read the online version instead, massively denting the demand which will otherwise be met by the initial print run of 12 million copies. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Crown privilege, or at least the modern version of it. Clearly has no relevance to this, just clearing that one up. Mallocks 00:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Essentially you end up in the Tower cooler for endangering the british economy. HP7 is said to worth almost half billion UKP over 10 years if you consider book, movie, DVD, merchandise and all other kinds of franchise. Otherwise, the leak may have dire consequences. If the Holy Teaching Officium announces in advance that HP7 is indexed from the catholic faithful (I mean suicide, pagan Walhallows concept), sales will plunge. Pope Ratzinger when cardinal was adamant in opposing neo-paganist HP series. In fact, one said on IRC that the ban will be encycled Wednesday in a document that begins "Septimseverimus Deus" which generally makes the whole fantasy genre out of touch for observing catholics, unless the indvidual piece obtains a nihil obstat (e.g. Lewis' Narnia and the like filled with compliant ideology). The leak will also allow mid-west american fundamentalist christians to have good ammo ruining the HP7 opening parties with Godless! warning messages.
Its absurd how you can get your hands on very good scans of the book, but some of you still claims it to be unverified information. Seriously, the book is out there, ready to be read by anyone who wants too. If the book itself is not a good enough source, what exactly is? If I had the book in my hands, would it still be original research if I used it as a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.233.168.44 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 July 2007.
Yes, see WP:Verifiability. Mallocks 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, it seems British sources aren't as worried as you'd believe, The Sun is carrying the story. Mallocks 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was announced on C5 news that it's leaked, there's hardly any law against journalistic freedoms in Britian you stupid yank. 86.6.17.37 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PAGES 496-END HAVE LEAKED

THAT EPILOGUE IS REAL...SAME PERSON WHO LEAKED OUT THE FIRST 495 PAGES...i think it should be included in the article—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.141.65 (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts using ~~~~, please.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As noted above it's starting to appear in the news, won't be too long before some editor decides to add it to the page in a way that's pleasing to enough others that it'll stick. Just be patient, wikipedia doesn't exactly lose out by waiting. Mallocks 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

lock this page from editing?

I haven't seen any vandalism on this page as of now. However, not to be cynical, but might I suggest that this article be locked from editing for the next few weeks? Just a thought. Crushedmidnight 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can completely understand. I don't want another "SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE :DDDDDD".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I can only suggest as above, then, that a request is made at WP:RFPP. Mallocks 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But the thing is, we only want to get rid of vandals; most would be IPs, and we don't know what kind of actual improvements would be made to the article without disclosing the plot. A semi-protect would probably be fine. In any case I'm going to avoiding the actual page for a while since the whole book's been leaked now and the dam will break any minute.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit suprised it hasn't already, the sites it'd been cropping up on I expected considerably more 'traffic'. As regards semi-protection, I'm sure it'll be considered. Mallocks 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Black

Under the "Unresolved plot elements from previous books" section, it is stated that "It is still unclear if Sirius Black, Harry's Godfather, is indeed dead or just trapped behind the arch. (He was not hit with the "Killing Curse" as shown in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix)."

This is incorrect. Sirius is definitely dead, as stated by Rowling herself. Rowling interview

Faithlessthewonderboy 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Count

If the illegal photographs that are out are ever officially confirmed, the page count will need to be changed. Adding in every single page of the book is some 10 pages less than what was previously announced.67.187.126.52 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The last seven pages of the book have been photographed and posted on a low-ranking forum. A sticky was posted BY THE ADMINISTRATOR in the General forum, the title of which was a summary of the epilogue in huge letters. Yeah, I think it's safe to say that the book's been leaked. 24.47.41.87 08:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC), 17 Jul 2007, 01:42 EDT
On my count, it's 700 and whatever it was, but that's including blanks, TOC and other crap. The Frederick 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep an open mind, perhaps the page count was diffrent on the illigal photos becuase THEY ARE FAKE. I seriously doubt they would cut out 10 pages from the book a week before it's realse. But, i might be wrong we'll all find out saturday...→041744 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually on second thought, since the supposed leak is the Library version it's quite possible and even probable that it would have a slightly different amount of extra unused/etc. pages. According to Amazon the weight is different on the library version, so it looks like that means nothing whatsoever. 67.187.126.52 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the library version of DH has the same number of pages as the regular version, according to Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-Library/dp/0545029368/ref=ed_oe_h/104-6210519-2432729

A sad day for JK Rowling - HP7 Leak

It is not my place to call him any names, but a man has managed to photograph the entirety of Harry Potter 7 and has uploaded it onto the internet <snipped>. I believe this to be the first pre-release leak EVER of a Harry Potter book. Now that news stories have appeared, can someone weave this into a piracy section of the article? THANKS!

You're an idiot. Books 6 and 5 were leaked, but you were probably only 10 when that happened, so I understand that you don't remember.

This Artical Needs 2 be locked now!

with the leak it is only a matter of time until someone puts the ending on the page so it needs to be locked so people dont ruin it for others.--Jwein 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the need for a full-lock. We've got the page semi-protected as it is and that seems to keep out most of the vandals. It's already common knowledge that <snipped>. A complete lockdown of the page is completely unnecessary. 76.173.68.45 05:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You underestimate the tenacity of trollers. Northridge 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not our job to assume what will happen. If what you say happens, then the article can be nominated for full protection. Miles Blues 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I'm closing this straw poll per m:voting is evil and WP:CON. Please discuss the issue. Also please read the discussion at WP:ANI#Full_protection_pending_release_of_Harry_Potter.3F (and try to ignore the people treating it as a vote).--Chaser - T 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lets see how many people agree/disagree for a complete lock of this article from now to 0005, July 22nd 2007 --Kalyan 05:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Lock - This page has already been vandalised numerous times. I fear that someone may use the information on this page to spoil the book for everyone, at least at my local bookstore. Not to mention the fact that people across the world will have access to the actual book several hours before Americans will. 65.11.89.227 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Inconsiquential - The entire book has been released. Locking the article is a really futile and useless gesture when you will hear about it sometime by saturday from a friend/tv/newspaper/internet/guy at the release. It's just the facts. Liu Bei 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the book has not been "released". It may or may not have been leaked, but there is at least one fake "leaked" copy floating around, and therefore any "spoilers" given before the official release should be considered unconfirmed/uncited/unreliable twaddle. Locking or semi-protecting the article isn't just to protect readers from being exposed to "spoilers" before the book's official release, it's also to help reduce the amount of useless crap and/or vandalism. Oh, and tagging the word "facts" onto a personal perspective doesn't make it so. - Ugliness Man 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ISP Only Lock - Just allow logged in users to edit.
NOTE: Book will be released at 12:01 UTC for ALL Commonwealth countries, and 12:01 Local Time for all American countries. Hence, at 8:01 PM EDT, anyone (such as myself) who does not want to hear about spoilers should just ignore the media. Also, it is unlikely that any news outlets will broadcast info about the book before Monday morning. Hans404 07:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Lock This is nowhere near as bad as the HBP situation two years ago.

Even if the article is locked, it should be open for editing on July 21 at 12:00 a.m. BRITISH SUMMER TIME. As the book is officially out by then, there's absolutely ZERO reason to withhold any plot information simply because people have varying reading speeds and may not want to get spoiled. Wikipedian06 07:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Lock - from now until at least the day of release, preferably 1 day afterwards. However, the people who are that worried about spoilers will probably be too busy reading the book on July 21 to check the Wikipedia articles - so locking until July 21 is probably fine as well. ugen64 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lock - does no one remember what happened on the half blood prince release? the page was attacked throughout the day, with things like "hagrid rapes harry and the rest of gryffindor has an orgy". Lock until the 23rd IMO Skhatri2005 08:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lock - as I noted above, it's not just to prevent "spoilers", but also mindless vandalism and garbage. Until the official release, or until a reliable source can prove that a leaked copy is genuine, all spoilers should be considered fake. - Ugliness Man 08:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think as a matter of course, we should consider all spoilers, fake or real, as vandalism and immediately revert. There are only bad faith reasons why someone would put spoilers on an as-yet-unreleased book. Okay, there is no policy that says "don't spoil unreleased books" but we must remember that Wikipedia is a resource for the world, not an exercise in obsessive rule-following. ugen64 08:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
>>>There are only bad faith reasons why someone would put spoilers on an as-yet-unreleased book.<<<

This is not true. A christian may feel JKR diverted from the noble messages of the six books and now advertising extreme forms of paganism. He/she may wish to warn that buyers think twice before, especially if children will be reading the copy!

The utmost proof of leak authenticity is the audiobook(s). First time ever in HP, it publishes same time as print book and the two speakers (british and yankee version) are both well-known voice actors, million recognize their nasals. As soon as the 21 compact disk HP7DH audiobook appears on the web in MP3 format, denial will be in vain, as it is not technologically possible to fake 24 hours of speech of a famous person (OK, maybe possible if you are the NSA, but that is as far fetched as aliens). Audiobooks are therefore self-attesting and thus perfect proof-leaks. 82.131.210.162 08:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lock - Prior experience with Harry Potter page vandalism as well as reports of spoiler leakage pretty much makes the page lockdown an obligation.
  • Lock - It's only temporary, and there is no reason to have edits which will inevitably be spoilers or vanadalism. Doubt the higher-ups will follow this poll, however. Olin 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I reminde every one that the protection policy does not allow for a page to be protected as a preemptive measure against vandalism. As the release date approaches, there will be even more material that could be added as anticipation builds. We certainly don't protect pages based on a !vote! —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Headmistress of Hogwarts

In Tales of Beedly The Bard, JKR mentions that Minerva McGonagall is now the current Headmistress of Hogwarts. Shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.44.253 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it's in this book.VatoFirme (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_17&oldid=1136787479"