Talk:Dark wizards in Harry Potter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Remember...

Remember... the Dark Lord's word is law. Draco Malfoy 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Due to new information of the Black Family tree, http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html it should be updated

Didn't Narcissa take part in Muggle torture the night of the Quidditch World Cup?

It is unlikly she was in the graveyard, but many Death Eaters did not speak.

She doesn't seem to have the stomach to be an actual Death Eater.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in canon that she is a Death Eater, so I think she should be removed from that category. Emily 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence. Her casual use of Avada Kedavra to kill a fox in the bushes; her close work with known DE Bellatrix Lestrange; her awareness of the demands placed upon her child by Voldemort, himself; etc. are all evidence. --Obsidian-fox 01:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bellatrix killed the fox. There is no evidence that she herself was or is a Death Eater. She is merely the sister of one Death Eater and wife of another and has knowledge much like a mob boss's wife might have intimate knowledge of the mafia without being a mafioso (mafiosa?). —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 01:22 (UTC)

But she did speak to Voldemort personally. Now we know Voldemort doesn't give a damn about if somebody else dies, or how it affects the family, so why would he talk to Cissy? We know that he doesn't talk to sympathizers or he would have told the Blacks to get Regulus in control or he'd kill him, she has to be an actual Death Eater. And how she can talk so coolly to people in an insulting way seems to mean that she can stomach killing people, she even wand-stabs Bella with magic. She just doesn't want to stomach the death of a family member she's close to (i.e. Draco, Lucius).

Being able to stomach killing people doesn't make you a Death Eater, wearing the Dark Mark does. Also, Orion and Walburga Black were not true Voldemort supporters like Narcissa is. Noneofyourbusiness 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Up for the role

just out of curosity how do you know natasha richardson and jeninfer saunders are up for the role?

(Bigred03 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)).

As far as i know Naomi Watts will be playing the role of Narcissa Malfoy. It's been all over the news in Australia, and its on all the Naomi Watts websites, cos i checked it up to make sure. Nic Car Bel 13:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I heard, Naomi Watts' representatives have recently denied any involvement in the Harry Potter films, which makes sense since only British actors are allowed to feature in the films. [1]. 79.65.174.26 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well technically that's not true; there have been several Irish actors (Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Richard Harris) not to mention Devon Murray (but I guess he doesn't count since his character is Irish). Then of course there were all the actors and actresses from Durmstrang and Beauxbeatons, but they don't really count. There was even an American playing Susan Bones! Sure she didn't have any lines and was the director's daughter, but still! ;) Faithlessthewonderboy 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but like you said, none of that stuff really counts - Gambon and Harris are both British citizens despite their Irish ancestry, and Maggie Smith is actually English-Scottish, which are both British countries. And I don't think the Brits-Only contract extends to foreign characters like Fleur and Viktor, but it would extend to Narcissa Malfoy. I'm for Alison Doody or Tilda Swinton. 79.73.243.153 16:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We completely agree. As far as Narcissa, I could see Swinton, though I'm not crazy about that. I haven't really given it any thought and since I have a very limited knowledge of British actresses, I don't have any ideas about who should be cast. :P Faithlessthewonderboy 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I suggested Swinton was because she showed her talent for playing villainesses as the White Witch in the Narnia film, but she's a credible actress enough for me to trust that her performance as Narcissa would be independently different from the White Witch. Plus she's naturally blonde, tall, aristocratic and perfectly Malfoyian-looking! But come to think of it, I also think Joely Richardson would be a great choice too 79.73.249.2 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Richardson I like a little more. That settles it then. Get on the phone to Warner Bros., let them know what we've decided. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky devil! But apparently these film companies do take notice of what us fans say on the internet ;D 79.73.249.2 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like Cate Blanchet. Therequiembellishere 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...I wonder if they would cast an Australian. There have been rumours (maybe more than rumours?) about moving filming to New Zealand, so maybe? If so, I could get behind that, she has the look. Faithlessthewonderboy

I'm not an expert on this Brits-Only contract (I heard it mentioned vaguely in a Rowling interview once), but I think (and hope) they would give priority and preference to a British actress, and since there are so many to choose from (Tilda, Joely, Alison etc) I doubt we'll be seeing Cate in the role (and do we really need someone as high-profile as her?) Personally I feel that Joely and Tilda have "the look" more than her anyway. And if they do move the filming to New Zealand, I don't think that means all new characters from now on will automatically be played by Antipodeans. 79.73.159.209 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a fairly high-profile movie. Kingsley was allowed to be a Grenadian actor, and Hooch was an American-born actress. And if they trust her to play Queen Elizabeth I, I'm sure she can play any other English actress. Therequiembellishere 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows Zoe Wanamaker (Hooch) as British (which she rightfully is), and George Harris (though having Grenadian heritage) is a British actor, as stated on his Wikipedia profile (most black Brits have some kind of Caribbean or African heritage, but it doesn't mean they're not British). 79.73.159.209 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

His accent is clearly not British. Therequiembellishere 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that matters; he's a British actor, and that satisfies the contract. Cate isn't, and she doesn't, so it's highly unlikely she'll be cast. 79.73.184.93 00:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While most of the actors are British (and rightfully so), there are exceptions, most notably Michael Gambon and Richard Harris. Also, Susan Bones was played by an American (Chris Columbus's daughter), though she didn't have any lines. And as far as Cate being too high-profile, surely Gambon, Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Gary Oldman and Imelda Staunton are at least as well known as Blanchett? Faithlessthewonderboy 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so I don't see why we need another A-Lister wasted on 2 minutes of dialogue. And we've been through the whole Irish actors thing (and since they either play Irish characters or the characters then become Irish, I hardly see how it matters) And since Cate is Australian and will therefore not be cast I don't know why we are still going on about this :o 79.73.162.174 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's called "money". Stick another biggie, and get more money. Therequiembellishere 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not exactly true considering they were willing to give Helen McCrory a go as Bellatrix (who was considerably lower-profile than her eventual replacement, Bonham Carter, but who would have done a superb job as Bellatrix if she hadn't fell pregnant just before filming). And other characters such as Madame Maxime, Igor Karkaroff and Tonks weren't exactly played by huge-name actors either. I like this train of thinking - that an actress who is less widely recognisable will bring the character to life and "own" the character much better than one whose status overrides the role. It worked with Miranda Otto as Éowyn in The Lord of the Rings! And Tilda Swinton as The White Witch! 79.73.193.183 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Joely Richardson is a fantastic choice! Hope the casting directors listen to you! 194.73.217.244 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hair colour

Why doesn't her hair colour show in the infobox if it's within the "edit this page" box? It's pretty insignificant, but it's bothering me ISAYsorry 02:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Has it been stated in a reliably-sourced review, or in the book? Btw, whoever added that fan-art image, please stop. It isn't usable for reasons WP:RS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Im pretty sure it's stated that she's blonde/silver-haired (or the same color as Lucius and Draco). ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes a quick re-read of the chapter with the World Cup in Quidditch. And it says (freely translated from swedish, dont have the english version handy) "His (Draco's) mother was tall and thin and had blode hair." So the fan-art image (if its the one here) would be suitable (btw i think fan-art that is true to the description in the books are better than the ppl from the films) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem: you think. We don't use primary sources here, and editor opinions amount to primary sources. WP uses secondary sources exclusively.Fan art is not a reliable source. See WP:RS if you are unsure about this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well as I stated under that, i re-read that section of the book, and it would be the best source.. its says she's got Blonde hair. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 04:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So does Hillary Clinton, Paris Hilton and Eva Braun. Should we use their pictures instead? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It clearly states in the Goblet of Fire novel that Narcissa Malfoy has "platinum blonde" hair. 79.65.173.230 12:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is arguing as to whether or not a Malfoy has blonde hair. What I am objecting to is the usage of a subjective image NOT endorsed by Rowling, not seen in the books and not represented in the films. If it isn't one of these, it is not a reliably-cited source, and cannot be used. I am sorry if I was unclear about that before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Name Origin

With all apologies to the person who clearly worked hard on connecting Narcissa to the legend of Narcissus, we cannot include it, bc no one has cited how it was intended by Rowling to do so. therefore, it is a synthesized series of statements, and cannot be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a Death Eater, But Voldy Loyalist

Well, Cissy Black Malfoy was NEVER a Death Eater, that is for certain - and yet it is only fitting that Lord Voldemort be listed in Alligence - if she was a DE we would list "Death Eater". Voldemort should be listed for she showed him great loyalty up to a point - she believed fully in his cause, dilevered important info on the Order and Sirius, offered her house as headquarters (admittidly somewhat relucuctantly), ect. She even sat in on Death Eater meetings, at least the ones held in her house as can be seen in Hallows. Voldemort is her former loyalty.

Quidditch Night

Draco casually lets slip to Ron Weasley in the forest the night of the Quidditch World Cup that both of his parents were out on the campsite, meaning Narcissa joined her husband to torture Muggles. - Seems relevant. Keep it in.

He does not let anything slip, and not to Ron, he's speaking to Harry when he answers "Well if they (his parents) were, I wouldn't be likely to tell you would I, Potter" on the question "Where are your parents, out there wearing masks are they?". I would say, either he knows or guesses that his parents are out there, or at least his father. CHANDLERtalk 03:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

I moved the article to Malfoy family and redirected there. **Ko2007** 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You neither gave a reason (let alone a valid alone) for this edit of yours, and neither did you bother to gain consensus for such a potentially-controversial move. The article is large enough for its own article and satisfies the requirements presented at WP:FICTION. Please refrain from moving articles in such a manner in the future. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd argue that WP:FICT is precisely what it doesn't satisfy, and that if it keeps sticking its neck out, it's going to get chopped off. In particular, WP:FICT demands multiple, reliable, real world secondary sources for the notability of the subject, which is a tough call for Draco Malfoy to satisfy, let alone his mother. I am of the opinion that this article is pretty much the maximum safe extent of the Harry Potter articles. Lucius Malfoy is, fortunately, saved by Forbes and their fictional fortune500; Draco is a major character. Narcissa is the weakest of the three and I wouldn't be surprised to see an AfD for her in the not-too-distant future, arguing WP:FICT and WP:OR. We need either to put some serious effort into fortifying this article against WP:FICT violations, or retreat and consolidate somewhere - and Malfoy family is a good place to retreat to. Interesting how easily WikiProjects turn into battlegrounds, isn't it?? Happy-melon 12:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While consesnus was called for, I agree with Ko2007. Narcissa has very little importance in the books, and I'm sure this article must violate WP:NOT#PLOT, as, unlike Harry's article for example, there is little here except a plot summary and I think it must detail just about every move she makes in the books. I say get rid. asyndeton 12:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above users -- this article is nothing more than a recounting of the plot on what is an essentially minor character. She is important in the last two books, but not so much to get her own article. Malfoy family is fine with me. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She's extremely important! She is a major part in bringing around the deaths of Sirius, Dumbledore, Harry and Riddle! Therequiembellishere 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She's important, and deserves an article, but she has nothing to do with the deaths of any of those characters. faithless (^speak) 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

She's important, yes. But the important question is, is she notable? Are there "multiple reliable secondary sources", to use that abominable phrase from WP:FICT? Would she survive an AfD debate? I fear the answers to those questions are no, no and no. So I think this article should be merged. The question is, where to? I'd advocate into Lucius Malfoy to make "Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy" as we have James and Lily Potter and Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince. As I said, Lucius has the wonderful advantage of a place on Forbes fortune500, which will be like arguing with a troll in any AfD debate! Happy-melon 09:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, she is notable. Unlike the Potters and Princes, she actually appears in the books (you know what I mean). The problem (as I see it) is that if you go by the letter of the law, nearly every HP-related article would be deleted, or at least merged. The universe is so large and expansive (and new) that it is difficult to find sources on even noteworthy secondary characters. But I think deleting these articles, while maybe keeping the letter of the law, would be violating its spirit. HP is obviously a notable series, and Narcissa is an important character in the series. But there are so many important topics, characters, places, etc. in HP that most of them have not (yet) been the focus of a reputable secondary source by themselves. Rather, the media tends to focus on the universe as a whole, and rarely touches on any characters individually, save for about four or five of them. Even if you merge Narcissa and Lucius, you're left with the same problem. Therefore, since Wikipedia is not paper, I'd say the best course of action is to keep the articles separate (but equal ;)). I hope this makes sense, it's 6.40 in the morning and I'm quite sleep deprived. I also hope someone caught the separate but equal joke, I'm afraid that a bunch of Brits are going to read this and I don't know if they know the phrase. But I digress... faithless (^speak) 10:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Faithless, i think Melon has a good idea which shouldn't really be discounted, namely the merging of Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy. There is precedent for it with the Potters (yes, i know that Narcissa had her own thing going on in the series, which is precisely why I would like to save her from the inevitable AfD). I think an article about the two of them would be both better and more coordinated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I think it's a bad idea, exactly. But are the Malfoys together more notable than they are separately? And comparing them with the Potters isn't quite fair, since James and Lily died before the series began and never "properly" appear. Obviously, I'd rather have the articles merged than deleted, and so it might be the best idea. My argument is just that merging them doesn't improve their notability. faithless (^speak) 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yesterday I moved the page without discussion because I didnt think it was that big of a deal! Aprantly I was wrong so I brought it to the discussion page. Personally, I dont think she is a significant enough character to deserve her own page. There is alot of information on the page, I do realize that. However, the ridiculous articles that are spawning off of Harry Potter are just going to far. Harry Potter is a very large thing, so many things in that "universe" do deserve their own articles because they have played an "important" role in the books, and other things. I have also asked for a vote on the Harry Potter wikiproject discussion page! **Ko2007** 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ko2007's last statement. Articles for Winky, Pigwidgeon, Frank Bryce and many many others are really useless for encyclopedic purposes. Narcissa is one of those useless articles (but of course is more important that Winky). I think that the article for Narcissa contains a lot of stuff related to Draco and Lucius rather than Narcissa herself. Her appearances are minor even in Half-Blood Prince. Her most important role is at the end of Deathly Hallows but again, she is not that important if compared with other characters. She is not notable for an encyclopedia. I think that she should be merged in the Malfoy family article with a re-write of her background and appearances in the book. Lord Opeth 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bellatrix Lestrange and Lucius Malfoy

I feel that Bellatrix Lestrange deserves her own article, and so does Lucius Malfoy (or at least Lucius and Narcissa could have a "Malfoy Family" article). The others aren't significant enough, but Bellatrix is the second most important villain in the series, and there was a really good, in-depth article on her that was combined with this, with most of it eliminated. On that note, if this article is entitled Dark wizards in Harry Potter, there should be a very brief section on the Dark Lord which should redirect to his page.

Well, for me the second most important villain is Snape (no matter what was revealed in the end). While Bellatrix is one of my favorite characters and I was one of those who usually kept an eye on her previous own article, most of the information contained in that article was redundant. The section of Attributes (that contained personality, relation with Voldemort, and magical abilities) plus the section of Films, both repeated information from the plot and background sections (that she defeated Sirius and Tonks, that she was a faithful servant to Voldemort, that she tortured the Longbottoms, etc.). I think that this Dark Wizards article, with Bellatrix and the Malfoys in here, is a very strong one. I also think that redirecting Voldemort in here is not a good idea. Voldemort does deserve his own article (which is classyfied as GA status and is one of the best Harry Potter related articles). Lord Opeth 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bealatrix doesn't have enough info to not have a really good place here, so I think she should stay. As for Volders, he's got his place in the intro paragraph saying he's got enough for his own article. Keyblade Mage 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

I agree that Lucius should be in a combined article for the Malfoy family long with Narcissa and that Bellatrix deserves her own page all to herself

And Wormtail deserves his own because he betrayed the Potters, and the Carrows because they tortured students at Hogwarts, and Gibbon because he was accidentaly killed in the battle of book 6, and Jugson because he took part in the assault of the Department of Mysteries? I think that this article, as I have previously stated, is strong and worth to be because of those characters like Bella, the Malfoys or Wormtail that are strong but not as important as Harry, Ron, Hermione or Voldemort. This article, without Bella and co., would be really poor and weak. Lord Opeth 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Um yes ok obviously Bella needs her own page! And Lucius! These are practically the 2nd and 3rd most important villans!!!Eddisford 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Huge amounts of information have been left out from the original Bellatrix article (including all about her appearances in other media, i.e. films). Now this is all plot summary fluff. Wtf?130.49.163.70 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forbes List

Doesn't the Forbes List for the richest fictional people make Lucius Malfoy by the criterias used in Wikipedia noteable, because it's a secondary source? (And one, that has nothing directly to do with Harry Potter at all.) Would it therefore be okay, if we move him back to his own page (maybe together with Narcissa)? Neville Longbottom 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucius Malfoy's notability can be reduced to a mention in a list. According to your criteria, then we should keep articles for Umbridge (for her mention in Stephen King's review of Book 5), Bellatrix (because someone said that Helena Boham Carter was shining but underused in the film), and then all characters with little mentions in secondary sources would have their own articles. Lord Opeth 18:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally for keeping as many articles as possible, because I don't see the need orr eason to make a single article too big. Therefore if I would make the criterias here, Bellatrix and Umbridge surely would have their own article. ;-) But that aside, the difference for me is, that Malfoy gets mentioned in something completely unrelated to Harry Potter, while Bellatrix and Umbridge got mentioned in reviews about the respective/book film. Therefore not even in a general critical work about the series, like Neville in Martha Wells'. Malfoy gets mentioned in a list from a Forbes magazine, which proved some notability for this character outside the HP-Universe. Neville Longbottom 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I get your point, but that Malfoy's mention is random, it is not like the example about Neville (the character) you mentioned, the Forbes list is not a work focusing on Malfoy, but only a list with lots of characters with only a mention there (and also Scrimgeour is mentioned inside Malfoy's mention, so that means Scrimgeour should have his own article too because of that mention?) I have some examples: what if someone makes a list about "Top Fictional Librarians" and Madam Pince is mentioned there in #47? Would she be worth an article only because of this? Is Madam Hooch notable because she was mentioned in the My Family TV series? I think that if we take away all these strong characters (like Malfoy, Bella, Wormtail, etc.) with all their references and outside sources, this article would be again a very weak and poor one. These three characters make it strong, like Umbridge, Lupin or Mad-Eye make the Hogwarts staff's strong as well. Lord Opeth 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Others" section

Maybe we should remove that section? After all, this list is FOR "other" dark wizards. Keyblade Mage 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Actually this article contains most of the Dark Wizards except Lord Voldemort. The Others section is because the characters listed there have little mentions in the series, it is more practical. The characters that have their own section are much more important. Take Lucius vs Nott or Bellatrix vs Mulciber for example. Lord Opeth 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the other's section is very approrpriate, quite frankly. We really don't know anything about the Dark Wizards listed in the bottom section. The only one who might (and that's a very shallow might) deserve a section in the main part of the article would be Travers due to his conversation with Madam Lestrange, but that's still not enough. The other's all had bigger roles to play...and even than it's not always the biggest role: Macnair, Dolohov, Rookwood, Yaxley even...but they have a lot more info on them. Macnair was Buckbeak's executioner, Dolohov killed Lupin, Rookwood is implied to have killed Fred, and Yaxley is kind of obvious. Actually, I think this paragraph from "Deathly Hallows" explains who, out of the minor Death Eaters/Dark Wizards, should be given note:

"Harry saw Yaxley slammed to the floor by George and Lee Jordan, saw Dolohov fall with a scream at Flitwick's hand, saw Walden Macnair thrown across the room by Hagrid, hit the stone wall opposite of him, and slide unconscious to the ground. He saw Ron and Neville brining down Fenrir Greyback, Aberforth stunning Rookwood..." and it continues, but that's really all that applies. In other words, these Death Eaters, Bellatrix, Lucius, Narcissa, Wormtail, the Carrows, Master Regelus, Grindlewald, and Karkaroff deserve their own section.

And, as a side note, not that it applies, is Umbridge considered as Dark Wizard? User:TopVillain

Umbridge is mean, but there is no evidence provided by the books that she really is into Dark Arts, like those characters in these article. By the way, that paragraph you quoted is really useful when deciding who are secondary dark wizards and who are incidental (only mentioned once or twice) characters. Lord Opeth 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Regulas Black, a.k.a. R.A.B.

Although a very, very minor character I do not believe he should be listed among the Dark Wizards as he actually attempted to do harm to Vlodemort. Maybe he should be listed among minor characters rather than dark wizards.

But he was once a Death Eater, believed in the supremacy of pure-bloods and was attracted to the Dark Arts. Karkaroff, The Malfoys and Wormtail reformed themselves in the very end but are listed in Dark wizards too because their actions. Lord Opeth 23:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's different; the Malfoys never truly reformed, they only looked after each other, and Wormtail only had a moment of hesitation. Regulus made a conscious decision of fight Voldemort, and we don't know how much time he was on the "good" side. Moreover: he sacrificed himself; he's closer to Snape than to Wormtail, I think. He should not be in the Dark wizards section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canek (talk • contribs) 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

karkaroff why not snape?

the title says it allDragon queen4ever 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, technically snape was a dark wizard, shouldnt there be at least a link or something Dragon queen4ever 15:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Snape is a major character and appears in each and every book, at least once being the main antagonist; he has his own page. Karkaroff is a minor character that appears only in one book (as a minor character), and is mentionedd again only once or twice. Magidin 19:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Snape is not a dark wizard. Maybe he was at one time, but it's clear that he changed his ways. faithless (^speak) 21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

YEs, but the same can be said about Karkaroff faithless, Dragon queen4ever 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point, but do we really know whether Karkaroff truly reformed? I mean, sure he ratted out his fellow Death Eaters, but only to save himself from Azkaban. Maybe Minor Harry Potter characters would be a beter place for him, though. faithless (^speak) 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not that this is a really improtant edit or anyhtng, but for the sake of completeness...Dragon queen4ever 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But if anything, I think Karkaroff should be removed from this article and placed in the one I mentioned above, But Snape definitely doesn't belong here. faithless (^speak) 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe just have a Supporting characters in Harry Potter, which could be divided into Light, Dark, and Grey wizards.... Magidin 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if Karkaroff is removed, then my arguement has no point, So ill end it now. Dragon queen4ever 19:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Narcissa Malfoy

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence from canon to support including Narcissa Malfoy among a list of Dark wizards, as she is never shown as using Dark magic, nor do I recall her as being explicity depicted as loyal to Voldemort (her association with him is mainly through of her husband, son, and sister). Narcissa toes Voldemort's line on wizarding ancestry, and she does affiliate with Death Eaters in the books, but then, so does Dolores Umbridge, and she isn't included on this list. I'd suggest that the information on Narcissa's character be moved to List of minor Slytherin characters or Minor Harry Potter characters. -Severa (!!!) 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but not particularly strongly. Narcissa is described as holding the same views as her husband, so I think it's appropriate to list her here. But if she's moved to Minor Harry Potter characters, fine by me. faithless (^speak) 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, given the discussions regarding Karkaroff and Regulus Black above, Narcissa doesn't conclusively fit the bill either. I agree it would be more appropriate to move her to Minor characters — Minor Slytherins seems limited to characters in Harry's generation. BTW, cool username. :-) -Severa (!!!) 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) faithless (^speak) 05:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, granted Jonny and Phil's cameo appearance in GoF, it isn't as unlikely an intersection of interests as I would've suspected. At the risk of getting any further off topic, though, I suppose we should return to Narcissa Malfoy. What do other editors think of the proposal to move her character biography to Minor Harry Potter characters? -Severa (!!!) 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Narcissa is ok in here. Though not being a Death Eater, she shared her husband's views during most of the series (as stated by Faithless) until Draco becomes a Death Eater too. However, she took part in several D.E. meetings, she fought in the Battle of Hogwarts, and also attempted to give Harry to Voldemort when he was captured in his house. As for Karkaroff, I also think he is ok in here: though reformed, he was a Death Eater and was convicted to Azkaban, and his school was already famous because of the Dark Arts tendencies. I still have some doubts on Regulus, but he was a Death Eater too, and was initially attracted to Dark Arts and Voldemort as well. Lord Opeth 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Grindelwald

The section on Grindelwald mentions twice the romantic relationship with Dumbledore, however, they are inconsistent. The first one claims that Dumbledore had an unrequited interest, and the second says it was a full blown romance which implies that they were mutually in love. Please amend this. 24.5.237.44 05:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the other articles concerning Dumbledore's sexuality that I have found contain any mention of JKR having specified Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald as being unrequited. The only source for that particular bit of information is the Newsweek article. For that reason, there should be no mention made of whether or not Gellert Grindelwald returned Dumbledore's affection, and the Newsweek article should not be cited as the reference to Dumbledore's relationship with him (Grindelwald). 205.122.95.20 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can not remember reading something about a romantic relationship between both of them. I think that Rowling never stated that Grindelwald is gay. Dumbledore could be only in love with him without saying anything. Lord Opeth 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody stuck the Grindewald and Bellatrix Lestrange articles together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.57.110 (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort (Tom Marvolo Riddle)

I notice he's not on here, although he is a dark wizard and one of the most famous. Surely there should be a mention with the main article inked? 220.78.194.204 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean, something like "This article is about Dark wizards from the Harry Potter series. These fictional characters are major and minor antagonists in the plot. See Lord Voldemort and Death Eater for further selections."? It's right there, the very first lines of the article, linked to the main article. Magidin 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bellatrix was confirmed to be killed

I remember there was a sort of debate (in Bellatrix's former article) over whether or not we could say that Bella had been killed by Molly or just defeated, since the narrative of the book never said. Well, we can now say that she was killed, from this article, in which Jo confirms that Molly did kill Bellatrix. The interviwer says, "[Molly] does commit a murder," to which Jo replies, "Yes in book seven she kills Bellatrix--she is the only woman on the good side who kills." TakaraLioness (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)