Talk:Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RDR

added Warner Borthers to the fact, for whatever reason or part they played, they also filed against RDR on the same date per http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/1/ shadzar-talk 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone catch the peer-review from Orson Scott Card concerning the RDR lawsuit? was pretty scathing. http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html Zarcath (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been quite a few nasty opinions expressed, but I don't think anyone expressing opinions on this case, nasty or not, is in full possession of the facts. I'd prefer to wait until the judge's verdict before adding outside comments. Serendi^podous 06:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Defining the nature of a legal dispute

Just curious – how are we defining 'legal dispute' in relation to this article? Bradybd (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, an argument that involves lawyers and either goes to court or threatens to. The Troll debate is not a legal dispute; there was a story put out by the Mail on Sunday a few days ago that claimed that a legal dispute was brewing between the director and Warner Bros, but it was declared libel and removed from the web. Serendi^podous 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Verbatim?

The article referenced confuses me, and doesn't seem to meet the definition of verbatim. It sounds more like a mash-up of stories, with perhaps large exerpts of verbatim text lifted. The entire story can't be verbatim and include all those new characters. I'm dropping "the verbitim" to allow for the changes.

In 2002, an unauthorised Chinese-language sequel entitled Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon appeared for sale in the People's Republic of China. The work of a Chinese ghostwriter, the book contains the verbatim text of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and characters from the works of other authors, including the title character from L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz.[24]

Libertycookies (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 16

Do we really need reference 16?I mean, the fact that she came to the U.S then really has nothing to do with the dispute.She still could've heard about the book or known about it somehow. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. In fact almost vanishingly so. Given the books' almost non-existent print run and highly local distribution, not to mention the fact that none of them actually sold any copies, it's almost impossible that she could have heard of it unless she had actually been to the States.Serendi^podous 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or if she had a friend in the States. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who just happened to be in the same small corner of Pennsylvania where they were being sold, at just the right time? Seems a bit of a stretch. Serendi^podous 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So your saying that Rowling just happened to arrive in Penn. and just happened to find Larry Potter.Why couldn't a friend who lied there have discovered the book before her and told her about it.Didn't she start writing the book in England anyways? Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it could be shown that she had been to that particular part of the States between 1986 and 1987, then yes. But as far as I can determine, she hasn't, which makes her learning of the books very unlikely. Don't forget, the books were not sold, so we're not talking about a book that gets traded around and read by lots of people. The ONLY way someone could have found out about these books would be if said person happened to find them in a bookstore/supermarket and read them without buying them. So someone would have had to have lived in that specific region of the country, during that one 18-month window, gone into one of the few bookstores that sold the books, read the books without buying them, then told Rowling about it. Not impossible, but as I said, very very unlikely. Serendi^podous 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't a friend have lived there before then and walked into one of the bookstores?They are just as likely to find the books as Rowling is. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Rowling is far less likely to have found the books than this mythical friend, since she had not been to the States before 1998. Given that we must create this imaginary friend in order to construct a plausible scenario for her to have heard of the books, I think that speaks volumes for its implausibility. Serendi^podous 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So if the friend is more likely, like you just said, then how is the fact that she arrived in Penn. relevent? Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Rowling hadn't arrived in the US before 1998 eliminates a number of more plausible scenarios for her having heard of these books. Since the books were never sold, and only available for a short time in a small number of locations, the chances of her having heard of them through the grapevine from across the Atlantic are virtually nil. Only our omnipresent anonymous friend can help us construct a workable hypothesis for Rowling having heard of the books, and even then Rowling is just as likely to have had a friend from Penn. as she is a friend from South Dakota or Missouri. Serendi^podous 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So what was her reason for moving to Penn.U.S.then?You don't just move somewhere that you know nobody. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Rowling has never moved to Pennsylvania; as far as I can tell she's never even been to Pennsylvania. Serendi^podous 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

She's only been to the US on book tours. She lives in the UK. Serendi^podous 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmmmm...this arguement is getting us nowhere. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

This information is pretty contentious, and since it involves living people it was removed as per WP:BLP. However, should it be cited, it can go back in.

Nevertheless, Warner Bros. and its counsel are the subject of contempt proceedings relating to alleged violations in the evidence provided to the Court on the injunction hearing and the judge that heard the matter, Mr. Justice Colin Livingstone Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is the subject of a complaint to the Judicial Council arising from alleged judicial misconduct and interference with the action in the Ontario courts.

and

However, that Order is being challenged by the group. Justice Colin Campbell who heard the injunction made costs order after he had already disqualified himself for having a private telephone conversation about the case with Warner Bros. lawyers. Justice Campbell is being sued and is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council as a result of this initial conversation with Warner Bros. and further alleged misconduct that followed.

Warner Bros. and their lawyers on the injunction are being sued for offering false testimony on the injunction.

Serendi^podous 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacements for authorslawyer cite

Since the authorslawyer website looks like it may fail the WP:RS standards, I did a search to see if there were other articles which could replace it. These look promising, but I think it may cost $3 to get the article:

• http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LC&p_theme=lc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EC34C91A60BF9B5&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM from the Lancaster, PA news
• http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LC&p_theme=lc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EC34C91A60BF9B5&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Erie News-Times
• http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27344818_ITM (free with registration)
• http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/19/0919facesam_print.html Forbes

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those would be any good. I need a source that directly quotes the judge's ruling. Serendi^podous 16:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

citation formats

I've been directed over here to help out with citation formatting... But I note that the template currently being used is cite X, rather than citation. Is the plan to change that? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we've had a misunderstanding, Jbmurray; why would we need to change the format from cite xxx to citation? The discussion on the FAC was about cleaning up the citation formatting to a consistent style, but no need to switch to the citation template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs a citation

"Stouffer appealed the decision in 2004, but the appeals court upheld the ruling" - This needs a citation before it can be inserted into the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stouffer keeps a copy of her second appeal request on her website. I assume we can consider it a reliable source since it would actually be in her interest not to state that her 2004 appeal was rejected. Serendi^podous 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bao Zoulong / Leopard Walk-Up-to-Dragon

I’ve (once again) added the actual Chinese title of this book to the Chinese section, but kept the mistranslated one as well, identified as a mistranslation. I’m surprised that there is such a strong will to remove the actual title of the book; I hope that it can stay this time. :P Bossk-Office (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that that title isn't referenced. Wikipedia isn't about what's true, it's about what can be backed up. Can you back up your title? Serendi^podous 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed the dragon on the cover is Melificent the witch from Disney's Sleeping Beauty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects/Merged Articles

Why so many merged articles/redirects?Pisharov (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Because those articles were listed for deletion due to notability. Serendi^podous 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Currencies

I've seen several currencies (rupees, pounds, canadian) which are also converted into USD, probably to make it easier for readers to understand the amount. my question is: are these conversions automatically/periodically updated to suit current exchange rates? because outdated exchange rates are quite pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimifloydrix (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bogside Artists

In a press release of December 28th, 2009 - J.K. Rowling was accused of outright plagiarism by N.Irish muralist William Kelly - one of The Bogside Artists of Derry, N.Ireland - three political artists responsible for the famous series of murals known as The People's Gallery situated in The Bogside district of their home town. In the press release, Mr Kelly stated; "J.K. Rowling, with the help of others, plagiarized the character, themes, writing- style, vision, philosophy and contents of my book "Travels with Li Po". The book was published for the first time in December 2008 by The Bogside Artists and printed by Cityprint, a local firm. In a website set up to present what they call the "staggering similarities" between the Harry Potter series and the contents of Travels with Li Po Mr. Kelly states that he conducted a correspondence with Rowling in 1990 while she was supposedly working for Amnesty International London where he had sent his book. Rowling disclaimed ever having corresponded with Mr. Kelly or read his book. The Derry News, a local paper that ran with an article on the alleged connections between the two was forced into an apology by Schillings, a legal firm acting for Rowling. The full story of this and the involvement of Rowling's Literary Agency The Christopher Little Agency can be found at www.travelswithlipo.com.[1]. The artists have since argued via their websites and blogs that this apology was not approved by them and is based on "trifling technicalities'. No newspaper to date had reviewed Travels with Li Po. (Cite web; url = Rowling Lambasted. (Cite Web; url = [2] (Cite web;url=[3]/ (Cite web; url= [crushable.com/entertainment/the-harry-potter-lexicon-trial-transcript/ -]Transcript verbatim of the Lexicon trial.

OK. This can go in. Eventually. But it needs to be substantially rewritten until it complies with Wiki rules on neutrality. I'll get to it when I find more sources. Serendi^podous 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Serendipitous above is the amended version of this very important article written April 26th 2010. As it is of considerable factual historical importance to the general list of legal disputes it is expected to be approved by its author. If it still shows bias please inform as to where and how. Thank you.

Why is this section, "of considerable factual historical importance"? I can't even find a reference to it on Google News. Even Willy the Wizard got that. Also, this article is about legal disputes, and there's no evidence that the author has or is planning to take Rowling to court. As for the section itself, the first issue is citation. This section is based almost entirely on a submission to "freepressrelease.com", which, according to its homepage, offers anyone and everyone the ability to post their own press releases. Thus, the release could have been (and probably was) submitted by the author himself. And since there is no way to prove otherwise, the site doesn't seem like a reliable source. The second source is a site maintained by the author, which cannot be seen as a source for factual information, as he may simply have made this whole thing up. The final source is "derrynews.net", which would be a more reliable source, but that link doesn't go to an article, merely to the news agency's homepage. The section's tone is also highly partisan, with phrases like "outright plagiarism" and "famous series" (famous according to whom?), while "the full story can be found at..." implies that the author's own site is an authoritative source, when it plainly is not. EDIT: I did a source of Google's news archives. The only news source I could find was an Italian site that quoted a Spanish Harry Potter fansite, which in turn quoted the author's own site. At no point does it appear that this news has been vetted to ensure it actually took place, and I haven't seen anything about it in associated press or reuters. So for now it just seems like one guy's internet rant. Serendi^podous 07:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Serendipitous. It never happened? Is that your conlusion? The actual letter threatening legal action is on the travelswithlipo site. I can send you the letter I received from Neil Blair, Little's lawyer I also have the letter sent to the editor of the Derry News although it is marked private and confidential that will leave you in no doubt that Rowling and her team consider these accusations from a legal standpoint to be very serious. As for being of historical importance.. that remains to be seen but I am confident that it will be seen to be of the utmost importance. Your decision to leave this dispute (and it is a dispute by any definition of the term) out of the category "legal disputes' is wholely unwarranted given that the newspaper in question was threatened with extinction if it did not furnish Rowling's lawyers Schillings with an apology. You can say that the dispute is from Rowling against the author (me)and is that not a legal dispute or does it only have to be only from people accusing Rowling? That makes no sense. An inconsequential rant it is not and you have no real basis to declare it so simply because you do not have the necessary evidence you require. We require none. I will see if I can find a link for you to the Derry News article. Will that suffice to persuade you it has not been invented by a ranter or is the ultimate oracle for you Google News?

The Derry News article may be worth including. All else would constitute original research on your part. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox from which anyone can launch one's own personal crusade. If the press did not deem this legal dispute worthy of mention, then it certainly isn't worthy of mention here. It is not Wikipedia's job to guess which legal disputes will eventually become notable, only to report the ones that already are. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a weapon to Fight The Power. If you want to Fight The Power and stick it to The Man, then start a blog or go to Wikileaks. Serendi^podous 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Serendipodous" Stick it to the man? What do you take us for, street corner boys out for a brawl? The Bogside Artists of whom I am one are three of the most respected political muralists anywhere and known by thousands of people. We have our own soapbox called THE BOGSIDE ARTISTS.

I will say this once and hopefully you will set aside your biases to grasp it. Rowling stole my story hook line and sinker. This I know. Okay? Whether you believe it or not or cannot believe it or find it incredible or go to bed with Harry Potter under your pillow or not... it is a fact. For me the author it is an indubitable fact. As for starting a blog we have one if you would care to read it; www.travelswithlipo.com/blog. If you are one of Rowling's Fifty Centers you need not read any further.

This is a dispute. It is an on-going dispute. There will be a resolution. The public have a right to know about it.

This is a legal dispute because Rowling is doing all in her power, with the help of people like you and her high-powered lawyers, to make sure that nobody hears about it. The notorious Schillings (her legal hounds) have everybody's balls in their briefcases. THAT IS WHY THE PRESS HAS NOT MENTIONED IT. THEY CANNOT... FOR IT IS THE TRUTH AND TRUTH IS NOT WHAT THE PRESS, YOUR INFALLIBLE TRUTH-MEASURE, IS ABOUT. You don't want to know. I offered you evidence and you don't want it. What does that say about you? Stick it to the man? YOU are the man. Rowling relies on the man.

You should retitle this page LEGAL CASES BROUGHT AGAINST ROWLING and leave some more courageous soul to set up a ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST OTHERS BY ROWLING. That would make for more enlightening reading. As for freedom of speech..... forget it Serendipodous. You are not for that or you would have asked for the proof I offered. Write to Rowling for a signed photo. Accept nothing less. And don't cry "foul" you've been insulted. You have insulted me for no good reason. Entertain the notion that not all Irish muralists are monkeys with a megaphone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgreco7 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So Rowling stole your idea. So what? Take your case to a court. Don't use Wikipedia as a platform. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia only reports NOTABLE issues. One guy's complaint is not notable unless it makes it into the wider media, which your case clearly has not. On Wikipedia, truth means nothing. Wikipedia's guiding principle is "Verifiability, not truth." If you feel the public has a "right" to know (whether or not it has a reason to know) of your dispute, then take it to the press. Wikipedia is AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is NOT an anarchic self-publishing free-for-all. Wikipedia has strict rules in place precisely to stop people like you from using it to further their own agendas. This has nothing to do with bias. If Rowling herself tried to edit this page to better reflect her point of view I would be just as fierce. Serendi^podous 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous; I take your point but "notable" is a word that makes no sense to me in the context of legal disputes. A legal dispute exists or it does not. This one does. Legal disputes can be settled out of court and newspapers may never even hear of them. Does that mean they are not "notable"? That they did not exist and ought not to be mentioned therefore in an encylopedia?

There are a million ways to make mention of THE FACT of this dispute without compromising Wikipedia or giving the impression that Wikipedia has surrendered itself to self-serving anarchists with 'an axe to grind' and all that repugnant debasement of what to us is a very serious case of plagiarism. Indeed, were Wikipedia to state the fact of this dispute I can tell you that Rowling's legal hounds would be on its back in a matter of hours. Why? Because preventing any 'notability' being given to it is what they get paid to do and they are most 'fierce' about it too to use your own expression. That is the real problem. Doesn't that by itself make this a legal dispute par excellence?

You seem profoundly deluded by the belief that the press make mention of cases on their merits. As for me personally, I am mighty tired of flogging dead horses like Wikipedia. You have presented plausible resistance that we can easily understand but you have offered very little constructive help. Par for the course. If facts, verifiable or otherwise, are not in the service of 'what actually is the case'(truth) then they are worthless as contributors to our understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.49.239 (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that because this case affects you personally in a very profound and egregious way, it therefore is equally valid to the rest of the world. Can I ask, how many people do you think bring cases of manslaughter against drunk drivers who profoundly alter and destroy the lives of innocent people every day? Every hour? Every minute? How many people take doctors to court for medical malpractice that has left them permanently crippled? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Is the fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover every single one of these cases a "repugnant debasement"? No, because they're not notable. When do you year of a particular case of malpractice, or of a particular case of vehicular manslaughter? When does it become notable? When it enters the news. JK Rowling is accused of plagiarism about 50,000 times a day. Some accusations are more notable than others. Provide me with a reliable, neutral, third party source that doesn't lead straight back to you, and maybe that will be enough evidence of its notability to merit inclusion. Otherwise it stays out. If your case is as strong as you say it is, then logically, it will become a major story on its own merits, since Rowling would have to concede that she stole her idea from you. If that happens, believe me, it will be included here.Serendi^podous 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Rowling will have to concede...????" Serendipodous your are crazier than I. Rowling is NEVER going to admit to anything of the sort and THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. Why would she?

"M'lud I am forced by the ineluctable conclusions of logic to admit that I stole everthing from another author, a most un-notable chap called Will Kelly who fortunately for me, at the time, came from a crippled city under Her Majesty's governance in Northern Ireland. Knowing full well he had no possibility of redress me and my buddy Chris Little stole everything he had because... geez it was such a good yarn and like nothing we had ever read before."

Yea right.

Her camp know there can be no real connection between me and her MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC BY ANYBODY. Drawing logical parity is inapplicable. This is not about logic. It is about REASON first and foremost to which all facts are subservient in court and out of it. More than that, it is about the media and who in fact runs it.

How many editors of how many newspapers do you suppose I have approached with this? How many have reviewed my book or even read it? Schillings have blocked me, pure and simple; hence the ranting (and I have to confess it reads as such if you do not take on board the fact that polemics is all that is left to me).

I cannot afford three million quid to take Rowling to court or I would have long ago. Before I go on, let me say that all other cases against Rowling are non-events compared to this. Everything MUST come back to me hence the difficulty to begin with. The train robbery goes back to Biggs? Right? All REFERENCES to the train robbery go back to Biggs directly or indirectly.

I hope you have a sense of sportmanship because here is what I suggest. Include my contribution for a fortnight (let's say) on your page and then let us both twiddle our thumbs and see what happens. If Rowling's boys don't go for your throat with threats of "injunctions" and "inaccuracies", "falshehoods" "unlesses" and reminders of the "apology" they forced out of the Derry News and how Mr. Kelly was never approached by Schillings etc and all the rest of that horsheshit then you can withdraw it, apologize meekly for falling prey to ranting anarchists etc and I can go off and get counselling for delusions of grandeur, megalomania or whatever it is "non-notablility" decides I am afflicted with.

If I am right, well you can still pull the plug... I don't give a damn frankly... but at least you will have learnt a valuable truth... "notability", as you call it, is governed by high-power lawyers, politics and money. The media is not free.

The truth is the truth for all of us but facts have relative significances that are manipulated by the media. That is how presidents are elected and maniacs put in positions of power. What makes front page on the National Enquirer may not even get mentioned in the London Times. Go for it Serendipodous. What have you got to lose?

Or, you can take the other approach and throw your hat in with those who tell YOU what is notable and what isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.12.151 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't launch injunctions against Wikipedia. It's like shooting at water. People who've tried in the past have just ended up looking stupid. No one, I assure you, is going to jump down my throat if I post your section. Given the number of newspapers out there, particularly the Daily Mail, who hate Rowling and would LOVE to see her eviscerated in public, I can only assume that if the press dismissed your case it is because it has no merit. I know for a fact that the Mail has reported on lawsuits Rowling supposedly undertook that never actually happened, so if they'll do that, they'd take you on. Wikipedia is not a platform of last resort, nor is it free publicity. It's not Wikipedia's job to act as your podium. I'm afraid you're on your own with this. And if you feel tossed aside, I suggest you watch the movie McLibel a few dozen times to learn what it REALLY takes to fight the power. Serendi^podous 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Serendipodous... and for the tip about the Daily Mail. My case is incredible, that is the worst aspect of it and why it is not taken seriously. But it is the truth for all that. You must ask yourself why.. given the straightforward accusation of complete plagiarism that I put out on our website... Rowling has not dragged me into court over it? The similarities are there in abundance for all to see. And the accusation has been there for well over a year! The scandal would be colossally damaging, that is why. Rowling knows full well where she nicked the whole thing from. When I have something more substantial I will get back to you. Thanks for your patience. Before I go... do not underestimate the Power! For now, adieu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgreco7 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

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

---

Closed as merged by Serendipodous (talk · contribs) on 17:33, 20 July 2010. Airplaneman ✈ 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The only claim to notability this one HP fanfic has above all others is that Rowling thought about taking the author to court. As such, it really has no bearing outside the legal disputes page. Serendi^podous 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

I think this needs to be unmerged with legal disputes of the harry potter series; the James Potter series is a series in its own right and the redirect causes a lot of unique information to be lost, such as the plot of the james potter series (which I had to look at the revision history to find).The Talking Toaster (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the legal dispute, what makes that fanfic more notable than any of the millions of others around the internet? Serendi^podous 05:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing at all, really; but the handful of fans of that series keep pushing it as somehow unique and worthy of special attention by the world. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the fact that there are a number of fans pushing for this to have its own article should imply that it needs one. Secondly, I imagine that the legal issues the book was embroiled in will have stirred interest in the book itself. Indeed, that was why I became interested, though I was sorely disappointed to find that when I went to my trusty friend wikipedia for a plot summary it apparently didn't exist - well, nowhere but the history for the old page anyway. I think wikipedia should be mroe helpful than this, especially considering that I'm probably not the only one who was in this situation.

Which leads me onto my third point: I think - I'm not sure, but I think - that this book series satisfies wikipedia's criteria for notability, even if it is only because it was involved in legal issues with another book (although it does seem to have its own cult following and even a website offering free download). It is for these reasons I think we should restore the JP page, its just unhelpful otherwise.81.153.130.166 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to maintain a fansite for this particular fanfic just because you like it. Many fanfiction writers have their own little cultus without thereby becoming notable enough for their own encyclopedia articles. The coverage here is sufficient; if you want more, create it yourself elsewhere: Wikipedia is not your webhost. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, just so you know, I'm not even a fan of this story. My point is that lots other people like me will have been interested to know what JP&THEC is about because of the legal disputes and will probably look for the info on wikipedia and will find nothing. Don;t you think we should be a little more helpful than that? Also, with regards to its notability, JP&THEC has received moderate coverage in the media, does that merit nothing? The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT; it never rose to the level of actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rowling $100 million lawsuit, New York Daily News, in 2003?

I can not find any information about this 2003 lawsuit. Does anyone know?

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3002520.stm

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has filed a $100m (£60m) lawsuit against the New York Daily News after the tabloid published details about the plot of her latest book.

DMahalko (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably sputtered out, as so many lawsuits with big shiny numbers on them do. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)