Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Release Date

When will this book be released in the US & UK? --Gafaddict 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Midnight, Saturday, July 16, 2005. Hermione1980 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

To disambiguate, that is the midnight between Friday and Saturday: at time of writing that is some 4 days and 11½ hours. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

So the British release is five hours before the first release in North America--is that correct?

Due to time zones, I believe so, yes. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Is the thing he said about *** and *** true?

I want to make this perfectly clear: Whatever vandals try to add, no one knows what is in this book, and no one will know until Saturday! (The few people who have read it, aren't going to spoil it for us.) Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the release times be in 24-hour format? I was going to change it if I knew what 12:01 am is. Is it in the morning or night? I'm sure all non-US people are equally confused. User:EliasMartenson

Feel free to change it. FYI, AM is before noon (12:00 AM is midnight, 1 AM is the next hour). PM is noon (12:00 PM) and after (1 PM is the next hour). See 12-hour clock. — 131.230.133.185 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Richard Stallman - Internet Book Critic

I'm as thankful for Emacs as the next guy, but I don't see how the paragraph on Stallman has any real relevance to the discussion here. If people actually take him seriously and start boycotting the book I would agree that it should go back in. But until that happens, it seems to me that he is just another blowhard with a blog, and unless we're about to start including minireviews from every one of the thousands of people that have an opinion on the book and/or the Canadian case, I'd leave it out.

Thoughts?

I'm one of the first people to revert the edit, and I reverted it as a "subtle spamlink". Let me explain: the URL quite correctly had Stallman's name, but when I first clicked it, it went through a couple of redirects before landing me on a web directory containing nothing but a bunch of external links. Hence, I concluded the link was just to increase the Google/Alexa rating of that site. However, even assuming that the double-redirect problem has been fixed, after some thought I would still revert because I don't find this that relevant or encyclopedic, though I might no longer consider it to be a spamlink. --Deathphoenix 11:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If Stallman has no place here neither does Greenpeace and for many of the same reasons. — 131.230.133.185 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Greenpeace isn't mentioned in the body of the text, but just in 'external links' at the end.Nandesuka 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it was at one point. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Greenpeace paragraph was removed on this edit [1]. I have to disagree with User:131.230.133.185's choice to take it out. The paragraph is very relevant. It speaks about an ongoing campaign by two very notable environmental groups, Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation. The campaigns have been reported on by national media outlets, the link I provided references the CBC. Moreover the campaigns are ongoing, and will continue after the book's publication. Please also see Greenpeace's "Save Muggle Forests" website here. Greenpeace reports that over 13,000 people have taken actions they suggest on that page. The information contained in the deleted paragraph is relevant, notable, is easily verified, and presents all facts from a neutral point of view. It is entirely fit for inclusion in this article. For those that wish it to stay omitted please provide detailed explanations for your position. Kurieeto 20:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a pargraph about it. It is certainly relevant. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. The information about Stallman's opinion is as relevant, notable, and easily verified. Just as Greenpeace is noted for its environmental stands and recommends against certain purchases, Stallman is noted for his stands on copyright and recommends against certain purchases. Both opinions can be presented in a neutral point of view. The question was whether either is relevant to this article. I believe a case can be made either way. — 131.230.133.185 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I returned the Greenpeace/National Wildlife Federation paragraph to the article, but moved it to the "Editions" section. It's since been moved back to the "Release dates and times" section with no explanation by User:131.230.133.185. Half of the current paragraph describes the recycled paper content of two of the editions. I ask the user who moved the paragraph, why is it more appropriate to have this paragraph in the "Release dates and times" section instead of the "Editions" section? The "Editions" section is far more appropriate, as the primary point of the paragraph is to inform the reader of the % of recycled paper in each edition, while the secondary point is to state which organizations brought the issue to prominence. Kurieeto 03:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please keep the Stallman material in. At the least it shows just what a juggernaut the Harry Potter industry is, and what problems it can cause. Plus, you get very few dissenting voices criticizing Potter in the media, unless they're fundamentalists objecting to "witchcraft." --Simon.Pole 09:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I put a bit about the controversy into Harry Potter under "Controversy"-- Including a copy of the injunction, some links to a canadian law prof's criticism of it, and link to Stallman's call for a boycott until an apology from the publisher for the injunction - without spoiler info. That link might be more relevant without having to have the spoiler link? --Hobart 17:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Chapter titles?

Can anyone verify these? I'm currently about fourteen hours away from getting my copy, because I'm getting it from the library and the library doesn't open until 10:00 am tomorrow morning and… [/gripe] Anyway, these just don't quite sound right, so if anyone up at midnight in the UK right now could verify this (not expecting it, but maybe…). Hermione1980 00:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Should we really begin to summarize the book's content in this article? I find that bad, somehow... --Keimzelle 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What, you mean because it's so early? That's why I'm taking everything new related to Harry Potter I see tonight with a grain of salt. I'm half-tempted to blanket-revert it all, especially after the note I received on my talk page after I reverted one thing, but I don't know. "A Sluggism Memory"? Come on, people. And I found the Mystic Kettle of Nackledirk the other day, too. Summarising is fine, in my opinion, but can we just wait until maybe someone has actually had time to finish the book? It's only been out for about forty-five minutes in the UK. Whatever you think about deleting the "summaries", I'll go with at this point. When I finish the book, I will be hunting down factual errors like the dogs they are… Hermione1980 00:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Should we really have the chapter titles as the section titles? That's a spolier, and the section head comes before the spoiler warning, especially since the book isn't even out yet in most of the world.Jeff8765 00:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've currently removed the table of contents. After a few days, when we no longer need the chapter titles as section heads (to expedite adding new plot details), I'll (or someone else will) reorganize the sections and reinsert the table of contents.

I just commented out the whole lot of them. I'm currently siding with the "No spoilers!" crowd, and the titles just sound fishy to me. Hermione1980 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say wait to revert until you get a copy of the book (except for blatant vandalism). The editing quality isn't that bad, and if it's legitimate, we save a lot of time. If it's not legitimate, deletion of the offensive material will be quick. If the table of contents blaring out chapter titles is a problem, I will fix that. Also, while none of the other books have chapter titles, this is still a good format for now. It lets editors quickly place where they should insert new information. We can remove those "training wheels" in a day or two. — 131.230.133.185 00:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The book has been released in Australia, and I am up to chapter four, Horace Slughorn. It was released about two hours ago, and I am reading it, and I can assure you all the information is correct and true. CronoDroid 11:03, 16 July 2005 (GMT +10)

Chapter Summaries

I added the chapter summaries and are still adding more (I'm up to Ch.11) and will add them as I read them. Please, fill in any blanks I have missed and hyperlink any text that needs it. Thank you.

CronoDroid July 16th 2005, 15:54 (GMT +10, with Daylight Savings)

CronoDroid, on behalf of (undoubtedly) countless other users, thank you for doing these summaries. I don't have a copy of the book, so I'm looking forward to reading each installment as I clean up. Steven Luo 07:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is my first time using this so hopefully I get it right: CronoDroid I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work. I wont be able to get my book until late next week and you have made my day! The summaries are fantastic and I am looking forward to getting the book even more. I see that the summaries have disappeared.... I hope they can be put back up as I have been glued to my computer all morning. If you cant post here then I hope you can post elsewhere and let those of us who appreciated what you do know please... Severina 12:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Crono, thanks tons for sharing that with us. This is really outstanding that while reading this undoubtedly fascinating book you still devote time and effort to share with us all. AndyBrandt 17:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to detract from your achievement, I certainly wouldn't have bothered to do this, but as an encyclopedia, should it really include detailed synopsies? This isn't really about the book - this is the book itself. There needs to be a wider debate here since lots of articles have detailed synopsies (e.g. Star Wars III), but I thought I'd air that to see what people think. (ricjl 22:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC))

I have to concur with you; this seems a bit excessive. Perhaps a summary of the book about as long as the longer chapter summaries would be sufficient. James 23:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, a chapter-by-chapter summary is unnecessary. Cburnett 02:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

A chapter by chapter summary might be too much, but in the short time, it is work well done and the only kind of summary which can be effectively given without spoiling the books reputation.

Hi, Just wanted to say a huge thanks for the summaries. I'm going to read a copy of the book as soon as I can.

Release times

It seems to me that the rule for the release time is: all releases are at midnight UK time, except in time zones earlier (East) than UK, where it was released at midnight. Is this correct? --Taejo 08:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's time zones west of GMT (e.g. the Americas) that see releases at midnight local time, while time zones east of GMT (e.g. Asia and Australia) see releases at midnight GMT. Steven Luo 08:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it was midnight BST, not GMT. David Newton 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Protection from spoilers?

Five minutes ago somebody had pasted, in huge red text, which of the characters was the HBP and who dies, right at the top of the article. Spoiler warnings are all well and good, but that suggests to me that the page needs protection. There are bound to be plenty of hyped-up kids with nothing better to do than spoil the book for everyone else during the first day or so.

I'm not sure protection is a good idea. Non-admins have been adding quality info to the page, and they wouldn't be able to do that if the page were protected. Besides, the vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly (usually in less than a minute). Columbia 10:27, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose there's a "protect from huge text" function or anything? One thing that suggests itself to me is to protect the top of the article (if that's possible) so that things like "X DIES IN CHAPTER Y" are forced into the section below the spoiler warning. 83.109.145.102 10:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to move the summaries to another page and protect the main page. Frankchn 15:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I heartily second this idea. If possible, another article on the plot with the details should be just fine. — Hobart 18:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. There should be no summaries for at least a year. Period.

We've got 24/7 anti-vandalism patrol on Wikipedia, we've got spoiler warnings, we've got plenty of other protection. It's not Wikipedia's task to safeguard the reading pleasure of Harry Potter readers, or readers of any other book or book series. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper review or a magazine. An encyclopedia article about a book needs a synopsis of the book, and giving the synopsis means giving away the plot. If people don't want to know the plot of a book, they shouldn't come here, and if they do, it's their own responsibility and their own problem. Aecis 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The summaries/detailed synopsis are an invaluable contribution and are perfect as they are. They have made me look forward even more to receiving my book next week and I cant thank Crono enough for all his hard work. There are plenty of us that love the detail - its a tremendous gift we have been given and thanks for Crono for taking the time out from reading what is without a doubt a good read. The detailed summaries of each chapter really dont take away from the experience of reading - they only complement it. Now the big red letters at the top of the article - clearly that was the work of a vandal and true there is no need for it. But it was resolved rather quickly - and I myself have deleted several instances of people posting nonsense just for the sake of winding people up. This is a community and we all have a responsibility towards it. If you see something like that you can be proactive and edit to remove it. I do agree with Aecis completely - anyone who feels that their experience of reading would be ruined by this information really shouldnt be online looking at anything related to HP&THBP. The fact that so many people are following this article - even the ones who say it is ruining their experience - speaks for itself.Severina 19:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"what is without a doubt a good read." Please speak for yourself ;-) Aecis 21:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I am speaking for myself ultimately *grins* (a huge leap since I wont have my book till next week LOL)- but I would also like to think that Crono wouldnt be taking this much time to read and summarise something he didnt like and making me ache for my book 8 ) *wink*... Severina 23:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well hell yeah i havent been able to get te book yet. I just went to Wikipedia for school and then Harry Potter was on the Main Page i was so interested that i clicked on it, ignoring the spoiler link and just started reading damet!!! PK060395 6:40 AM July 17th

Clarification of Prefects' rights and powers

I am under the impression that prefects cannot give or take points - Draco does so in Book 5 by being a part of the Inquisitor's Squad or somesuch... The chapter summary makes reference to a question as to whether a Captain of a Quidditch team can take points the way a prefect can...

Yes they can- Rowling said herself the Ron was wrong about Prefects not being able to take points:

"Q: Can prefects take points or not? A prefect took points from Gryffindor in the Chamber of Secrets, and then there was a reference to prefects not being allowed to dock points. What are the rules?

A: Ron got it wrong in 'Phoenix', from which we deduce that he hasn't been a very authoritarian prefect thus far; he clearly hasn't been taking points from anybody."

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-wheeler01.shtml

- koolman2 10:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

In OoTP, Ernie Macmillan clearly says "What? Malfoy can't be allowed to take off points, that would completely undermine the Prefect system!" (quotation may not be word-for-word correct), which I would take to mean Prefects cannot take off points. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 11:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Read through the link right above there that I posted. It's got that example in there. -koolman2 11:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that he said the "perfect" system, but i could be wrong. I thought "Prefect" was "Perfect" for years...

• What about the whole thing that in 'Order,' Dumbledor said he had not made harry a prefect because he had too much to do. Couldn't he have made Harry a prefect this year? Also, what about Ginny and her year's prefects, they were not mentioned among all the prefect talk. I don't mean too sound ignorant, but could Harry (if he returns to Hogwarts, which he probably will because of the flow of the series... I don't know) become Head Boy next year? Sorry if I brought up the wrong topics (or the wrong topics in the wrong area). --Cameron 01:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Canadian fiasco

• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1691805,00.html

Reading ban on leaked Harry Potter

... Raincoast Books, the book's Canadian publisher, was granted a "John Doe" injunction prohibiting the buyers from even reading their copies before the publication date.

This injunction thing is totally bull****. A book waiting to be published is at most a trade secret. If you cannot keep the secret, you are screwed by no one except you. You have no one but yourself to blame.

The supreme court of British Columbia issued a court order preventing anyone from "displaying, reading, offering for sale, selling or exhibiting in public" their books. J. K. Rowling's legal advisers said that the author was entitled to prevent buyers from reading their own books even though they had not broken the law.

A book legally sold is the buyer's property. The buyer cannot duplicate the book, but he/she shall be allowed to resell that copy to anyone. J. K. Rowling has every right in the world to buy the book back if she pays the money.

This "DO NOT SELL IT OR YOU"LL BE DEAD MEAT" rule is nothing but a contract. J. K. Rowling might ask her book distributers to sing a contract, but that's not binding to the book's readers. If I did not sign the contract, I am not binded by it. To hell with J. K. Rowling and her lawyers.

'"The fact is that this is property that should not have been in their possession," said Neil Blair, a legal specialist for Christopher Little, the author's literary agent. "Copyright holders are entitled to protect their work. If the content of the book is confidential until July 16, which it is, why shouldn't someone who has the physical book be prevented from reading it and thereby obtaining the confidential information? How they came to have access to the book is immaterial."

With very few (unfair and unjust) exceptions, nemo dat quod non habet is nothing but bullshit today. If I buy the book legally from a book seller, I have the right to keep it. I don't care if the book seller breaks whatever contract, that's none of my business.

British lawyers ... added that the reader did not have a right in law to read the book. Korieh Duodu, a media lawyer for David Price Solicitors and Advocates, said: "... property rights often trump civil liberties. There is no human right to read."

There is also no human right to impose copyrights on others. Personally, I think freedom of speech is much more natural and important. Korieh Duodu should be disbarred.

Raincoast Books has attempted to persuade buyers to return their books by offering a bookplate signed by J. K. Rowling and a T-shirt. ...

Raincoast Books is giving them peanuts. If I were anyone of them, I'll ask J. K. Rowling to pay me a million dollar at least. What a shame. -- Toytoy 10:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above under the Stallman bit, I put a link to the injunction, and some links to news articles and a law professor's take on it into Harry Potter. Hopefully when the storm of edits dies down something similar can be added. — Hobart 18:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyright?

Could this chapter-by-chapter summary be considered a derivative work under copyright law? —Ashley Y 10:29, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The way I understand it, that means that you couldn't use names or parts of the book in another story. I would think that summaries would be under fair use. - koolman2 10:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is "another story". Only it's worse, since it's the same story retold in shorter form. Given how litigious the publisher has been in the past, this summary may be putting Wikipedia at risk. —Ashley Y 10:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Put it like this, if someone bound this together and sold it as "A Summary of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" without permission, how long do you think it would last? —Ashley Y 10:46, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

quite a long time: Cliff Notes

I guess it's worth looking in to, but I really don't think that it's a problem. - koolman2 10:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The usual procedure in cases of suspicion is to replace the entire page with the copyvio template. Is there a good reason why this shouldn't be done? —Ashley Y 10:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

For articles with non-infringing versions in their history, the procedure is to revert to a non-infringing version. —Cryptic (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

We should probably pick one, then... —Ashley Y 11:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Writting a summary is supposed to be AOK. You are just telling others facts. If people wants to read J.K. Rowling's words, they still have to buy. -- Toytoy 11:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

But copyright covers more than just the words, it covers derivative works that use the same characters and situations. Even fanfic is in violation, but copyright owners usually let it go. This is considerably more. —Ashley Y 11:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that's an entirely different story, and not meant to be a summary of another book. Summaries are okay. How do you think you can write them normally? Okay, so this one is a bit more in-depth, but no more so than spark notes and the like. -koolman2 11:14, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Koolman2 is right; the chapter summaries are not derivative works and are covered by fair use.

While I'm loathe to discourage those few adding content instead of defacing it, I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Ashley Y. My main concern, though, is not the legal risk (having found the first ten chapters on the internet in only a few minutes of casual searching), but that this level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Compare Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, or even Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. —Cryptic (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's going to be revised and end up like that after a while- we just need the basics to work with first. -koolman2 11:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I know these summaries are quite in-depth, but I was hoping by outlining the basic plot it could later be refined into something a little more concise and succinct. But I think a summary does need to be added, and since I guess I'm the primary author, I'll have to do the bulk of the summarising and the other users can break it down afterwards. Cheers!

PS: I have done the summaries for every single chapter so far, I know they got into more detail as they progressed but that is because the later chapters have a lot more storyline to summarise. People have edited the first first summaries into "important event" form, so maybe someone could do this here? Thanks.

CronoDroid 21:24 16 July 2005 (GMT +10, Daylight Savings)

These summaries are far too long for most of the Harry Potter books' articles. Each book should be summarised in about 2 paragraphs max. ed g2s • talk 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That just isn't realistic. 82.35.34.11 21:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, OK, we know you like the book, but...

I don't have any problem with detailed summaries. They are definitely not a copyright violation and fall squarely under fair use in the context presented. Otherwise scholastics wouldn't be able to write detailed analyses of books that are still under copyright.

I think we should bide our time. Let the summaries be expanded, contracted and refined for a couple of weeks. Then we can decide whether it might be more appropriate to move them to a separate article. — David Remahl 00:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Derivative works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work) include condensations. Presently at 44 Kb, this has gone beyond a simple summary, and does appear to be a condensed version of the story. 222.153.224.126 05:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

To wikipedias defence, do u think any1 like that would check the site for crap like that? i mean i dont J.K Rowling would been mean enough to critcize Wikipedia

Sure. Her Canadian publisher recently got a court order to make it illegal for people to read copies of this book that they had bought (details in the article). These people will aggressively protect their copyright. That's beside the point, however. The simple fact is that copyright violation is against Wikipedia policy. 222.153.224.126 12:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Front page

Perhaps we could get the link to this article moved off of the front page? I would venture to guess that most of the vandels are coming from there. I think it'll more of a problem than most articles. - koolman2 10:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's probably one of the biggest current events at the moment. (Unsigned comment by 68.163.207.106 (talk · contribs))

A bulk of them are coming from the YTMND website as well. Some lamer made a YTMND bragging about how he's 'pwned' the Harry Potter fans in Wikipedia by vandalizing this article. A lot of people are praising him for it. :/ It might be a good idea for an admin to lock down this page, given the mass amount of no-life trolls who think it's funny to mess with the Wiki.

Edit War

I'm fairly new to edit wars (first one, actually), and I'm not exactly sure on how to resolve it with an anonymous user. Help is appreciated! I tried putting a note to the discussion in an edit, but it doesn't show up. Thanks, -koolman2 12:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I've been in a few before (most notably with Argyrosargyrou and his many sockpuppets). The best way to deal with it is to request page protection for now, and then deal with the issue on the Talk page. Admins can still edit protected pages, and they will then add what needs to be added (which can be proposed on the Talk page). Aecis 12:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit wars are fun. Anyway, you can warn the user, only if that user is posting vandalism. You could also lock the article from being editted. (Unsigned comment by 68.163.207.106 (talk · contribs))
  • It seems to be resolved... for now... -koolman2
    • Not resolved. I'm just waiting for you to get your guard down.
• I've just requested page protection, to deal with the edit war and the vandalism. That should put an end to this travesty for now. Aecis 12:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems an admin may be needed to deal with this. The problem is CronoDroid won't be able to put up his summaries if the page is locked, which ironically is what started this in the first place. I guess it depends on what people want to do. Adolytsi 12:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems an admin may be needed to deal with this. The problem is CronoDroid won't be able to put up his summaries if the page is locked, which ironically is what started this in the first place. I guess it depends on what people want to do. Adolytsi 12:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to grant CronoDroid admin rights for 48 hours or something like that? This way the page could be protected from edit war and he could still post the summary (when he wakes up :)

• • • • This is perfect. If CronoDroid can't update the summaries, I have no reason to stay here. You just did the work for me.
        • Two problems for you:

1) If the page is locked, it will most likely be locked on the version of Koolman2 and myself, not on your version. So anyone will be exposed to the plot, which you seem to despise.

2) The page can still be updated, via an admin.

Aecis 12:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • Someone suggested there be a separate page for spoilers, that can be merged with this one in a few days.
• There are over two dozens (and more and more) of us against one or two of them. We outnumber them many times over. Majority rule. I don't see why the majority have to submit their will to the whim of the minority. This is obviously some ego or power trip for those two guys, to want to force the majority into a compromise or concession. If it comes to a war, each of us will just have to put in five minutes (each) to clean up their messes, and the two of them will have to spend 24/7 in here just to keep up with us. Unless they are willing to give up their lives, they can't win.

• • I do my best work alone.

Nice edit, 84.12.172.95

Thanks. I thought it was about time the war stopped - it was just getting silly.

Harassment Issue

If you don't like what I'm doing, that's fine. Revert the pages back or send me a message. Don't cuss me out on the history page.

• Cuss you? We don't even know who you are, not even a fake name. We only have an IP address. It's pointless to cuss at an IP address.

"Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy

• • Wikipedia is not anarchy either.

• • • Wikipedia IS however a group of assholes YAWN

Wikipedia is not an experiment in majoritarian democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia..."

• • Exactly. So by ganging up on me, the reverters will accomplish nothing.

• • • Spammers, not reverters, will accomplish nothing.

---

Could we just place an overall synopsis of the book on this page, and the more detailed synopsis on the Spoilers/Rumors page? Thanks! LevisMortis

• That I agree with. The chapter-by-chapter summaries are too detailed, and they are likely to be serious violations of more than one copyright law. Someone needs to shorten them into an overall synopsis.

I added the spoiler information...

to the Crystal ball website. It only makes sense to have it there, in the short-term.

The information WILL become available sooner rather than later----but we ought to place the spoilers elsewhere.

• Thank you very much.

• Nonsense. The spoilers should only be in the HP+THBP article itself, not in any other article. If there indeed has to be such an artificial article as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball), it should indeed, as the intro states, only contain "what was known about [the book] prior to its release on July 16, 2005." The spoilers have only become known after the release, so they have no place in the Crystal Ball article. Aecis 13:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

How much did u add did u use any names and/or places??? If u did i suggest u get rid of the before u fall into some copyright problems. Good Luck HbpFreaK

Finished my stint as summariser

Okay folks, CronoDroid here, I hope you have enjoyed my editing and summarising! I really need sleep and I just thought I would tell you guys that I can't edit for about another eleven-twelve hours (sleep is important). So could someone else become summariser, please? I have done about 17 chapters in 13 hours, so someone (or many people) can do the next 13, I'm sure. Thank you and goodnight!!

I hope that everyone out there has appreciated my summaries.

CronoDroid 23:00 16 JULY 2005 (GMT +10, Daylight Savings)

• I think the summaries are way too detailed. We need to shorten them further, but they're a good start.

• • I think they are great just the way they are. CronoDroid did a fantastic job.

• • • They are great summaries, but they cover way too much materials. I'm more worried that the chapter-by-chapter summaries are serious violations of some copyright laws, and I have a strong feeling that they are.

• If you go to "edit this page", it'll tell you that the main article is way over the recommended/typical length of a Wikipedia entry. Way over. We need to shorten it.

• • Chapter-by-chapter summaries can in no way, shape or form be a violation of copyright legislation. Furthermore, this page is only 5kb over the recommended size. That is nothing, and there is no need to shorten this article. Aecis 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

However, if the summary is finished in detail equal to that used previously, this entry will be way over the mark. We ought to pair down the summary to only include the most critical info.

Thank you so much for doing this, I live in Egypt so can't get hold of the book yet and it is great to read your summaries. Jane Luxor Egypt

Crono, mate - you are a star for doing this for us. Your summaries are an invaluable contribution and are perfect as they are. They have made me look forward even more to receiving my book next week and I cant thank you enough. I love the detail and hope you can add some more at some point. Get some sleep - and thanks for taking the time out from reading what is without a doubt a good read. If anyone else takes up the mantle - please continue in this vein - it really doesnt take away from the experience of reading - it only complements it. Severina 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Overall Summary

***WARNING PLOT SPOILERS BELOW*** 

As per the previous thought, why not an "Overall Summary", an edited down version of the spoiler section?

Rather than knowing Ron is "sucking face", we just need to know he's romantically involved/kissing Lavender Brown.

A few suggestions for bullet points:

---Voldemort and his posse have destroyed a bridge (killing many people) and set a giant on a small town, ---Murdered Amelia Bones (Head of Magical Law Enforcement) and Emmeline Vance (a member of Harry's advanced guard in book five).

---Cornelius Fudge has definitely been sacked, and has been replaced by Rufus Scrimgeour, the 'old lion' man.

---Kingsley Shacklebolt is the Prime Minister's new bodyguard.

---Dementors have broken free and are breeding, causing an unseasonal cold, July fog and a general feeling of misery over all England.

---Buckbeak is now renamed Witherwings

---Snape becomes DADA professor, a new professor (Horace Slughorn) becomes Potions professor

LevisMortis

• Actually, is Shakclebolt not the Prime Minister's new seceretary, not bodyguard?

Chapter 26, The Cave...

... not a reference to Plato is it by any chance? Just wondering. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I really doubt it. This was more like a crossing of the Styx, complete with the restless dead and the enchanted boat.

Spring Cleaning

The article is a total mess. There are duplications everyone. I deleted it. We should copy and paste the important parts from History.

• I think it's time this article is protected, so that an admin can sort this out and sift through all the additions, tests, errors and pieces of vandalism, without being disturbed. Aecis 18:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, this is out of control now. Has a request been made to have it locked?
    • Yes, I made such a request earlier today. But apparently you have already found that out (do not edit my comments to make it seem as though I said something I never said). Aecis 18:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a shocking suggestion that goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. Just because it isn't perfect in the first 24 hours that is no reason to tell everyone but the self-appointed elite they aren't good enough to contribute. 82.35.34.11 21:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
        • It doesn't go against the purpose of Wikipedia one single bit, because Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Sometimes it is in the best interest of an article to lock it. This can be due to an edit war, to vandalism, to frequent tests of "clueless newbies" and to deliberate misinformation. This article has seen all of those, so it has become the epitome of why sometimes a page needs to be locked. Aecis 08:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandals

I was just trying to remive some repetitions, but as soon as I did so, they were redone. Someone or more probably some bot is trying to vandalize the article. Administrators please take notice of this.

• I have noticed the user 24.17.197.243 has had many warnings and has done much damage to this article. I agree that is is quite annoying and I think it unacceptable on the vandels' behalf. --Cameron 01:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Harassment Issues and some more points about the article

I wonder who put that kind of anoying harassment mesage in the middle of the article. If you were doing that please remove it, or could someone post it as the article for consideration. Also the article has some issues that I would like to point out. There are some gaps on the summary of chapters (I understand that the book has just been released). Also there are some text that are repeated throughout the article. The article has some text that might help someone to vandalize Wikipedia. The article itself it not neat at all: some text, as I noticed, are out of order. Probably somebody didn't edited properly (for example after heading for Chapter xx The text shows the current event marker). So I urge you to re-edit this article so it meets the Wikipedia's standards.

• My harassment article is just as important and just as legitimate as your bullshit article.

Duplicate copy

A vandal took a copy of the article and spliced it in a second time. I removed the second copy of the text, but it is possible that some edits were made to that copy, so if that was the case, and I deleted anyone's edits, I apologize. --Arcadian 18:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't take vandalism, there's a MediaWiki bug that does that. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

2 plot synopses

How come in some edits the plot synopses for Chapters 1-9 appears twice? --66.214.243.237 19:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A vandal repasted the entire article, leading to the duplication (see the above). As of this writing it is fixed, though I'm sure vandals will continue here all day. --Arcadian 19:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandals are running amok with this article. I'd considered editing it myself, but this situation is totally out of control. Somebody added racist insults/statements into the article, and the article has been duplicated repeatedly so it's hard to read. Admins need to lock this article, especially since there's a link coming directly from the front page. --Seanorthwest

Duplicated sections is a sign of edit conflicts on sections, not vandalism. Any admins trying to fix this should lock the page, fix it, then unlock the page, as I have just done. ed g2s • talk 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Synopsis"

Err, that is not a 'plot synopsis'. It is a set of chapter synopses. I recommend a synopsis of the synopses that gives a very brief outline of the plot of the novel as a whole. ZephyrAnycon 20:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Query"

The article gives this piece of information "It doesn't work though, as Voltemort can sense his intentions and that he still cares for Ginny. He tells Draco to kidnap Ginny Weasly and bring her to him alive." Now, either my copy is missing this vital piece of information or this is an inaccuracy. Any clarification?

"A bit much, people."

Look, maybe summarizing EVERY SINGLE CHAPTER is overkill. I don't see why all of that information can't condensed into something akin to the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix page's synopsis. I know a lot of people are excited that the book's finally come out, I know I am, but having lines like "then Lupin drinks some egg nog" is frankly silly.--Deridolus 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It'll get tidied up. You can't expect perfection within 24 hours. 82.35.34.11 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I really agree... there's no call for chapter by chapter summaries. However, what with the level of vandalism on this page lately, just keeping a good version (that isn't patent nonsense or an entire page of insults) is work enough. I'm willing to wait before cleaning this up. Fieari 23:04, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Deridolus. Wait if needed, but we don't need summaries of every chapter. — Asbestos | Talk 23:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't wait til tommorow what you can do today. I'm going to remove the most ridiculous bits of summary now, if I'm able, and we can work on condensing this to a more sane level over the next week or so.--Deridolus 06:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree they r writing to much and r soon gonna fall under some copyright problems. HbpFreak

Rather than just eliminating the excess, someone unfortunately elected to move it elsewhere. That will make cleaning things up more difficult. I've placed the Full Plot Summary Page up as a candidate for deletion.--Deridolus 20:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikicliffsnotes?

Does an in-depth summary of a newly released work of children's fiction really contribute to encyclopedic knowledge? It seems more like a tribute to a particular feat of speed reading to me.

This is a very silly piece of elitism. If you don't like Wikipedia you can always subscribe to Britannica.com, but Wikipedia currently gets about 40 times as much traffic.

While I may have accidently let my prejudice against children's fiction show through the last post, there is a valid argument to be made that Wikipedia is not an institution for helping people write 5th grade book reports. A much shorter rundown of the plot is all that is needed, for the sakes of both the article and possibly, Wikipedia's legal budget.

Let it fly for now. It's only been 24 hours since the book was released. In a few days the ruckus will have died down enough for Wikipedians to begin condensing or transwiki-ing the material (yeah, I bet you never thought of that, did you.) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure there is another site on this internet devoted to finding every typo in a given work. --B. Phillips 13:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to Fix

There was a paragraph of text at the bottom of the page, which I guessed described the chapter "The Seer Overheard" - and I moved it there. If that's not its place, please move it to where it belongs. (I can't speak English today! >_>) Ogordemir 21:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gringotts Raided?

• On the main page plot summary, it is mentioned that Gringotts Bank is raided by Death Eaters (chapter 29). However, I can't seem to find that in my book. Could someone give me the page number or delete the wrong statement please. Thanks. Brimstone, 16/7, 23.20
  • I replaced the section as it was originally written, but I don't have the book (and nor have I read it), so I don't know if the information there - including this - is correct. Ogordemir 22:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyone out there know this? I've read through Chapter 29 of my copy again and still couldn't see anything to do with Gringotts.
      • And on another point, under the plot synopsis of Chapter 30, it is written that Voldemort gives Draco Malfoy a new task - to capture Ginny Weasley. This definitely does not happen in the book. Can we not stop this "Vandalism"?
        • The part about the new task hasn't been there in a while, to the best of my knowledge. Ogordemir 22:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • It was there 15 mins ago until I posted this.

Page protection

Someone has anonymously asked for this page to be protected at the protection page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I would strongly oppose such a move right now, SqueakBox 23:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

What is going on?

• What's happened to the synopsis? Please put this page on protection right now. Too many people are changing and vandalising it.

It's moved to the Crystal Ball page.

Fast reading

The book just came out at 12:00 this morning. How are people reading it this fast? ‡ Jarlaxle 23:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The person that did most of the summaries is in Australia, where it was released at 9:01 AM local. It's easy to read all day. :)

I did it in about nine hours. 12:40am EST to 9:38am EST. I did hear that some people did it in five or so hours. -Hoekenheef 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I read it in 8 hrs: 2:30PM NZST to 10:30 NZST. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 04:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I picked it up at around 2 pm, and just finished it now. I probably spent four or five hours total reading it. Nandesuka 04:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Picked it up about 1 am, finished it about 6 am. Not hard to read through quickly if you want to. Fieari 05:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I read fast. --68.39.102.229 18:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the book

To change the subject to discussing the text (g).

The first chapter - while interesting as providing a perspective from the rest of the world does not fit in with the rest of the book and has a touch of infodump about it.

New Edits

Placed some rather good edits to the Half-Blood Prince page.

Too large

Is there any good reason for having a 47 kb summary of a book? It's not exactly unencyclopedic, I guess, but it's pretty useless. Facts about the book are appropriate, and a brief plot summary, (with massive spoiler warnings dotted all over it, of course) - but what we've got is just ridiculous. At the moment its probably still getting massively edited, but I think in a couple of weeks someone should come along and cut the size down quite considerably. Inebriatedonkey 10:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The Mysterious R.A.B.

I don't like to brag, but I have a pretty good idea who this R.A.B. person is. If anyone wants a clue but no spoiler, I can already tell you the middle initial is irrelevant - Take the other two and you should be able to match them up with a name we've already heard from the last 5 books.

Full plot summary moved

to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary. Can somone put in a 10 line synopsis. Rich Farmbrough 10:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Would this be any good? I have tried to avoid gigantic spoilers.

"Harry and his friends returns to a Hogwarts with extra security measures as Voldemort and his followers grow in power. The new teacher is Horace Slughorn, who enjoys creating coteries of people he sees as potentially useful. Harry receives extra lessons from Dumbledore centring on what is known of Voldemort. He struggles in his Potions and makes use of notes scribbled in the margins of the textbook by someone who seems extremely competent. Against the backdrop of extreme peril (more than one Hogwarts student either receives news of deaths in the family or is the victim of mysterious attacks on and around the school premises: this includes major characters) romantic relationships flourish and jealousy and resentment surface. Harry and Dumbledore come to a working theory of how to reduce Voldemort's power. The climax of the book begins as they leave Hogwarts on an expedition to attempt this."

12 lines, but best I can do! --Telsa 11:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Be bold in editing pages! As the person who wrote the original plot summary for Phoenix (which is quite a bit longer than 10 lines, and grew quite a bit since I wrote it that Saturday), I see no need to be so constrained. I agree that the chapter-by-chapter synopsis that was here before was more of a Cliff's Notes explanation, but synopses on books in this series range from a paragraph to a couple of screen pages. I see nothing wrong with either length. Phil Bordelon 13:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I can. The plot summary we have at the moment is almost definitely a copyright violation, it really should be about as short as Telsa's version. ed g2s • talk 16:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Then I'm genuinely curious how companies like Cliff's and the like stay in business, as they provide fairly detailed plot summaries as well. I'm not disagreeing that the current version (chapter-by-chapter) is a bit much, but summaries are allowed to be more than ten or so lines. Phil Bordelon 17:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I imagine they either pay royalties on works that aren't in the public domain, or they have some loophole because they are writing an analysis of the text as opposed to a summary, and so what they have written is based on their original thoughts. The long synopsis we have written is a basically a short story that infringes on all J.K. Rowling's copyrights. See what happened to Tanya Grotter. ed g2s • talk 20:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Cliff's has a synopsis before each analysis. Christiant 02:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well done Tesla. Rich Farmbrough 18:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Balkans

What the? How come Serbia gets it 3 months ahead of Montenegro?

They're trying to start another World War. The first two have been terribly good for the publishing industry. --B. Phillips 07:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-mistake

Lags

On the top of page 183 (Scholastic edition) it says "...Charms are old hat, of course, for us old D.A. lags..." Shouldn't lags be lads? Irdepesca572 23:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope. A lag is an old-fashioned term for an ex-convict. Exploding Boy 23:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rupert

Another non-mistake, in my eyes at least, just after the burying of Aragog Ron is refered to as Rupert, putting this in the mistakes section (as opposed to being an inside joke, if you will, in reference to the actor) implies that it is JK Rowling who made the mistake.

Yeah, I edited the Rupert thing out, as Slughorn misstates Ron's name several times during the course of book, and it's clearly intentional on Rowling's part. SS451 17:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It was a mistake. She was thinking about Rupert and accidentally wrote Rupert instead of Ron, which people do every so often, and the editers were unable to catch it in time because of the same reason.

It was not a mistake, as SS451 has stated it was intentional by JK Rowling, I was merely moving it around as someone had stated it was a homage which does make sense. Don't be foolish enough to think the editors wouldn't catch something like that, Pettigrew

Guys please sign your notes with "~~~~" . Rich Farmbrough 18:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Latin

There's a place where Harry asks the Fat Lady what's going on in Latin. It's not otherwise explained. Is this an error, or is it supposed to be the password, or was anyone else taken aback? - Violet Evans 03:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Password, surely. --Telsa 08:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Guesswork

The entire "Mistakes" and "Clues" sections read like guesswork and trying to find as many things as possible with which to fill up the article. Wikipedia is not the place for guess-the-clue.

• "fug" is a word in British English, dating from at least the 19th century.

Swill

• Can the person who mentioned swill/swirl please provide the page number? Because it's entirely possible that this too is not a mistake.

• This from a mistakes page about (IIRC) Azkaban talking about how to read tea leaves - "Swill these around the cup" should be "Swirl these around the cup"" - wrong again! I've removed swill/swirl. Rich Farmbrough 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

cousins

• Why should the idea of cousins being in love not occur to Harry? Was this added by someone who lives somewhere where this doesn't happen? The book was written in the UK, where there is no law against cousins marrying.
• The significance of the Sorting Hat: a mistake? More likely by Dumbledore than by JKR.

I don't think any of those belong there.

Clues

As for the clues: clues to what? Who Stole The Cooking Sherry? The Mystery Of The Next Book's Plot? This is sheer speculation and some confusion of clues with foreshadowing, hinting and general plot. The guesses about book 7 should move to the article about it; I'd like to lose the rest as unencyclopaedic. --Telsa 08:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Telsa. The entire "clues" section needs to be completely rewritten, or deleted. It's barely coherent as English, as it stands. Nandesuka 12:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to fix some of the phrasing, but I'm giving serious thoughts to removing the "Clues" section as well. It's very easy to analyse these things to death (no pun intended). After knowing the ending, one can see shadows lurking in every corner. I'm giving some thought to removing the section and only allowing clues that J.K. Rowling herself will acknowledge (in other words, don't include this section until such a time that J.K. Rowling decides to tell other people which clues were intentional, and which are codswallop). --Deathphoenix 13:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. I'd rather not chuck out a section that must be of interest to someone, unless anbsolutely necessary. Rich Farmbrough 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've gone out on a limb and removed it. I would support re-adding a "clues" section, but the first thing it should do is explain exactly what it is giving clues about and how that differs from everything else in the book (which is, after all, a narrative). Nandesuka 14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I like User:Deathphoenix's approach. It's similar to the approach taken over at The Christmas Invasion (upcoming as-yet-unbroadcast episode of Dr Who, subject of anticipation and speculation) where a glance at the history page will show a consistent "if there's no source, it comes out" policy. JK Rowling does let little hints slip forth, in interviews and on her website. --Telsa 14:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

historical import

Some people on Talk:Main Page have been wondering why this is on ITN, including me. Could someone add some information that someone who is not a Potter fan would find interesting, e.g. size of printing, etc that might be added to the ITN blurb? Thanks, BanyanTree 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Scholastic, the book's American publisher, is printing a record 10.8 million copies. TheCoffee 16:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

timeline of events - day of publication

does any one know at what time (something at least resembling) a summary of all 30 chapters appeared on wikipedia?

if you can, don't forget to state which timezone you mean, and thank you very much! (i am so confused by al the time zones today...)

The summaries appeared gradually over the course of the day, apparently as people read the book. The excessively detailed summary is now at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary. TheCoffee 17:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Differences between Bloomsbury and Scholastic?

What are the differences between the Bloomsbury and Scholastic Editions of HPHBP? That would as well be interesting for the other volumes. As I only posess the Scholastic editon books I am not in a position to compare both editions. I noticed that some words seem to have been replaced in the Scholastic Edition (fog for mist - mistyped fug, lemon drop for sherbet lemon), but what else was going on? I think that a comparison between the two versions - as I said before, not only of the newest novel - would be very interesting. My preferences reside with the Bloomsbury edition which carries the orignal words of J. K. Rawlins and not the americanised Scholastic Version. It's Defence Against the Dark Arts, not "Defense". ;) --85.74.183.237 20:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As an American reader, I actually found many words in the American version that I had never heard before (such as the aforementioned fug).

spoiler warning

I put a general spoiler warning on the article so that folks who don't want to read any info before they finished reading the new novel receive their warning in time. --85.74.183.237 21:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I edited this to make it a bit more concise. TheArmadillo 22:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Clues

IS there anoyone who doesn't think this section is deleteable? Rich Farmbrough 14:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you know by now, but it's been deleted by Nandesuka, and I have no problems with it. Thanks to Telsa for your backing of my thoughts, I think you brought out a good expansion of this: if there's no source for these clues and speculations, they go out. --Deathphoenix 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)