Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25


NY Times

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

To everyone who read what was in this space previously: sorry you had to read that. I don't know who it was, but I find it quite sad that someone would do that. (Some twisted little fellow posted an obscene message, complete with spoilers and cursing and horrible spelling.) Happy reading! RiftDoggy 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times has stated that the US book has only 759 pages, like the leaked copy from bittorrent. The summary paragraph says 784, which is wrong.

The sources disagree. All will be clear when the book is released, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

Plot Summary A

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

I don't think it's a good idea to put up a summary before the release, since we don't (as far as I know) have any confirmed sources for the plot. - Biomech talk 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually we do. Many copies of the book have been mistakenly sent to people ahead of time. Stingmans 01:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't put up the plot summary. First off, there's no way to tell you have a legit plot summary. Second, it could lead to legal issues since the plot is not supposed to be revealed.-Wafulz 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT put up any plot summary. It will be removed within minutes, so it would be a waste of time on your part. It will not be able to be verified before the book is released, and would be original research. Also, this subject has been discussed ad nauseum above, and if you'd read it, you would know not to post a summary. Faithlessthewonderboy 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you even AWARE of Wikipedia policy? A plot summary is NOT original research; a plot summary is just that. Something can be classified as a reliable source on itself, so it would be perfectly legitimate to write a plot summary on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows given that the book itself is the source of this plot summary - I am adding no frills to it whatsoever, it is a summary of the plot of the book. Please come up with a real objection, not just "I don't want the book spoilered." Numerous people have copies of the book or access thereof, and can easily confirm or dispute the plot summary. Titanium Dragon 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. Unless there is a verifiable source, I believe that any summary of Deathly Hollows would count as OR, as there is no way to tell whether it would be accurate or not and nothing to compare it to. Though this is an unusual situation, and I could easily be wrong, and would appreciate being told if I am. But again, there's no reason for the hostility. And the objection which many people, including myself, have already stated is very "real": as the book isn't available to the general public and there are no reputable sources from which to glean information, any account of the plot is not verifiable. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It has been said enough times now: verifiability covers this scenario. Unless the leak can be explicitly authenticated (the two reviews get oh-so-close...), we cannot use information from it, as it is not a reliable source. (And for the record, my "real objection" is not "I don't want the book spoilered". I've read the leaked copy already. Go figure.) Daggoth | Talk 06:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since people seem to have moral objections to your posting of this, how about you just post it on the discussion page so people can edit for when the book actually comes out (since when the book comes out the leaks will then be confirmed to be true). Stingmans 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The objection to it lies with the fact that it is impossible to verify a book summary before said book is published. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Titanium (et al) - because we have no way to verify that you have an authentic copy of the book to create an authentic plot summary, nor can we verify that your summary is correct, then the summary cannot be allowed per the verifiability policy. Please feel free to compose and refine your plot summary offline, but it MUST NOT be posted until others (in principle) can verify your summary by checking the source - which is the book. This cannot happen before July 21st. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a farcical argument. This is simply censorship; YOU don't want the plot spoilered, but it is VERY verifiable. The book exists, has been published by Scholastic, and has been released early. There is absolutely nothing in WP:V that states that we cannot use a book which has not been released officially yet. Period. This is simply you not wanting the plot to be up in this article before the release date, despite the fact that the book IS out; people have already read it. Just because Scholastic doesn't want it to be out yet doesn't mean it isn't out. Your argument could easily be applied against anyone citing any book on the grounds that you haven't read it and thus don't believe them. You can verify what is in the plot summary. Titanium Dragon 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur, no plot summary until after July 21st. I know there are a lot of impatient people who just can't wait, but there is a date for a reason. Both for verifiability and on the principle of respecting the author's wishes it would be a huge mistake to put anything up prematurely. Brianopp 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The wishes of JK Rowling are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion. Wikipedia is not censored. Titanium Dragon 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As has already been stated countless times, sticking with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines regarding citations and verification is not the same as censorship. You can play semantics all you want, but the large number of copies which were distributed earlier than they should have been are not a verifiable source. Do I have access to them? No, I don't, I only have access to a handful of allegedly leaked copies on various bit torrent sites, and I have no reliable (and legal) way to confirm which one, if any, is genuine. Therefore, in line with Wikipedia's accepted guidelines, even genuine copies are not yet citeable. This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with integrity of articles and verifiable accuracy of information. Saying the phrase "you can verify it" does not magically change Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Denying reality doesn't alter that reality, no matter how much stoner philosophy you wish to impart to the contrary. - Ugliness Man 05:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If the Baltimore Sun or the NYT were to publicly state that their review copies were identical to the leak, then there would be a case for writing the plot summary. Unfortunately, even if you have a legit copy of the book in your hands today, you still cannot summarize it unless there is a way to verify this through reliable means. I wouldn't hold your breath. You are right in principle that there exists a method by which the plot can be written. However, the necessary pieces are not assembled, as of yet. I highly doubt that anything will happen in this regard prior to release. Girolamo Savonarola 04:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You said it. Becuase the verifiability point is being pushed so hard not because it's a wikipedia guideline, but because of a vehement desire by some people to not "let the spoilers win" by allowing them before the book's release. It's clear that emotion is ruling over sense here. Liu Bei 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To anyone who says they can't get an early copy of the book...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-BEFORE-RELEASE-Rec-7-20_W0QQitemZ200130440237QQihZ010QQcategoryZ377QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
There. Buy that and verify it. (Please note, the auction isn't mine and I don't expect anyone to buy it) ;) 71.171.184.179 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OK so the auction closes and FedEd promises overnight delivery (in the US) at 10:30AM Friday - or 3PM at the latest - just a few hours before the official release? Yes that is clearly worth $500. But it still does not satisfy verifiability (for the winner of the auction) until it is delivered, nor for the rest of us until midnight Friday night. Much pain for no gain. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm reasonably sure he's kidding. Then again, we have quite a few potter obsessed wikimaniacs here....-Wafulz 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would hate to run into the fan who pays $499 to get a book less than 12 hours in advance.-Wafulz 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, looks like this isn't the first auction.-Wafulz 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some stuff

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

It may very well be; that isn't the point. It simply can't be verified until the book is released. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Zhang, but I think everyone agrees (and has for some time now) that copies of the book have been improperly released. This is not the issue. What is forbidden, per Wikipedia Policy, is posting, for example, a plot summary or spoilers that the rest of us cannot validate until we can check in our own authentic copies on July 21. I could claim I have a copy right now, and make up my own plot summary, and nobody could tell if it was correct or incorrect; therefore it is unverifiable and forbidden. See WP:V for the verifiability policy. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Arguing as a devil's advocate, why doesn't this standard seem to be universally applied? Some information stated by J.K. Rowling is presented on the page as flat-out fact on the article page: "Viktor Krum is set for a reappearance" and "Arthur Weasley's flying car, which was last seen in the Hogwarts forest, will reappear" can be sourced only to Rowling herself but are stated as fact. She could make up any elements she liked and "nobody could tell if it was correct or incorrect." In fact, her information could already be described as unreliable, as when she reversed herself on whether "scar" was or was not the book's last word. The only consistent policy I see here is "no spoilers," which, admirable as it may be, is not a Wikipedia policy; I guess NY Times and Baltimore Sun are apparently unverifiable, non-reliable sources. This is one of the few news stories I've seen where Wikipedia has less information than most of the major news sites. 24.121.174.22 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling is universally considered a primary source. Even if she's lying, it would still be notable. Girolamo Savonarola 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
About Rowling - you are absolutely correct, except the standard is being applied universally. To quote the Verifiability Policy, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. This is the most basic and fundamental policy we have. Yes: Rowling could say The sky was lime-green; and right or wrong, truth or lie, we can quote that if it is a notable part of the Wikipedia article. It might be phrased something like: "According to Rowling, who was asked in a Rowling Stone interview why it was that Harry was staring upward in a daze on the cover of Book 9, "Well, the sky was lime-green, and he was thinking about having some pie..." [1] (fake ref. link there). It could well be that Rowling was making a joke or telling a lie - but the fact is it is on the record and verifiable to that extent - that it was said, not whether it was the truth. It is the fact that we can link to the reference (or quote a published work) that provides verifiability, which we must have. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You're simply wrong T-dot; people CAN check it. There are at the very least 1200 copies of the book floating around in people's hands already, and probably a great deal more than that. YOU don't have to be able to check it; simply SOMEONE has to be able to check it. You probably can't read a lot of scientific papers or books either, either due to rarity or expense, but many of us can do so. If there were errors in the plot summary, the many people who already have the book or have access to it will be able to correct it. Titanium Dragon 04:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, T-dot's right. Go back into the archives and look at how many times it's been said: Even if there are copies out there, they can't be cited, because no one can be sure that those copies are legit. It's not such a big deal. We can have all the legitimacy we want on the 21st, so why push it so hard right now when you're fighting a losing battle? 24.110.59.83 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Page count

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

Different versions (adult, child), different editions (US, UK). Isn't it really kind of useless unless you specify, or at least include all the figures? Liu Bei 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no page difference between adult/child editions, it's just the cover. - Biomech ( talk ) 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest we "go with the best source(s) we can verify", provide a link to source, and correct it later if needed. Verifiability trumps "the truth". --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

Solution to the Plot summary dilemma

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

Someone's already going to do the plot synopsis thing. We can't legitimately verify any plot summaries now- even if we add copy an image of the last page, there's no way to tell it's the real thing. It's been discussed to death.-Wafulz 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to know it's the real thing in order to say it's a claimed leak of Harry Potter. There's a big difference between "this is the plot synopsis of Harry Potter" and "this is the synopsis of a text found on the internet claiming to be Harry Potter." It's the difference between verifying that "there are pictures of aliens" and that "there have been pictures taken that are claimed to show aliens". The first requires a massive amount of evidence and scrutiny, the second requires only a picture of any man in a green rubber suit. A picture of a single quoted paragraph would be enough to verify that it is a document purported to be Harry Potter- not that it is Harry Potter, only that it's purported.
That's extremely pointless, and probably original research. We don't need a section stating "This is what the plot summary could be, but stay tuned to see if it's right!" If it's the true text, it will appear in the plot summary in two days. If it's fake text, then after the book is released we can mention it, assuming other sources point out the differences.-Wafulz 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm finally going to jump into this argument. Yes, its been published, but we don't know (or at least shouldn't know) anything about it. It's been published, but it has not been released, and as a result, it cannot be varified. Smartyshoe 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy does not require that it be released, it merely requires that it be published. Again, since the policy explicitly defines the word "verifiable", a plot summary would be in compliance with it.
'"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' The material that is guaranteed to be true and legitimate is not currently available to any reader.-Wafulz 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(←) It's not an issue of spoilers - this article will contain spoilers. The issue is that the book is not "published" in the sense of being made publicly available, and that is the standard we use to gauge when a source can be used on WP. It isn't an issue of legal grounds, either. We certainly can cite what other reliable sources say about the plot, although blogs are not considered reliable sources. If you can find a plot summary in a publication like the NY Times, I'd be glad to see it referenced here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no requirement that the book must be publicly available. The requirement is merely that it must be "published." WP:V. The book has been written, it has gone to the printers, its been bound, and its been sent to 1200 people. That constitutes "publication" under the very plain meaning of the word. Thus, since a plot summary complies with WP:V, pursuant to WP:CENSOR, you cannot delete it.
Unless you yourself have read the book, you cannot add the plot summary. If someone who received the book early can actually prove it is from the book, then yes, they can edit it. Until then, sorry. Smartyshoe 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"If someone who received the book early can actually prove it is from the book". The only way to "prove" that the edits are coming from the book would be to post pictures from the book. While plot summaries are not copyright violations, pictures and quotes from the books are. As such, your "proof" would violate WP:LEGAL (as well as general copyright law). However, through WP:FAITH and WP:CONS, Wikipedia's policies explicitly encourage putting up information in the hopes that incorrect information will eventually be removed through the consensus of multiple editors. Trying to set a "burden of proof" that can only be satisfied by breaking the law is nothing more than cloaked censorship in violation of WP:CENSOR.
Nothing is being censored by requiring that we first have widely distributed copies of the book before using it as a source, especially when the book will be released in under 48 hours. Until the book is released, it won't be acceptable as a source here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, since the requirement is something subjective that you made up, it is the very definition of censorship. The verifiability policy DOES NOT require wide accessibility. WP:V. Since a plot summary does not violate ANY of Wikipedia's policies (please read WP:V again if you keep claiming accessibility), keeping that plot away from Wikipedia constitutes censorship. Now, the way I see it, you can either point to a clause from the policy section that you believe this violates, or you yourself can stop violating WP:CENSOR. Either way, lets get a consensus.
(←) Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. The verifiability policy doesn't require wide accessibility, but it requires public accessibility. Suppose I want to verify the plot summary - how do you propose I do so? Unless the public is in principle able to verify a source, the source is not acceptable for us. Just wait two days and a plot summary will be here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence of the policy: "means that any reader should be able to check that material added". Good faith is great, but this is a widely read page and trolls would love edit warring by saying "I HAVE THE BOOK TOO THIS IS WRONG!" Consensus for no plot summary has been clear for a while. Just wait it out. The world can survive.-Wafulz 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've stated this below and I'll state it again here - the book is out there (legally and illegally) and accessable to pretty much anyone who wants to spend enough cash and (perhaps) the drive time to pick it up. Just because *you* don't want to spend $500 for a copy from Craig's list, then drive three hours to pick it up doesn't mean that the book isn't accessable.
As for trolls, what's to stop them from coming in every day *after* the book is released and stating "I have the book too, this is different in mine!"? Are we going to start keeping infomation out of Wikipedia just so we don't have to deal with trolls? 71.171.184.179 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The day after it is released, hundreds of editors who own the book will be writing and correcting errors on this page. Until then, yes, we will prevent possibly false plot summaries being added when there is no realistic way to verify them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone with an account send this thing to arbitration? As 179 correctly pointed out, the book is accessible to the public and there is no reason to keep it out of Wikipedia. Just reading this thread, most of the people who want to suppress the plot repeatedly write that "it will be out soon". Again, unless someone points me to a policy saying that things coming out soon are judged under a different standard, I believe this suppression violates WP:CENSOR.

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

Third Opinion

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

Thanks for stopping by!
However, your entire respons revolves around the idea that any plot summaries would be obtained via the "leaked material". As several copies of the phyiscal book have made their way into public hands, this assumption is false.
Additionally, you claim that the plot summary cannot be verified - however, as has been established, anyone with enough time and gas in their tank can purchase a copy from Craig's list (for a hefty sum and, likely a nice drive). Therefore, it can be verified.
Also, you say the book is unpublished. This is incorrect. Considering the large pallet of about 500 or so of these books I saw in my store's back room today, I'm going to have to say it's been published. 72.69.129.226 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I wouldn't support this. Firstly, I don't think that the leaks are notable enough for their own article; secondly, I don't think there's enough information to justify it. What were you thinking would be included in the article? Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how such an article would evolve, but it is certainly notable, considering the media publicity of the many leaks. It's acually a lot more notable than many wiki articles. Joshdboz 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Just something along the lines of "someone claiming to own a book took photographs and the photographs revealed the following information." Since this event was featured as a major story in multiple prominent newspapers, I don't see how its not notable.
Discussion of the leaks themselves can be included in this article and probably does not warrant a separate stand-alone article. You raise an interesting angle on this debate, though. If the leaked pages and plot summary are not claimed by Wikipedia to actually be the text of the published work, it is reasonably verifiable that there are files available for download from the Internet that are purported to be the text of Harry Potter 7. So... if there are caveats placed around plot summaries and plot details, do the "leaked versions" then become verifiable, not as precise copies of HP7 but as purported copies of HP7? After all, we could always use {{cite web}} to prove that there is a real downloadable file that has what are claimed to be copies of page x to page y (or the entire book). The key phrase in this approach is use of the phrase "what are claimed to be copies of ..."
--Richard 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Oh yes, it's notable enough, without question. But, it would still be subject to the letter and spirit of WP:V and that, at this time, would prevent the leaked material from being referenced directly. It would have to be handled with care and, just like other material, the secondary sources come first, so you might be able to write about the leak as it was reported be only referencing those reports. With this sort of material, how you phrase the statements becomes extra important (sort of related tangentially to parts of NPOV). There is a need for a cool detachment in reporting the leak and the material that was leaked should only be described in the context of the leak. ie. "the source of the leak claimed that...." (Post EC) And as Richard wrote, it would be best treated here. Adrian M. H. 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22098094-5001021,00.html
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Books/article/237041
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070718.wpottermartin18/BNStory/Entertainment
All appear to be legitimate news sites; all report plot elements/spoilers stemming from leaks (although which leak is the source isn't always clear). Are there objections to adding plot elements derived from these news stories and cited as "purported leaks" to the article? Ermar 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the links. However, assuming that they are in fact legitimate news sites, then yes it is acceptable to add plot elements derived from these news stories provided that each element is sourced to at least one news article. If the plot element can be verified in a reliable source such as a news website, then it is fair game. It's only the "downloadable copies", blogs and vanity websites that are off-limits. --Richard 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I posted it on GameFAQs, but I doubt that was what the article means.

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

Plot Summary

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

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

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

A quick thought experiment: Let's say one editor claims to have the book and writes a summary. Another editor claims to have the book as well and write a different summary. People takes sides- who do we believe? With whom do we assume good faith? A plot summary doesn't serve much of a purpose now anyway - the world can wait 36 hours for a plot summary. This has been discussed to death already.-Wafulz 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(Just wanted to point out that my comment below repeats a lot of what you said, but I was typing it while you were typing that, and I didn't want to take the time to re-word it because if I did I would probably end up with another edit conflict) - Ugliness Man 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's true. I took the time to add "I agree with Wafulz and wound up in an edit conflict with Uglinessman. ;^) --Richard 17:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Your argument falls flat almost instantly, because what you're actually saying is that you think that Wikipedia's guidelines are too restrictive. You may think there's more to it than that, but that's pretty much a summary. Simply put, I work in a book store, I could claim that I managed to sneak a copy home (I think we probably got our shipment today, I'll find out in about an hour), and write up a plot summary. You would simply have to take my word for it. The problem is not only that less than 0.0001% of Wikipedians can verify anything offered before the actual release, but also that there's no way for us to verify if the person doing the editing actually has the copy they're claiming to. Considering how some of the people in this discussion have been insisting that the copy they downloaded absolutely must be the real deal (with no proof), it's quite possible that someone with one of these copies, real or not, could take it upon themselves to "improve" the article with a plot summary, since they feel that their version of the truth is more important than established guidelines. Ignoring for a moment that I already explicity said the above situation was hypothetical, can you prove that I don't have a copy? If I claim to be one of the early recipiants and I claim that Hedwig was actually Victor Krum in disguise (the same way Scabbers was actually Pettigrew), you would be completely justified in removing this as unverifiable. No, now is not the time to "step back" and let chaos reign over reality. We have no way to verify who belongs in your tidy little category of "those who can write accurate plot summaries". Besides, we're now only two days away from the release, exactly why is it important to allow unverifiable (by Wikipedia's standards) information? This debate will continue and continue and continue until the book is released. A handful of malcontents who want to see information added 2 days early is not exactly justification for ignoring or changing established Wikipedia guidelines. - Ugliness Man 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Right on the "Wikipedia is not censored" point. Good argument on the 1200 books. It made me think and almost convinced me. Verifiability is a really difficult question. First, a minor point regarding the 0-60 time of a Ferrari Enzo. You don't have to get your hands on one to verify the time. You simply have to be able to get your hands on a published source which has reported the 0-60 time.
Next, regarding the 1200 leaked copies. The "acid test" of verifiability is that it should be effectively possible for anyone to get a copy of the cited source and verify or disprove an assertion made in an Wikipedia article. I don't think that a "limited edition" book which is limited in the sense of being substantially less than a few hundred thousand copies meets the test of verifiability. Might be a reliable source but it doesn't meet the full test of verifiability. To be verifiable, there must be a definite procedure by which anybody can get a copy of the book. It might take a while to ask for it through a library or you might even have to travel to a library but the access to the book should be open to the general public. That means citing a secret document in the CIA archives doesn't count.
--Richard 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - we can only cite such sources indirectly based on what other reliable sources say about them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

No, there aren't different credible versions. Somebody has scanned the entire book, including illustrations of the official artist and with the officially released correct chapter names. Then there are others who have fabricated a few pages that are different and thus clearly not authentic. With all due respect, this "scepticism" is wearing rather thin. Bloomsbury would never confirm that anything that leaked out was authentic until july 21, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is. And so certain people can technically claim that there is no verifiable source, when their real motivation is that they don't want to publish a summary in advance because they don't want to spoil the fun, and/or are afraid of the repercussions. Those are perhaps not bad objections, but the authenticity claim is just a catch 22.Sponsianus 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal on the status of the book. It's been published and it is out. Just because every single editor here on Wikipedia cannot get a copy of it, does that mean we shouldn't allow infomation to go in the article based on it? If so, I suggest we start deleting the majority of the article on Nintendo's [Wii], since they're still virtually sold out and any editor cannot just go grab one off the shelf to verify what's in the article. Price of crazy eBay auctions too much? Well, $499 is too much for a PS3, so, perhaps we should delete PS3 infomation from that article.
The book is out there. It can be gotten (legally and illegally) by someone who wants to to put enough effort and spend enough cash to do so. 71.171.184.179 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
why the rush? Verifiability is clearly questionable so why not wait till it's not questionable (since NOT everyone can go out and get the book no matter how much money and time one has). this seems to be a rather silly debate since it becomes moot in a day or so.harlock_jds 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not the same thing. The Wii and the PS3 have been released to the public and even if you can't buy one directly, odds are you know someone who has a copy. Thousands of editors can verify anything on those two articles. Only a few people who either recieved the book in advance by accident or illegally obtained it can verify anything on Deathly Hallows. There's no reliable way to check it. Legendary 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't need a Wii to read about the specifications written in gaming magazines.-Wafulz 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
So then, how many copies need to be out before it's "verifiable"? 1,000? 2,000? 1,000,000? Who gets to decide what the magic number is? As for the "everyone can't check it", go look on Craig's list - there are a few copies up there. Sure, it might cost a bit more (plus gas for local pick up), but any editor on here who's willing to invest the time and money could do this. 71.171.184.179 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Zero copies need to be out for it to be verifiable. The point is that we should be able to go and guarantee ourselves that we can get authentic material. Wikipedia is not a breaking news website. This is not that big of a deal.-Wafulz 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If Zero Copies of the book are out, then how can anyone guarantee that it's authentic? 71.171.184.179 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
By "out" I meant "sold". The second sentence is key.-Wafulz 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, again, Go look on Craig's list, fill up your gas tank and take a road trip. You can get the book and get all the guarantees you want that the material to be added is authentic. 71.171.184.179 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Im the initial commentor. I think the best point I've seen made so far is simply "Why the rush." Its true, just because we MAY be able to do something it doesnt mean we HAVE to. And with all the controversy surrounding this topic is may just be best to error on the side of caution and just wait it out. Thanks for the stimulating argument all!

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

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

Interwiki

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

Done.-Wafulz 19:55, 19 July

It's just two days!

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

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

Again, the amount of time and the fact that they're "spoilers" should not make the slightest bit of difference when it comes to inclusion in the article. Period. That is my point. 72.69.129.226 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Per GoatSmoke. 71.171.xxx.xxx are missing the whole point here. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to get out the plot summary before any other website. Frankly if any Wikipedian manages to put a plot summary up before Saturday tea-time I will be disapointed - enjoy reading the book first. The encyclopedia can wait! Pedro |  Chat  20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously any further discussion about plot summaries/spoilers is moot, regardless of their validity, because the admins will not allow anything further along those lines to reach the article. My question is, what if someone posts a plot summary the minute after the Britain release time? Would that be immediately deleted anyway or could it now claim verifiablity? 24.121.174.22 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not true - Joshdboz has just added a well-sourced description of the Baltimore Sun's review that includes some plot details. I see no reason why it needs to be removed. And yes, a plot summary can be included the very second the book is released to the public, and I expect it will receive heavy editing for some period of time after that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A plot summary will be verifiable at 23:01 UTC, 20 July (i.e. 0:01am Saturday, British time). Will (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I just deeply wish that the wonderful editors who were lucky enough to receive an early copy, and who are so eager to post a plot summary right now, would instead go back and commit the next 24+ hours to very thoroughly read and re-read the books they have. They would then have an outstanding, reputable, and authoritative understanding of the overall plot elements and the flow, and can thus compose a flawless, accurate and wiki-acceptable summary, using a good word processor with spelling and grammar checker; and then perform an orderly transformation of the article just as Big Ben strikes midnight (or whatever). That would be far preferable to the random sporadic edits that the rest of us would have to attempt as we speed-read and skim through chapters looking for the highlights, and missing all the sweet subtleties. This is exactly what i would be doing right now if I had a copy - studying it so deeply that I know as much or more about it than Rowling. I very much envy you folks who got your copy already. Best wishes. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. Also, for those of you trying to get a head start, the leak that contains the hand and the carpet is legit. Scholastic subpoenaed the leaker for a copyright violation, which can only be done if information is taken from the actual book. If the leak was just fanfiction, the subpoena would've been for fraud or misrepresentation not copyright violation. At this point we might as well wait for the book to come out so that more people can be involved in the editing, but if you just can't wait to read it ;)

2 books sold in Finland

In case someone finds this interesting... It was on the news today that two copies of HP and Deathly Hallows have mistakenly been sold also in Finland (and for price less than 20 euros, while those who had pre-ordered it will have to pay about 30 euros). Do you know has this kind of mistake happened anywhere else besides US and Finland? Here is a link to news by Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE: [2] I haven't found that in English yet but I will look for it. Is this big enough news to mention in the article? :) Music-melody 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

RAB

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

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)

Hints

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) Besides the section says "hints from reviews" that should be enough notice to people to avoid that section if they don't want spoilers (why such a person would come here in the first place is questionable since this is at any time likely to comtain full spoilers for the book)harlock_jds 22:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
At some point we will put {{current fiction}} at the top, which is an explicit warning. Right now we have the prerelease tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm...

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)

I think it's safe to say...

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)

Yes of coarse I meant 00:01 in the UK (I live in america) but when it comes out somewhere, anywhere legally, it's been released. I should have thought of writing 00:01 instead of 12:01...

  • The US and Canada will get it at 0001 local time in each zone. Putting everything on UTC, that means it comes out at:
    • Newfoundland Daylight Time: 0231
    • Atlantic Daylight Time: 0301
    • Eastern Daylight Time: 0401
    • Central Daylight Time: 0501
    • Mountain Daylight Time, Central Standard Time: 0601
    • Pacific Daylight Time, Mountain Standard Time: 0701
    • Alaska Daylight Time: 0801
    • Hawaiʻi-Aleutian Daylight Time: 0901 (western Aleutians)
    • Hawaiʻi Standard Time: 1001 (Hawaiʻi)
    • Samoa Standard Time: 1101 (assuming that American Samoa gets it at the same time that other US time zones get it)
  • This means that the book will not be available to everyone in the United States proper until 11 hours after the rest of the English-speaking world gets it. If American Samoa is on the US schedule, make it 12 hours. — Dale Arnett 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hints from Reviews section

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)

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)
Especially since it's inside a section called "What is known about the plot"... — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. GoatSmoke 03:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

new NY article

this article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/arts/20bpott.html proves that the carpet-leak is real. should that go in the article? Skhatri2005 03:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot away, I suppose... Girolamo Savonarola 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We still don't know that we have the correct plot info, since the file uploads could be doctored in various ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The torrent sites can show how long the checksum has been in circulation. Since this was just published, any alteration would've had to have been made within the past few hours. Girolamo Savonarola 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No one has been denying that the book was leaked and available. The problem is, there are also several fanfics out there, and there's no way to know which is authentic. Come on guys, there's only 24 hours left! Surely we can wait that long. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The article identifies which leak it is. Girolamo Savonarola 04:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Does it? That seems odd, but I'll take your word for it. But playing devil's advocate, how do we knoe that they have what they claim to have, that they didn't just get it off the internet too? Granted, this is highly unlikely, but how do we know? We have to wait until the information is absolutely verifiable, IMHO. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't. However much I personally wish that Rowling hasn't just completely lost her touch, or that various newspaper reviewers were just hacks downloading the torrent, the NY Times wouldn't stake its reputation on such a triviality -- a matter of being a few hours early with a book review. Still, best thing is to wait, of course. laddiebuck 04:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Because they said they bought it in a store and the NY Times is a reliable source.--Chaser - T 04:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If I recall the article says "If any of these "leaks" turn out to be real, then it will be the biggest leak in the History of the Harry Potter series." Therefore, either that needs to be removed or this needs to be added.
Sure. But we shouldn't make judgements like "biggest" - find a source to quote for opinions like that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiling

I think that the page should not have any of the information from the leak. There are some people who think wikipedia is still safe from the leak and might come and accidentally see stuff from Book 7. Even if you do put spoiler tags up, people might think that it's from book 6, and therefore, ok to see. Cswksu 04:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Girolamo Savonarola 04:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Information from the leak is (so far) regarded as unverifiable. But the article may contain spoilers at any time; it has some spoilers from reviews in the Baltimore Sun and NY Times. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Carl, the latest NYT article (linked above) has verified that they are identical. Girolamo Savonarola 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They verified that something is identical, but I don't know that what our editors downloaded is the same thing the NYT downloaded. Plot details provided by the NYT I trust; details provided by some of our editors that the rest of our editors can't verify I don't trust. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
NYT didn't download anything, they have a physical copy of the book. It so happens that the physical copy of the book they have matches up with the leak. --Guess Who 04:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They had to download some leaked version to determine that it matches what they bought, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and they went so far as to describe in depth which leak that was, to make the matter clear. Girolamo Savonarola 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't "spoilers",it's verifiability. Anything that can be sourced to the NY Times or the Sun, or any other reliable source, is perfectly fine. Things that require a complicated string of reasoning and are still not verifiable by the masses are not. Very soon the book will be released and this verifiability issue will evaporate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is complicated - we're talking secondary vs. primary sources here. It's not that complicated. I haven't read the book and have no plans to (ever). But I think from the WP:V policy, plot summarization is clear now. You are right - it's not going to matter soon. But it should be clear now that either way, if someone does choose to write a summary, it is verifiable. Girolamo Savonarola 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how I can verify it. Assume I'm reasonably skeptical about online hoaxes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It may be true that the "copy of the book they have matches up with the leak", but which leak? Oh, that's right, it's impossible to specify which leak, and to use information from that supposedly verified leak, in a legal manner which is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Oops.
Fact one, there are leaked copies, some of which may be real. Fact two, a reputable news souce has verified that one of the leaks floating around is genuine. Unfortunately, you can't draw a line connecting one and two just yet. As has been stated way too many times already, I could dig up one of the supposed leaks, add information from it to the article, use the above "NYT confirms leak" reasoning to justify it, and nobody can prove or disprove my claims legally and within Wikipedia's guidelines. It's still a no-win situation, confirmation that a leak (which we still can't legally obtain) does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards for verfiability. - Ugliness Man 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The amateurish photos showed each pair of facing pages of the book laid out on a beige red-and-green-flecked looped carpet and held open by somebody’s fingers. That establishes which leak it was. As for the legal implications, if Wikipedia were to actually store the book files, that would be illegal. If someone extrapolates a summary from a leak, that is not. It's the same principle as to the discussions involving pictures of drug use - the use is illegal, the photo of it is not. Girolamo Savonarola 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The legal issue which you're obviously missing is not whether or not a Wikipedia article provides illegal files, but whether or not editors would have to do something potentially illegal in order to verify information. In order for someone to take the necessary steps to verify a specific leak, they would have to 1) read the information given in a reputable news source making reference to the leak, 2) find and obtain said leak, 3) verify that the information provided in the news source does indeed refer to the specific leak obtained in the second step, and 4) verify that the information provided in the Wikipedia article matches up with the confirmed leak. There are two major problems with this. First of all, if something takes four steps to verify (as opposed to the standard one), that's not verification, that's heresay, and it puts too much of a burdeon of research on the reader. Second, it would be a bad idea in general for Wikipedia to allow illegal files on mostly-unregulated bit torrent sites to be used as citation.
I don't see what's so complicated about this. Anything stated explicitly in a reputable news source (such as the death of Hedwig and Snape) is fair game. Anything that involves independantly following up something which a news source said, and connecting A to B to C, (such as the names of children revealed in the book's epilogue) is OR. - Ugliness Man 05:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I concede the point. Girolamo Savonarola 05:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With the looming edit war just hours away, is there a consensus as to when exactly will plot summaries and other details be acceptable? I mean, sure it's officially 12:01 BST but the world doesn't use a single clock and by that time Asia-Pacific nations would have legions of readers prying the book. Chinfo 08:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus would be difficult to reach, and could very well be pointless. I think for the first 12 hours or so after the first official release, I'm just going to ignore the article completely. I don't have the patience to deal with it, and allowing the inevitable chaos for about half a day will be of little consequence in the big picture. - Ugliness Man 08:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Resurrection Stone

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)

I think you're forgetting that it is both the second Horcrux and Hallow. chandler · 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_20&oldid=1142355774"