Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Lord Voldemort. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

What Has Gone Before

(What was archived)

Another possible name

I believe the German word for genocide is Vulkermord or something along those lines. Could this be an inspiration for the name Voldemort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illustrious One (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it could. But finding a citation that JKR chose Voldemort based on that would require some pretty solid citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. Illustrious One

The word you are looking for is Völkermord - literally people/race murder. I'd be careful about putting it anywhere as a google search shows it to be associated with white supremacist groups, particularly their domain names. Aula ^TPN 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the V in that word is pronounced like an f sound, and the tonic syllable is also very different from JKR's prefered pronounciation for the name. This is all wild speculation, and belongs in an HP chat room, not here. Magidin (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more - I was simply pointing Illustrious One to the correct word. Aula ^TPN 08:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Voldemort was the wizard equivolent of a white supremacist. We don't know that he disliked black people but he was racist and seemed to dislike just about everyone. Also you may notice that none of the Death Eaters are black. On the contrary they are all very pale. JKR herself has described the Death Eaters as being like the Klu Klux Clan. The similarities between the Death Eaters and he Klu Klux Clan are particularly evident in the film adaptation of The Goblet of Fire in which they walk in ranks similar to the KKC and wear similar clothes. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First, it's Ku Klux Klan. Second, they are hardly the only ones who wear robes (so do free masons), or walk in ranks (marching bands, anyone?). Voldemort is the equivalent of any racial purity movement, of course. So what? Third, this is still all original research. Absent statements from Rowling, indicating that this is indeed part of the inspiration for the name, it does not belong on the page. I mean, should we add to the Potter page that "Potter" is almost identical to the yiddish word for "father", and that this may be related to the relationship between Harry and his father? Of course not. Magidin (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be quite so aggressive. I'll have you know that the Death Eaters robes and pointed hats were both very much reminiscent of the Klu Klux Klan or whatever. Why is everybody criticising my spelling? Probably just because they're jealous that I'm obviously more intelligent than them.

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. Magidin (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm probably. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 13:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I was merely suggesting that the stuff about Voldemort's name bearing a similarity to the word Volkemord be put in the article along with the Death Eaters similarities to the KKK. The Voldemort/Volkermord thing is fair more notable than the Potter/Father connection. For one thing it actually has symbolism given the fact that Voldemort was in fact genocidal. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 18:25 17th January 2007

If there is a verifiable quote from JKR establishing parallels between Death Eaters and the KKK specifically (as opposed to generically), then it belongs on the page on Death Eaters, not Voldemort. The similarity between "Voldemort" and "Völkermord" is hardly significant (more like "coincidental", especially given the very different pronounciations of the german word and the way JKR established Voldemort should be pronounced), so absent some indication that it played a role in the name, which again comes down to verifiable, reliable, citations, it is nothing but wild speculation, based on coincidence. I am sure we could find all sorts of correlations with other words if we search through the hundreds of languages and dialects that exist, with all kinds of characters in the series. It is not notable, and it is original research. Write a paper about it, get it published in a reputable literary analysis journal, get some discussion going among reputable researchers, and then you can source it and add it to the page. Until then, it belongs in a fan forum, not here. Magidin (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Just a suggestion. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 19:08 17th January 2008 (UTC)

The meaning is much simpler than that. "Vol de mort" is French for "flight of death". For example, when a large flock of crows fly over their house, some (older) french people might still today refer to it as a "vol de mort", i.e. a "flight of death". Like many, many names in the HP books, Rowling simply used French. But it takes a basic knowledge of that language to realize that. I'll let you continue on fantasizing on some obscure German or KKK etymology, though !

"Union"

In the portion of the article referring to Tom Riddle Sr.'s coerced relationship with Merope, the word "union" is linked to a disambiguation page... Which really contributes nothing. I'm pretty sure that Tom and Merope's union wasn't the European Union. What should we take this to refer to? Physical intimacy, marriage or pregnancy? --Dark Green (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, please leave a note on my talk page if you reply to this or fix the link, or something, so I know to check back as soon as possible. Thanks! --Dark Green (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Faithless for fixing the link!

Biblical parallels

Does anyone besides me see similarities between Voldemort and the Antichrist from the Book of Revelations? Supposedly the Antichrist will like Voldemort be a charismatic individual with the ability to inspire many to follow him. His followers will bare the Mark of the Beast, similar to the Dark Mark born by the Death Eaters. Like Voldemort the Antichrist will seek to rule the world but will be defeated by the Messiah, namely Jesus. Harry is a sort of Messiah since he died and rose from the dead to defeat Voldemort. The Christian allegory is obvious there. JK Rowling is a very religious woman and there are various Biblical references in Harry Potter so I think Voldemort might have been meant to be an Antichrist character. Anyone else agree? Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 17:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That is as may be; in my opinion, both the Bible and Rowling are just sampling from the same mythological wells. But in any case, this would be original research and opinion of editors, so it does not belong in the page. If you want to add something along these lines, you need to find a verifiable, reliable source that either quotes Rowling saying this explicitly, or find literary analyses that go into this, in which case they would belong in a separate section discussing literary analyses of the character and the works in general. If your intention was merely to chat about it or engage in a literary analysis discussion of the text, then please note that the talk pages are not for that; they are for discussions on improving the article. Magidin (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking we could add a section on Biblical parallels in the article but upon reflection no we shouldn't as it's original research. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You should fix your sign template so that it includes the date (so the SineBot does not have to go around signing in after you); and to correct the misspelling while you are at it: unless writing recieve instead of receive was on purpose. Magidin (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are not joking: You'll notice that your first and second comments in this section were followed up by the SineBot, adding the date and time (at least, until you fixed the second one); this because you were not including date and time in your signature (you do not seem to be using the automatic ~~~~). In addition, you are/were writing "Recieve my Majesty" (instead of the usual Talk), though you seem to have corrected the misspelling now (though not, as I write this, in the top comment of this section). That was all. Though I should probably have made the comment and this reply in your talk page... Magidin (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right... Magidin (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugger. Illustrious One (^{Receive my Majesty}) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Parallels with another famous villain?

Is there any evidence that Lord Voldemort's character development was influenced by Lord Sith Darth Vader in Star Wars? 66.234.220.195 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...I don't see it.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I. Voldemort was based on just about every power-mad tyrant in history or fiction, most notably Sauron but I don't see much of Darth Vader in there. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A shame, coz I could really see the whole Elmer Fudd thing going on there... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you do make me chuckle.

Voldemort: Say your pwares Harry, it's Chosen One season. Harry: Dark Lord season. Voldemort: Chosen One season. Etc. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 19:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See? Who says us Oxfordians cannot appreciate a good rabbit-hunting joke. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LMFAO! Indeed. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Immortality category

There seems to be a bit of a controversy on whether Voldemort belongs in the Fictional Immortals category. Looking at the category itself, it is clear that being killed (or "killable") is not a bar to being listed in it: the category includes of course all of the Highlander immortals, as well as Tolkien's elves, in addition to the traditional immortal characters such as fictional deities. On the other hand, it is unclear to me if Voldemort really belongs in that same category: while he was able to prevent "passing beyond the veil" through the use of horcruxes when he was caused grievious, it is not at all clear that he would have been able to forestall death indefinitely (as Tolkien elves or Highlander immortals can); while powerful wizards within the Harry Potter world can clearly live very long lives, well beyond Muggle norms, they are nonetheless mortal. Also, his existence after the original attack on the Potters was more properly qualified as undeath, rather than immortality; this was said by the Centaurs in the Forbidden Forest. Zombies, ghouls, liches, etc are not "immortal" within the meaning of the category. My conclusion, based on all of this, is that Voldemort does not belong in the category. Magidin (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your civilised and understanding attitude, Magidin. My reason for installing Voldemort in the category was because as long as he has his horcruxes he is effectively immortal. That was the whole point of destroying them. The reason Voldemort was eventually vanquished was because Harry et al succeeded in eliminating said horcruxes, thereby rendering him mortal. The reason I mentioned The Mummy in one of my edit summaries was because Imhotep, the titular character of The Mummy was an immortal being who was made mortal by use of an ancient spell and killed at the climax of the film, similar to Voldemort. Would anyone else agree or disagree with the installation of said category? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with installation as Voldemort certainly was able to prolong his life indefinately. Immortals includes people who need consumables to stay alive, like the Flamels. Monkey or Sun Wukong needed Peaches of Immortality or Pills of Longevity to stay alive. Voldy seems to be, if it can be said, 'very immortal' in that not only can he not die from age, he does not need to regularly tend to his immortallity crotch and cannot be killed without the removal of his horcruxes; also, unlike middle earth elves, he probably would not 'move on' if he lost the will to live through grief or otherwise.... Also, i think that he is clearly not, undead - firstly because he clearly never died and thus it is impossible for him to be undead, and second because he has a 'soul', as demonstrated in "King's Cross", which is not evident in many fictional or mythical undead.218.215.11.59 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 218. Very well said. May I have a second opinion? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that it is really weird to call "immortal" a character that died at the end of the series and that was not even born immortal. Horcruxes are more like bulletproof vests, once removed, the person is vulnerable to death. We can say that Voldemort with his Horcruxes might become "Eternal", but not fully "Immortal", because his body could be destroyed, and he could become "mortal" once again. Voldemort could have been considered immortal if, after the Elder Wand fired his own curse against him, he had managed to stay at least in that state he was the first time he tried to kill baby Harry. When Magidin said that Voldemort was undead, he was talking about that period in which his body was destroyed after attempting to murder baby Harry. The creature that was seen in King's Cross was Voldemort's soul indeed, and when Voldemort DIED, his soul was forced to stay in the form of that creatured forever. [1] --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The immortals cat is not appropriate. As the prophecy about Potter was all that stood in the way of Riddle's immortality as Voldemort, he was never truly immortal. This is different from a Tolkien elf or Highlander immortal in that they are unaging past a certain point until something from the five Pain Groups renders them eternally sleepy. As it is, the cat prances perilously close to the edge of OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My dear friends, are you bonkers? Being immortal does not by any make one indestructable. Just tell that to Jadis, Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman and Ayesha. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To this point, only Sauron and Jadis are listed as Fictional immortals. By the way, Arcayne's point is a really strong argument. I suggest we remove the category until we achieve consensus on this topic. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And Sauron was not destroyed; he was diminished beyond all possible return. That said, Slughorn states that as long as one has a Horcrux, one "cannot die" ^[HBP Ch.23]. That much, at any rate, supports Jupiter's reading. Magidin (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Let us re-focus, ladies and gents - the article is not about fictional immortality. I think we've established that the cat isn't appropriate for the subject of this article. Voldie wasn't immortal. Powerful, yes. Immortal, JKR never denoted such, so he wasn't. Case and point, game, set and match. A little wiggle and a little jiggle. We are done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne sweetie, did you really think I would be defeated quite so easily. I believe that's called wishful thinking. As Magidin said, JKR establishes quite clearly that whilst one has a horcrux they "cannot die." Voldemort had seven horcruxes, ergo he was immortal. He might have been rendered mortal and therefore destructable once Harry had eliminated his horcruxes but he was for a sufficient amount of time, quite immortal. Now I believe we're done. Unless anyone else has anything to add. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter, this is neither a battle nor a duel. No one here is trying to "defeat you". Let's do not forget that Voldemort was seeking for immortality, but never achieved it. Rowling stated that if Voldemort had taken a look at the Erised mirror, he would have seen "Himself, all-powerful and eternal. That's what he wants."[2] However, he never achieved that status because he was not immortal, and not even all-powerful. --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly see where proponents of adding the cat are coming from, however, I must disagree. We're talking about a guy who died at about age seventy - it seems that the only argument in favor is, "well, he was immortal until he died." I think we can all agree that that is a nonsense argument. Immortal means you never die - Voldemort dies. Hence, Voldemort is not immortal, QED. faithless (^speak) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I sounded threatening Opeth, my comment was intended humorously. Might I point out that for a time Voldemort was "allpowerful and eternal." He was arguably the most powerful wizard on Earth and as I have stated whilst in possession of his horcruxes he was very much immortal. With regards to Faithless's argument, we are not saying "He was immortal until he died", we are saying that he was immortal until his horcruxes were destroyed and at that point he became mortal once again and therefore was destroyed. Furthermore being immortal as I have said does not necessarily make one indestructable. And for a while Voldemort was indestructable. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about me being threatened, Jupe; I didn't feel such. This isn't a battle, as Opeth said. Let's try this another way. Please cite where in the books that JKR described Riddle as immortal (and let's not quote his fictional followers). Without citations, this convo is forum play, and - if I recall correctly - Wikipedia isn't a forum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, good. Yes you're quite right, Wikipedia is not a forum. I'll have a look through the books tomorrow if I can make the time what with the social life and all that. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh just put it in anyway. He's so immortal, immortal people would beat him with sticks out of pure unbridled jealousy. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They might, but he might like that. ;)

I oppose the inclusion of the cat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. He strikes me as more of a sadist than a masochist to tell you the truth Arcayne. Bellatrix seems like both. Good lord what must the two of them get up to? Anyway I'm going off topic. Like I say, I'll have a look through the book. I'll go and get it off the shelf after I've had a mocha. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so shure he's an immortal in the sense the category means, like Zeus or an angel or something. He's just a guy who destroyed his soul and cannot die, that seems pretty different. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if he cannot die then he is effectively immortal until such a time as the horcruxes are destroyed. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, without a citation speaking precisely to his immortality, any such classification is supposition - based on good reasoning, but reasoning it is. Let's can the chatter and find some citations. They speak far more decisively than us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As eloquent as we are. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I am an unprincipled lout, for the most part. (grn) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Serves me right for expecting you to play the straight man there. Grr. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I played the part quite beautifully if I do say so myself.

Voldemort's attempt to kill Harry in the forest

Would you also say that not only due to Voldemort having Harry's blood but also that Voldemort was using the Elder Wand was a reason why Harry didn't die? After all, we find that the Cruciatus Curse cannot be used against the 'dead' Harry, due to the Elder Wand truly being Harry's. Maybe that should be added in the section of the final book? OUChevelleSS (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

By all accounts the curse from the Elder Wand shouldn't have even touched Harry let alone nearly killed him as it did. But then The Deathly Hallows was riddled with all sorts of plot-holes and continuity errors so I think we should just let that one pass and take things with a pinch of salt. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's not attempt to make a silk purse from a sow's ear here. JKR an write an entertaining story, but she isn't Steinbeck or Cherryh or even Dr. Seuss. Trying to derive hefty meaning from her work is like trying to anticipate poker tells from parameciums. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother trying to derive an atom of sense from the above comment. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) J.K. Rowling keeps saying that since Harry's the true master of the Elder Wand it can't touch him. I think you guys have a point! The Cruciatus Curse shouldn't have worked against him. I never actually noticed that before. Goku's Rival (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is catergorized as a "fictional character with a mental illness"

Surely not? JK has never said he has one, the books don't say he has one, only a spiritual illness, so this is OR? I notice there is debate on this page about OCD: again, this is OR. I think it should be removed, what about you?86.135.209.39 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the third paragraph in the "character development" section - JKR has described Voldemort as a 'psychopath' - psychopathy is a mental illness, thus the category is warranted. faithless (^speak) 02:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate cats

I have removed several inappropriate cats, with the following reasoning: 1) Fictional cult leaders - This one is obvious, I think. I don't remember the Death Eaters ever being referred to as a cult. Are they? Perhaps, but it would be OR to say so without a proper source. 2) Fictional dictators - Lamentably, we know very little about the politics and government of the wizarding world. One thing that we do know is that Voldemort never held any official position of power in the series. Pius Thicknesse was the Minister for Magic in Deathly Hollows; was Voldemort really pulling the strings behind the scenes? Possibly, maybe even probably, but in what way, and to what extent? We just don't know. Again, OR. 3) Fictional terrorists - Not to sound like a broken record, but who says? The definition of what a terrorist is is very fluid and often-changing. When has anyone call Voldemort a terrorist? 4) Fictional warlords - Again, not saying he isn't, but he is never described as such. Incidentally, I've left the 'mass murderers' cat - this has been discussed before. While I feel the category should be included, I have not and will not add it, though I don't believe it should be removed either. With some cats (for instance, fictional terrorists), it needs to be specifically stated that he was a terrorist, as the word means different things to different people, and in different contexts. There is no one accepted definition of what a terrorist is. On the other hand, there is no debate (that I'm aware of) of what constitutes a mass murderer - someone who kills about ten people (that we know of, no doubt the actual total is higher) is a mass murderer. There really is no room for discussion. Just my opinion. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 02:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictator is definitely not appropriate: dictators assume autocratic power themselves, and do not operate "behind the scenes"; we certainly know that Voldemort did not assume autocratic power in his own person. It is as inappropriate to refer to Voldemort as 'dictator' as it is to refer to him as a 'despotic monarch' even if he held equivalent power in practice. The term simply does not apply. Your arguments, on the other hand, would apply to, say, "tyrant". I will point out that as far as "Fictional Tyrant", my feelings are the mirror image of those you have for "mass murderer": I do not think it should be included, but I do not have the will to remove it if someone puts it on. I agree on the others. Magidin (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Fictional cult leaders: should remain. The DE are a cult. One of the definitions of a cult, according to Wiki, is "A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator" and "Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book)". The word idea is referenced several times within that article. We can just take as examples Regulus' devotion to Voldemort prior to betraying him: Hermione pointed out in DH that Regulus' bedroom was full of Voldemort's newspaper articles. Another example can be the extreme fanatic devotion of Bellatrix and Crouch Jr. All of them believed in an idea of supremacy of pure-bloods over other members of the wizarding world.

2) Fictional dictators: agree with removal. Voldemort never held a position of power. In the last chapter (Flaw in the plan) he said he would build a "new world", but he did not manage to do it. He never was Minister for Magic, and not even Thicknesse could have been considered as dictator. I also disagree with Fictional tyrants, monarchs or whatever.

3) Fictional terrorists: should remain. There's an interview in which Rowling says that what Voldemort does is terrorism. [3] JKR said that "But what Voldemort does, in many senses, is terrorism, and that was quite clear in my mind before 9/11 happened."

4) Fictional warlords: agree with removal. In the end, Voldemort did not think that war was necessary, and never had "military control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority". However, he is a "person exercises far more power than his official title or rank (if any) legitimately permits him or her" but neither the series nor Rowling has said he is a warlord.--Lord Opeth (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fictional terrorists, yes, I forgot about that interview, the cat is appropriate. I still very strongly disagree with fictional cult leaders, however. I hear what you're saying, Opeth, and I'm not saying that the Death Eaters aren't a cult, per se. But if they are a cult, they are a cult in the way described in this article, whereas, in my humble opinion, the category in question is really meant for the leaders of this type of cult; that is, I think the spirit of the cat is that it is meant for leaders of religious cults, which the Death Eaters don't seem to be. faithless (^speak) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, Fictional cult leaders should remain. It could be described as a religious cult as the Death Eaters seemed to practically worship Voldemort as a god, much the way the Nazis did Hitler. Fictional dictators should definitely remain. Whether or not we know anything about the inner workings of the Ministry, Voldemort assumed sole autocratic power over it, thereby making him a dictator. The fact that he controlled it from behind the scenes is a mere technicality. Also a dictator is not necessarily a despotic "monarch." Would you describe Stalin as a monarch? Fictional terrorists should also stay as Voldemort is someone with a political agenda who causes death and destruction to force people round to his way of thinking which is pretty much the definition of a terrorist. I'm not particularly concerned about Fictional warlords, it depends on the definition which (despite my brilliance) I'm not entirely sure of. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was in no way worshiped by Nazis, nor is Voldemort (so far as we know) worshiped by the Death Eaters. Like I said, the argument could be made that the DE are a cult by the definition of a group working towards a common goal while simultaneously going against societal norms; however, I argue that the category is not meant for such cults, but rather for religious cults. There is absolutely nothing in the series to suggest that the DE have any religious devotion to Voldemort, and there's certainly nothing to suggest that they worship him. As for the dictator cat, who says that Voldemort "assumed sole autocratic power?" And yes, we all agree that fictional terrorists fits, and I personally have restored it. faithless (^speak) 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Voldemort did not assume autocratic power in his own person over the ministry; he pulled the strings, yes, might even say "took control over", but he did not assume autocratic power in his own person: he installed a puppet. As such, he was not in fact a dictator. Magidin (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, I meant the devotion the Death Eaters showed toward Voldemort was similar to a religious fanatacism as was that shown to Hitler by the Nazis. Furthermore whilst Voldemort may indeed have assumed power over the Ministry from behind the scenes, he was still very much a dictator as he was the one with all the power. His puppet Minister was exactly that, a puppet. He also played the role of a dictator figure to the Death Eaters and his other minions, giants, dementors, "dark creatures" and so forth. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dictator" requires a direct assumption of autocratic power not derived from an hereditary position: that is what the term means. Being the Grey Eminence does not qualify as being a dictator; pulling the strings does not qualify as being a dictator; having effective control over does not qualify as being a dictator; being the Real Power Behind the Throne does not qualify as being a dictator. Stalin did not become dictator over the Soviet Union until he actually assigned the functions of power to the Party's Secretary General position. Voldemort did not become a "despotic monarch" just by effectively wielding the same control and power as a despotic monarch would, and did not become a "dictator" by installing a puppet in a position of power. Even if the position of Minister for Magic endowed its occupant with all that power, still Voldemort would not have been a dictator simply by reason of him not assuming the position in his own person; just like you don't become a king until you are actually crowned, you are not a dictator unless you assume autocratic power in your own person. Otherwise, you are just the power behind the throne, the Grey Eminence, the Real Power, etc., not a dictator. Magidin (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheath that verbal sword of yours Magidin because mine can be so much sharper. Besides, I'm not attacking you, I'm merely giving my opinion. I mentioned Stalin because he was a dictator but not a monarch. You however seem to think that the term dictator connotates a monarch when in fact it describes a despotic ruler of any sort. Nevertheless you may be right regarding Voldemort's control over the Ministry however might I point out that he was still a dictator to the Death Eaters, the Giants and the Dementors. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

De indenting for readability. "Verbal sword"? This is the 21st century, man. I use a laser sighted under-and-over twin barrelled verbal wit, with a 7.62 mm floating breech pulse rifle firing caseless one-liners on top, and a 40mm explosive gag launcher underneath. I have a verbal flechette rounds with barbed comments for backup, and a flamethrower if needed in the back (with apologies to Niall McAuley). I'm also stating my understanding of the term. Do kindly read what I wrote a bit more carefully: I do not think the term dictator connotates a monarch. I am bringing up "monarch" to point out that effectively wielding the same kind of power does not automatically grant the title as an appropriate description: even if in practice you were to hold the exact same power and position as a monarch does, that in and of itself does not warrant the use of the term "monarch" as a description. Thus, Cromwell was not a monarch over the Commonwealth, even though he held the same kind of power and even made the position of Lord Protector hereditary. Likewise, even if (a big if) Voldemort held the same kind of power over the English wizarding world as a dictator would through his control of a puppet Minister, that in and of itself would not warrant calling him a "dictator", and that latter is your argument (that because he effectively held the power of a dictator he was a dictator). "Dictator" is a term of art, and we aren't through the looking glass where words mean what we want them to mean and nothing more. Voldemort was also not properly a "dictator" to the Death Eaters; 'dictator' is specific to governmental or quasi-governmental entities, not to political parties, gang, cults, religious group, or what have you. He was the leader of the Death Eaters, maybe even stronger terms, but "dictator" is just not appropriate, just as it is not appropriate to his standing among Giants or Dementors. The word has a meaning, and it is not "able to order around" or even "his wish is their command". Magidin (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To interject as this article is randomly on my watchlist: whether you think the Death Eaters are a cult is immaterial. Unless you have a reliable source or Rowling herself that says "the DE are a cult", putting the category is original research no matter how you cut it, and thus verboten. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Magidin, I'd like to see your 7.62 mm floating breech pulse rifle or whatever last a minute against my verbal Walther PPK. I'd wipe the floor with you before you even time to reload. But we're not here to discuss the calibre (or lack thereof) of your wit, we're here to debate over categories which is somewhat less amusing but more professional. To David Fuchs, the Death Eaters, regardless of whether Rowling says so or not, fit the definition of a cult and since Voldemort is their leader, he belongs in the cat. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your superiority complex and raise you a Ph.D. in Maths; I don't need to reload, I hit what I aim at on first shot, and have no compuction in shooting while your head is turned (-:. Anyway, yes. My point has simply been that Voldemort's position as the Grey Eminence or the Power Behind the Throne disqualifies him as a dictator. Dictatorship requires personal assumption of autocratic power, not simply the wielding of equivalent power. Controlling a puppet government does not a dictator make. All mentions I made of monarchy were meant to be analogies and parallels, not the bringing up of prerequisites: that it is not merely the wielding of power, but the actual governmental structure and position within it that are relevant for the title to fit. "Dictator" does not mean "able to dictate". (Remember that "dictator" was actually a specific post in the Roman Senate, which is where the term comes from). The category of dictators is not appropriate for Voldemort, because it does not refer simply to the ability to order around; it requires a personal assumption of power within a governmental or quasi-governmental power structure (among other requirements). Magidin (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Frankly, it doesn't matter one infinitesimal bit that they fit the definition of a cult. Without a reliable source, you cannot put it in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well David Fuchs, I stand down. To Magidin, I shall not engage in a duel of wits with an unarmed man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One last comment on the dictator cat: first, Yaxley is the one who puts Thicknesse under the Imperius Curse, not Voldemort. And for all we know, he didn't make Thicknesse do anything that he wasn't going to do before being cursed. So there's nothing to prove that the DE were even controlling the Minister. Second, the Minister for Magic is not a dictator, so even if Thicknesse was doing Yaxley's bidding, he didn't have the authoritarian power of a dictator. faithless (^speak) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, Magidin, who's Niall McAuley? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Video game boss cat

I add this sub-section to the Inappropriate cats section to ask you if you consider the videogame bosses category appropiate or inappropiate for Voldemort's article. In the end, in games 4 and 5 he appeared as the main boss. However, I am not completely sure about this, as the article is primarily for the book character. On the other hand, the "Harry Potter characters" cat is listed under "fantasy film characters" cat, so if the HP characters are categorized in other media apart from literature, then we can consider Voldemort also as a videogame boss. Thoughts? --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it's inclusion per what you just said. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Video game boss cat seems appropriate, though I don't feel strongly one way or the other, to be honest. faithless (^speak) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like video game boss would make sense if we had a mention that Voldemort appears in the videogames as the final boss (also in Game 1, by the by); this ought to be in a "Other Media" subsection within the Appearances section, no? Magidin (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sense of humor

Its said here that "he can laugh at himself". I never recall that happening. Ever!58.65.163.248 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In Goblet of Fire he does a big dramatic speech about how useless his father was and how he was more use to him in death than he was in life then says "But listen to me, I am growing quite sentimental." I think that counts as laughing at himself. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

seems to be more like sarcasm than laughing at oneself. Self deprecating humor it is not.

58.65.163.248 (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he was still mocking himself a bit. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychopathy and sociopathy

The personality section (an excellant section nevertheless) states that Rowling has both referred to Voldemort as a "raging psychopath" and a "complete sociopath." But you can't be both. Psychopathy is a neurobiological disorder whereas sociopathy (or Antisocial Personality Disorder as it's also known) is an enviromentally acquired disorder. Personally I think Voldemort's more of a psychopath than a sociopath although he exhibits behaviour consistent with both (sadism toward animals as a child, etc). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "you can't be both"? The two are not equivalent, certainly, but why is it impossible to be suffering from both conditions? I'm curious... Magidin (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there are similarities. Both psychopaths and sociopaths are innately sadistic, manipulative and remorseless but whereas psychopathy is characterised by a callous lack of emotions and a sense of superiority, sociopathy is more characterised by lack of control over ones emotions. Sociopaths are constantly tormented by a feeling of dysphoria and vent their frustrations with the world by deliberately hurting people. Psychopaths have very shallow emotions and just don't care if they hurt people in pursuing what they want although they do enjoy others misfortune. For example, a sociopath would deliberately run someone over, a psychopath would run someone over and then just think "Serve the idiot right for getting in my way." Their mind sets are too different to occupy the same mind. Psychopaths are generally calmer although they are prone to mood swings and Narcissistic rages. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see... Okay, I just checked the interview, and it seems that Rowling only stated the "psycopath" description: "a raging psychopath, devoid of the normal human responses to other people's suffering;" the page does not attribute the "sociopath" comment to Rowling, so perhaps a bit of rewriting is in order and dropping that particular arm-chair diagnosis. Magidin (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

Someone put in the area when Voldemort is being reborn (which proves to be a major flaw)
NoRmIaD (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on spoiler warnings. Magidin (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort Number One Movie Villain According to Moviefone

Lord Voldemort Number One Movie Villain Can someone add this to the article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.228.61 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you for that. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit strange, I mean... in the films you haven't seen that much of him... And you really don't know that much of the back story because its all cut... Number one literary villain maybe. — chan dler — 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We've seen no less than we have in the books. I personally found him very convincing. He wasn't a patch on Tilda Swinton's White Witch but he was a damn lot better than Darth Vader. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

...We have "seen" 7 books, and a hell lot of more back story from the first 5 books than the 5 first films, I read the thing and it even says "His slithering presence has been minimal in the films so far, but we've all read the books, so we know how much more evil he'll become.", that's Moviefone high on CRYSTALS, still from the films I haven't felt they've shown what the books have of his evilness — chan dler — 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

True but he is still pretty diabolical. Nevertheless we're getting a tad forumy. Oh and don't mock me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Last descendant of Slytherin

The tree needs changing to reflect this. See Template talk:Voldemortfamilytree

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Opera hat (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Flight from Death"

Please note that it is not enough to cite places in the web that make an assertion, such as the claim that the name means "flight from death". The author has said the name is invented. Of the four sources given in the recent edit, the first attributes JKR, but with no references, and we have explicit statements from JKR to the contrary. The second "source" is a blog, which uses weasel words such as "it has been pointed out" and provides no references. The third "source" claims that Riddle created the name explicitly thinking about French, an assertion with no textual or authorial support whatsoever. And the fourth "source" is the description of an action figure in a page designed to sell the figure. These are simply not reliable sources within the meaning of Wikipedia. I do not believe the addition can be justified with such shoddy "evidence", and have accordingly reverted. Magidin (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'Vol de Mort' means 'Theft of Death' and 'Flight of Death', though 'Flight from Death' makes sense as well. (vol=flight, stealing, de=of, mort=death)Bob bobato (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter (but the fact that there are multiple interpretations, all of them original research is just one more reason why this does not yet belong on the page). And the current version, which you made, gives the incorrect impression that you are attributing this original research to Rowling herself, by placing it just before the footnoted reference on the pronounciation of the name. Again: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether you believe the information to be correct, but whether you can provide reliable, verifiable sources for the information. Right now, this interpretation has neither. Magidin (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. The name is glaringly obvious to anyone who knows French, but you're right, since she hasn't mentioned it, it's original research. But it should at least mention that, coincidentally, 'Voldemort' means 'Theft/Flight of Death' (But, on the Harry Potter Lexicon, it claims that she has confirmed that 'Voldemort' means 'Flight from Death'. But it doesn't have a link, so no go for now).Bob bobato (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not require a word from Rowling herself (though that would prove to be dispositive). What it requiers is reliable, verifiable sources; again, see the first paragraph of Wikipedia's policy on inclusion of material. As to mentioning it, sorry, but again it does not meet those standards, no matter how important, interesting, cute, incredible, amazing, etc., any one of us might consider the information. Verifiability is one of three core Wikipedia inclusion policies, and should not be ignored. Magidin (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you honestly going to sit there and say that this is a HUGE coincidence, despite the fact that Voldemort has a fear of Death, his name is pronouced as stated by JKR with a silent T, mimicing French AND top it off "Vol De Mort" is french for "Flight from Death"?? You must truly be an idiot. Though JKR says she simply made it up, this pretty hard to beleive....She also said she made up the word Hogwarts but when confrontated about the Hogwarts Plant she said she may have seen it and subconciously remember it, is it not possible she has done the same thing now? or that she is hiding the words true origins to see who can discover it? I am not saying their is any evidence in the books, but the facts remain. 122.111.9.46 (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What I am doing is sitting here and pointing out that the author has said that she made the name up, and has never suggested that there is that linguistic connection; there is no parallel to make with Hogwarts because while she acknowledged the connection with the latter, she has not acknowledged it with Voldemort; if she does, you can quote her and add it. Or if you can find suitable sources (which are not just fan-sites and unsourced naked assertions), then you can add it. But you have provided no reliable sources to justify the addition. Right now, what you are doing is engaging in original research, which is not appropriate content. Also, in the future please abide by Wikipedia's standards of civility; "you must truly be an idiot" hardly qualifies. Magidin (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at a word and knowing the definition of that word isn't "original research." It's knowing French. Maybe Rowling "made up" the name "Hogwarts" - but that name still incorporates the words "hog" and "warts," and anyone who knows English knows what those words mean, just like anyone who knows French reads Voldemort's name as a (fitting) combination of real words. So, yeah, no - this isn't "original research" - it's just common sense (and actually, it's even more basic than that). Maybe to a picky Wikipedian editor it's not common sense, but if you require a source, all you need to do is look into a French dictionary. There's your source. Those words do mean those things. Voldemort's name is made out of those words. Just like the name "Harry" means "army/power ruler/commander." No, Rowling doesn't need to substantiate this for it to be true. 97.81.102.45 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies, in particular about verifiability; this policy states very clearly that: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You might also want to leave the snarky comments at home. Magidin (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to be, as Magidin rightly termed, snarky when you have the view from the cheap seats of IP/anon editing. Feel free to get an identity, and soonafter you may get come credibility. Not with your current reasoning or attitude, mind you.

Magidin, you are right on. Not that you doubted it, but I've found that the second to the motion never hurts.

Take Care, Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{02:54, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Please notice that it appears that Rowling has studied French, German and Greek Studies, and that "Malfoy" means "bad faith" in french book --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Who agrees?

Who agree's that is more than a coincidence that the Word Voldemort is french for Flight from Death which corrosponds with his fear of death as well as the fact it has french pronouciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.9.46 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Use four tildes to do so. This is not a popularity contest or a poll; content must meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. I have linked to these standards numerous times; please familiarize yourself with them. Wikipedia is also not the place to communicate original research (again, please follow the link and read the page to see what that means). While we do engage in consensus building, information must at least pass the threshold of being verifiable, from reliable sources, and not be original research before seeking such consensus. In particular, read the page on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Magidin (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are all quite wrong, the name Voldemort as somebody further up the page suggested in fact comes from the German term Volkermord, meaning genocide. However as Magidin pointed out, name speculation constitues OR and therefore should not be included in the article. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Lord redirection and disambiguation

Hello, first let me say that I've read plenty of wikipedia articles, but I've almost never edited, so I don't know how to make the changes I'm about to talk about.

I've noticed that "the dark lord" redirects to this page. While I know that Voldemort is often referred to by this title, I hardly think it's an appropriate redirection. There have been countless dark lords in fantasy books and movies, and it would be silly to redirect to a particular one. Just off the top of my head, Vader and Palpatine have been around far longer than Voldemort, and Sauron and Morgoth have been around far longer than that.

I've also noticed that "dark lord" (minus the word "the") currently redirects to the following place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_tropes_and_conventions#Dark_Lord

I believe that "dark lord" and "the dark lord" should certainly redirect to the same place. I believe that this should be a disambiguation page that lists the many dark lords that can be found in the fantasy genre, as well as any religious figures with this title, such as Satan. Or, if not a disambiguation page, then at the very least "the dark lord" should redirect to the same place that "dark lord" currently redirects to.

What do other people think? I would be happy to make the disambiguation page if I can figure out how. Can someone point me in the right direction? Klopek007 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a fine point, but I would disagree with a disambiguation page. I do agree that both terms should redirect to the same place, however, and I think Fantasy tropes and conventions#Dark Lord would be a good choice. It discusses the generic 'Dar Lord' character in fiction, and gives several examples (including Voldemort, Sauron and Vader). This is basically what a disambiguation page would do, so I think creating one would be a bit superfluous. faithless (^speak) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, sounds good to me. If no one else has any input, I guess I'll just go ahead and do that. Klopek007 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it, once I learned how. My first time editing a page to redirect somewhere, I'm proud of myself. Both terms now go to the same place. I wonder who made them different to begin with? Klopek007 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed the following bit from the "Personality" section several times because it violates the No original research and Verifiability policies:

Voldemort is shown to be highly intelligent and charismatic, inspiring many influential wizards and witches such as Lucius Malfoy and the Lestranges to follow him as his loyal "Death Eaters". He also possesses a dry cynical sense of humour, usually laughing at the expense of others, but also capable of laughing at himself despite his usually narcissistic demeanour.

User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus continually reverts or re-inserts this segment, claiming things like "it's relevant", "It's not OR, it's a simple assessment of facts", and "I don't think any sane person would complain. And besides I am the rightful lord of Wikipedia and WILL be treated with due respect." He's also called my removal of the segment "IllaZilla's pagan vandalism". I believe that the text in question is unquestionably original research, as it is Jupiter's own analysis and opinion of the character's personality. Since it is not supported by any references, it cannot be verified and is therefore original research, pure and simple. Furthermore, it stands out and detracts from a section that is otherwise well-referenced and encyclopedic. Jupiter has other problems with original research, but this particular one has brought us both to the verge of breaking the 3 revert rule so I though it pertinent to bring up here. Jupiter and I have clashed in other areas of WP so I don't want this to turn into a personal battle between us; I would like other editors to weigh in. Does anyone else agree or disagree that this is original research? Should it be removed from the article? If so I ask other editors to take the necessary action, as I don't want to carry on debating the point with Jupiter any longer. More eyes on this would be appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(i) I think whether the paragraph in question is original research or not is arguable; I can certainly see your reasoning, though it also seems to be essentially summing up. (ii) Jupiter's demeanor is grating and often annoying; I suspect he does not mean to be, and is trying to be funny. IMHO, his latest summaries have not only been unfunny, they've been objectionable. Based on prior interactions with him, he probably does not realize just how close to being insulting he's coming this time. Jupiter, you really need to learn to adopt the proper tone in Wikipedia; snarkiness, from time to time, might be okay. But the kind of "humor" you are attempting just doesn't work well in this medium, and quite frankly, your latest attempts at it have not been all that good either. Magidin (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, old friend. I wasn't actually trying to be funny, I get a bit power crazed when I'm annoyed. With regards to IllaZilla, I think I should discuss this with him when my temper's cooled. I haven't been very civil with him recently and I'm not without shame because of that. Oh by the way Magidin, are you American? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, you're obviously giving me the silent treatment so I'm going to do what I usually do in awkward situations such as this: just keep talking. While I consider the offending piece of text to be perfectly valid and reasonable, I realise that Wikipedia allegedly relies on verifiability, not truth. As such, I can think of several verifications for the text in question.

Sigh. I have stuff to do besides this, you know; in this case, I had to get ready for a conference and a trip... I'm not sure why you are asking if I am American, but I am not sure I see how it is relevant to the Lord Voldemort page. Magidin (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I get a bit impatient as well as power-crazed when I'm annoyed. I forgot my pill the other evening. I was asking if you were America because you spelt humor without the "u." Just curious. I hope the conference goes well. I myself am going to a party on Sunday evening. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Voldemort is shown to be highly intelligent (Dumbledore makes numerous references to Voldemort's intellect/talent) and charismatic (on the DVD commentary of Goblet of Fire, Mike Newell makes specific referenc to Voldemort's charisma and says that he sort an actor like Ralph Fiennes who could emulate that), inspiring many powerful and influential wizards such as Lucius Malfoy (stated to be "big at the ministry") and Augustus Rookward (a member of the Department of Mysteries = powerful/influential?) to follow him as his loyal Death Eaters (the Death Eaters are shown to be fanatically loyal to Voldemort, it shouldn't be too hard to find an example of that). He also possesses a dry, cynical sense of humour ("Wormtail, I need someone with brains, someone whose loyalty has never wavered, and you unfortunately fulfill neither requirement" - Goblet of Fire - lol!), usually laughing at the expense of others (Will you look after the puppies Draco? - The Deathly Hallows) but also capable of laughing at himself (but listen to me, I am growing quite sentimental - Goblet again) despite his usually narcissistic (Dumbledore makes numerous references to Voldemort's pride, vanity and arrogance while Voldemort is constantly bragging about how special, important and extraordinary he is and how he's the greatest/mightiest/most powerful wizard/sorcerer in the world, etc) demeanour. I should like some other opinions on this. Any thoughts? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See, when you're looking at the primary source and drawing your own conclusions from it, you're doing original research. "Voldemort says this in the book, ergo he's highly intelligent, charismatic, and narcissistic"...that's original research because you're drawing your own conclusions from the primary source (the books & films), and they're not attributed to any reliable source. Sure, your character analysis may be on the money, but Wikipedia's standard for the inclusion of information is verifiability, not truth. It has to be attributed to a reliable source, preferrably a secondary source, or it can't be included. Look at the rest of the "Personality" section: Everything in it is referenced to J.K. Rowling, and the text makes it explicitly clear that these ideas are hers. If you were writing a school paper about Voldemort, or writing about him for your own personal website, then sure, your analysis as explained above would be just fine. But Wikipedia only publishes ideas and thoughts that have already been published in reliable sources. That's what makes us an encylopedia rather than a generic wiki. Your method of analysis would be fine on a different kind of wiki, like Wookiepedia or the Harry Potter Wiki, because they rely mostly on primary source analysis and do not have the same standards as Wikipedia (which, in a sense, makes them reference works rather than encyclopedias). On Wikipedia, however, it just doesn't fly. The Wikipedia community has agreed, through consensus, that original research in any form is not appropriate to the encyclopedia. This is embodied in our policies and guidelines that have been communally written based on that consensus. If you can find some reliable secondary sources that make the same kind of analysis you've made above, then by all means it can be included and attributed to those sources. But if all you can say is "these are my ideas that I got from reading the books, and they should be obvious to anyone who's read them", then it won't work. The books only verify the events of the plot and the quotes you've pulled from them; they don't explicitly verify the conclusions that you, as a reader, are drawing from them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Any other thoughts? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mike Newell bit would be fine if you provided quotes and a reference to the DVD commentary. Use Template:Cite video to do that. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some clear examples of OR, the first that comes into my mind is that of Rookwood. I can't recall any scene in the book that states that the unspeakables or any other ministry official working at the Department of Mysteries is highly influential. Also, not all the DE have proven to be fanatically devoted, most of them left him alone after he lost his powers while trying to kill Harry (Lucius, Yaxley, the Carrows), some never returned to him (Snape, Karkaroff), some were with him buy not trully loyal (Snape again, or Wormtail as stated by Voldemort himself), some had other priorities (Lucius' love for his family). I can only think of Bellatrix and Crouch Jr. as being fanatically devoted.

I think that the over-use of adjectives is one of the main causes of this dispute, maybe quoting Rowling or inserting some clue phrases from the books would do it instead of giving adjectives that may be OR or personal POV. The thing that should be re-inserted for sure is that about Mike Newell. If there is further commentary from Newell on the character, maybe it would better fit in Reception. That gives the character more notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Racist?

How is Voldemort racist? He's prejudiced against Muggle's and Muggle born's of any race, and likes Pure-bloods of any race. Race is never raised as an issue in any of the books. Why is it mentioned here?

Rowling said he's racist, so he's racist. faithless (^speak) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But in the part about Deathly Hallows it says he created a racist Police state. He didn't. And Rowling said that he acts in a similar way to racists, not that he actually is one. And even if he was, there is no mention of it in regards to the way the country is run throughout book 7. Surely this is just an assumption, and your own point of view. Casino321 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not my point of view, and I have provided a source where Rowling specifically calls Voldemort racist. As far as the 'racist police state' line, I agree with you, and have removed that instance of the word "racist." The other instance, however (under 'Personality' in the 'Attributes' section) is, again, properly sourced. faithless (^speak) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I didn't want to edit it myself in case I'd missed something. Having it in the personallity section is fine, obviously. Thanks again. Casino321 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

While "racism" is usually applied to color prejudice, it has been applied to prejudices based on a wide variety of genetic traits (the famous "brown-eye/blue-eye" experiment being a prime example. With that in mind, muggles and wizards could be considered "races" just as "white" or "black" can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.2.95 (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

More inappropriate cats

I have removed two categories, Fictional necromancers and Fictional tyrants, from Voldemort's article as their inclusion is pretty much OR. Jupiter Optimus Maximus has certainly not read Wikipedia's article on Necromancy, which involves divination, spiritualism, channeling, even in modern necromancy. Voldemort does not do anything of this. Calling him a necromancer is also POV. As for Fictional tyrants, it is similar to what was previously discussed regarding Fictional dictators. The consensus resulted in removing Voldemort from any category about dictators or tyrants. Fictional tyrants is even nominated for deletion. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on necromancy is wrong. Necromancy refers to any kind of magic involving death. The term necromancer is usually used to describe a sorcerer or sorceress with the power to control the dead. Pretty much all of Voldemort's magic involves death and he is therefore the definition of a necromancer. He's also specifically referred to as a tyrant by Dumbledore. He's also the prototypical dictator despite people's objections to the contrary but that category seems to upset people wherever it appears so we'll leave that one out. Fictional tyrants and Fictional necromancers should definitely remain though because if we let this category purge continue then all but the most basic categories will be removed from this article. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty much all of Voldemort's magic involves death." I can think only of two bits of magic that involve death: one is the Killing Curse; this does not qualify under even your definition, since causing death is not the same as power to control the dead. The second is the creation of the Horcruxes; this is more debatable under the traditional D&D meaning of "necromancy" (which seems to be where you are deriving your usage), though would not qualify under your given definition of "power to control the dead." What other piece of magic "involves death", in your opinion? The spell at the end of Goblet of Fire is not even cast by Voldemort. Note also your equivocation: from "control the dead" to "involving death". Not the same thing. If they were, then the fact that pretty much all my meals involve food in some way would make me a chef. Magidin (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Oh and remember Voldemort's capacity to control Inferi? If that's not necromancy I don't know what is. Any opinions on the other category in question? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Forgive me; the Government does not like me to use my mind-reading abilities without permission, so I have to go by what you write, not by what you meant to say. I don't recall the Inferi being descibed as being dead. In any case: you stated that "pretty much all of" his magic "involves death." Can you substantiate this assertion? And can you explain the bait-n-switch from "control the dead" to "involving death"? As to the other category, we've already gone round and round on the meaning of dictator, and while you have relented you still bring it up at every chance, so I see no reason to get involved in yet another semantic argument with you; especially when you are perfectly willing to dismiss semantics in pursuit of your conclusions. Magidin (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice this post earlier on. Maggy, you do make me chuckle. The Inferi are stated to be animated corpses if I remember correctly, to the same effect as revenents or zombies. I admit that it was a bit of broad brush to say that necromancy was any type of magic involving death. The reason I relented on the Fictional dictators argument was because I used up all my cards and I think you'll find that it's usually you who brings it up. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up, like when you said "He's also a prototypical dictator despite people's objections to the contrary"? Man. I'm getting better all the time. Now I can actually reach back in time and affect the time-space continuum with my points... Magidin (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't bring it up this time, but you usually do. I'm getting rather good at this as well. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the necromancer cat, but the tyrant cat is inappropriate. Is Voldemort a tyrant? Perhaps, but I've yet to see anything confirming this. faithless (^speak) 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumbledore refers to Voldemort as a tyrant, saying "Voldemort made his own enemy as tyrants all over the world do". JK Rowling meanwhile has stated that Voldemort is "a deeply racist and fascist tyrant." Also the article on tyrants will tell you the following.

"In modern usage, a tyrant is a single ruler holding absolute power over a state or within an organization. The term carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls."

Voldemort held absolute power over the Death Eaters and also over the Wizarding World during his brief stint as puppetmaster of the Ministry. He was also indeed harsh and cruel ("the most evil wizard for hundreds and hundreds of years") and he placed both his own interests (absolute power, immortality, all of that) and that of a small oligarchy (Pure Bloods) over the best interests of the population. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for the Rowling quote, you might change my mind. The Dumbledore line doesn't really do it for me 100% (it can be read different ways) and your last two paragraphs pretty much amounts to OR. But if the Rowling quote is genuine (and I believe you when you say it is), that's a pretty good point. faithless (^speak) 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Faithless. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Given Dumbledore's line, I think that it is more appropiate to add the tyrant category then. But Fictional necromancers is still Jupiter's OR. First of all, the "control over dead" in necromancy is much more related to spirits rather than animating corpses. Jupiter, you have not provided a clear source of Voldemort being a necromancer as you did with tyrant, so please stop adding that category. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A necromancer can control any form of dead person, spirit, corpse, etc. The word "necro" actually means corpse so I think Voldemort's ability to manipulate Inferi (as well as his somewhat death-orientated capacity to cheat death) qualifies him as a necromancer. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't that difficult. If you add the Rowling quote you mentioned above, with an accompanying citation, then the tyrant category should pass. If you can find a similar source saying he's a necromancer, and add it to the article along with a citation, then that category should fly as well. Until then, no sources=no dice. All your assertions about the necromancy bit are based on your own analysis of the fiction, and your opinions about what constitutes necromancy, and are not yet supported by reliable sources. When you have found such sources, come on back. If not, let it drop. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Birth Name: Don't think there is a "Jr." in it

Voldemort's birth name is "Tom Marvolo Riddle." His father did not have the second name "Marvolo" -- it was Voldemort's maternal grandfather's name. Since the father's and son's names were not identical, it is not appropriate to put a "Jr." after it. He would be "Tom Marvolo Riddle Jr." only if his father was also named "Tom Marvolo Riddle." Also, as far as I remember, the books never refer to him as "Tom Marvolo Riddle Jr." Acsenray (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, that Voldemort was never referred to as a junior in the series. I do think (I could be wrong) that the British use Sr. and Jr. even if the names aren't exactly the same, i.e. George W. Bush would be George Bush Jr. as far as the British are concerned. Not that that changes anything about this article, just throwing it out there. faithless (^speak) 02:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OCD?

I'm not sure if this has been raised before, and I figured I'd ask instead of just adding it. Does Tom (that's how I think of him) have a form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? He is a meticulous planner, sometimes to almost absurdly small details, and does get thoroughly obsessed with some things (Hogwarts, Harry, the Elder Wand, etc) quite easily. The_Night_Walker 16:12, 14 December 2007 (GMT +10)

I'm sure that's quite likely, but such an analysis would be considered original research here.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is thoroughly possible but many intelligent leaders obsess over little details. Napoleon, William the Conquerer, Julius Caesar. And besides, Voldemort seems to be a breeding ground for mental disorders, lol. Illustrious One

The entymology of Voldemorte

Volde (Danish and Norwegian verb "To Inflict")

Morte (Italian verb for "death").

Ergo Voldemorte should mean Inflicts death or death inflictor. You will notice that JK Rowling used the "e" in 'morte' to indicate an Italian root; hence I don't believe Voldemorte is a contraction of the French Vol de mort.86.4.62.104 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Yoda.

Actually, Voldemort is not spelled Voldemorte. Vol de is french for "Flight from," and "Mort" is french for "Death." "Flight from Death" is a pretty accurate description of Voldemort's motives. Also, the fact that all the words in the french explanation are from the same language indicates that they do in fact go together. Also, the original pronunciation of "Voldemort" (again, spelled without an e at the end) was "Vole-de-more" instead of "Vole-de-mort" as has been popularized, and the french pronunciation implies a french root. Although the french "Mort" and the and the italian "Morte" share the same latin root, much like the spanish "Muerte." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.126.83 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions regaridng the name "Voldemort" and connection to french

I've been paring down and directly attributing the recent additions and references to "Voldemort" being connected to the french "vol de mort". First, note that as per the guidelines for using reliable sources:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

This is why I directly attributed the analysis given in the text.

Second: I just removed the second reference that was added. This was to an article in "Verbatim magazine". The reason I removed it is that it does not appear to be a reliable source within the meaning of wikipedia: the bottom of page 2 reads:

Contributions: Verbatim will publish articles, anecdotes, squibs, letters, and other material at the discretion of the Editor.

The article in question, by Jessie Randall, contains no references; if it were published in a blog or an HP fan site, it would not be considered a reliable source, and it seems to me that the publication amounts to little more than that. As always, I'm happy to discuss it and have my mind changed. Magidin (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, I hadn't checked the journal quality before adding that ref. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article by Nilsen and Nilsen, where they argue the reader will recognize the English cognates of mort, all examples given are English words in which the t is pronounced; this, however, would not work if the name were pronounced as in the French, with a silent t. The issue of the silent t is addressed earlier in the article. I suspect, however, that drawing attention to this (say, in the footnote, e.g., noting that Nilsen and Nilsen invoke words like post-mortem, mortality, etc., but that the connection would be unlikely if "Voldemort" is pronounced with as Rowling originally directed) would be considered original research, so I have not added it. Any opinions? Magidin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth name

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure it's Tom not Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.20.12 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall any mention of "Thomas", but I'm away from the books right now. Can anyone find any reference indicating the birth name was "Thomas"? Magidin (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Lexicon earlier today and they made no mention of "Thomas." I think it's like when people want to call Harry Harold. faithless (^speak) 02:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean, no mention of Thomas, or no mention of Tom? Magidin (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - I meant "Thomas." Fixed. faithless (^speak) 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As in, 'no mention of Thomas'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It has to be tom cos if it s thomas that messes up the anagram Tom Marvolo Riddle I am Lord voledemorte so it has to b etom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.58.86 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What's with the [...] ?

In the charcter development, there are several [...]'s. what are the suposed to mean?78.157.0.50 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ellipsis faithless (^speak) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's simply there as a marker for words removed from the main quote. When you add a quote to a document, but only select particular sentences from said larger quote, you indicate that there has been some words removed by utilizing [...]. Though, I personally simply use the ... without the square brackets Ccrashh (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception - Comparision with Bush

I think this section contains a slight perversion of Wikipedia. People are nurturing the quote "Alfonso Cuarón [..]compared Voldemort with George W. Bush [...] as the two of them ...have selfish interests and are very much in love with power. Also, a disregard for the environment". For sure, it was an often repeated quote, but I believe it is not encyclopedic information that describes Voldemort, or the general reception of this character. It is a purely a comment about George Bush. It says nothing about Voldemort, but everything about Cuarón thinks about Georges Bush and no reasonable link between the two characters is made. (It's like saying, Laura Bush is like Hermione Granger because she's a witch -- does that belong on Hermione Granger's wikipedia?) You can certainly put that in the Wikipedia entry for Cuarón, however. Check WP:UNDUEWEIGHT for explanation of some of the ways this is wrong here. First, it's a fringe opinion. Secondly, it's given undue importance by putting it at the top, well above JK Rowling's own intent, and other people's defined and mainstream opinions. There is nothing more to the quote that explains's Cuarón position, and the first source is only a quote of the second NewsWeek article, this means that there is only in fact one source, which makes it poorly sourced. The other contributions in that sections explain well their view and can help the definition of the article. Cuarón went on to compare the Minister of Magic with Tony Blair, in a more "reasoned" way that could be useful, although of course all of these characters were created a decade before the events Cuarón relates to. --96.20.57.36 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to start...first, the article mentions that the comparison is to both Bush and Hussein. By making no mention of the Hussein reference you're making this sound like politically motivated. Second, the director of one of the films is hardly a "fringe" opinion. Third, one sentence in the whole article is hardly undue weight. Fourth, one source =/= poorly sourced. That accusation is simply absurd. faithless (^speak) 07:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, Cuaron's statement is a fringe opinion. Explain: Who else thinks that Voltermort is a symbol of "selfishness and disregard for the environment"? That he is 'like Hussein'? Secondly, yes one online source, which itself is second-hand, IS equal to poorly source. Anyone can find one source to support anything - holocaust denial, faked moon landing - you want to write in. 'Undue weight' What does the director have to do with the public's reception? Why is this second-hand quote put above and before everything else? Everything you argue could be used to support adding Holocaust denial options to all Holocaust-related article, that's why we need to have higher standard in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.57.36 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, " By making no mention of the Hussein[...]", it's there because I added it, it wasn't there originally 96.20.57.36 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you were able to invoke Godwin's law in only your second post. Impressive. Anyway, when the director of a film states an opinion about said film, it is by its nature not a "fringe" opinion, regardless of whether said opinion is the orthodox view. If Francis Ford Coppola expresses an opinion on Michael Corleone, that opinion is relevant, whether you agree with it or not. faithless (^speak) 22:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be one thing if a blogger said it, but if the director of one of the films says it, it's definitely notable.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point is fair enough, but Rowling has stated that Voldemort is like Hitler or Stalin, which are way different from Bush and Hussein. If the opinion of the Cuaron contradicts the original author, then Rowling's opinion trumps Cuaron's. To use your Godfather reference: Yes, Francis Ford Copppola's opinion of Michael Corleone is important, but not nearly as important as Mario Puzo's, especially if they contradict one another. In any event, if Cuaron's opinion is left in the article, it should certainly be in a paragraph AFTER Rowling's opinion. Otherwise it seems clear that whoever edited this section was politically motivated against Bush. Klopek007 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point of quoting Rowling before quoting Cuaron is actually a very good one, and I've gone ahead and put Rowling first. Note, however, that one comparison does not necessarily invalidate another. Saying x is like y does not mean that saying x is like z "contradicts" the first comparison. Magidin (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort

I have found this page exceptionally useful for school projects and essays for University. I hope that everybody enjoys this page as I helped with some of the information! --JamieQMT (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that Lord Voldemort could be described as a lich? He bound his soul to Horcruxes(phylactery) for the purposes of making himself immortal. When he is disembodied he can put himself back together. He is described as skeletal in the book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.28.199 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like original research or literary analysis to me. So... no; if you can find a reliable notable source making the case, then we could quote it. Magidin (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)