Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Grindelwald as the Third Reich

>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.

Someone asked her if it was a coincidence that Grindelwald was defeated in 1945. She said no. That's as good as a confirmation. Twilight Realm 05:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

She never explained further, but I think it's a good enough confirmation that Grindelwald is at least partially associated with the Third Reich (and likely much, much more). --Deathphoenix 13:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting tie-in to the Real World is that Hitler would often check his room to see if "he" was there, and was known to be interested in the occult. This could have been the inspiration for that idea. (my own thought - I haven't seen any official word of its inspiration). --Tim4christ17 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore Sacrifice

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?

Those are interesting theories. You might want to bring it up on one of the fan forums and see what those folks think. --Deathphoenix 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a very plausible theory - nice! (Oli 22:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

MAGIC WITHOUT A WAND

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.

That's an interesting question. Maybe the magic is stronger (or more controllable) with the wand, but more convenient without it. You might want to bring it up on one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're on to something there, but consider this quote from Chapter 27: "As they flew over the dark, twisting lane down which they had walked earlier, Harry heard, over the whistling of the night air in his ears, Dumbledore muttering in some strange language again. He thought he understood why as he felt his broom shudder when they flew over the boundary wall into the grounds: Dumbledore was undoing the enchantments he himself had set around the castle so they could enter at speed." I suppose this could be wandless magic. Sykil 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there was a discrepancy, but I go with the whole "minor magic" thing instead - you don't see any major spells done without a wand in any of the books. The materials used to create wands seems to support this theory, as they are all have strong magical properties (e.g. unicorn hair, pheonix feather, oak wood) and would therefore enhance the powers of one who used it. Another support for the "amplification" theory is that house-elves can do powerful magic, but still aren't allowed to use wands. --Tim4christ17 05:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No one ever does a spell without a wand. Many of the examples of wandless magic are when Harry loses control at the Dursleys. Remember, Dumbledore was very surprised that Tom Riddle was able to control his magic while at the orphanage, so that seems to be incredibly unusual. Other examples are generally someone making a preplanned event happen, like when Dumbledore makes the food appear at feasts, or when Harry opens the Chamber, or when Dumbledore tries talking to the wall in the cave. Dumbledore cancelling the enchantments blocking their flight to the school is another example of this. I think it's possible that incredibly powerful wizards like Dumbledore or Voldemort could do some things without wands, but nothing major. Twilight Realm 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On the conturary, in the OotP, Harry says "Lumos," and his wand lights, but, he was not actually holding that wand when he said it, it was just close by on the ground.

Withered hand

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.

That's an interesting question. I thought about it too. I think it's implied that the Horcrux is such dark magic that even phoenix tears couldn't heal it. You might want to bring it up on one of the fan forums and see what they think. --Deathphoenix 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My completely unfounded theory is that he thrust the ring behind the Veil while wearing it. --Kizor 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Imaginable, though I don't see why he couldn't just have thrown it through the archway. Livedevilslivedevil 09:08, 29 July 2006

I don't think you're considering the literary implications of his charred hand. It's a foreshadowing of his death. Regardless of whether it's possible or not that it may be healed by Fawkes' tears, it has another very important purpose.Sykil 07:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hard to Kill

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 must admit, although having heard it many times I also cannot find a source for this quote. Even dumbledoreisnotdead.com do not list it as one of the thoeries behind him still being alive. I am begining to question the validity of this quote, prehaps someone could correctly source it, if not then we should discuss it's removal. Death Eater Dan 11:30, 21 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!

tournament champ

if dumbledore is over 100 years old,he would have been the previous triwizard champ.Batzarro 10:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why would he??? Who knows what happened 100 years ago in the HP world, JKR has certainly never told us. Death Eater Dan 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but that was a pretty uneducated deduction. It's possible, but that he is 100+ or possibly 150+ years old does not logically prove such. And if it did, Slughorn would be a champion also, which classifies as dubious in my mind.Sykil 07:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the character death interview

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)

Death Date

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)

Then you are saying that all spoiler warnings should be removed because the book has been out for 8 months? A spoiler is a spoiler. DO NOT POST PLOT SPOILERS - including death dates of key characters such as Dumbledore, before a Spoiler warning. It does not matter if almost everyone has read the book over the last 8 months. Citizen Kane has been out for decades, but it is still considered in seriously bad taste to spoil the ending for those who have not gotten around to reading or watching the movie. Wiki Policy specifies the terms of the Spoiler Warning and describes the nature of Spoilers.

Firstly, I do not enjoy being, what appears, to be yelled at. Secondly, if you had taken the ten (or so) seconds it would have taken to look, I did not post any spoilers, nor did I change the date. I had looked here first, and had seen the arguments it had cause, so I knew that it would be better to ask the general populace what they thought before making the actual change. Thirdly, if you look up the main character of Citizen Kane (name of Charles Foster Kane) it shows at the top his birth (at least an approximation of his birth date) and his death date. That is what I am suggesting for this article. Your main argument seems to be "DO NOT POST PLOT SPOILERS - including death dates of key characters such as Dumbledore, before a Spoiler warning" yet the example you gave me showed a violation of your own rule, seeing as the main character of a book (Citezen Kane) has a spoiler (Charles Kane's death date, the same thing I am trying to have added for Dumbledore) before a spoiler warning. If it is in other books as recent as Citezen Kane and another Harry Potter book (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Cedric Diggory's death)), then I believe it will fit here. But I do wish to make sure that there is a general concesus before it is changed. If the main editors of wikipedia don't want it, I see no reason to add it, yet... Billvoltage 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Citizen Kane dies at the beginning of the book/movie - that is not a particular revelation. It is the nature of the enigmatic Rosebud, which Kane uttered as he died, that represents the main plot line and spoiler. To post the answer to that mystery - "...and Rosebud was his ______ ..." in the introduction of the Citizen Kane article, before a plot spoiler warning, would be the ultimate plot spoiler. When I was a youngster, Charles Shulz published a Peanuts cartoon, where Linus was watching Citizen Kane, and Lucy walks by and tells him "Rosebud was his _______" - which ruined the movie both for Linus and for me, since I had not seen it yet. That is one of the few old Peanuts cartoons I remember clearly to this day.

In the case of Dumbledore, lots of folks have not yet read the book, and the movie won't be out for at least 2-3 more years, and for this reason we do not need to be spoiling one of the most important plot elements of the entire series on the first line of Dumbledore's write-up. This is why the wiki-editors have been systematically removing the death year from the first line of the introduction, and any other improper mentioning of Dumbledore's death before a spoiler notice, as soon as it gets re-posted (about a weekly occurence since last June). That said, the death year itself is not exactly an overwhelming Rosebud-level spoiler, so perhaps a target date for allowing it can be debated and selected. If it is decided by consensus that the death year should be posted at all, then I would propose an initial target date to be no sooner than after the 7th book has been published and all the hanging "questions" from HP6 have been "answered"; and no later than after the last movie has run it's course in the theatres globally.

The perceived "yelling" was simple a point of emphasis about not posting plot spoilers, either intentionally or accidentally, and was aimed not so much at any particular User, but at the various newbies, anonymous editors, and vandals who may be reading this in passing, and who have a tendancy to creep in and add the death date, without having a good understanding of (or no regard for) the plot spoiler rules. Apologies that you were offended. --T-dot 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not know the plotline of Citizen Kane so I did not realize that his death was not a major point, if I had, I would not have pointed it out. I also agree with the date of the 7th book's realease, or, even better, a year or so after this. And now that I look at it after a complete night's sleep I see that the yelling was not directed at me, I am sorry for thinking it was. I think this matter is closed, unless someone else wants to add something to it... Billvoltage 00:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the widespread practice in Wikipedia of having birth or death dates in the opening paragraph for fictional characters doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It makes the article look like a real biography or like a page from a fansite. Dumbledore's birth and death dates are not important enough to be included as the first thing in the article, especially since in the Harry Potter books a real date has been mentioned only once. A mention that he is about 150 years old at the time of the main story would suffice. Rain74 15:50, 1 July 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)

Suicidumbledore

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

Add loyalty to Harry Potter

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 think the priority and precedence is given to organisations. If there is no loyalty to any group, but there is loyalty for a particular individual, then it should be fine to list loyalty for an individual. Since Dumbledore clearly has loyalty towards to Order of the Phoenix, I would consider that loyalty to have precedence over loyalty for Harry Potter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this brings up an interesting, more general point. I assume the intent of the "loyalty" part of the infobox was primarily an attempt to show which side of the war each of these characters is on. However, it has become practice to add more than just organizations to this list; for example, Harry Potter (character) now has 6 characters/organizations listed under loyalty. Should these boxes have everyone that a particular character is loyal to, or just the basics? If we decide to keep the larger lists, I agree with Phnx2ashes that HBP showed that Dumbledore has/had significant loyalty to Harry Potter and should probably be added. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, I just took a look and you're right, there's tonnes of entries under "Loyalty". That is simply too much to put in a Loyalty field. I think we need to be a little more ruthless with how these are used. I think it would benefit if we had some consistency in how this is used. I'll post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter and see what we can do about standardising this. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:53, 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)

Yes I would hve to agree with all of you, we should trim down the loyalties to organizations only, but I also think that the Dumbledore/Harry bond is very significant to the plot and deserves to be the exception to the rule or at least make another section to both the Dumbledore article and Harry Potter that emphisizes their relationship. Phnx2ashes 22:22, 1 April 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)

Book picture

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:

No part of this publication may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.

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)

Good point. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation Trouble

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)

I reversed your change to speculation because some of it was just grasping at air such as: "For example, it would not be inventive to expect Dumbeldore to store an 'emergency wand' that would place itself quickly in Dumbeldore's hand at the utterence of a secret keyword, thus allowing Dumbeldore to break free of Malfoy's control.", although the rest of it was better than the previous version. I think that the Dumbledore page should be locked so that one person can't just put up their theoies. We should then have a peer reviewed speculation section. By the way sign your aurguments next time Jake11.Phnx2ashes 15:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read your revised speculation section and am glad to see that you toned it down a little. I like this one better. There needs to be a mention that Dumbledore may have orcastrated his actual death, though.Phnx2ashes 16:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am curious though what is grasping at air about the theory I added. Think about it. Dumbeldore is a genius wizard who probably has battled dark wizards dozens of times. What is the most powerfull tool in a duel? A wand. What happens to your ability to fight a duel if you happen to lose a wand? It disapears drastically. Thefore, based on those assumptions, and the assumption that Dumbeldore, being around 150 years old, would have at one previous point thought "Hmm, I suppose I should have a mechanism to protect myself against the random expelliarmus charm and/or when I lose my wand in a dual and am too weak to retrieve it". << exactly the situation he faced with malfoy in book six. Perhaps this should be a peer reviewed theory as you mention?--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)

Yes, Deathphoenix is correct. NO fan speculation should be used. Sorry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I hate to spoil the fun, but that is nonsense, and a misleading link. The argument you are making is that nothing can be reported about tony Blair, unless it comes from the labour party press office. websites officially sanctioned by warner brothers or JKR's publishers are not the only source of what is or is not a commonly held view about the books. Rather, in fact, they represent a biased source with a very pronounced vested interest, which might well encourage them not to be accurate. Try The Harry Potter Lexicon, Mugglenet, or The Leaky Cauldron, all of which are sufficiently regarded to have wiki articles. Sandpiper 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculation section

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 think this is probably the best approach, if it can be maintained, for the time being. I originally "created" the Speculation... section (about Dumbledore's Death) several weeks ago, to serve as a "corral" to contain all the incessant and rampant fan speculation, in a section carefully and specifically labeled as such. The title was supposed to serve sort of like a "spoiler" warning - except to alert the visitors that the following is speculation. At the time, the fanatics were very persistent about littering the rest of the article with their pet speculation and theories, so I figured the best thing to do at the time was to give them a small "sandbox" to play in, and clean out the "turds" from time to time, in order to preserve the integrity of rest of the article. The sandbox seemed to work pretty well while it lasted. My last attempt to make a "high quality" fan Speculation... section was this version - which I thought was a reasonable compromise, which presented the theories, and some refutation, as appropriate for encyclopedic use. It did seem to calm most of the Dumbledore is not Dead and Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him fanatics, but the purists still didn't like the idea of allowing ANY speculation, so the "sandbox corral" concept collapsed from aggressive editing. Wikipedia does not prohibit speculation issues to be addressed - and balanced viewpoints in controversial issues are encouraged. If addressed, speculation should be presented in a balanced, professional, and neutral tone, not favoring either side of the argument, and allowing the speculation to stand on its own merit, or collapse from its own contradictions and absurdity. Nevertheless if the "sandbox" has outlived it's usefulness, then so be it. I would predict though that the fanatics will soon return, and once again litter the rest of the article with new speculations and theories, which will eventually tire out us "regulars", and perhaps then again the "Speculation sandbox" will need to be re-established. --T-dot 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be making an attempt to check up on the article once a day and I advise others to do as well.--Phnx2ashes 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your motives, and even applaud it. Fan speculation's been a problem we've had to deal with for a while. I'll be cheering when Harry Potter and the Scar is a Horcrux, if for no other reason than the fact that there will no longer be any speculation to be had. I think the best way to deal with speculation is to remove any and all of it that appears unless there is a specific citation for it in a peer-reviewed journal or official web site. If we consistently apply that, a lot of idle fan speculation will be gone from this and other articles (like the speculation-rampant R.A.B.). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I just mentioned, that is rather missing the point of what caused people to seek out and read this article in the first place. People want to know what other people are thinking. Wiki has been criticised for writing literary articles which frankly tell you nothing about the characters, just re-tell the book. Sandpiper 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

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)

Aberforth is the barman of the Hogshead

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.'

Dumbledore's House

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 think that those clues stonrgly imply that he was in Gryffindor, as only ouse members are allowed in the dormitories unless they sneak in. If Dumbledore "never" like the curtains, it would suggest that he was in Gryffindor. His chraracter also suggests this (Sorting Hat rhyme).

Please use spoilers in notes for editors

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)

Thank you - but the primary intent and principle of Avoiding Plot Spoilers applies to first and foremost to the main article as posted, not so much to the commentary, discussions, warnings, and historical logs between editors regarding information to be posted or eliminated. It is not expected that someone totally unfamiliar with the plot line in the world of Harry Potter would try to study and edit materials located in a spoiler area, and then be offended by the spoilers discovered there. Nor would it be expected that novices unfamiliar with the HP plots and Wiki-principles and guidelines would go digging into ancient edit histories and comments and discussions between editors, who are actively engaged in combat on a daily basis in counter-vandalism efforts and other cleanup work, to keep the current "public view" of the main article "kosher".

Experience has shown that some editors are ignorant of (or have no regard for) the rules on posting spoilers, and insist on adding things like death dates, and who killed who, and what happens to who, in areas outside of the "authorized" spoiler areas. In addition, sometimes the Edit Summaries themselves may contain spoiler info, but this was either done maliciously by a vandal, or by the CVU as warning, and cannot be helped or remedied after the fact. The Counter-Vandalism Unit is sometimes forced to post "hidden" warnings against posting spoilers, even if such a warning itself (normally hidden from clear public view but visible in the "edit" window) contains spoiler information - it simply cannot be helped in some cases. It is all for the greater good - a well planned and discussed attempt to head off some of the the gross infractions of vandals and Internet Trolls by using a warning sign, that is hoped to at least stop the non-malicious novice from inadvertently posting a spoiler out of ignorance of the rules.

I think we may be getting a little oversensitive, to the point of absurdity, if we are seriously getting worked up over the issue of "spoilers" discovered in edit summaries, ancient histories, old editorial discussions, and CVU-posted warnings to avoid posting a forbidden spoiler; and furthermore the whole complaint even seems just a bit disingenuous. Wiki Guidelines say to "assume good faith" on the part of other editors, but I think we may be pushing the limits here... --T-dot 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I agree with most of what you said (thanks for replying in such detail). But in this case the spoiler was only a single click away. All you had to do was click "edit this page" (something that many newcomers to the page might have done, as part of learning how Wikipedia works) and the spoiler was right there, visible for all to see. What I have done is (hopefully) move that spoiler "below the fold" (ie. off the screen). That is all I was saying, nothing more, and I hope that this was helpful.

I'd now like to address a few specific points you raised, some of which are tangential to my main point above:

• I was wrong to raise the issue of spoilers in edit summaries (I raised this on your talk page I believe). You are quite right that edit summaries do not need to avoid spoilers. Similarly, I shouldn't have asked for spoiler warning to be put everywhere - just the article page AND the initially visible part of the edit window would be fine.
• You said that you wouldn't expect people wanting to avoid spoilers to "try to study and edit materials located in a spoiler area" - I agree. But you miss my point - the spoiler was NOT in a spoiler area. I fully expected to be able to read AND edit the areas above the spoiler warning. I did not expect to see "hidden" text suddenly appear in the lead section to reveal the spoiler further down the page that I was trying to avoid.
• You also say: "it simply cannot be helped in some cases" - but would you agree that the way I have presented the spoiler warning avoids someone making the same mistake that I did?
• Further on, you say: "I think we may be getting a little oversensitive, to the point of absurdity, if we are seriously getting worked up over the issue of "spoilers" discovered in edit summaries, ancient histories, old editorial discussions, and CVU-posted warnings" - the only person I can see getting work up here (at least initially) is you. My initial comment was polite and designed to point out a potential problem so that we can all learn from it. Your reply was long and defensive. My counter-reply is long and argumentative, because I am trying to explain that you have misunderstood me.
• Finally, you end with: "furthermore the whole complaint even seems just a bit disingenuous. Wiki Guidelines say to "assume good faith" on the part of other editors, but I think we may be pushing the limits here..." - I am unclear here whether you are suggesting that I should have assumed good faith on the part of the editor who added the spoiler (for the record I did, but felt the need to point out an example of bad practice to avoid future mistakes), or whether you want to assume good faith on my part and feel you can't (which I would find troubling to say the least).

But to tone this down slightly, I'd like to make clear that I was never that upset at my discovering the spoiler. I am more upset now by the defensive response I got for pointing this out. I was half-expecting to get an "Oops, sorry! Thanks for pointing this out" reply, but I guess that is just the luck of the draw sometimes. So, to finish, I will just paraphrase what I said before: please use spoiler warnings in notes for editors that have spoilers. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:59, 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.

• old edit window with spoiler clearly visible.
• my edit that removed the spoiler "below the fold".

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)

Avoiding spoilers

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)

I think that this could be a problem because his death is important to the books and deserves its own section because it was such an important event. As for the character summary, it really should be there too. Otherwise, it suggests that he is still alive. I think that anybody who is reading the article would realise that there would be spoilers on this page. Also, 99% of readers of this article would know the ending anyway, so I don't think that we should change these sections. Oli 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking Voldemort's name

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)

Chapter 20 - At the end of the Funeral when Harry and Ginny discuss the future of their relationship. "Well ... I can't say I'm surprised. I knew this would happen in the end. I knew you would not be happy unless you were hunting Voldemort. Maybe that's why I like you so much." ^[HP6] --T-dot 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

People seem to gradually get used to saying his name. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 03:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Parseltongue

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.

I thought I saw somewhere that Dumbledore understood 100 languages, but I do not recall it specifically mentioning parseltongue. It has been suggested that he might have got morphin to translate the memories he saved which had interesting coments in parceltongue, but again I don't know where that came from. Sandpiper 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Portrait in his office

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)

people have suggested that if he was devious enough to fake his own death, he might be devious enough to hang up a portrait of himself before going out. But we are going to have to wait and see, because the portrait wasn't talking. Sandpiper 23:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

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)

As far as I know he has neither been sacked as headmaster, nor has anyone else been appointed. At the present state of the story, if you looked at the hypothetical signboard outside Hogwarts school, I imagine it says 'headmaster albus Dumbledore'. Given that it is untrue that anyone else is headmaster, I think it reasonable not to mention that there is an anticipated vacancy quite so early in the article. Besides, for all we know, he might not be dead. There is also at least one ghost included in the teaching staff, so being dead might not necessarily be a bar to remaining headmaster. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim he has ceased to be headmaster.

As to spoilers in general, placing one at the very head of the page is ridiculous and meaningless. There has to be at least an introduction and a bit of padding before any sensitive information is introduced to allow someone to comprehend what the article is about and be able to make a decision that maybe they do not want to read on. In general I favour placing mildly sensitive information before a spoiler on the grounds that no one would look here at all unless they wanted to read something. But this particular fact is quite sensitive, though admittedly widely known. Sandpiper 15:08, 28 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)

Successor

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)

specifically, I recall she was acting headmistress, but any new appointment would be subject to the governors decision and hasn't happened yet. Sandpiper 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of it depends on whether the school is open in book seven but the staff meeting shows that McGonagall will take the role unless there is a plot twist. --Sonic Mew 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Descendant of Gryffindor

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)

If this information is unverified it should be removed, not tagged. Exploding Boy 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

some people shoot first and ask questions after, others don't. Tell it to the Metropoltian police, they need some support. Sandpiper 12:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? Exploding Boy 22:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is false information, and should be removed.

just lately the metropolitan police in London have been acquiring an unfortunate reputation for shooting first (literally) and asking questions afterwards. This is becoming rather too much of an aside to be posting here, but illustrated the undesirability of precipitate action. The fact that I don't know where this point comes from does not mean that no one does. So I asked, it then seems reasonable to allow time for replies, or for any interested parties to think where it might be checked. Wiki really should come with a disclaimer that it is only ever 95% correct, though perhaps that is true of other works too. I'm also concerned about the languages he knows thing too. Sandpiper 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of Gryffindor, Trivia

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)

I believe the conclusion of the discussion at the time of my reinstatement was to KEEP it for the time being, and not arbitrarily delete information that is still under discussion. You first deleted it, without regard to that consensus, and then deleted it again after reinstatement, after adding your own "consensus" decision. My function is to work with the consensus, on behalf of the Wikipedia, and to fight unauthorized "blanking" of useful information - which constitutes vandalism. Nevertheless, I do not have a poker in this particular fire, so feel free to do as you wish, and perhaps others will correct your changes, if it is required for the benefit of the Wikipedia. --T-dot 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any such consensus on this page. In fact, if you look earler on this talk page, you'll see that a user claimed that it's even unconfirmed that he was ever a head of house. That, plus the question just above this, which received no answer at all (and, you'd figure someone could answer his/her question pretty easily if it *were* ever said anywhere that Dumbledore was head of Gryffindor). This is certainly not a consensus that him being head of Gryffindor should stay on this page. If anyone can point to a particular part of the books or movies from which one can conclusively say that Dumbledore was head of Gryffindor (and I've read and seen all of the ones that have come out multiple times so far, and remember no such evidence), then I will not object to it being put back here. Until then, as best as I can tell, it's speculation, and is therefore not, IMO, "useful information", until such time as is proven otherwise. I do apologize for not putting a summary in my original edit -- I must have forgotten to do so. Venknat 09:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Headmaster

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.