![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
>As J.K. Rowling confirmed, Grindelwald and his followers are meant to be the magical-world analogues of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
Is there any confirmation of this. I think a reference would be unseful as this is a pretty significant social action for Dumbledore to have taken.
I thought of this theory several days ago and shared it with a few friends.
Could Dumbledore have put himself up as a sacrifice for Harry, just as his mother had? Could Harry receive the same protection from Dumbledore as from his own mother by the same, or different old magic?
Did anyone else notice that book 6 was the only one in which a Wizard could not do magic without a wand?
In every other book, (even in parts of the Half Blood Prince) magicians are using magic without wands. Some examples:
Harry makes the glass on the snakes cage at the zoo disappear.
Harry magically makes his hair grow to its desired length more or less at will.
Tom Riddle, when first discovered by Dumbledore, is able to make a rabbit float in the air to the rafters without a wand.
So, the question I pose, is why is Dumbledore unable to perform magic without his wand just before his supposed death? Is he so advanced in magic that he cannot perform magic like an unlearned 11 year old boy? It is unconvincing that a wizard, once obtaining a wand, is unable to do magic without it. Is it not possible that Dumbledore could have released Harry and did all sorts of magical curses without his wand, even summoned it? Dumbledore could not have been so naive as to not be able to do something. I believe he was in control the whole time, while not seeming so.
Is it suspicious to anybody else that Dumbledore's hand was never healed by his Phoenix?
Could there be a Dumbledore decoy? Was it part of his plan? Is there Magic beyond that of the Phoenix to heal, despite its ability to eat the killing curse and live?
Does anybody have any ideas why Rowling would leave a withered, dead hand on Dumbledore, despite having a Phoenix on hand 24/7? Would it not be like leaving in a ruptured appendix despite having a surgeon staring at you? It makes no sense.
going back to fawkes, it is not so much that he can swallow the killing curse and live, it is that when he dies, he is always reborn. You could kill him in any way, and he doesn't come back to life, he begins a new one all over again. -Captain Jack
About the Dumbledore decoy: twice, Dumbledore tips his own memories into the Pensieve out of a bottle. Why wouldn't they already be in there? Some people have suggested that it was not the real Dumbledore showing Harry that memory. Twilight Realm 22:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
When and where did Jo say "A wizard is very hard to kill. For example, if you threw him off the top of the Astronomy Tower, he would not die." I havn't been able to find this quote anywhere except on this page.-- Thesparrows 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I presume that due to the lack of response this may suggest no-one has been able to source this information?
Death Eater Dan
11:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, In the first book Neville says, "...Great-uncle Algie came round for tea and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my great-auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced – all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased. Gran was crying, she was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here – they thought I might not be magical enough to come, you see. " This is an example of how wizards are hard to kill- people also mention Harry and Neville falling off broomsticks from ridiculous heights and barely getting hurt, etc. Emily 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
But even when Harry fell off his broom from, what was it, 50ft, he almost died, now guessing that each floor is a 10ft high, and the Astronomy Tower was on the seventh floor, then DD was up 70ft! And judging by the way 'his limbs were spawled out at odd angles' or something like that, he did not bounce.
But what about the spell Dumbledore used on harry when he fell from his broom? Or Wingardium Leviosa? Did Snape use one on him? or did Dumble dore use it on HIMSELF!
if dumbledore is over 100 years old,he would have been the previous triwizard champ. Batzarro 10:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I remember that interview. It was from before Order of the Phoenix and refers to Sirius, not Dumbledore. I have removed it. 68.192.117.112 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it has been over eight months since the English versions of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince came out, would that warrent a long enough time to keep his death year off of the top of the page? the bit that says "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbleodre (c. 1845-1996))... Billvoltage 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the article littered with spoiler warnings? There is one particularly stupid one on the line immediately above the sub-title for Dumbledore's death. just exactly what use is that to stop someone reading the big letters immediately below it? Then there is another before the links section, why? we are warning people that websites about Dumbledore tell you about Dumbledore? Sandpiper 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just looking at the picture of Dumbledore and noticed that it's a pic of him at the Pensieve. While people who remember the movie would know what that is, other readers might assume something strange. Since a wand is a weapon not unlike a gun, he actually more looks like he's trying to commit suicide. Umm...does that sound rather odd to anyone?
Uhm...why would readers think that? Dumbledore never tried to commit suicide in the books, and readers would know, if they read parts where memories were extracted, that he's actually trying to retrieve a memory... -- Thrashmeister 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the point of Wikipedia to offer information to those who are not yet entirely familiar with the subject at hand - if so, then shouldn't it be assumed that those who come to read about Dumbledore won't necessarily know everything about him, and by extension won't necessarily know all the particulars of the Wizarding community? I really don't think the pensieve shot looks like he's committing suicide per se, but brushing the concern off based on the assumption that everyone who sees is will already be a reader of the series is poor judgment, I'd say. -Spamtek
I think that after the events of HBP we should consider adding Harry Potter as one of Dumbledore's loyalties along with OoTP and Hogwarts. What say you? Phnx2ashes 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been
bold and chopped it down to just loyal to Dumbledore and Order of the Phoenix.
Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha)
23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been resovled in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter. It has been agreed upon to change the Loyalty field to Allegiance, thus limiting the scope of that field. -- Phnx2ashes 13:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This may seem like nagging at little things, but don't you think we should have at least one picture of Dumbledore from the books? He is first and foremost a literary character after all. Your opinion? Phnx2ashes 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and generally there is a tolerance for including both movie pics and book illustrations. The problems are that the book illustrations are not canon but people in the past have insisted they are and therefore more relevant than the movie pics, but illustrations are an interpretation of the character by totally independant artist employed by the publishers, so cannot be considered canon and incidentally the British original publications by Bloomsbury dont even carry the illustrations. But to recap, I certainly dont have any objection to one being included so long as it is not going to be held up as the more official depiction.
Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha)
22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely - it would be nice - except the images in the books are copyrighted as part of a commercial saleable item. The copyright owner (publisher) has exclusive rights to publish, sell, and distribute all copies of those images. It says in the book's copyright page:
The movie screenshots and publicity photos of the actors have traditionally been allowed as "promotional" in nature, since they don't really take anything away from the movie, and in fact may help promote it. The images in the Books however provide a source of income for Mary GrandPré [1] - she gets a royalty for every copy sold, and posters of them could be available for sale, so if "pirate" copies are in circulation, then she loses income. The book covers have been permitted however, on the same "promotional" basis as the movie PR photos. -- T-dot 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the speculation section. I made two changes there. One, I removed unnecessary refrences to specific spells in order to explain how Snape could have possibly faked Dumbeldore's death, as the ability of powerfull wizards to invent arbitrary spells is well established in the HP series (See book six and Snape's invented spells in his old potions book). Someone removed this change, I put it back as I can see nothing wrong with it. The other change I made was more speculation, and while it is not as discussed as other theories, is no more or less likely than any other speculation in this article. Simply put, if there is going to be a speculation section, it should include not distinguish between theories as all are speculative. Either the section should be removed or editors should not arbitrarily decide whats valid and what's not.-- Jake11 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the speculation isn't supposed to be your own theory- it's supposed to be theories that are well known and supported by a large enough number of fans to be worth encyclopedic mention. So perhaps that theory was a bit too much of your own thoughts, mentioned perhaps somewhere but not supported by all that many fans, and perhaps not worthy of being included in Wikipedia. I don't think the article should be locked, though. Emily ( Funtrivia Freak) 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to put fan speculation. Fan speculation is original research, and Wikipedia has strict policies against original research. If you can provide proper citation from an official site (official cites are listed in Harry Potter#External links), such information can then be included, but unless you do, all such speculation can be removed immediately. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the speculation section and some of the more specific fan theories, though I left in the fact that fans believe he isn't dead, and have left in a link to the "Dumbledore isn't dead" web site. We don't need specific fan theories, but perhaps mentioning that there are some fans who believe he's still alive may be appropriate. I have no prejudice against other people removing link or the speculation, though. Remember, the death of a mentor character is a common literary theme to contribute to the growth of a young protagonist. It's unlikely the author will resurrect this mentor character. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the symbolism section to this talk page (below). I do not think it has any place in an encyclopedic article, it is entirly comprised of POV and OR. I mean........ Yoda?? please!
Albus Dumbledore does have seemingly strong similarities with other characters from books or movies. Some notable examples would be Jedi Masters Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars and the wizard Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings. Though J.K. Rowling has never admitted to which characters or persons from history have influenced Dumbledore inside of the books, it is apparent that he has much in common with all well-written mentors of literature - an excellent example of the Jungian, 'Wise Old Man' archetype.
However I will bow to consensus and if there are any objection to its removal please discuss your opinion for reintegration here, thanks.
Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha)
16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The entry mentions Aberforth and seperately that Dumbledore is friendly with the barmen at the Hogs Head pub, suggesting that they are two different people however see the quote below from JK Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival August 2004
'Why is the barman of the Hog’s Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledore’s brother?
(JKR)Ooh—you are getting good. Why do you think that it is Aberforth? [Audience member: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue. That is all that I am going to say. [Laughter]. Well yes, obviously. I like the goat clue—I sniggered to myself about that one.'
I think I've missed out on this. If we don't know Dumbledore's house, how can we list his house as Gryffindor?
I take this from Talk:Hogwarts Houses: "That Dumbledore was a former head of house (prior to becoming Headmaster) is unconfirmed at this point. Hence, his house is less certain. The assumption that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor is primarily based on Hermione's comment in Book 1 Chapter 6 that she had heard/learned that Dumbledore was in this house (and that this contributed to her own favoring of Gryffindor as "by far the best" house to be Sorted into). There are other arguments offered for the contention that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. This includes a scene in the Goblet of Fire film where the headmaster is in Harry's dormitory in Gryffindor Tower, and he tells Harry: "I never liked these curtains. I set them on fire in my fourth year. Accidentally, of course." Quote on IMDb --Mercurio 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)"
So... Emily ( Funtrivia Freak) 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So basically, you either assume it as obvious from those clues and include it in the article as fact from cannon... or you don't because it's unknown. And no one's sure as to what to do! Emily ( Funtrivia Freak) 01:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I just pulled up the text of the page to correct a small typo in the lead section, and found myself reading a plot spoiler in the "helpful" 'note to editors'. Please, please, if you put a plot spoiler anywhere, please label it as a plot spoiler and add warnings well before the text itself (as I've just done). Thanks. Carcharoth 10:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To make it clearer what the problem was, here are two links to "edit windows" for the two versions concerned. SPOILER WARNING! DO NOT CLICK ON THESE LINKS IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE LATEST BOOKS! :-) Also, please don't do anything silly like edit these versions and save them, as they are (or soon will be) out-of-date versions.
Actually, looking at that, I see that the note to editors should first address those of thinking of adding new information (such as the spoiler warning), and then warn some people not to read any further. I'll make that change. Carcharoth 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This has gotten absurd. We need to avoid spoilers, so we make a comment to ask not to add spoilers, but we need another comment before that comment to point out that the second comment contains spoilers? It doesn't make any sense to have these notes as html comments in the article anyway; talk pages exist for precisely this sort of metacomment, and that's where it should be — not at the top of the article. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've taken this bit of advice out of a comment in the article, and placed it here. Consider it policy on this article for now.
PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MENTION of Dumbledore's Death, or his Death Date, in the character description summary. This is considered a crucial plot spoiler, and must be preceeded by a spoiler warning to meet Wikipedia standards. Dumbledore's death is described fully later on in the main body of the article, following an appropriate plot spoiler warning, for the benefit of those who have not read the entire Harry Potter series. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This article mentions that Ginny uses Voldemort's name when speaking about him. I don't remember that ever happening, could someone please remind me (or remove it if it's untrue)? Emmett5 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The article makes mention that Dumbledore "may able to understand Parseltongue, the language of snakes". Can we get a citation for this? I believe something this major (and an ability this rare) would have been made more clear. It is certainly likely that Dumbledore (and many other wizards) could recognize Parseltongue, however, I highly doubt he could speak it. fruitofwisdom 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is put in because Dumbledore seems to understand what the Gaunts are saying in that memory that he shows Harry. Either he himself understands parseltongue or he asked someone who can to translate. Then again, there's always the possiblity for him using some kind of magic to understand it.
Has anybody else noticed that Professor Dumbledore has a portrait in his office? I was not aware that a Headmaster or Headmistress had a portrait magically administered on the wall unless loss of life occurred. Twice, Dumbledore ran, and twice, the portrait had an opportunity to show, since he had an option of never coming back to Hogwarts. But, when loss of life does supposedly occur, the portrait does appear. Both Harry and Professor McGonagall saw and acknowledged it. You can't just write that away.-- 70.124.132.176 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a persistent topic on this talk page, but since the previous discussions are inactive, I'm starting a new one for clarify. My basic point is this: Wikipedia should prioritize accuracy and comprehensiveness over avoiding spoilers. If the spoiler warning needs to go above the first line in the article (to accomodate the death date according to the style guidelines) so be it. I'm fine with warning people about spoilers, but when it comes to changing the way we write articles, I draw the line. It's ridiculous for every single Harry Potter-related article to pretend that Dumbledore is still alive and well (e.g. referring to him as the "Headmaster of Hogwarts" rather than the former Headmaster). If there absolutely has to be at least one sentence above the spoiler warning (an argument which I am sympathetic to) then let it be "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore is a fictional character in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series" and save the birth and death dates until immediately after the spoiler warning. However, as it currently stands the second sentence of this article is incorrect, which is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there seem to be some users more concerned about preventing spoilers than writing an encyclopedia. Would everyone who supports moving the spoiler warning up please comment here (not a vote—just an informal check). savidan (talk) (e@) 04:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sandpiper's points here. There currently is no other head. You may wish to look at Wikipedia:Manual of style (Harry Potter-related articles). Exploding Boy 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure, but I thought I saw that McGonagall was to be the next headmaster? (It seems logical as she was deputy headmistress, but I'm basing this on something I thought I saw.) Can someone confirm this? Sykil 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone put a verificarion tag beside this point in the article, and I tend to agree. Does anyone know whether JKR has stated Dumbledore is a descendant of Gryffindor, and where? Sandpiper 07:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What does this mean? Exploding Boy 22:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Where was it said that he was ever head of Gryffindor? Seems like speculation to me.
Also, there's way too much trivia (ten-pin bowling, Bertie Botts etc) in the opening paragraph. I believe most of it should be done away with entirely - this is not a fansite, and what we need is an analysis of DD's character as it appears in the story. A reader not knowing much of HP will assume that Albus is frequently seen listening to chamber music.
Rain74 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC) If you know a good reference to a discussion of his character, please post it here and we can see if it is includeable. In the absence of such an analysis, I much prefer a collection of trivia about Dumbedore which does give some insight into the lighter side of his character, than nothing. In some ways the collection of trivia is more interesting than re-telling the story. Sandpiper 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Head of gryffindor: I can't find any evidence in the books that Dumbledore was ever head of Gryffindor. I tried to remove that, but it got reverted. I'm removing it again. Venknat 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The article should show Umbridge was headmistress as well as dark arts teacher at the bottom, succeded by Umbridge, succeded umbridge. She was the headmistress regardless of whether she was let into the heads office. Her appointment was at no point challenged by the board of governers and she held teh post for a non trivial time. Just as coup leaders or despots would be reflected in such terms your dislike of the character shouldnt prevent listing as such.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
>As J.K. Rowling confirmed, Grindelwald and his followers are meant to be the magical-world analogues of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
Is there any confirmation of this. I think a reference would be unseful as this is a pretty significant social action for Dumbledore to have taken.
I thought of this theory several days ago and shared it with a few friends.
Could Dumbledore have put himself up as a sacrifice for Harry, just as his mother had? Could Harry receive the same protection from Dumbledore as from his own mother by the same, or different old magic?
Did anyone else notice that book 6 was the only one in which a Wizard could not do magic without a wand?
In every other book, (even in parts of the Half Blood Prince) magicians are using magic without wands. Some examples:
Harry makes the glass on the snakes cage at the zoo disappear.
Harry magically makes his hair grow to its desired length more or less at will.
Tom Riddle, when first discovered by Dumbledore, is able to make a rabbit float in the air to the rafters without a wand.
So, the question I pose, is why is Dumbledore unable to perform magic without his wand just before his supposed death? Is he so advanced in magic that he cannot perform magic like an unlearned 11 year old boy? It is unconvincing that a wizard, once obtaining a wand, is unable to do magic without it. Is it not possible that Dumbledore could have released Harry and did all sorts of magical curses without his wand, even summoned it? Dumbledore could not have been so naive as to not be able to do something. I believe he was in control the whole time, while not seeming so.
Is it suspicious to anybody else that Dumbledore's hand was never healed by his Phoenix?
Could there be a Dumbledore decoy? Was it part of his plan? Is there Magic beyond that of the Phoenix to heal, despite its ability to eat the killing curse and live?
Does anybody have any ideas why Rowling would leave a withered, dead hand on Dumbledore, despite having a Phoenix on hand 24/7? Would it not be like leaving in a ruptured appendix despite having a surgeon staring at you? It makes no sense.
going back to fawkes, it is not so much that he can swallow the killing curse and live, it is that when he dies, he is always reborn. You could kill him in any way, and he doesn't come back to life, he begins a new one all over again. -Captain Jack
About the Dumbledore decoy: twice, Dumbledore tips his own memories into the Pensieve out of a bottle. Why wouldn't they already be in there? Some people have suggested that it was not the real Dumbledore showing Harry that memory. Twilight Realm 22:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
When and where did Jo say "A wizard is very hard to kill. For example, if you threw him off the top of the Astronomy Tower, he would not die." I havn't been able to find this quote anywhere except on this page.-- Thesparrows 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I presume that due to the lack of response this may suggest no-one has been able to source this information?
Death Eater Dan
11:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, In the first book Neville says, "...Great-uncle Algie came round for tea and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my great-auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced – all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased. Gran was crying, she was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here – they thought I might not be magical enough to come, you see. " This is an example of how wizards are hard to kill- people also mention Harry and Neville falling off broomsticks from ridiculous heights and barely getting hurt, etc. Emily 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
But even when Harry fell off his broom from, what was it, 50ft, he almost died, now guessing that each floor is a 10ft high, and the Astronomy Tower was on the seventh floor, then DD was up 70ft! And judging by the way 'his limbs were spawled out at odd angles' or something like that, he did not bounce.
But what about the spell Dumbledore used on harry when he fell from his broom? Or Wingardium Leviosa? Did Snape use one on him? or did Dumble dore use it on HIMSELF!
if dumbledore is over 100 years old,he would have been the previous triwizard champ. Batzarro 10:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I remember that interview. It was from before Order of the Phoenix and refers to Sirius, not Dumbledore. I have removed it. 68.192.117.112 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it has been over eight months since the English versions of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince came out, would that warrent a long enough time to keep his death year off of the top of the page? the bit that says "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbleodre (c. 1845-1996))... Billvoltage 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the article littered with spoiler warnings? There is one particularly stupid one on the line immediately above the sub-title for Dumbledore's death. just exactly what use is that to stop someone reading the big letters immediately below it? Then there is another before the links section, why? we are warning people that websites about Dumbledore tell you about Dumbledore? Sandpiper 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just looking at the picture of Dumbledore and noticed that it's a pic of him at the Pensieve. While people who remember the movie would know what that is, other readers might assume something strange. Since a wand is a weapon not unlike a gun, he actually more looks like he's trying to commit suicide. Umm...does that sound rather odd to anyone?
Uhm...why would readers think that? Dumbledore never tried to commit suicide in the books, and readers would know, if they read parts where memories were extracted, that he's actually trying to retrieve a memory... -- Thrashmeister 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the point of Wikipedia to offer information to those who are not yet entirely familiar with the subject at hand - if so, then shouldn't it be assumed that those who come to read about Dumbledore won't necessarily know everything about him, and by extension won't necessarily know all the particulars of the Wizarding community? I really don't think the pensieve shot looks like he's committing suicide per se, but brushing the concern off based on the assumption that everyone who sees is will already be a reader of the series is poor judgment, I'd say. -Spamtek
I think that after the events of HBP we should consider adding Harry Potter as one of Dumbledore's loyalties along with OoTP and Hogwarts. What say you? Phnx2ashes 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been
bold and chopped it down to just loyal to Dumbledore and Order of the Phoenix.
Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha)
23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been resovled in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter. It has been agreed upon to change the Loyalty field to Allegiance, thus limiting the scope of that field. -- Phnx2ashes 13:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This may seem like nagging at little things, but don't you think we should have at least one picture of Dumbledore from the books? He is first and foremost a literary character after all. Your opinion? Phnx2ashes 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and generally there is a tolerance for including both movie pics and book illustrations. The problems are that the book illustrations are not canon but people in the past have insisted they are and therefore more relevant than the movie pics, but illustrations are an interpretation of the character by totally independant artist employed by the publishers, so cannot be considered canon and incidentally the British original publications by Bloomsbury dont even carry the illustrations. But to recap, I certainly dont have any objection to one being included so long as it is not going to be held up as the more official depiction.
Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha)
22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely - it would be nice - except the images in the books are copyrighted as part of a commercial saleable item. The copyright owner (publisher) has exclusive rights to publish, sell, and distribute all copies of those images. It says in the book's copyright page:
The movie screenshots and publicity photos of the actors have traditionally been allowed as "promotional" in nature, since they don't really take anything away from the movie, and in fact may help promote it. The images in the Books however provide a source of income for Mary GrandPré [1] - she gets a royalty for every copy sold, and posters of them could be available for sale, so if "pirate" copies are in circulation, then she loses income. The book covers have been permitted however, on the same "promotional" basis as the movie PR photos. -- T-dot 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the speculation section. I made two changes there. One, I removed unnecessary refrences to specific spells in order to explain how Snape could have possibly faked Dumbeldore's death, as the ability of powerfull wizards to invent arbitrary spells is well established in the HP series (See book six and Snape's invented spells in his old potions book). Someone removed this change, I put it back as I can see nothing wrong with it. The other change I made was more speculation, and while it is not as discussed as other theories, is no more or less likely than any other speculation in this article. Simply put, if there is going to be a speculation section, it should include not distinguish between theories as all are speculative. Either the section should be removed or editors should not arbitrarily decide whats valid and what's not.-- Jake11 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the speculation isn't supposed to be your own theory- it's supposed to be theories that are well known and supported by a large enough number of fans to be worth encyclopedic mention. So perhaps that theory was a bit too much of your own thoughts, mentioned perhaps somewhere but not supported by all that many fans, and perhaps not worthy of being included in Wikipedia. I don't think the article should be locked, though. Emily ( Funtrivia Freak) 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to put fan speculation. Fan speculation is original research, and Wikipedia has strict policies against original research. If you can provide proper citation from an official site (official cites are listed in Harry Potter#External links), such information can then be included, but unless you do, all such speculation can be removed immediately. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the speculation section and some of the more specific fan theories, though I left in the fact that fans believe he isn't dead, and have left in a link to the "Dumbledore isn't dead" web site. We don't need specific fan theories, but perhaps mentioning that there are some fans who believe he's still alive may be appropriate. I have no prejudice against other people removing link or the speculation, though. Remember, the death of a mentor character is a common literary theme to contribute to the growth of a young protagonist. It's unlikely the author will resurrect this mentor character. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the symbolism section to this talk page (below). I do not think it has any place in an encyclopedic article, it is entirly comprised of POV and OR. I mean........ Yoda?? please!
Albus Dumbledore does have seemingly strong similarities with other characters from books or movies. Some notable examples would be Jedi Masters Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars and the wizard Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings. Though J.K. Rowling has never admitted to which characters or persons from history have influenced Dumbledore inside of the books, it is apparent that he has much in common with all well-written mentors of literature - an excellent example of the Jungian, 'Wise Old Man' archetype.
However I will bow to consensus and if there are any objection to its removal please discuss your opinion for reintegration here, thanks.
Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha)
16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The entry mentions Aberforth and seperately that Dumbledore is friendly with the barmen at the Hogs Head pub, suggesting that they are two different people however see the quote below from JK Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival August 2004
'Why is the barman of the Hog’s Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledore’s brother?
(JKR)Ooh—you are getting good. Why do you think that it is Aberforth? [Audience member: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue. That is all that I am going to say. [Laughter]. Well yes, obviously. I like the goat clue—I sniggered to myself about that one.'
I think I've missed out on this. If we don't know Dumbledore's house, how can we list his house as Gryffindor?
I take this from Talk:Hogwarts Houses: "That Dumbledore was a former head of house (prior to becoming Headmaster) is unconfirmed at this point. Hence, his house is less certain. The assumption that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor is primarily based on Hermione's comment in Book 1 Chapter 6 that she had heard/learned that Dumbledore was in this house (and that this contributed to her own favoring of Gryffindor as "by far the best" house to be Sorted into). There are other arguments offered for the contention that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. This includes a scene in the Goblet of Fire film where the headmaster is in Harry's dormitory in Gryffindor Tower, and he tells Harry: "I never liked these curtains. I set them on fire in my fourth year. Accidentally, of course." Quote on IMDb --Mercurio 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)"
So... Emily ( Funtrivia Freak) 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So basically, you either assume it as obvious from those clues and include it in the article as fact from cannon... or you don't because it's unknown. And no one's sure as to what to do! Emily ( Funtrivia Freak) 01:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I just pulled up the text of the page to correct a small typo in the lead section, and found myself reading a plot spoiler in the "helpful" 'note to editors'. Please, please, if you put a plot spoiler anywhere, please label it as a plot spoiler and add warnings well before the text itself (as I've just done). Thanks. Carcharoth 10:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To make it clearer what the problem was, here are two links to "edit windows" for the two versions concerned. SPOILER WARNING! DO NOT CLICK ON THESE LINKS IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE LATEST BOOKS! :-) Also, please don't do anything silly like edit these versions and save them, as they are (or soon will be) out-of-date versions.
Actually, looking at that, I see that the note to editors should first address those of thinking of adding new information (such as the spoiler warning), and then warn some people not to read any further. I'll make that change. Carcharoth 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This has gotten absurd. We need to avoid spoilers, so we make a comment to ask not to add spoilers, but we need another comment before that comment to point out that the second comment contains spoilers? It doesn't make any sense to have these notes as html comments in the article anyway; talk pages exist for precisely this sort of metacomment, and that's where it should be — not at the top of the article. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've taken this bit of advice out of a comment in the article, and placed it here. Consider it policy on this article for now.
PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MENTION of Dumbledore's Death, or his Death Date, in the character description summary. This is considered a crucial plot spoiler, and must be preceeded by a spoiler warning to meet Wikipedia standards. Dumbledore's death is described fully later on in the main body of the article, following an appropriate plot spoiler warning, for the benefit of those who have not read the entire Harry Potter series. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This article mentions that Ginny uses Voldemort's name when speaking about him. I don't remember that ever happening, could someone please remind me (or remove it if it's untrue)? Emmett5 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The article makes mention that Dumbledore "may able to understand Parseltongue, the language of snakes". Can we get a citation for this? I believe something this major (and an ability this rare) would have been made more clear. It is certainly likely that Dumbledore (and many other wizards) could recognize Parseltongue, however, I highly doubt he could speak it. fruitofwisdom 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is put in because Dumbledore seems to understand what the Gaunts are saying in that memory that he shows Harry. Either he himself understands parseltongue or he asked someone who can to translate. Then again, there's always the possiblity for him using some kind of magic to understand it.
Has anybody else noticed that Professor Dumbledore has a portrait in his office? I was not aware that a Headmaster or Headmistress had a portrait magically administered on the wall unless loss of life occurred. Twice, Dumbledore ran, and twice, the portrait had an opportunity to show, since he had an option of never coming back to Hogwarts. But, when loss of life does supposedly occur, the portrait does appear. Both Harry and Professor McGonagall saw and acknowledged it. You can't just write that away.-- 70.124.132.176 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a persistent topic on this talk page, but since the previous discussions are inactive, I'm starting a new one for clarify. My basic point is this: Wikipedia should prioritize accuracy and comprehensiveness over avoiding spoilers. If the spoiler warning needs to go above the first line in the article (to accomodate the death date according to the style guidelines) so be it. I'm fine with warning people about spoilers, but when it comes to changing the way we write articles, I draw the line. It's ridiculous for every single Harry Potter-related article to pretend that Dumbledore is still alive and well (e.g. referring to him as the "Headmaster of Hogwarts" rather than the former Headmaster). If there absolutely has to be at least one sentence above the spoiler warning (an argument which I am sympathetic to) then let it be "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore is a fictional character in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series" and save the birth and death dates until immediately after the spoiler warning. However, as it currently stands the second sentence of this article is incorrect, which is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there seem to be some users more concerned about preventing spoilers than writing an encyclopedia. Would everyone who supports moving the spoiler warning up please comment here (not a vote—just an informal check). savidan (talk) (e@) 04:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sandpiper's points here. There currently is no other head. You may wish to look at Wikipedia:Manual of style (Harry Potter-related articles). Exploding Boy 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure, but I thought I saw that McGonagall was to be the next headmaster? (It seems logical as she was deputy headmistress, but I'm basing this on something I thought I saw.) Can someone confirm this? Sykil 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone put a verificarion tag beside this point in the article, and I tend to agree. Does anyone know whether JKR has stated Dumbledore is a descendant of Gryffindor, and where? Sandpiper 07:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What does this mean? Exploding Boy 22:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Where was it said that he was ever head of Gryffindor? Seems like speculation to me.
Also, there's way too much trivia (ten-pin bowling, Bertie Botts etc) in the opening paragraph. I believe most of it should be done away with entirely - this is not a fansite, and what we need is an analysis of DD's character as it appears in the story. A reader not knowing much of HP will assume that Albus is frequently seen listening to chamber music.
Rain74 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC) If you know a good reference to a discussion of his character, please post it here and we can see if it is includeable. In the absence of such an analysis, I much prefer a collection of trivia about Dumbedore which does give some insight into the lighter side of his character, than nothing. In some ways the collection of trivia is more interesting than re-telling the story. Sandpiper 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Head of gryffindor: I can't find any evidence in the books that Dumbledore was ever head of Gryffindor. I tried to remove that, but it got reverted. I'm removing it again. Venknat 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The article should show Umbridge was headmistress as well as dark arts teacher at the bottom, succeded by Umbridge, succeded umbridge. She was the headmistress regardless of whether she was let into the heads office. Her appointment was at no point challenged by the board of governers and she held teh post for a non trivial time. Just as coup leaders or despots would be reflected in such terms your dislike of the character shouldnt prevent listing as such.