Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 1

message: "In that same year, the Ministry of Magic refused to believe that Voldemort was responsible, and orchestrated a smear campaign against Dumbledore and Harry Potter."  For what.? Rich Farmbrough 09:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsible Voldemort 

message: He is the headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
The word "is" implies something to do with the present, but that is meaningless here, surely? Dumbledore was not always the headmaster of Hogwarts. Dumbledore also may not continue to be the headmaster of Hogwarts in Harry's 6th and 7th years. Brianjd
One could consider Dumbledore to be the headmaster even while he was suspended during Harry's 2nd year, but that is still misleading, and he was certainly not headmaster when he escaped during Harry's 5th year. This also runs the risk of becoming outdated. Brianjd
*Actually, wasn't he still headmaster?  When he was gone in Book 2, doesn't McGonagall have leave of his office if necessary?  Umbridge certainly doesn't; she wanted nothing more than to unfairly oust Dumbledore the entire time, and when she does so, the office blocks her, letting the audience know that whatever the woman may be doing, she has not replaced Dumbledore as headmaster in any place but her mind.
*Sorry for not signing the above post.  But I still don't get your point.  Since the Higwarts we're goin to know, is only the Hogwarts in these stories, Dumbledore is the head master.  If he dies, then the entry can be changed at that point.Gnrlotto
I wanted to know if I was the only one who felt that the new Dumbledore for movies 3 and 4 is not nearly as good as the original.  He is nowhere near the character I have imagined while reading all six books and seems to jumpy and idiotic to be convincing.  I think that Ian McClellan who plays Gandalf in The Lord of The Rings would be great to take over this role. They need to make a change prior to making movie number 5 because the crappy Dumbledore is the only thing holding the newer movies back in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcanaan@daxko.com (talk • contribs) .
*Hi, this page is for discussion about the article itself, not for discussing the merits of the movie or its actors. You'll probably get a better response from one of the fan forums instead. --Deathphoenix 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headmaster of Hogwarts?

message: I think we should include only information verifiable by the books, or by Rowling's comments.  For example, I personally believe Dumbledore to be a Gryffindor, but I'm quite confident that it's never been revealed for sure.  Perhaps issues like his date of birth are similiar.  If there are verifiable hints about these, those are probably appropriate as long as they're not presented as definitely canon.  Friday 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: I think as there are a lot of new facts from HBP in this article about Albus Dumbledore there should be a spoiler warning ahead of the article. I just don't know how to put that in. Would somebody take care of that? --85.74.183.237 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoiler warning 

message: I'm sorry but I'm not sure where to put this so I put it here.  At the bottom of the page it says that Dumbledore was preseded by Dippet and then suceded by McGonagal in showing the Heads of Hogwarts.  But it doesn't mention Umbridge.  Even though she was only Head for several months she should still be listed as a Head of Hogwarts.
:I actually disagree, as she instate herself into the post and not the school governers. Also, the office of the head was never opened to her as it said something along the line of "only open to the true head of Hogwarts." The office also contains the portraits of all the previous head of the school, and her isn't one of them. -- KTC 00:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads of Hogwarts 

message: I see that some recent editing disagreements have revolved around speculation.  Do those active here care to say what they think about this?  My own opinion is that we should avoid speculating.  Thoughts?  Friday 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have been me. I'm sorry for not commenting anything here about the edition! But thank you spotting the thing . I also think we should keep speculation out of articles, although if they are reall really needed (one of the many R.A.B. current theories should be and actually is mentioned under Regulus Black to which I do not opose). --Jotomicron | talk 23:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to apologize, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did anything wrong.  If speculations must exist, hopefully they'll be limited and clearly marked as such.  I noticed a speculation that kept creeping in was listing Dumbledore's house as Gryffindor.  Friday 23:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad..." (Hermione, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone)... though I still think it might not be the very final truth. I think this might be discussable. (The hp-lexicon says he was from Gryffindor.) --Jotomicron | talk 23:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sure sounds like an official speculation to me.  I changed the box to reflect that.    Friday 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  Sadly I now see that we also state he had been sorted into Gryffindor! Will "rumourish" it now --Jotomicron | talk 01:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculations? 

message: We might add a piece about the names given to Albus in other languages. Somebody problem with that? Theodore W. 11:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, as long as the information is verified. Other articles in the Harry Potter-verse have such a section. --Deathphoenix 12:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: This article should not contain speculation, or large sections of summary of the stories.  Summary belongs in the articles about specific books.  The article should be well-written, and contain no contractions in formal, encyclopaedic style.  We should not be interpreting, only giving facts.  The Magical possessions section should not include items which are not Dumbledore's possessions!  The Lighter moments section doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article.  And regarding the succession box, Dumbledore did succeed Dolores Umbridge as Headmaster, and was followed by McGonagall.  Exploding Boy 16:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
:That policy seems to have changed, in that long summaries of the books have been removed from the specific book articles, and are now left to be mentioned as relevant for each character Sandpiper 01:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And whatwas that about lighter moments? Humour does not belong in an encyclopedia? Do we have an entry for Charlie Chaplin?Sandpiper 00:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents of the article

message: I have a bit of a problem with the following paragraph (I included the preceding comments for reference):
:
:On page 645, Rowling says of Dumbledore's beliefs: "It was important, Dumbledore said, to fight, and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then could evil be kept at bay, though never quite eradicated..."  This seems inconsistent with Dumbledore's words to Harry about the power of Love, and how incomprehensible Love is to Voldemort.  The stage has been set for Harry to vanquish (Voldemort's) evil completely in book seven, but these words open up some interesting possibilities.
It's interesting and it's not speculation (well, except for the last sentence), but it appears to be literary analysis. I'm going to remove this paragraph for now. However, if everyone else decides to keep this paragraph, I want to at least remove "On page 645", because this doesn't mention what book it's in, and page numbers are always dependent on the publisher, country, and edition, but I'd much prefer to remove this paragraph entirely. --Deathphoenix 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favour of the paragraph not being included in the article, since there actually is no inconsistency. The p.645 text refers to Dumbledore's words on the first book (Philosopher's Stone) when Harry asks him if Voldemort will try again to return to power. Dumbledore replies that this is highly possible, but it will only take another hero to fight Voldemort next time, and if he is delayed again, and again, and again, he may never come to power. Furthermore, the phrase "never quite eradicated" refers to the concept of evil in general, not to Voldemort in particular. Sinistro 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 645 text 

message: Has anyone though of the potential spoiler in that his date of death is listed directly after his name?  Slac speak up! 00:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they have. Take a look at the article's history. Sinistro 07:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: I added another spoiler warning at the top in addition to the one that was there. The first one wasn't that visible, but I left it because it's more specific. I'm bringing this up to make sure I did the right thing, because I don't know if one should be deleted, and so that one isn't just deleted without discussion.Twilight Realm 21:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the lower spoiler at it seemed redundant, but also moved some of the non-spoiler general descriptive material up to the introductory section  so someone can get a general picture of him before they reach the spoiler stuff.Sandpiper 22:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New spoiler notice 

message: I took out the following paragraph:
In ending of The Half-Blood Prince, Harry force-fed Dumbledore an unknown Potion.  Though it is unclear what this potion did, it is possible that it brought up bad memories along with the pain that it obviously put Dumbledore through.  One of the things Dumbledore said while he was being fed the potion was, "It's all my fault, all my fault...I know I did wrong, oh please make it stop and I'll never, never again..." and also, "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead," (Chapter 26).  This could perhaps indicate a scene in Dumbledore's past in which some mistake of his own hurt his loved ones.  It's possible that this unknown incident helped form Dumbledore's tireless battle against Voldemort.  However, this may not be the case as the potion's function is unknown and could have been showing Dumbledore's greatest fear.  (These are two possibilities among many.)
I have no objection to mentioning that Dumbledore went after a horcux, drank a potion and got poisoned. Indeed this is mentioned elsewhere. But I don't see really where this paragraph is going. It is quite correct that it is unclear what the potion did, and not very much to be gained by listing possibilities when there is no consensus out there over its likely consequences...except that they would be bad. I agree, it could be scenes from his early life, but arguments I have seen about this are not wholly convincing, his words do not seem to entirely match. Alternative theories are that he is seeing his death (on the battlements), or scenes from the lives of others killed by Voldemort in the cave (the inferi came from somewhere). So all in all, nothing definite to be be said. Sandpiper 17:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  potions are bad for your health 

message: What is the year of birth given in the article derived from? Though wizards may live considerably longer than muggles I don't think 1845 is a reasonable year of birth for Dumbledore. It must more likely have been sometime in the early 20th century. --Maxl 16:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Books take place in the 1990s, Rowling's stated that Dumbledore's 'around 150', you do the math.
Actually, I do consider better to put 1840 rather than 45, exactly because of my math. I know we aren't sure about age, and certainly if is 150, it's throughout one book only, and not the 7! Anyway, just to stick to what we have rather than assume, I think it's better to "do the math" and write 1840. --Jotomicron | talk 1 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)
I've added a "c.", meaning "circa" or around to the date to show that we aren't sure the exact year, but we're pretty close anyway. — 131.230.133.185 09:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not information acquired form the books, but from one of the interviews J.K.Rowling has given. You can see the quote here - it's the fifth from the top. Sinistro 00:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Friday. Matching HP events to real-world dates seems rather pointless. Did it ever occur to anyone that the goings-on in a fictional universe probably will not match real-world dates? --¿WhyBeNormal? 06:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some discrepancies in trying to match real world dates, but this is not original research, it is something going on 'out there'. I believe warner bros have even published an 'official version', though I am unclear whether they managed to get it right. It does not matter so much what happened in the real world in that year, but it is useful to keep track of when events occurred within the HP world. Sandpiper 01:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, WB used the HP Lexicon's Timeline as the official version. --¿WhyBeNormal? 20:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's certainly not OR then, if the copyright owners claim it is correct Sandpiper 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Birth, and dating in general