Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

The end is nigh

The whole book (one huge file with photos of all 600-something pages, archive password "goatse") is posted here: <snip>

I am compiling a list of ALL websites that do NOT carry a copy of HP7 in advance. The list is rather short and getting shorter every minute...

I think JKR should have rather spent 9 million of that reported 10 million UKP sized security war chest on buying 40 Ferraris and tell people that if you get an advanced copy, do not leak but bring it to us and you drive away in such a nice flame-red car. There wouldn't be any leaks, as 1 million UKP security effort would still prevent massive copy-thefts and the less than 40 successful snatchers would keep mum and happy collecting their supercars. Why, oh, why simple and splendid ideas seldom occur to even the smarter of people? 82.131.210.162 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Certain other policemen - I mean users - on this talk page will probably get mad at you for posting that site... ugen64 08:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's already been snipped... ...sigh... Goatsmoke 08:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

...All is Well. don't let these spoilers ruin it for us!

Spoilers

The most recent edit contained actual spoilers. There's no reason to believe that will be the only such vandalism in the next few days... ugen64 09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want the spoilers, you can still check the edit history ThrustVectoring 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but it's a lot of work to delete revisions from edit history. Anyway, why would you read the history if you're worried about seeing spoilers? ugen64 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't. Thats why I prefaced my statement with "if you want the spoilers"

Has there been any official response to the confirmed leak?

I know it has only been several hours (I think) since the book hit the web, but this is JK's cash-cow. She or the publisher has to say something sooner or later. --Northridge 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloomsbury claim it's a hoax, but I've been sent a copy of a few pages and it definitely seems the genuine thing. WilkoDCFC 10:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Bloomsbury is just trying to save face. If this is a fake, this guy must be ex-KGB or something. The Frederick 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholastic has requested a subpeona to find out who posted the pictures online...that guy is screwed, maybe. We should probably go ahead and put the leak info on there, seeing as both english-speaking publishers have made official responses to its leak. BornToRun86 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Source please? --soum talk 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[1]

Recommendation for leak confirm method

I recommend the article inclusion of leak info to be tied to London bukmakers's behaviour. They are backing their actions with hard money. If they are massively pulling, invalidating and/or cancelling-repaying all the HP7 related bets, like "Harry knocks out Aberforth's horcrux goat with Pettigrew's silver hand - we take odds 1:35" then we know for sure HMS Harry Potter VII is about to capsize due to the many leaks.

I think Bumbury and Sholacetick spokespeople will deny no matter what, even if leaking tanks are rolling all over their bunker. So they are not a good reference. 82.131.210.162 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, they're trying to save face. It's too legit. It cannot be a fake. If it is a fake, you will never witness a greater media hoax in your lives. The Frederick 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, are we ever going to see a bigger book launch in our lives? It would be a good way to run interference against other leaks. Also, have you not been around for long? Just about anything can be made to look "legit." People have gotten really talented in the area of trolling other people.76.201.150.91 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
are we ever going to see a bigger book launch in our lives? Assuming our civilisation lasts, and there isn't a major economic crash on the scale of the Great Depression, and you're under about sixty, yes, almost certainly. (In other respects, I quite agree.) Marnanel 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The full HP7 book photo leak may indeed be fake

There is a video on funnyordie website, where two guys are shown next to an open HP7 book AND PALLETS OF BOXED HP7 BOOKS and they say (spoiler removed) and they recite a short book summary which is different from the full-photo leak.

Russians on IRC allege the 600+ page photo leak is an elaborate desinformation campaign by the publishers to confuse leakers.

Ok, I've seen that video. I find it fascinating that they show you the books, and then just sum it up instead of opening it and showing it to us. From what I've heard, the book that was photographed was stolen by LUElinks. The Frederick 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the "photo" of the publishers page and the ISBN-13 of: 978-0545010221 seems to match... --209.91.38.50 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's 100% real I have it on bit torrent. Flameninja311 1:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Is it okay if i set up a bot for archival here? Say a period of 14 days or something? Simply south 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well this page is already 62 kB after only 5 days, and I archived about 64k worth into Archive #16 about 16 hours ago, so every 14 days? And the book isn't even released yet. I expect we might need daily archiving for the next week to 10 days, just to keep the page size manageable. I've been doing it "manually" (and from the top down) for the last few archives. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
3 days then? Simply south 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
definitely daily or every two days, now that we are so close to the release this place will be swamped with leaks and whatnot dr.alf 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
2 vs 1. I'll set up 1 day archival. Simply south 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think size and number of threads quota should also be set? Simply south 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to set an archive bot to happen when the length reaches say 125-130k, essentially lopping off the "top half" of around 64k, preserving the "bottom half" until it reaches 128-ish again? That is essentially the strategy I have been using manually. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
By the looks of the bot guide, the archive size can be set, before moving on and the current talk page will be reduced. I am not quite understanding the counters parameters when rereading. Look under example 2. Btw, the userpage is an example and the bot can be applied to talk pages. Read all. Simply south 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just concerned that the - umm - fit hasn't really hit the shan yet (apologies to those folks in southern china), and we may already need to think about daily archiving, especially if even more leaks and spoilers appear between now and the 21st. Once the book is released, there will be almost a competition between the early readers who will be intent on posting chapter-by-chapter analyses and plot summaries, not to mention the (X KILLS Y AND Z) spoilers planted by trolls. Not sure what the right formula is, especially since some very valid active discussions may end up getting crowded out and archived as a result of more nonsense posts. It's a toughy - and probably unprecedented in wiki-history. It really says something that there are 4 archive pages for Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2 years after release), and already 16 pages for this one, and possibly reaching 20 before it is even released. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I added code to the top of the talk page to have MiszaBot archive the page. It's based on the last comment in a section - right now I have the cutoff set to 48 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already added the code (just below the archives) and set it for one day. What should happen now that it is twice on this page? Simply south 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I merged them to the one at the very top, and set it for 1 day as you did. You should put archiving code at the top, at least in the top section, so that when someone edits just the first section they can see that it's there. If you look at the code I put there, it illustrates how to automatically move the the right numbered archive as the archives fill up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Error

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#_ref-Farewell-to-Harry_1

The quote is cut off, the last bit looks like a normal paragraph (not indented)... if someone could fix that. I'm still new, I might mess things up. =P - Biomech 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Frederick 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. - Biomech 14:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the talk page be Semi-Protected?

Anonymous IPs keep posting links to the websites that have the leaked book. The main page is already under semi-protection to stop vandalism, as well as now preventing IPs and user accounts less than three days old from revealing spoilers. I know that I for one am scared that X and Y deaths among other things will be posted here on the talk page once the IPs figure out that they can't edit the article. The websites have been posted on this talk page by IPs so many times now that I've lost count. It's only a matter of time until the actual plot is posted as well. As previously stated, this could very well be a first for Wikipedia. So (if it is possible per Wikipedia policy), should this talk page be put under semi-protection as well? MelicansMatkin 14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, "intention to lock out anonymous users" is not a valid ground for protection. As protecting even the talk page would *lock out* anonymous users from having any say in the content, I dont think that is possible.
I, personally, think, its best to let them an outlet to post the stuff. Otherwise, I fear a repeat of the HD-DVD decryption key. At first the key was being added to the HD-DVD article, when that was protected, to the talk pages, and when that too was protected, it started popping up everywhere - on seemingy unrelated pages, templates, even page titles and user pages. Admins were clearly overwhelmed cleaning up the mess. If we let them post here, we can have the situation under control. We will have a central location which we can keep clean very easily, rather than hunting around all over wikipedia. If needed we can definitely have more eyes watching over the article. True, the revisions exist in history, but those who dont want to be spoiled wont bother scanning the revisions, and those who want to be, well, not listing here wont prevent them from being. If the leak is *indeed* real, we wont be at the wrong end of the copyright laws, as we are not hosting the article ourselves. If the images start getting uploaded here, well, the delete button is just a few pixels away. --soum talk 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is incontrovertible. However, I very much doubt a repeat of the decryption key. That was a widespread revolt against censorship, though with questionable means, that spilled over to Wikipedia. Posting spoilers here will be by a bunch of people who want to be assholes. Though the latter's power is not to be underestimated, it should not come within an order of magnitude of the former's, which was enough to overwhelm Digg.
Besides, this thing will have a massive vandal turnover: an IP only lasts for so long. If we semi-protect this page - as we should - and admins and the Counter-Vandalism Unit get overwhelmed, we can unprotect it and it'll soon become a central location again. --18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we do not semiprotect talk pages. If you are concerned about reading spoilers, you could always not read the article or the talk page until you've read the book. Neil ╦ 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of leak and WP policy

I would like to strenuously object to the deletion of sourced information mentioning the leak of the book. Doing so can be construed as a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, and it flies in the face of similar reporting of leaks on other Potter book pages. Furthermore, the article does not spoil the plot, nor does it mention where one can find the leak. It is relevant to the article, especially since the 10 million pound security measures are already mentioned, and the "leak-proof" publishing strategy received a feature-length article in Time magazine last month. Many Wikipedia articles contain what are considered to be relevant discussions about leaks, especially when regarding highly anticipated items.

If this continues to be reverted without a policy reason, then I will refer this to RfC. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy is No Original Research. Can you prove it (by means of attribution to reliable sources) that it *is* beyond doubt the original? Since the publishers havent made a comment, you cannot. As such, everything else falls under speculation or original research, none of which is acceptable here. --soum talk 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not write the article, but I did properly source it. The burden of NPOV is not to determine "beyond a doubt". Girolamo Savonarola 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But the burden of verifiable is. Since it is saying whats doing the rounds is a copy of the book, we have to make sure it is beyond dount a copy of the book. And I dont see any source which claims it is. Everyone is hypothesizing and speculating. And since there is no way to prove this till 21st (save for an official announcement), we are gonna have to remove it as this would otherwise be crystal balling. Also, wikipedia works by consensus. So, if majority of the users feel something is not to be included, it can be enforced without a word by word explanation in policies. --soum talk 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What criterion of NOR is being violated? As for WP:V: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." This is not the case with this article. Crystal balling refers to events too far to be reasonably discussed, and furthermore - "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."
What I'm worried about as an encyclopedia editor here is that people, as fans, are violating policy in order to "protect" the book. If the exact same information with the exact same source would be considered adequate for mention in the article if it were added a year from now, then there is no acceptable basis for denying its inclusion now. Girolamo Savonarola 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Does any of the article (as references) say *beyond doubt* that it is a copy HPDH? Herein lies all our concerns. If it says that the scans doing rounds is *definitely* of the original, then sure it can be included. Until then, sorry. Its speculation. And speculations is not verifiable. One year from now, we all can verify that the scans are definitely/definitely not HPDH. So, we can add that (even if the reference doesnt spell it out explicitly). Much like you wont need a reference to spell out that most human beings have five fingers on their left hand. So WP:V is the main policy here thats preventing us from including the information.
As for NOR, claiming it *is* HPDH is the violation. If you manage to circumvent it with a ref, as I already pointed out, until it says *beyond doubt* it is HPDH, it fails WP:V. --soum talk 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the article lead says "apparently". Secondly, Scholastic has filed an injunction. If you'd prefer, I can link to that. There is nothing in policy or NPOV which requires a "beyond a doubt" consideration - the question is do the sources meet the criteria of verifiable and reliable based on WP:V - the reference sources, not the actual book. Girolamo Savonarola 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
So there are sources talking about the "alleged" leak right? So why can't something be added talking "about" the alleged leak? Nothing has to say that there IS a leak, but all this drama about the possible leak is pretty big news and is worth metioning. Stingmans 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Even the briefest of examinations of the leaked book pages will confirm beyond a reasonable doubt its authenticity. The evidence is surely as strong as much of the material found on Wikipedia. It would be a tremendous hoax requiring many hours of effort to recreate what appears in the photos. Also, the material in the book does not match any previous fan fiction or Chinese-originated forgeries. The idea that this article should only contain information provided by the publisher is disturbing. Feldon23 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Even though it is obviously the real thing, my point was that even though people keep saying that it could be faked that it doesn't mean that it cant still be refered to in the artical. This is big news, it has sources, it clearly needs to at least be mentioned. Even it cant be proved yet it can still be metioned as an "alleged" leak. Stingmans 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please revert back the subpeona mention? I've hit the 3RR limit, and I think the reasons for inclusion are very clearly stated here. Girolamo Savonarola 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Done (well, I didn't revert because decent changes had been made in the interim, but I did restore your contribution). The LATimes reference is solid. It states clearly that the leak is genuine. The only usage of 'allegedly' is in a legal-back-covering attempt in reference to the uploader (who is presumably yet to be found guilty of anything in court). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Leak query

Why do leaks even need to be posted on here? Can't people just wait until Saturday? Simply south 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought these talk forums were place of open discussion. Least people are posting here instead of on the Harry Potter page.209.91.38.50 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is in Encyclodedia. It is not the job of wikipedia to "protect" the harry potter books in any way, shape, or form. The alleged leaks are clearly relevent to this artical so they should be mentioned. Stingmans 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against posting reports of leaking, but as for posting actual (possible) plot ahead of time: speaking as a person and book reader, instead of a Wikipedian, we should weigh the miniscule gain it would give against how badly it would make us dicks. --Kizor 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that the actual content of the leaks should be posted here ahead of time. Apart from anything else, I suspect we would then be starting to stray into legally dubious territory. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
However, as per the applicable section in Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported: Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger (sic) is clear <--- in this case the person making the allegations (i.e. the identity of the person who posted the spoiler is unclear). Therefore, it is an invalid to post the news of the supposed spoiler. Just because a "legitimate news source" has reported it, does not make it any more credible. If I posted something on my blog that I made up and claimed it was real, I don't think it would take much to get it published in a newspaper since they are constantly searching for any "news" about the latest book...all the hype helps sells papers. So, the "leak" is from an extremely AMBIGUOUS source, which is direct contravention to the policy I reference above. Ccrashh 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ccrash, as I've mentioned in my edit summary and above, I went to take a look at the LATimes source (because I agree, up until now, it's been none-too-strongly cited). However, I would like to clarify something: the 'allegation' is in reference to the uploader, who is yet to be found guilty of anything in court, and it would therefore presumably be a legal faux pas to claim unilaterally that he was guilty. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note that the point of verifiability is exactly that. The information must be verifiable using a reliable source, with no regard for truth. See the opening sentence of WP:V. Now, I realise that this is, to an extent, an aphorism, and that we should strive for truth, but there's a reasonable source now for this claim and if Scholastic is indeed taking legal action, then that suggests that there is more than a little truth to it. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Angus, for restoring this text. I would also like to note that I do agree that this leak itself cannot be used as a source for plot information, regardless - there's no reliable way to prove that the content of the leak is real, even with a subpoena, prior to release. But that's a unique function of this being a book - were it a movie, a real leak would be obvious without the need for confirmation. Nonetheless, the presence of a leak which is believed to be reliable is being reported by mainstream media, and this leak has caused a real subpoena to be issued. These are relevant details and should be placed in the article. Girolamo Savonarola 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding the web leak to article?

Resolved

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/books/17cnd-potter.html?ref=books

Could that be used as a source? - Biomech 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh I see it's already been added, never mind then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biomech (talk • contribs)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Absolutely. I've added it as a source, and used it to rewrite that particular section of the article a little. Thanks! Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (POST EDIT CONFLICT: No, it wasn't added already — I just must have been faster than you expected! :-) )
Oh, sweet. Thanks dude. =D - Biomech 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Misspelling

Resolved

The word "verisimilitude" is misspelled near the end of the top part. It's missing the first 'i'.

Be bold and make an edit if you notice something wrong. Thanks for pointing it out though. Miles Blues 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right — it was my sloppy typing in the first place, so I've fixed it (EDIT: Or I thought I did, but Miles got there first — I do wish Mediawiki would say when that happens). But yes, in general, feel free to edit the pages. Especially for something as minor as that (major changes should, of course, be discussed first). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have, but I can't; I'm not registered.
Good point! Thanks for pointing it out in any case. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Was going to point out that was an anonymous editor, and the semiprotection does inform editors unable to edit to suggest changes via the talk page (be aware this will happen a lot over the next few days). Neil ╦ 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that... I didn't know you were unregistered since you didn't sign.  ;) Miles Blues 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RPP

I've filed a request for full page protection. The vandalism is getting silly. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that. It's going to get worse anyways, best the page is protected sooner. - Biomech 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The reviewing admin declined the request, but pointed out that the decline was due to its being discussed (at considerable length) here at WP:ANI. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I also added this page to my watchlist to watch for problems, so if there is any sort of concerted attack and I am online I can protect it right away. I hope that we will be able to keep the vandals at bay here without locking the page for everyone, but it will depend on how many vandals there are. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The vandals have already begun replacing the Plot Overview sections on the other HP book pages with Deathly Hallows spoilers. We must hide archers inside of a pantomime clitoris. 'Tis the only way to keep the vandals out. Goatsmoke 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of leaks?

Giving these examples in the actual article seems stupid and does more harm than good. If any of those happen to be real, I'm certain you'll upset many people. Goatsmoke 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the potential for damage is limited (given that they conflict with each other), however I do agree that they have no place in the article. I also feel that the quality of that section is somewhat limited, and so I'll be bold and remove it. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. Did a vandal put the Leaks section in? - Biomech 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd be very wary of calling the user that added that a vandal. Firstly, it's always a good idea to assume good faith, but he also made other sensible contributions and this seemed to be a genuine attempt to help. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 00:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added information of leak as on a cursory glace I could not find it in the article. I agree that spoilers are not needed in the article as the book is not release and everything else is just speculation.
Except the news that something has been leaked. And this news is noteworthy enough to be included in the article.--18jahremädchen 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It was at the end of the lead (and is probably notable enough to stay there at least until release), but it is good that a separate section was created. Girolamo Savonarola 05:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Entire Book Now Downloadable

I just noticed the full text of "Deathly Hallows" is available on Bittorrent, tracked by The Pirate Bay. It was posted five days ago, and has been indexed by Google. It's only 1.7 meg of text, so it's a quick download. Assuming no one is going to write almost two megabytes of very complex and well thought out text in the style of JK Rowling just to play a practical joke, I think we can assume with a high degree of confidence that this is the actual book. Which, since it's apparently fallen into the public domain through no fault of ours, and is accessible by anyone, hints at the content are probably fair use at this point, much like the Pentagon Papers.

Hermitian 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain, just illegally copied. Please don't hint about the plot on the talk page or the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure it's illegally copied, and published where anyone on the Internet can read it, and it would certainly be a copyright violation to redistribute it, although that's somewhat like beating a dead horse at this point. Nonetheless, comments about the fact of its premature disclosure, and what it is alleged to contain are not illegal, and the publisher's recourse is against those who leaked it, not against those who report on the leakage.
It's much like a reporter coming into the office one day, and seeing someone has left a package of leaked documents on his desk, which document corruption at the highest levels of government. He can write a story about the documents. He might even get a subpoena to testify about the circumstances of his receipt of the package. But the politicans can only jail the leaker, they can't bar the publication of the leaked information. Generally, once information is available to the general public, derivative works commenting on it are unrestricted, even if the original information is still protected by copyright and can't be redistributed verbatim. Hermitian 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only is it not public domain, it's probably not even legit. I've seen at least 6 so-called "leaked" copies on various bit torrent sites, all of them seem like badly written fanfic with the official cover slapped on. Illegal or otherwise, it's still not a verifiable source by Wikipedia's standards. - Ugliness Man 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be a transcript of the photographs. The Frederick 01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And there's still no evidence that "the photographs" are related to a legit copy. So far all that reputable news sources have said about this "leaked" copy usually involves the phrase "appears to be". No reliable source has yet confirmed that any leaked copy is legit. The charges laid so far involve fraud, not copyright infringment. - Ugliness Man 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be the real thing. It may be an elaborate hoax. In either case, it's irrelevant unless someone of authority steps forward to verify the claim. Otherwise, WP:V won't kick in until the release date. Were I the publisher, I'd deny all leaks regardless. My point is, good luck finding a way to reconcile the leak with the WP:V policy before the release. Girolamo Savonarola 02:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

^^^^ READ THIS, PEOPLE. There is an extremely good chance that the leak is authentic - I have personally put my stock in Occam's Razor, given that I believe that someone writing a 759 page fanfic, getting it library-bound and then photographing it page-by-page would exceed the attention span and dedication of most HP fans and trolls. Yes, it'll be the best. hoax. ever. if it turns out to be fake. But regardless of which of these situations it is, we cannot import the information into wikipedia until a) the book is released, or b) the leak is authenticated, whichever comes first. Daggoth | Talk 02:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
When the book is released in a few days, we can report on whether the leaked book matches it. Hermitian 02:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. The leak, whether genuine or not, is notable. (BTW all, that ^^^^ was an attempt to point to the post above mine and say "read this post above mine". Sorry if that came across as a bit arrogant.) Daggoth | Talk 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If it's real, it's a leak. If it's fake, it's one hell of a fake. The Frederick 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Here here, for a whole bunch of people finally standing up for reason. Liu Bei 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The leak indeed looks like a high quality product, though having never read an American edition, I cannot tell if the pictures and fancy chapter name text is the norm. HOWEVER, there was a long fan fiction released prior to HP6 on BT sites. It acknowledged the fact is was a fake at the end, and the writing was mediocre (even relative to JK Rowling's), but a lot of people thought it was at the very least a somewhat convincing fan fiction. Is it inconceivable to think that a very convincing fan fiction could be released if the efforts of multiple people were combined? All that said, the attitude of the publishers (they're basically saying "it might not be real") suggests they have a reason not to confirm or deny the veracity of the leak. Hmm..why could that be?;) 24.68.65.244 05:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd hate to rip this it out, but part of the leak matches the UK cover art. The Frederick 05:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not fake; it being a fake is as implausible as faking the Apollo landings. This is a real leak, 100%. It has resulted in a subpoena. There is no chance whatsoever that this is a fake. It is a real, genuine leak. Regardless of the presence of fakes, there is a real leak, and many, many people have seen it. There are images from this leak in articles about the leak. It leaked and Scholastic would not have reacted at all if it was fake. The subpoena alone proves it is real. If you have not seen the leak, it consists of a series of pictures (supposedly low-res, but they really aren't; you can read the text) of someone reading the book (may be male, may be female - difficult to tell from the hand in every image). It is absolutely and unequivocably real. Product often leaks before releases, and there's no reason to think this wouldn't and every reason to know it would. Frankly, I find all this debate about it repungant - the leak is without question real, and all this comes off as is a bunch of people trying to keep spoilers out of an article which not only should contain the spoilers, but which, if you are trying to avoid spoilers, you shouldn't be reading in the first place. I'm sorry, but the leak is real. Titanium Dragon 09:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would hazard to guess that part of the reason that the latest leak was photographed was to prove that it was the real deal and not just a bunch of text someone wrote on their computer. As mentioned above, if it's fake, someone put a lot of time, money, and effort into this one... Girolamo Savonarola 05:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The subpoena doesn't confirm anything other than that Bloomsbury/Scholastic want to shut the sites down. They have already refused to confirm the leak verbally; it's not like it would make sense for them to then do something to confirm a leak three days before launch. Marnanel 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way someone can stop the leak and downlode? I mean surely there is some way of shuting down the site? Does JK Rowling know about it? Lovingnews1989 06:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that is outside of the scope of this site. Girolamo Savonarola 06:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but does JK Rowling know? Lovingnews1989 06:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have downloaded it, read the whole thing, it is the real deal. They are pictures, but it is the whole book. User:Chocolatecow

Ok, so my attempts to post spoilers have failed. But I will let you know it is the real book, you can download it at Pirate Bay. It shouldn't be the first one, that one is fake. It's a 2mb zip file.

Assuming no one is going to write almost two megabytes of very complex and well thought out text in the style of JK Rowling just to play a practical joke -- You haven't been around HP fans very long, have you? :) Marnanel 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read a few dozen pages of this "leak", and i feel that its writing style quite matches rowling's past books - compare it with fanfictions and you will know what i mean. it feels quite authentic...of course we'll have to wait to see if its real.
Not all fanfic writers are subliterate preteens, you know. Rowling's not exactly Shakespeare herself and her writing style isn't that hard to imitate for someone with both talent and skill (which do actually exist in the fanfic communities). Marnanel 14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I've seen two books claiming to be it on the web, each one is now obviously not it, but it just shows that some people are crazy enough. And as for the book, just print out a picture of the cover and stick it on the half blood prince book and that looks real enough. -Mbatman 72 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A Request

Can vandals please stop talking about "spoilers" because it is not fun looking through the whole page for every single bit.Wii2-13 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're shouting at the sea. Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection to full protection

I'd like to formally protest the full protection which has just recently been applied to the page. Both the discussion at WP:ANI and the WP:RFPP seemed not to conclude in favor of it. In RFPP it was outright rejected, while the discussion at ANI seemed to lean towards status quo at the moment. Yes, there has been some recent vandalism, but it has also been applied liberally across other Potter pages, and all have been tackled very quickly. This page's semi-protection kept vandalism comparatively low as was. Furthermore, there have been a handful of substantive edits occurring even in the last 24 hours and it seems reasonable to expect that there will be plenty more to add as news coverage of all aspects of the book only increases and interviews continue with key personnel. Were we getting pounded constantly with non-stop ceaseless vandalism I'd be in favor of a temporary (24 hrs or less) protection, but I don't think the current level of vandal activity warrants this level. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 06:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia is not censored; this is one of the founding and guiding principles of Wikipedia. We do not bow down to any man. We have reliable information on the book, and some Harry Potter fans (who are, for some BIZZARE reason, reading the page on the seventh book and expecting there not to be spoilers) are fighting against this. The reality is that the book has been leaked, and it is a reliable source on itself. Therefore, if someone writes a plot summary or spoilers pertaining to the book, they are allowed to do so under Wikipedia policy and it is vandalism to remove this plot summary. It is not hard to police this page, it is being watched heavily, and if you don't want the book spoiled, you should stand back and let those who don't care deal with it. There are more than enough people capable of writing plot summaries and similar, and keeping the vandalism down, who don't care. Being watched heavily means that it shouldn't be protected from everyone, as that discourages new users from making useful edits and becoming contributers. Titanium Dragon 06:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the above discussions regarding WP:V. I agree with you in principle that there's no reason why a plot summary couldn't exist prior to release. However, the leak itself is not a valid source unless it is independently confirmed as genuine. I believe it is, but without confirmation, that belief is worthless. Girolamo Savonarola 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The reality is that the book has been leaked, and it is a reliable source on itself.
No, the reality is, we have several conflicting claims of a leak, and still no reliable source to support said claims. A claim cannot be its own proof. Even if there is a genuine leaked copy, there are also at least 2 fanfic stories floating around claiming to be genuine leaked copies. The people pointing out that "nobody" would go to the trouble of inventing such an elaborate hoax are providing a compelling argument, and presenting evidence. But compelling arguments and evidence are not the same as proof, and images from what appear to be a genuine leaked copy do not serve as self-proving evidence. Plain and simple, until the book is released, or until a reliable source steps forward and confirms without a doubt that a leaked copy is in fact the real deal (and confirms which one is real), all alleged leaks should be treated as fake. We are not trying to keep "spoilers" out of the article to protect those who haven't read the book yet, we are simply facing the fact that, based on Wikipedia's criteria for citation and source reliability, no suppsedly leaked copy can (yet) be considered genuine. Strictly conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources is not the same thing as "censorship". - Ugliness Man 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the chapter titles of the leaked copy I've got are definitely in line with the ones posted here...no, I'm not saying we should post 'THE LEAKED COPY IS REAL SUCKERS', but it definitely makes it look more legit than ever. Blue Mirage | Comment 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The pictures of the person with their hand paging through the book, with each and every page visible, is real; that is why the publisher has issued a subpoena and is looking for that person. They simply would not (and could not) have done so unless the person committed an act infringing on their intellectual property. This leak is real. Titanium Dragon 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Circular argument, presenting OR evidence, but no reliable citation. And so far the subpoena does not confirm anything, the only charges laid as of yet are in regards to fraud, not copyright infringement. I'm not sayin that I absolutely insist beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leak is fake, I'm simply pointing out that nothing you've said so far can be regarded as proof that it's real, and saying "this leak is real" does not make it so. - Ugliness Man 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
How is using a primary source OR? In fact, using an internet leaked version is the same as using google books and citing the book instead of google in an article. The only difference is that the HP book is not verifiable in itself, but by outside sources that pretty much state its authenticity. Joshdboz 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Using Google Books to cite a book would mean that you had access to the text of the book, as written: that is a primary source for the content of the book. Using the scans means you have access to the text of the scans; it is not a primary source for the content of the book unless the text of the scans is identical to the text of the book as written. Since the scans have not been confirmed by any reliable outside sources (and if they have, you're welcome to produce them, but nobody has yet done so), they cannot be considered primary sources. Marnanel 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right they haven't been "confirmed" but the media coverage they are getting is more than enough to make them notable, therefore should be included in some form, if not as "official". Joshdboz 13:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster here, the article has dropped the ball. The article is lacking critical information that people are looking for about the leak. It's fine that there's a chance that it's a fake if you say "the following is a summary of the book that claimed to be leaked". You don't have to claim that the leak is 100% absolute, that's what Wikipedia is all about, getting the facts straight.

If anyone has a link to a decent summary, post it on my talk page. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

response to poll objection

references:

The poll was moved to an archive while I was typing a comment, and since it's bad form to edit archived information, I'll make my comment here.

Please discuss the issue.

For the record, those involved in the voting were discussing the issue. Voting and discussion are not exclusive of each other, every single person who voted made a comment supporting their vote. Despite calling it a "straw poll", it was indeed a genuine discussion with an added element of voting. - Ugliness Man 06:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. I feel a bit bad about stopping that discussion, but it seemed the only way to end the voting was to end the entire process, as it had already strayed far into voting territory. I apologize for stopping you in mid-edit. Regards.--Chaser - T 06:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with the poll to begin with - we were already well into a discussion at WP:ANI regarding this matter. And it was more a discussion and less a vote with minimal comment. Girolamo Savonarola 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops - deeply sorry about archiving while you were typing - but the poll was closed a few hours ago. Nevertheless, please feel free to continue the discussion here. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 07:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the discussion predates that (to my knowledge) and was announced there. Was the poll linked at WP:ANI? Why was it only open for less than a day? Also, I have major problems with this because a full protect seems to go directly against protection policy. Girolamo Savonarola 07:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-Added reference links at top. Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been some discussion over at WikiProject Harry Potter in the first and last sections on that page. RHB - Talk 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Article on the leak

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070718/ap_en_ot/books_potter_spoilers_10

Harry Potter spoilers proliferate
By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Tue Jul 17, 9:56 PM ET
NEW YORK - In the final days before the world learns whether Harry Potter lives or dies, spoilers — or those pretending to spoil — are spreading on the Internet.
On Tuesday, digital images of what may be the entire text of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," including 36 chapters and a seven-page epilogue, were circulating among Web users. The book was apparently photographed as it lay on a carpet speckled with green and red, a hand at the bottom holding down the pages.

—Wasabe3543 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the use of phrases "digital images of what may be" and "apparantly". So far, still no reliable news source confirming a genuine leak. - Ugliness Man 07:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The images themselves are newsworthy, genuine or not. Second story.

If real, this would be the most serious breach of Potter privacy since the first book was published in 1997.

—Wasabe3543 08:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. These images have become notable and newsworthy in themselves, and therefore should be written about in this article to a greater extent than right now, As people have said above that they are unverifiable and not citable: don't cite the images, cite every major newspaper in the world that is talking about them. Joshdboz 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things

First, in a recent edit, someone added a list of chapter titles, apparantly from HPANA. Now, I won't go into the reliability of this particular tidbit, even though HPANA is after all a fan site, but I do want to say that having the entire list in the article is a bit much. No, I'm not complaining about "spoilers", it just looks terrible as part of a Wikipedia article. I would recommend making a comment about the chapter list being revealed with a link to the relevant article. However, there seems to be something funny going on with said link. I went to the HPANA main page, and scrolled down a bit, and found a link titled Exclusive: HPANA given 'Deathly Hallows' chapter titles. Yet, when I click on the link, it redirects me back to the main page. This happens to me in both MSIE and Opera, so hopefully someone can provide a working link, and remove the superfluous list from the article.

Second, as per several discussions going on here, the statement "On 2007-07-17, four days before actual release date, photographed copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows were leaked on internet through bit-torrent sites" under the heading of "Controversy" should be reworded. The citation provided is a blog, and blogs are not considered reliable sources. As I've said countless times in the last few hours, there is not yet any reliable news source which confirms that a genuine copy has been leaked. No matter how convincing the evidence appears, evidence is not proof, and the existence of several fake leaks means that we should treat all unconfirmed leaks, no matter how good they might look, as suspected fakes. The only reason I'm not editing it myself is that I would want to either cut it out completely, or I would end up including what some consider to be "weasel words", so I'll leave this one in someone else's hands.- Ugliness Man 07:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the supposed leaked story of harry potter and the deathly hallows...but I doubt if it is actually original. But strange, how Wiki has allowed this to be posted here.
Wiki hasn't "allowed" anything, really, it's simply a matter that countless editors are constantly adding information, not all of which is reliable or appropriate, and it's simply difficult for the editors who actually care about the integrity of the article to keep up. - Ugliness Man 08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The Chapter Titles article has been removed from HPANA, and so should it on here. Immediately after it was put up, a moderator posted a comment saying "This is NOT Legit!" and that the ataff were doing as much as they could to remove it. I say it should also be removed from here as its not confirmed at all and removed from HPANA entirely. Survivorfan101 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Gee, I'd be nice to fix it... If we weren't full protection. I hate to keep on banging the drum, but I must - we've had no problem dealing with the current vandalism. Full protection is merely obstructing us from continuing to improve the article, while allowing admins to edit at their hazard. Witness this. Girolamo Savonarola 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Protecting an article isn't only to prevent vandalism, there is a constant stream of nonsense and unconfirmed twaddle, and the flood of this crap is just getting to be too much to handle. It's a temporary measure asserting that the integrity of the artice is more important than allowing chaos to reign in the name of "free speech", please don't start giving us some sob story about how you and your fellow editors are being oppressed. - Ugliness Man 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not - quite the opposite, I think that we are dealing with the edits just fine! I think that the record of yestoday's edits shows that. Hence why I think that this is overprotection. And it violates policy. And... Girolamo Savonarola 08:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to expect that this can be confirmed as a "genuine leak" as the newspapers won't have access to the book until it's released. However, the possibility that this is a real leak is newsworthy (http://news.google.com/news?q=Potter+leak) and should be included in the article, given all the security around the book's release (as well as the coverage of said security).—Wasabe3543 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, none of this belongs in the first graf. Move it the controversy section after the page is unprotected.—Wasabe3543 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No one expects it to be confirmed prior to release at this point. That's fine. The article already mentions the leak - it just can't yet state if it is the real thing. I agree that it won't belong in the lead once the book has been released, but given the current lack of information on the subject, it's probably one of the most pertinent pieces of information prior to release. Girolamo Savonarola 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It just seems so amateurish to me to include all that info. A sentence at most is fine. WP:LEAD—Wasabe3543 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, actually. It was something I was intending to address last night, not least because a three paragraph introduction is far too long IMHO, but I was too tired. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion lower down the page. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Unprotection

I find it illogical to protect something that is a current news category item and further is about to be released, there will be a torrent of editing and correction over the next few days; now is the time to refine the article not lock it up. Please remove the protection on this page. Jachin 08:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, as semi-protected - as before. Girolamo Savonarola 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ditto—Wasabe3543 08:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The only three Harry Potter articles I've looked at today amid the discussion around protection have been the main page, this one, and JK Rowling. All three are protected in some way, this one fully. I can only recommend using this, which shows that in less than an hour there have been 50 edits - and this while most of the US is asleep, and three days before the books release. While lots of the edits will be improvement, sleeper accounts are already causing a problem. RHB - Talk 09:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Which would explain why all the vandalism was swiftly reverted? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of users watching this page. No vandalism has survived more than a minute or two. Check the logs. Girolamo Savonarola 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that vandalism is specifically only to be used as a pretext for semi-protection, not full protection. It was noted at the WP:ANI discussion that the George W. Bush article has always been semi-protected - even during the elections, and that's a far more controversial article that see vastly more eyes and receives tremendous amounts of editing non-stop. Girolamo Savonarola 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The source of the leak

I admit I have no evidence or proof of this, but from what I know: - Firstly, the leak was made on the 16th, at the latest (that was when it arrived on bittorent) - From what I understand, the photos were first shown on LUElinks, then on 4chan, before released to bittorent. - It may be worth mentioning (and the LA times source mentions this) that the subpoena was sent to Gaia Interactive Inc Since I cant see any concrete sources, I suppose this information cannot be useful. But I would at least suggest moving the details about the leak from the introduction into the "Controversy", perhaps just leaving one line there. There is also no need for the chapter titles: No other Potter book has them, so its unnecessary. Hpmons 08:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also rapidshare.de. I believe this is "European website" mentioned in this story.—Wasabe3543 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I heard that LUElinks stole the thing from a library. The Frederick 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
How the hell does a website steal something from a library? What is it, skynet?—Wasabe3543 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I was LUELinks. No doubt about it. I can't think of any other community with enough manpower and malicious enough to do that. Dskzero 13:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It did go LUELinks -> 4chan -> bittorrent. And Zero, I take it you've never been on /b/. Will (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Deathly Hallows" search on Wikipedia

Searching Deathly Hallows brings you to a page devoted entirely to spoilers. I'm not sure how to remedy this as I am new, but I'd like someone to try doing something about it. The page must be new as it only has about 4 edits in its history... -'''Goatsmoke''' 08:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Has been fixed, thanks. GoatSmoke 09:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know on my talk page if you need admin help with any other similar pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please get the spoilers off the top of the page? I'm a new user so I can't at the moment.

Minor observations...

"Harry and Hermione search for the sword in Godric's Hollow, as well as Harry's old house. While looking at the house, Harry and Hermione are beckoned by Bathilda Bagshot into her home...where she transforms into Nagini."


"As Snape dies, he gives his memories to Harry that prove Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, motivated by his lifelong love for Harry's mother Lily..."




First section of bold text could be misleading. Harry's old house would be the then-compromised #12 Grimmauld Place. It should perhaps be clarified as referring to his parents' old house.


Second bold section is errored. It is not a transformation; Nagini quite plainly is said to emerge from the neck of the hollowed corpse of Bathilda.


In the third text section, detailing Snape's memories, the doe Patronus might be mentioned as having belonged to Lily Potter (later Snape, due to his longing for her). (being a part of the Plot section, it seems an important point to make)


GaiusRoth (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found a huge flaw in the literature.. In the beginning of Deathly Hallows, when Hermoine is explaining to Harry the sacrifices she made, she explains that she wiped her parents memories clean and made them think they had no daughter, as well as instilling the desire to move to Australia. Later, however, in the cafe after Bill and Fleur's wedding, she says she's never performed a memory charm, but understands the general theory of it, and performs one upon the Death Eaters and the Muggle waitress.. Inconsistency?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.77.100 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


In the seventh paragraph of the Plot section, there should be some explanation as to why the sword of Gryffindor is capable of destroying Horcruxes (i.e. because it is infused with Basilisk venom as a result of events in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets). It should also be mentioned that the primary reason for Ron's departure was the mental effect of the locket upon them as they took turns wearing it to keep it safe. Javabass (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)javabass 1/12/2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_18&oldid=1142763027"