Jump to content

Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Prisoner of Azkaban

Isn't the prisoner of akzaban coming out in 2003? Ilyanep 01:18 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, early 2004. Filming started later in the year than the other two films, to give the cast a break. -- Jim Regan 03:36 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scared of Voldemort?

I definitely take issue with the statement "This may be attributed to the fact that he may feel that he is no match for Lord Voldemort, despite the Dark Lord's fear of him.". It seems obvious, through Dumbledore's use of "Tom" to address Voldemort when in person and his use of "Voldemort" over "He-who-must-not-be-named" when talking of him, that he does not fear addressing him by name as the boy he used to be. These, among countless other examples, give a picture of a Dumbledore that does not fear the enemy whom he knows so well and understands greatly.

Anyone else propose a revision of the statement?-Anon

    • Yes, I agree. Dumbledore is definitely not scared of Voldemort, especially since the worst Voldemort can do to him is kill him, which Dumbledore doesn't fear. -- Steve

Death

The news about his death shouldn't be printed so close to the spoiler warning - one could scroll past accidentally!

  • I say we must remove the date of his death. It's there before any spoiler warnings, but anyone can conclude from seeing that "1840 - 1997". The date of his death seriously shouldn't be there, ffs
  • DISAGREE -- By now it's common knowledge. Everyone knows. So what's with the argument about. It was all over the news; for crying out loud. The death date of Sirius Black is noted in the begining of his article; so there is a precident. This is NOT a spoiler. So post the thing. -- talk Jason Palpatine 02:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • BOOK SIX IS ONLY RELEASED ONE MONTH AGO. Not everyone buys the book first day it is out and not everyone will pull an all-nighter to finish reading it all in 12-24 hours! Something should be done about the "1840 - 1997", maybe have 1997 text changed to white so if people wish to see it, they'll highlight it and find out. Otherwise anyone who ready book 1-5 and comes to this page for some info or just happens to stumble upon this page will be spoiled.
  • Fair point, but now its not there at all, which is rather stupid. Someone rv

Should it even be in the headings? i.e., Speculation and Death?

  • Let's make that the news of his *apparent* death. I still suspect a double-secret plot twist that will have Snape turn out not to be a traitor at all, and will have Dumbledore living on in a Horacrux of his own.
That's being a little extreme. The creation of the horcrux is among the greatest act of evil possible. Dumbledore was not evil -- and would not do anything that was (or he considered to be) evil. He was not a murderer -- and the creation of a horcrux requires an act of murder in order to be created. Nope, sorry, your theory doesn't hold any Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder. -- Jason Palpatine 06:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid this would cross the border to the twilight zone of pure speculation. Rowling seems to have done everything in her power to emphasise the finality of death in this series, and I'd be very surprised to see any character come back from the dead. Horcruxes are notoriously dark magic which require murder - doesn't look like something Dumbledore would use ("death is but the next great adventure", anyone?) --AceMyth 05:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
There's still a possibility for Dumbledore to take some influence in Book 7, as his portrait will probably be installed in the office of the headmistress. The whereabouts of Fawkes may also be interesting. --Chrysalis 02:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Could there be some connection to the phoenix and Albus besides it being his symbol? I mean, in the final book it could be worked out that like a phoenix that burns itself up, comes back to life.

  • Put in TOC in non-spoiling way Here's my idea: Re-name the section "Events at the end of book 6" or something like that. That way, it can be in the TOC and people who've already read it will know what it means, but people who haven't won't. That would also remove the possible spoiler for anyone who's reading the previous section and then suddenly sees "death" in bold letters. Another spoiler warning could be put right after the heading for that section. --Icarus 03:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Idea: we could create a special spoiler warning meant for the content of the sixth book and place it where needed, in all the Harry Potter articles. It would be better than re-name the section "Events at the end of book 6", witch is not a very good idea, if you ask me. Otherwise, I disagree with the removal of the date of his death. Wipidedia must stay accurate. People should not read the Harry Potter articles at all when they have not read all the books. --Scroteau96 22:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a theory, Dumbledore may reappear in Book 7 as a ghost. As for showing Dumbledore's deathdate, I strongly say that it should not be removed, therefore: 1840-1997.

Unlikely. Nearly-Headless Nick made it quite clear in book 5 that people only become ghosts if they choose not to go on to the next life (usually because they're scared). Albus "To the well-disciplined mind, death is but the next great adventure" Dumbledore doesn't fit that profile. --Icarus 01:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Dumbledore may become a ghost so he would be able to give advice to Harry or guide Harry in any future decisions. But, that is just a theory.

Rowling said that only those who die unhappy become ghosts, though she wasn't clear. Dumbledore will not return, I'm afraid. -Katie
  • AGREE: You could argue that only those who are very familiar with Harry Potter would check this page, but that's not a certainty. Remove the date for a few months. Though if this arguement continues for long, it'll be unnecessary.
  • JUST MY TWO CENTS WORTH: I believe Dumbledore will return in Book 7, but not as a ghost or through a horcrux. Thanks to Dave Haber's website [1] I tend to believe that Dumbledore is not really dead in the first place, but that he faked his death with Snape's help. At any rate, with all this speculation, I can see that it is definitely a masterful plot twist. For myself, I can hardly wait to read Book 7, to see which of us is right! By the way, thank you to whoever first added Haber's site to the Dumbledore page. You beat me to it, but I'm overjoyed to see that others agree with me that the website is a wonderful resource. --Library Girl 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. In fact, I believe that a major overhaul of all tenses in Harry Potter articles is needed. While the series isn't finished and you may treat it's some sort of "current event", it is not. Especially considering how weird it would look after the seventh book is over and done with - assume for instance that Hogwarts was to survive beyond that with McGonagall still as Headmistress - would you have the article perpetually as "she is currently the Headmistress"? No. What must be considered is that the books aren't "current" with our timeframe - simply some of the story has yet to be revealed. Thus all the opening sections should be modified to be time-neutral. It makes sense, it'd be done afterwards anyway - set a precedent. Someone who has only read the first few books who might want to see some takes on Dumbledore shouldn't need to get spoiled early on. The idiotic "Oh they should have read it by now" means we should just give up on Spoiler Warnings altogether. -Nichlemn 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry if I am in violation of conventions that I know must be critical to the functioning of this resource, but I feel -both as a reader of Harry Potter books and as a huge fan of the Wikipedia resource-, that the single quotations in A wizard is very hard to kill. For example, if you threw him off the top of the Astronomy Tower, he would not die. should be replaced with double quotations. Reason one is that this should make more visible the vitally important separation of Rowling's words and the argument presented. Reason two is that to most people double quotations indicate direct quotation, and also that Wikipedia seems to follow this rule. If this is not a direct quotation from Rowling, then something needs to be done to make this more apparent. (24.243.12.145 09:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

in accordance with the far above, a double-plot twist seems likely. If Snape is a master of non-verbal spells, then surely it would have been a simple matter to say avada-akedavra, while thinking something different, such as a as-yet unknown spell that induces the illusion of death. this is supported by the fact that during dumbledore's funeral, you never see the body. just A body covered in purple cloth. this may just be the crazed ramblings of a huge dumbledore fan, but I think it makes a lot of sense. I refer any and all to the excellent website www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com for more information. Kordos

Dumbledore's school days

Was Dumbledore really sorted into Gryffindor? Can't find a hint like that in the books. MESR 10:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had the same question... although he does seem to have a ridiculous bias toward them. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:32, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Hermione said that she heard Dumbledore was in Gryffindor when she first met Harry and Ron. Obviously this isn't proof, but I'm certain it was Rowling's intent.
Plus, he was head of Gryffindor when he was Professor of Transfiguration and Rowling said that all the Heads of Houses had been in the house that they headed during their school days. Billvoltage 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed theory?

Where has it been confirmed about Aberforth being that bartender? If anonymous doesn't give us a source for that newsitem, I'll be reverting it soon. Aris Katsaris 15:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival:
"Why is the barman of the Hog’s Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledore's brother?
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."
Ablewisuk 09:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Responsible Voldemort

"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)

Basically, that he was responsible for killing Cedric Diggory and as a motive for Barty Crouch Jnr.s actions.

Actually, the ministry did not want to believe Voldemort was back. His return has such big implications that the ministry did not want to face. Voldemort's return also implies that the ministry is no longer in control, a big issue for the ministry. Its all about saving face and looking good.

Dumbledore's personality

Re "There are few occasions where Dumbledore shows a slight arrogant side...": I'd characterize his reply as an attempt to exert authority in a rare tight situation. This might be perceived as an air of arrogance that comes with authority, but it does not mean he has an arrogant side. A-giau 12:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What this comes down to is a matter of opinion, but I personally think he isn't ever arrogant, though I would understand what people are talking about. For example, after telling Harry to stay alert while they are leaving the Dursleys: "...but I do not think we need to worry about being attacked" "Why?" asked Harry. "Because you are with me," said Dumbledore simply.
I don't think that's arrogance. If anything, I think it's just self-confidence, or even just knowing. Dumbledore knows how strong he is, and, in the case of dark wizards, knows that the most powerful one, Voldemort, is afraid of him.PantherFoxie 00:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Headmaster of Hogwarts?

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) .

Ideally, when talking about literature you should keep to the present tense anyway. --AceMyth 04:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability

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)


Events in the Half-Blood Prince

When did Snape give Dumbledore "a weakening draught"? From my reading I thought he was just weakened from having to drink the potion in the cave, which had nothing to do with Snape.

That's true. Snape didn't give Dumbledore anything but the Avada Kedavra curse.
Does that work on the same principle as the other 'unforgiveable' curse, the crucius, which Harry tries to use in 'order of the phoenix'. There, his intended victim assures him that it only works properly if you really really mean it. Sandpiper 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it. If it wasn't strong enough to kill him, it wouldn't have been strong enough to lift him over the ramparts. And even if it was, even if Dumbledore was intended to live, he's dead. He fell off the castle's tallest tower. Fawkes wouldn't sing his lament without reason. And Harry's paralysis was lifted. Sorry, but if anyone believes he's still alive, in the same body, they are definitely delusional (no, I'm not Emerson). And I am positive he won't live on as a horcrux or ghost or anything.
What about a portrait in the headmaster's office? All previous headmasters are portrayed there and on some occasions interacting with live people (transferring messages by appearing in other pictures or discussing with the current headmaster). Therefore, Dumbledore could still have some influence. --Chrysalis 03:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

spoiler warning

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)

Now someone took care to put the warning in.Thank you! I put it in the article for the new novel.  ;) --85.74.183.237 21:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Heads of Hogwarts

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)

Speculations?

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)

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)
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)
"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)
That sure sounds like an official speculation to me. I changed the box to reflect that. Friday 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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)

Translations

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)

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)`

Actually, I have a problem with it. We already have a list of character names in other languages, and there are interesting reasons for the names chosen in many of them. We shouldn't be singling out Dutch and we can't fit them all in; a link is plenty. Exploding Boy 03:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dumbledore's loyalty

On the Harry Potter pages here, we list former headmasters/headmistresses as being loyal to the current head, since their duty as portraits is to serve the headmaster or headmistress. I have already changed the pages of Phineas Nigellus and Dilys Derwent to say they are loyal to Minerva McGonagall; however, I'm not sure if I should change Dumbledore's loyalty to McGonagall. Any opinions on the subject? --Matjlav 04:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest changing them all to show loyalty to Hogwarts. Aris Katsaris 13:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Aris. It would also take care of all the "Spoiler" problems associated with showing McGonagall as the headmistress. --Deathphoenix 02:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, it's better to change it to show loyalty to "Hogwarts head teacher". --Deathphoenix 04:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Saying "Hogwarts head teacher" would show that Dumbledore is no longer the headmaster would be just as much of a spoiler as saying McGonagall is now the headmistress. --Matjlav 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It may however be more accurate. The issue of who is head teacher rather depends upon which book you are reading. It is more true to say that during the period of the books dumbledore is headmaster for longer than anyone else. But their loyalty is surely to the post, rather than the incumbent. Sandpiper 01:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents of the article

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)
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)

Dumbledore's house

I notice this gets changed back and forth all the time. Can we agree that his house is only rumored to be Gryffindor, and we haven't found out for sure? (in book 1, Hermione talks about Gryffindor being a good house, as she heard that Dumbledor himself was in it.) I think either "unknown", or "unknown, rumored to be Gryffindor" would be acceptable. Thoughts? Friday 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone find the Hermione quote? If the rumor is in the books themselves, then the current edit is fine, if the rumor is on some harry potter message board, I'd rather it just be "Unknown". --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good. I can supply the quote, but not for a few hours. I agree that rumors OUTSIDE the books should not be considered sources. Friday 19:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I wish there was a better way to phrase it than "rumored". There were so many random fan-rumors going around after the sixth book that many editors (myself included) were just reverting anything that looked like fanon on sight. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you there. Previously, I'd been setting it to "unknown". I only went to "unknown, rumored Gryffindor" in hopes of keeping people from constantly chaning it to read only "Gryffindor". Friday 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I had forgotten the Hermione thing, but if she mentions it in the book itself, it certainly should be mentioned, if not in the infobox, then in the article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go.. Book 1, Ch. 6, while on the train. Hermione says "I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best. I hear Dumbledore himself was in it.." Friday 23:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I would put it in there (and put an html comment in the article body to keep it from being revert-warred. Also, can we do something about the ridiculous header on this article? It causes the formatting to look wonky on my browser at least, that may allso be the heckawide picture of dumbledore. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think that if it is in the books Rowling would have it be true. Hermione "heard" it? She's Muggleborn! More likley she read it. That would make it quite factual.

That's one way of looking at it. But we're not here to interpret the book with speculations. I agree with you that his house is likley Gryffindor, but I'm not sure the article should state this as fact when the books do not. Since this seems to be a recurring conflict, maybe the article should explain the situation better. Friday 00:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

At least 2 of the biggest Harry Potter fansites say that he was in Gryffindor. They state it as a fact. Let the experts interpret it. (I also think that there's no doubt). Does anyone really have an objection to removing the "possibly"? -Steve EDIT: I forgot to mention, those sites were mugglenet.com and hplexicon.com

I think it should stay as "possibly". We're aiming for facts verified by the books, not by fan speculation on some website. Friday (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
"Gryffindor (?)" --Kizor 02:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok by me. Ideally, the main article text would explain the details. Friday (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I like this way of putting it. It shows that it hasn't actually been confirmed, but also that it's almost certainly true. --Icarus 03:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be good, though I'm going to ask on a forum if Rowling said anything about that, even an "I can't tell you." Twilight Realm, formerly know as Steve.

I guess the way it is now is okay ( Gryffindor (?) ), but I still think that there is absolutely no chance of him being anything else. Remember, we're talking about a book, not a real person. A real person could possibly be that much different from how they appear, but why would Rowling make Dumbledore so obviously Gryffindor. Okay, I guess you could argue that it'll be a plot twist, but come on. Does the page for George Bush say that he's most likely a Republican, but he could be hiding the fact that he's truly a Democrat?
I asked at a forum for canon evidence. They found none. If you want, the thread can be found at http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=72172 . I'm ClawOfTheRaven.
Okay, the main thing I wanted to say is, can anyone verify this?: (how the heck do I punctuate that?)
You could tell your friends [meaning you other editors] that Jo has said in an interview (really sorry but I don't remember which one) that both Hermione and DD speak for her in the books. That for me is evidence that what Hermione said is correct. Jo uses Hermione to give us information that we need to know. Hermione's info tends to deal with everyday stuff, while DD supplies facts on a grander scale, usually summing up and explaining the events of that particular book. --Written by Sholeigh
It's biased, I know, but they've got a good point. If someone could track that interview down, I think that's enough proof. Here's all I've found so far (after 5 minutes of searching):
MA: Will Harry and Ron ever read “Hogwarts, a History”?
JKR: Never. [Laughter.] It’s a gift to me, because all my exposition can be dressed up as, “When are you going to read it?” So Hermione fills in the reader as well, so I could never let them read it.
It's not absolute proof, but if you say that Hermione doesn't help in the exposition in other cases, you're just delusional. Hehe. Twilight Realm 22:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there's no chance he was in any other house but Gryffindor. This does appear to be the strongest hard evidence. I'm prepared to accept it, since uncertainty over his house is (as I see it) a mere technicality anyway. Have you read The Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter? It's not put out or authorized by Rowling, so it's not admissible as evidence (especially since some parts proved to be incorrect! When the authors were discussing the room that Rowling had said had appeared in an earlier book but would become important in book 5, they dismissed Dumbledore's room full of chamber pots as clearly being a joke. Lo and behold, it turned out to be the Room of Requirement!), but they also have some rather astute observations. They point out that anything Hermione says is almost always right, and anything Ron says is almost always wrong (unless he thinks he's just joking). Like I said, not admissible evidence in this discussion, but I found it interesting and thought I'd mention it. :-) --Icarus 01:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I will admit, Rowling said that Dumbledore is the only character that we can always trust. Meaning that at least once, Hermione isn't reliable. However, this definitely does seem to be a case of Hermione just being a handy way to put in a little exposition.
Hermione has been getting things wrong morer lately, perhaps JKR has got wise to this. But also the characters have become much less clear cut in the last book. There was debate from the soting hat about whether Harry should have been a gryffindor or a Slytherin. The Black family were traditionally Slytherins, but one brother was placed in Gryffindor, and the other may yet turn out to have been a hero despite being a Slytherin. Slughorn thought Lily should have been a Slytherin. Slytherin have had alot of bad press in recent years because of Voldemort, but maybe historically they had a much better image. DD is a pureblood. Dumbledore is old enough that he could have started out a Slytherin and already had a big life changing experience (is mentioned that he certainly had a big experience fighting Grindelwald) which is what made him become a teacher in his 70's (or thereabouts). Only one who suspected Tom Riddle...because he understands that sort of person from the inside? Sandpiper 07:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


This seems to be quite a big debate over such a small thing as a ?

However wikipedia contradicts itself, the Dumbledore page has such difficulty putting Him in Gryffindor however three other places put Dumbledore in Gryffindor and with much less controversy. Hogwarts Houses page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_Houses) lists Dumbledore as a previous student of Gryffindor. Additionaly on Minerva McGonagall's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva_McGonagall), and on this Dumbledore page (same page as the problematic ?), in the succession box near the bottom of the page, Dumbledore is listed as a former Head of Gryffindor House. Now before you all start screaming that being Head of House is not the same as being in that House as a student…. Wrong…. See the following quote from JKR off her own official website –

Section: F.A.Q. If a teacher is head of a house, can we assume that they were sorted into those houses when they were students at Hogwarts? Is that also true for the house ghosts? So was Snape a Slytherin? A Mugglenet/Harry Potter Lexicon Open Letter Question (I can't promise I'll answer them all, but I'll try and work through them). Yes, if the teacher is Head of House you can indeed assume that they were pupils within that house. So Snape was very definitely a Slytherin and yes, the same is true of the house ghosts.

Another point to note is that on the film Goblet of Fire Dumbledore makes the comment about setting fire to the bed curtains in the Gryffindor dormitory….. yet again I hear you all screaming at me that as this is in the film and not in the book that this comment is not considered canon so not valid……. Well, the film screenplay is written by a man called Steve Kloves, and both he and KJR have said separately in interview (sorry I can’t find the quotes this time) that JKR approves all of Steve Kloves screenplays for the films and has helped write them. So I don’t imagine for a second that JKR would allow such a comment in the film if it was not correct.

I would also like to comment on the earlier observation that seems to mock the validity of info on the fan sites, hp lexicon was mentioned, it is interesting what JKR’s views are on the afore mentioned fan site -

The Harry Potter Lexicon This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home.

So I for one will be removing the ? when I see it as there is overwhelming ‘evidence’ to Dumbledore being in Gryffindor, I know there will be those who still will not accept this so does that mean there will now be dozens of ?’s appearing all over wikipedia where ever Dumbledore and Gryffindor are mentioned in the same breath. If that’s so then it just makes a mockery of the whole thing and is quite frankly ridiculous.--Dan 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Page 645 text

I have a bit of a problem with the following paragraph (I included the preceding comments for reference):

<!-- I was bothered by the statement on p645 that evil could not be vanquished entirely and put it here with dumbledore's death, once the death becomes a section header perhaps dumbledore's beliefs can get bolded-- r0k -->
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)

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)

Why didn't he save himself

I sure the he was able to escape from the tower even without hiw wand. And why did he stun harry?

  • There are better websites for discussing this kind of thing, but the common theories involve Dumbledore being aware of Snape's oath, and therefore the fact that either Snape would have to ensure Dumbledore's death or die himself. He therefore dies to protect Snape; as Harry wouldn't have understood and intervened, Dumbledore incapacitates him to keep him from harm. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers

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)

Yes they have. Take a look at the article's history. Sinistro 07:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Age

Dumbedore is described as being 150 years old, or thereabouts. Now, wizards seem to be normal humans apart from their magic, and quite a lot of them actually seem to die young. presumably the ones who get to be 150, or 500 in the known case of nicholas Flamel, do so using magic. Is there any information on how Dumbledore has managed to clock up his 150?Sandpiper 17:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Rowling's explanation was that wizards have longer lifespans. Flamel, of course, used magic to read his age. But apparently wizards naturally have longer lifespans. --Icarus 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
well, as I said above, that does not seem to be born out from the books. Others seem to only reach much nore normal ages. Unless JKR meant that wizards have longer lifespans because they use magic to arrange it?Sandpiper 20:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
They don't "use magic to arrange it", but they do have magical means to heal wounds, to treat disease and even to prevent accidents; therefore, their life-span will naturally be longer! Am I brilliant or what? Belard 00:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
definitely, or what. But that only brings me back to my question of how Dumbledore has managed to keep himself alive so long.Sandpiper 22:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
But don't forget that Griselda Marchbanks, for example, is even older. She examined Dumbledore during his NEWTs. And Slughorn also must be at least very close to 100, considering that he taught in the 1940s and din't seem to be that young in the Pensieve memory. - Sebastian
Slughorn seems to be not too extended from a normal lifespan and retirement time, but I agree about Griselda. Any others?Sandpiper 23:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not following your reasoning on Slughorn. If he taught during the 1940s, then he'd be close to 100 at present (making him in his 90s when he taught Harry). People do live that long, but it can't be considered a normal life span. Especially since he's still in good enough health to return to teaching. Or are you disagreeing with the 1940s part of the equasion? --Icarus 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
As the books are 10 years behind date, we have no idea if he lives to the year 2005. However, he decided to retire 16 years before Harry went to Hogwarts, at about the same age Dumbledore started teaching. I'm not arguing that wizards can not live longer than ordinary people, just that they do not do so naturally. They use magic, so what magic did DD use to get to 150? Sandpiper 08:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Theory: Witches and Wizards can use magic and Muggles can't. Therefore, the use of Magic is a recessive gene, since Muggle parents can have a magical child. And perhaps the gene for magic is tied to (or influences) the aging process? Short version: Being magical in itself gives you more life. That's the kind of magic that lets you live to 150 before being blown off a tower.
I agree. Also, some wizards may have died young fighting evil. Remember also that Dumbledore is consdered one of the greatest wizards ever known.
Dumbledore is friggin' awesome, that's how he lived so long. And by the way, he lived so long also because he's alone with Fawkes in that office all the time...and you know what that means...hehehe. Not really, but still that was funny :P. 24.223.154.247 21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That above comment is where I feel someone needs to draw the line- this is a talk page for the article, guys, not some chat board. However, I will say this: people do tend to live a bit older naturally in the Wizarding universe- McGonagall is "a sprightly 70", which is quite old considering how much she still does, and that she doesn't seem to be old in many ways. Dumbledore at 150 seems to be about his limit- he starts to notice his age, you see. The examiner that tested Harry also tested Dumbledore- which makes Marchbanks very old indeed...

New spoiler notice

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)

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)

Headmasters Portraits

The article says 'portraits are sworn to help the headmaster'. Where does this come from? I recall a piece from phoenix? where the black ancestor headmaster is being coaxed into cooperating and taking a message to Harry at Grimmauld place. From what he says, the portraits just cooperate because they want to. (or not)Sandpiper 11:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perfect example to support the article. Phineus Nigellus doesn't want to help Dumbledore, and someone (I forgot who) says that the portraits are sworn to help the headmaster. I think that's right... Twilight Realm 02:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Found it. Order of the phoenix ch22, St Mungos Hospital p418 uk hardback,about 6 pages in. Armando Dippet says We are honour-bound to give service to the present headmaster...shame on you phineas
Shall I persuade him,called a gimlet-eyed witch, raising an unusually thick wand
So basically he is honour bound-which means not bound at all unless he agrees, but otherwise someone threatens him with injury unless he helps. So neither way is he automatically magically compelled to help simply because he is one of the portraits of the headmasters.Sandpiper 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

potions are bad for your health

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)

I think those words are meaningless; they have the purpose of persuading or stopping whoever is offering the potion to the intruder. "Water..." is another example; just a security measure, to ensure the inferi are awaken. "Harry knew the only way to get water, because Voldemort had planned it so..." Belard 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Year of Birth, and dating in general

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)

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)

Where does Rowling say Dumbledore is 150 years old. I don't recall this. I'm re-reading the books for at least the 3rd or 4th time. I'm on Goblet of Fire and I haven't run across this. What book and what page/chapter? Thanks. --Kibeth 11-13- 2024

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)

On a similar point, how do we know which year he started teaching at Hogwarts? I notice someone has made this a specific year. I don't know the source of this, or again whether it is properly specific, or a guestimate. Sandpiper 09:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure I like the practice of mapping HP events to specific real-world dates. I know many in the fan community have made an effort to do so, but I consider this "original research" for the purposes of Wikipedia. I haven't been going around removing them or anything, but I'm not sure they're neccessary either. Friday (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
If I recall correctly, WB used the HP Lexicon's Timeline as the official version. --¿WhyBeNormal? 20:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Well it's certainly not OR then, if the copyright owners claim it is correct Sandpiper 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albus_Dumbledore/Archive_1&oldid=1080936156"