Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Name

Shouldn't the introduction start 'Lord Voldemort (né Tom Marvolo Riddle)'? The One 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like that sounds right. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish and Russian name translations

First, it'd be wise to mention that Andrzej Polkowski, the Polish translator of "Harry Potter" books, mentioned in the "etymology section" of the book that he decided to leave Voldemort's birth name in its original English form. Second, the Russian variation of his name, Volan-de-Mort, sounds like a reference to Woland from "Faust" and "Master and Margarita". If anyone could confirm or deny this, I'd be most grateful. Oh, and by the way: in Ukrainian, the name "Yarvolod" means something along the lines of "strong ruler" or "cruel ruler" ("Yar-" means "strong", "powerful", "cruel" or "strict", while, as noted, "Volod-" means "ruler")... A "tyrant" then? --89.78.33.251 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of Voldemort was left unchanged by the Polish translator because Tom Marvolo Riddle is almost a perfect anagram of Polish phrase "Jam Lord Voldemort" (somehow poetic and slightly archaic way of saying "I am Lord Voldemort"). It is mentioned in numerous places e.g. [[1]]. So the remark about the translation difficulties is not correct. The Polish translator was lucky, and did not really need to change/translate anything.

62.111.158.66 09:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking that Voldie had branched out into commercial jam and jelly production. If someone sold Lord Voldemort Utterly Eevill Jam, I'd buy it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(and now, back to our regularly-scheduled cruftiness)

Heavy de-geekification measures (WP:WAF, WP:WIAGA)

Hi community, as a member of the Good Article WikiProject, Harry Potter WikiProject and the main author of the Lord Voldemort article which was promoted to good article status way back, I boldly restored part of the article to meet good article standards again.

• Established a firm out-of-universe POV again as of WP:WAF
• Cut back the EXTREMELY BLOATED, UBER GEEKY "fictional biography" part to about 10% of its original length, per WP:WAF
• Dealt with the heavy recentiism in the article, concerning part 7. Especially the Deathly Hallows part was a pure blow-by-blow account of the plot, violating WP:NOT, point 7 (Wikipedia is not a plot summary)
• Cut long, droning in-universe passages which are all unreferenced, as of WP:WIAGA

It is mildly amusing to see a good article overrun by fancruft, original research, and mind-boggling in-universe accounts which do not interest anybody but the uber geeks, but as a guy who wrote 1 "featured" article and nine "good" ones, I have to step in. If not, the article will surely have faced another good article review, which would have been successful as of WP:SNOW.

BTW, I will add I very much assume good faith from the many contriibutors to this article, but I am afraid that many contributors would be better editing Voldemort in the Harry Potter Wikia than in the real life Wikipedia. —Onomatopoeia 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also want to add that both "publication history" and "fictional bio" are STILL too long IMHO, are still quite in-universe, and there is a sore lack of JK Rowling info in both. —Onomatopoeia 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many movie pictures

While the character is in both the book and the movie, there's too many depictions from the movie. Drawings from Mary GrandPré would work if pictures are needed, but most encyclopedias only have a few unique pictures. This article has five similar pictures for Voldemort and two for Tom Riddle. 72.87.188.42 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As much as I like GrandPré's work, she has only drawn two pictures of Voldemort-one of him dueling Dumbledore, where we can't see his face, and one fm the Deathly Hallows cover, where, again, his face is mostly covered by the cloak. Movies are the next source for canon, and it's not like they're completely wrong. Keep in mind that movies are different artforms. Ellethwen 03:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But I dsay that we should add the Deathly Hallows picture; it's the best we have, and not too bad a representation either. Ellethwen 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Which more clearly illustrates ol' Voldie? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely the Deathly Hallows cover. Ellethwen 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, no, it really isn't. I am looking at the illustration on the dust jacket, and it shows a mostly-cloaked face greenish skin with sinister eyes. The film representation reveals the entire face to us. Additionally, JKR has endorsed every single film adapted from the books as accurate. The superior image - the one in the film - wins, hands down.

As an aside, this elitism regarding the book versus the film adaptations is both pointless and distracting. Were there huge differences (a merging of Kill Bill with the series, like this) between the two, or JKR not approving of the films, there might be a basis for discrimination. A these conditions do not exist, its time to set the argument aside. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thoughtyou meant the better drawing. I'm all for the movie pictures. Ellethwen 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that the GrandPré illustrations are only used in the US editions. The images from the film are more representative in that the films are released globally. David Underdown 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, even if the movie clips are preferred, there's too many similar pictures. They don't add anything to the article other than different angles of the same concept. Now it's even worse since there's five "Voldemort" and none for Tom. It's not "elitism" asking for more variety in the type of images selected for a fictional character. Compare to http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html as an example of different images. 72.87.188.42 07:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why two biographies?

Why are there two sections in this article relaying the origin story? The story detailed in the Plot sections seems more than sufficient, and the "fictional character biography" stuff simply begs for cruft. I'd like to take the latter section out; get back to me on that if you would. Treybien 17:56 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you restructure the section? I mean, do an edit restructuring it and then self revert, so we can see the difference. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was my idea. I come from WP:CMC, and the INTENTION is that "pub history" reflects out of universe, REAL LIFE development and "fic bio" is a brief retelling of the in-universe in CANONICAL order (catch retcons e.g.). The problem is that WP:Potter is overrun by crufty in-universe editors, who think "fic bio" should take 90% instead of 10% of the article. So, I have no problem cutting fic bio if it becomes a honeypot for cruft. —Onomatopoeia 07:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreement to merging Tom Marvolo Riddle into Voldemort

I believe that since Tom Marvolo Riddle and Lord Voldemort are the same person that they should be merged into the same article

Out of universe info

I just added a character development section, in the quest for hard out of universe info. Feel free to improve. —Onomatopoeia 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a great idea

Lets follow guidelines and delete the extraneous anagram list, and begin restructuring the article as other fictional characters are supposed to be listed, see Padme Amidala. Judgesurreal777 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Kill the cruft, amisdt the wailing and lamentations of the fanbase. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be reinserted into a Wikipedia-legit list, like List of Tom Marvolo Riddle translations, but the Voldy article looks neater than before. —Onomatopoeia 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image of Voldemort

Where is the image of Voldemort that used to be in place (Image:Ralphfiennesvoldemort) before someone replaced it with a non-free image? The new image is entirely unsatisfactory.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Tola.lawall uploaded the new one - perhaps he/she knows? asyndeton 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What's worse, this image is on the chopping block... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And the Tom Riddle pitcure is now gone. When did that happen? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been re-added in. Can someone find the source of the pic that used to occupy the placeholder? Some gently young soul saw fit to remove it without findign a suitable replacement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's a picture of him on one of the chapter arts from the US versions of the books that can be used? CHANDLERtalk 10:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

God bless whoever got it back! asyndeton 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) User:TheScarecrowAA found it. Please make sure that the image rationale is solid. I think it is, but fair use stuff sometimes eludes my understanding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Entire Wizarding World? What?

Last time I checked the book was only set in 'Great Britain' and therefore he only had control over the British Wizarding World. We didn't hear about the other countries so how can it be the entire Wizarding World?

It says entire wizarding world in the books. CHANDLERtalk 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's British arrogance for ya. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kill the Cruft

Some things: a) you've plagiarized parts of the book. b) you've approached the critical mass of cruftiness (you need a heading on his wand??) and c) lots of unsourced claims (hitler? come on.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the massive bloating of the article. Please, no more garbage! Judgesurreal777 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

whoa - some meatbag added references to Hitler? I've noticed a more coordinated effort to include communist and hitler references in the article for Harry Potter (character). Maybe this extends beyond the boundaries of just that article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)`

Merge Riddle

I suggest we merge Riddle family into this article, for several reasons:

• much of the info (including the tree) are duplicated
• most of the info means nothing except in the context of voldemort
• the greatest portion of the info is on Tom Marvolo Riddle- ergo, Voldemort. Why is he hacked in two pieces?

-- David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What are the sizes of the two individual articles? I am not really liking that whole family tree in the Riddle article, and I am guessing that might take up a lot of room... - 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

39KB for this article: as for the Riddle, no notice when you edit the article, so somewhere less than 30KB. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't too much trouble, is there a chance you can put togehter an edit that shows the merged data (and then self-revert), so we can take a gander at how things would look? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to do that, and then looking through the article I realized it would kind of be a waste of time. Really, much of the info is redundant, and very little would have to be merged, however the info could probably be better layed out in a different manner than the appearances... section: or at least have a "Character Background" section where his family could be fully explained. That way, in the appearances section, we could cut down the side explanation (which is rather slim in this case, possibly detrimental: for instance it doesn't explain how Merope enchanted Tom Sr., et al). Unless another place exists, some of the personal traits could aslo be added: but prolly the combined article would be no more than 50KB. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for recommending work that didn't need doing. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Voldemort Agreement

I totally agree with merging Tom Riddle Family with Voldemort. I could understand the two articles when Rowling was still writing her series of novels, but with them complete Voldemort's history is now fully established. It is time for Voldemort to accept his Muggle parentage as well as his Wizarding heritage and merge the two together.

Moving on

I removed the part stating that Voldemort doesn't "move on" after he dies. This is completely antithetical to the scene in the ghostly King's Cross; one of the points of that scene, exposition aside, is to indicate that Voldemort WILL move on, trapped forever in a Hellish existance as a helpless, subhuman creature. Just as Dumbledore appears to have moved on to Heaven (before the Limbo version of King's Cross fully forms, Dumbledore appears out of pristine whiteness wearing midnight blue robes), Voldemort--who is "beyond help"--will be headed to his own personal version of Hell: Powerless, weak, and just as he was at birth, alone and abandoned. Timmybiscool 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's OR though. Please reinsert the part you excised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly my thought. It's rather spelled out for the reader. Rowling never states that Bellatrix Lestrange is dead but readers seem to be intelligent enough to surmise that she is. You provide a source that definitively states Voldemort does not "move on" and we'll put it back in. Otherwise, it's baseless conjecture.209.169.97.84 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Either way, please not that it is not explicitly stated, and therefor should not be put in the article. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, the part about Voldemort "not moving on" need be removed as well. That is not explicitly stated anywhere, either.209.169.97.84 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!

This article needs serious work, I mean it keeps repeating itself and many quotes are used twice!--Dominik92 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Well, fix it up, Mister Man. :) Seriously, I think you can use the Snape or Hermione articles as templates. They are in reasonably good shape. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation of name/anagram

Why was this removed? This truly was one of the important non-plot summary things that an article like this should provide. Savidan 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it was really long. We can put it on a seperate page, though. Ellethwen 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the simple Riddle/Voldemort anagram, or the crufty other anagrams that were removed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually just wondering about that, as it may be interesting how translators worked around this. --Burek 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

I see I may have jumped the gun on deletion nominations, but I do not see how Image:HP5-TL2-0078.jpg and Image:HP5-TL2-0079.jpg constitute fair use. They are only being used for an illustrative purpose, they are high-res, and there are other images from the movies they come from. Thoughts? -Phi*n!x 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that a lower res alternative can be substituted from the first one (not at all married to #79, the one presumably from the trailer), but I think it displays Voldie in all his fugly glory. I can re-rez it and load it back in. Say the word (and the word is: "fnord").

Frankly, I wouldn't have minded someone uploading a pic of the wand battle between him and Potter at the end of Gob o' Fire. That's just good television there, dontcha know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fnord. It's not that I don't like having the images on the page; I just don't see how we can justify it as fair use. Could you give me some fair use rationale? -Phi*n!x 16:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand the desire to keep OR out of this article

but surely SOME mention of the derivation of Voldemort's name could be worked in? Especially given that Rowling pronounces it French-style, which pretty much confirms it is derived from the French vol de mort. There are plenty of sources that mention this, even if Rowling herself hasn't confirmed it. Serendi^podous 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It has to be harry potter related though...could you post anything you have found here, like links, so we can all see it? Thanks Judgesurreal777 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's obvious where the name comes from. But only JKR can say for sure. Until she does, we can't speculate, no matter how obvious it is. And I'm not sure what you mean by "French-style" pronunciation; this webcast shows her reading from DH, and she definitely pronounces the "t" at the end of his name, which certainly isn't a French pronunciation. faithless (^speak) 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS isn't a valid argument, but what about the Sturm und Drang reference in the Durmstrang article? This sounds like the same type of thing. There is no citation where Rowling confirmed that the name "Durmstrang" is based on Sturm and Drang, but it is still mentioned. In my opinion, discussion of things like name origins makes an article on part of a fictional universe seem less in-universe.

Also, could this count as a citation here? -Phi*n!x 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the Durmstrang stuff, that should be deleted as well. I'm pretty liberal with what I'll consider a credible source, moreso than most Wikipedians, I think. But I just feel that when it comes to name origins and inspirations, only Rowling can say where they came from. Some of them are obvious, yes; but who are we to say where she came up with her ideas? faithless (^speak) 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Name source

I saw a few articles that seem to pin Voldemort 'winged death' as an allegory for Beezelbub 'lord of the flies.' One points out the old English phrase "Speak of the Devil and you'll see his horns" which plays nicely with "he who must not be named." I'm not willing to pay to read the articles, but has anyone else guessed his name (or the nature of his game)? Libertycookies 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Listed as "Fictional character with mental illness"

I have some doubts about Voldemort being in this Category. He was sick of power and really narcissistic, but does this make him a character with mental illness? Lord Opeth 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'll remove it immediately. Evil is not a mental illness; it's basic selfishness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rowling does refer to him as a psychopath. I guess it depends whether you consider that a mental illness. (I don't.) marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does Volderort look the way he does?

In HP II we see he was a normal looking human as a teenager/adult and then later he looks like a frog. What gives?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it was because of the production of so many Horcruxes, which made him "less human". Lord Opeth 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he had a bad plastic experience, and it turned him evil, just like the Joker, or Two-Face. Or Phillis Diller. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read either directly in the books or in a Rowling quote that the appearance change is due to the Horcruxes. The reptilian appearance is probably due to using a living creature, a snake, for a Horcrux. Libertycookies 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find the reference, pls let us know, would you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

libertycookies, what acounts for the other 52 years in which he was a snakey thing? If you lose your soul, you get pale, vampires told us that. --Storytellershrink 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Story, everyone knows there aren't vampires. When you lose your soul, you become a Republican. Just ask Karl Rove. He's on Satan's speed-dial. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Final Book" section needs references!

As you may know, I came across the "Final Book" section of this article, only to find that it doesn't have references unlike the "First three books" and "Fourth to sixth books" sections. Since I read Deathly Hallows, I want you to find its chapters and list them as sources for the "Final book" section, okay? I also read that Voldemort's body is buried "in the chamber off the [Great] Hall" at Hogwarts, so please add that as info as well, okay? --Angeldeb82 01:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, plot summaries do not have to be sourced. I mean, it's obvious where the information is coming from, right? Also, what makes you think that Voldemort would be buried at Hogwarts? faithless (^speak) 03:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it says in page 745 of Deathly Hallows: "They moved Voldemort's body and laid it in a chamber off the [Great] Hall, away from the bodies of Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Colin Creevey, and fifty others who had died fighting him." Does that sound fair enough? --Angeldeb82 19:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well sure, they moved it, they didn't want to see his ugly corpse, or have it lying next to the dead bodies of their friends (whose deaths he was responsible for). But why in the world would they bury him at Hogwarts? So he could stick around forever? Why would they want him there? Maybe they'd bury him next to Dumbledore... faithless (^speak) 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that if you look up the word "lay" in Dictionary.com, one of its many meanings is this: "to bury", so I figured they must have buried him in the chamber, that's all the book says. Didn't you read Deathly Hallows, Faithless? --Angeldeb82 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless. We are reading too much into that sentence. The very fact that there are some interpertive component to the statement means it is contention. 'Lay' also has other meanings, Angeldeb - one could easily assume that a bit of necrophilia with the mortal shell of Voldemort is occurring (can we all just say, 'eww'?).

JKR doesn't seem to have any sorts of problems hamming up a funeral scene, and one for Voldie might have been a chapter all in itself. Yet, there wasn't. Clearly, the use of th word 'lay' means that they just put the body somewhere for the interim, not interrment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Deathly Hollows, Do you think I should? Yes, one meaning of the word "lay" is "to bury." But notice that it is the twelfth definition?! There are eleven more accurate meanings. And since you've decided to take a condescending tone while I was trying to remain civil, I see no further reason to do so. Frankly, that is the most absurd thing I've ever read (and I've read the entire Sweet Valley High series). Bury Voldemort at Hogwarts? Are you serious?! Yes, and while we're at it, why don't we exhume John Wilkes Booth and bury him in the Lincoln Tomb? I might ask you if you've ever read the series, specifically HBP chapter 29, where there is a discussion about the appropriateness of Dumbledore being buried at Hogwarts. Dumbledore! They buried him there of course, and he is the only headmaster/mistress (and almost certainly the only person period) to be buried on the grounds. So why in the world would they decide to bury the most evil Dark Wizard the world had ever seen somewhere where they would have to see him everyday?! That's absolutely ridiculous. faithless (^speak) 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading that back, it's perhaps unnecessarily harsh, so I'm striking the more egregious parts. faithless (^speak) 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the entire Harry Potter series, especially Half-Blood Prince, and I read how Dumbledore is laid to rest. I think I know the meaning of the word "interim", Arcayne, which is a time between periods or events, or a short time. Perhaps I might have made a mistake or not. I'm not sure. --Angeldeb82 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we have all read the book Angeldeb. I would like to suggest that we take a gander at the book again, asi ti seems kind of odd that the wizarding equivalent of Hitler would be buried in the wizarding equivalent of a Jewish holy place. It isn't logical and more in point, it isn't part of a good story. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If they were to bury his body (i would just give it to "fluffy" to be honest), they would probably do it in the grave at little hangleton, right next to dear old dad, just to give him what he always wanted, a father. --Storytellershrink 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So I guess the word "lay" means to place or put away somewhere, not bury. Guess you may be right, huh? Sorry I got a little carried away. --Angeldeb82 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's okay. That's the type of bold I like to see. Too many clowns think being bold is to write whatever garbage they wish and then stick their crufty little fingers into their ears, singling loudly while someone tries to reason with them. You listend to criticism (some of it a bit unhelpful) and kept your cool, admitting when an opposing opinion swayed you. That's the mark of a champ inmy book. Good on ya, Angeldeb. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To maintain some uniformity with the previous sections of plot summary, I went ahead and added a few specific chapter references to this section anyway. Hope this is okay. Magidin 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image revert

I see no point of replacing a perfectly fine image of Voldemort with the other. The other image is identical, except for the fact that it includes more of the background and the figure of Voldemort is considerably smaller. For that reason, I reverted it to the previous version, as it is more representative of the character. Wikiburger 13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, someone recently replaced the image of Fiennes as Voldie with an image of the collectable statuette. Not very cool. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Gaunt Family

The family is notable because of voldemort, and asserts no notability of its own. Judgesurreal777 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is the same with Snape and his parents. Maybe we can create an article for all the relatives of Voldemort together: the Riddles and the Gaunts. Something like Relatives of Harry Potter, creating a section for the Riddles and a section for the Gaunts. But merging them into this one is not a good idea. Lord Opeth 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreement of merging Gaunt Family with Voldemort

There is simply not enough data to justify the Gaunt Family having its own article

Dissagrement with merging of Gaunt family

there are only 4 character in the dursley family mentioned in the book. I think there should be an article for the gaunt family on the basis that they are a key point in the story --Storytellershrink 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Horcruxes and such

Ok, i think we need an article titled Horcruxes, that explain the begginings, the user of them, and list them and information about them, with the one on Harry and Nagini having a little information, and a redirect to Harry and Nagini and remove all else about the remaining horcruxes. In the article Riddle family, there is a part about Tom Marvolo Riddle, which should have the words, "see Voldemort", and thats it. Below the part about Tom jr., there is a thing called Tom Riddles diary. I think this is completely useless and should be put in the aformentioned article, Horcruxes. --Storytellershrink 01:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God, what a crufty banquet that would be... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Um...there already is one. faithless (^speak) 08:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap! Well, looking at it, it doesn't seem SO bad. I'll take a closer look at it later. Did you use the index to find it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there was a recent AfD for it (obviously it was kept). Like you said, it isn't as bad as one might think. faithless (^speak) 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

no, faithlessthewonderboy, you misunderstood me, I don't like the link on each ones name. I think it should be confined to that space, save harry and nagini. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya to riddle, nay to gaunt

Ok, last one. Riddle family should be merged, gaunt shouldnt, its what i think --Storytellershrink 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm.....I vote no, too. Can we get the box outta here now? Keyblade Mage 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

I highly doubt it, as they will do all they can to make sure we make everything about harry potter as short as humanly possble. (like i said ppl, i get testy, and you probably shouldnt take anything i say seriously) --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters with mental illness.

Twice I have added an edit at the bottom of the page, listing Voldemort under "Fictional characters with mental illness". This has been added before I did it, but that was reverted as well. I thought that there would be no question that Voldemort suffered from psychopathy, lacking any form of empathy, is extremely self-centered, has above average intelligence and superficial charm (like he had as a young boy), and lacking any remorse or shame. Voldemort checks all the boxes of a psychopath, and is therefore applicable under "Fictional characters with mental illness."

And to back myself up, I cite the Wikipedian article itself - a statement by JK Rowling:

"Finally, in 2006, Rowling established that Voldemort was not only a racist, genocidal psychopath [...]"

Would that be good enough for you, Arcayne? I would advise you to do your own research next time. Wikiburger 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, put a civil tone on that edit Mister Man, as anyone here will tell you that I am an absolute beast when provoked. I am the guy who was polite enough to message you on your Talk page, asking for citable proof before reinstating the category, and I appreciate you responding here.

Unfortunately, the 'proof' you have chosen to bring in the first paragraph are your observations of Voldie's behavior, which of course we are not allowed to use - your opinions as to the mental health of anyone here in Wikipedia constitute primary sourcing. That isn't allowed in WP; only secondary sources, such as published reviews or academic articles are. Even if you were a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, your views on Voldemort's mental status would be non-noteworthy here - that is unless, you choose to publish an article in the APA regarding the mental health of a fictional character.

As well, you have stated that JKR has made statements as to Tom Riddle's missing marbles. It would be grand if you could supply a verifiable citation from a reliable source that reinforces that quote.

If you are able to accomplish either of those citation tasks, I personally would not oppose the inclusion of the character into that category. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I still do not feel that I have experienced that "beast" of yours yet. I can't say that I liked your tone either in the message you left on my talk page. My arguments and assumptions are all correct, and you know it as well. But since you insist in doing it 100 % after the book, I will cite sources to prove that I am correct, since you are a hard man to please.

"J.K. Rowling: If a psychologist were ever able to get Voldemort in a room, pin him down and take his wand away, I think he would be classified as a psychopath (crowd laughs). So there are people, for whom, whatever you're going to call it -- personality disorder or an illness -- for whom redemption is not possible. They're rare."

Source: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0801-radiocityreading1.html

"J.K Rowling: I'm writing about shades of evil. You have Voldemort, a raging psychopath, devoid of the normal human responses to other people's suffering, and there ARE people like that in the world."

Sources: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0900-ew-jensen.htm, http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/ewinter.html

An unofficial list made by a fan at Mugglenet. It does contain quotes from the books to back up the assumptions.

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-yrome02.shtml

Now I must admit that I am tired of playing our little mind games. This whole discussion could have ended so much earlier if you had just admitted that my observations were in fact, right, instead of writing me a childish novel about why I am not in a position to judge the mental health of fictional characters. Now I hope that we could put this discussion behind us, and put the little silly piece of text into the article. Wikiburger 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiburger, first, thanks for providing the sources. Secondly, please try to remain civil. Arcayne's message on your talk page was perfectly polite and, more importantly, he was right. Nothing can be added to Wikipedia without a source (which you've now provided). Furthermore, there is no place here for insulting another editor, especially when all they're asking you to do is explain your edits. faithless (^speak) 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for providing those citations, and for discussing the matter on the Discussion page, The reason the categorization was a red flag wa that there wasn't any statements in the article that noted these citations, and usually, that's an indicator of original research. Since you did the hard work in finding the precise citations, perhaps you'd like the honor of adding a few statements to the appropriate section of the article noting these statements about JKR's statements about Voldie's mental health - personally, I think Personality might be a good section, but you might have enough to begin a new section called Character development, exploring how JKR evolved the character froma simple foil for Harry into someone with psychological issues. Either way, it's your call, but if you want help doing that, I am sure anyone would be happy to help (as I noted just a bit ago on your Talk page).

And no, I didn't bring the beast out to play. Faithless can tell you that its a real mofo to deal with, and usually sends people cowering into corners (editorially-speaking). This is me, being kindler and gentler. It's nice, huh? All the sexy and whatnot? Right? lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that just because Rowling called him a psychopath means that she intends him to have been mentally ill. The term "psychopath" is commonly used to identify what psychiatrists call anti-social personality disorder, but we don't know whether Rowling intended the term in that sense. The term is also used more informally as a synyonym to "psychotic," which is emphatically not the psychiatric definition, but Rowling probably meant the term in the more traditional sense of someone lacking in a conscience.

The psychiatric profession considers anti-social personality disorder to be a mental disorder, and I suppose that fact is enough for Wikipedia's purpose. However, I should add that I consider this view hogwash: there isn't much evidence of a biological cause to the supposed illness. Just because the psychiatric profession invents a convenient label for violent, impulsive, compassionless individuals doesn't prove that it's the result of a brain disorder. This kind of labeling seems to be an attempt to wrap conventional morality up in scientific clothing, as if to suggest that being evil can invariably be traced to problems in a person's brain. If only life were that simple. marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HP5-TL2-0078.jpg

Image:HP5-TL2-0078.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it with this edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As well, I overwrote a newer version of the image with one at a lower resolution as per image discussion. All should be well now - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Riddle section

Appears, as it looks now, to be nothing more than an in-universe retelling of voldemorts life, which is covered in the appearances section under books 6 and 7. If more detail is suggested, put some in, but this section is unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 02:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right... I'll be bold then. Magidin 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA links

I've been reverted a couple times now for redirecting the linking of the pronunciation to the new IPA pronunciation key. It doesn't display "IPA" (as it does at the top of the page), but "pronounced" takes you to the same chart. Most people find that flows better in the text of an article. kwami 08:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fiction dictators?

Does Voldemort really belong in this cat? We know basically nothing about the workings of the Ministry, so who decided he was a dictator? Unless it is stated directly in DH (I don't remember), he doesn't belong in that category. faithless (^speak) 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The category is for individuals who assume sole autocratic power over the state. Voldemrot assumed sole autocratic power over the Ministry albeit from behind the scenes when he was in power. He also played a dictator figure to the Death Eaters. 86.133.200.236 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is an evaluation on your part and, as you most assuredly are aware, that amounts to uncited supposition. We cannot include it. Please feel free to consult the matter, but if it isn;t already removed, i will be removing it until discussion is removed, as per wiki policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an evaluation at all, it's a simple assessment of facts. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you do a link?

I've forgotten how and I want to do one to show some fabulous text I added to the article which has been subsequently removed. 86.133.200.236 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Post the link here, User:86etc.. Since it was previously removed, it might be best to take a gander at it to make sure its all copacetic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure how to do a link but surfice it to say I trimmed and improved the extreneuous personality section but a user named Asyndeton reverted my edits on the grounds that they were Original Research which I don't think they were at all personally. Furthermore I tried to add Voldy to the category of Fictional narcissists as he is known to a narcissist in the extreme but someone removed him for some reason. -- 86.133.200.236 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, WP:CITE and WP:REFERENCE can help you learn how to do a reference. If after checking that out you are still having issues, drop me a line in my Talk page, and we'll suss it out. Links are easy. Cut and paste the address line, and then bracket it, using [ and ] (note that you don't bolden the brackets; I'm just making htem easier to see), enclosing the link.

As for the narcissist issue. you need to find someone reliable (not a blog or fan forum chat, since they are not considered reliable) who calls Voldemort that. Otherwise, its just you saying that that feature is worth noting. We as editors are not alowed to voice our opinion in the article. I hope that is helpful. By the way, set up an account, so you can start accruing edits. I am sure there are articles where you have noticed that you cannot edit because you are not 'established'; signing up is the way to build up some street cred for your work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Arcayne. I'm afraid I did register but I was blocked for recreation of deleted material. Not a serious crime in my opinion. I appealed to be unblocked but they ignored me so now I'm stuck editing as an unregistered user. I refuse to create another account as that would make me guilty of sockpuppetry, something which I refuse to stoop to. My only hope is that someday someone will take pity on me and unblock me. But that's beside the point. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by address line. With regards to the narcissist issue, Voldemort is known to regard himself as the mightiest wizard there ever was and he frequently brags of his abilities as shown by him saying "I am extraordinary" to Severus Snape in Book 7. He refers to himself as special when talking to Dumbeledore in Book 6 and in Book Seven when he contemplates the thought of his horcruxes being destroyed he refers to himself as "the most important" in his thought process. He also largely looks down on everyone around him and obviously loves being the centre of attention. All of these are traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Furthermore care to have a look at the link to MuggleNet Wikiburger provided further up the page.

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-yrome02.shtml

The website contains solid evidence to the possibility that Voldemort suffers (if suffers is the right word) from NPD. Would you agree Arcayne? 86.133.200.236 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not, I would not agree as to its inclusion at this time. Look closely at the link you provided for clues as to why. It's an editorial by a fan forum user, not the official weighing in by a psychiatry professional (and if s/he were, how would we know from just an internet handle?). We the user to shed the anonymity of the user name and the venue of internet forum, and instead publish his/her findings as an article, then we might be able to include them. Wikipedia doesn't use blogs or articles within fan forums (unless they are from a public personage, like JKR). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

True. But what about all that other stuff I mentioned? 86.133.200.236 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, 86. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, Arcayne darling. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I got it, thanks sweetheart. The stuff you propose is not backed up by citation. Without it, we cannot say anything about it. I am sorry if I had not made that clearer before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. We needn't bother discussing the narcissist issue anymore anyway as the said category has recently been deleted. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Casting in Half-Blood Prince

The casting of this role for Half-Blood Prince has been confirmed, but anyone find a reliable source to show that Hero Fiennes Tiffin is, in fact, Ralph's nephew?Kenobifan (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure: [2] [3] [4] [5] But while we're on the subject, it appears that mention of his casting has been removed from the article. Anyone know what's up? faithless (^speak) 13:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should point out...

According to the Manual of Style, references should come directly after punctuation, like so. (Not with a space afterwards, which puts the reference half-way between two sentences.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who it was directed at, but I've cocked that up myself a few times. Thanks, David. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass murderer

I would suggest adding Voldemort to the mass murderer category as he has killed a great many people in his quest for power although not all of them in person. With regards to the deity category which I added him to from which he has subsequently been removed by V-Train I would like to say that I do not disagree with his removal. My chain of reasoning in putting him in said category at the time was that he is worshipped as a deity-figure by the Death Eaters. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with its inclusion as well. We don't know how many people he killed, or even how many the Death Eaters killed. Its crufty as all get out, since there are no citations for it. This is a recurring sort of argument, User 86 - we are not doubting what you say, we are doubting whether its inclusion is not the result of Original research, or synthesis. Come back with a reliable, notable citation that notes his mass murders or his psychological infirmities, and we can move on it. Without it, our hands are tied by WP policies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He killed his father, his father's wife and son, Lilly and James, Bertha Jorkins, Cedric Diggory, Frank Bryce, Gregorovitch, that muggle woman in Book 7, Severus Snape, and on an insignificant side note, Hedwig. Technically he killed Harry as well. The mass murderer category is for people who have killed more than four people in one incident and serial killer wouldn't really suit Voldemort. It would be a bit like caling Adolf Hitler a serial killer. And we know that the Death Eaters killed a great deal of people on Voldemort's behalf during his reign of terror. Both of them. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to be an ass, but Pettigrew killed Diggory and Nagini killed Snape. Also, Harry died? Did I miss something? faithless (^speak) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I understand what you are aiming for, User:86, but this in-depth look at Voldemort's inner Unhappy Monkey isn't really supported by reliable citations. Without them, we cannot include anything, no matter how obvious it seems to you or I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by inner unhappy monkey Arcayne and sorry to be a pain but one doesn't really need citations to prove that Voldemort has indeed murdered masses. And yes Faithless, I realise that Pettigrew killed Diggory but Voldemort gave the order didn't he and it was him who killed Snape although it was Nagini who ate his body if I remember correctly. Furthermore Harry did indeed die although he subsequently came back to life. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we dig that, User:86. The problem here is that no one said that Voldemort was a mass murderer in the series. JKR didn't say that outside of the series. As Wikipedia only relies on reliably notable citations, we cannot include a reference that calls him a mass murderer. We are not saying that we disagree with you (at least, I am not), but I am saying that we cannot import our own beliefs into the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for invoking Godwin's law, but we wouldn't consider Hitler a mass murderer, would we? So we can't really count Diggory and Snape, even if it was on Voldemort's orders that they died. As for Harry, I am not convinced at all that he died. The text doesn't say that, and it possibly was all in his mind, as Harry himself speculates. In fact, we're told repeatedly throughout the series that it is impossible to die and come back to life (mostly where Sirius is concerned). All that being said, is Voldemort a mass murderer? Sure. But to be honest, I don't give two figs whether or not he's placed in the cat. I wouldn't remove it as it's accurate, but I wouldn't add it either, as I don't find it terribly important. faithless (^speak) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Faithless, darling, are you insane? Of course we would consider Hitler a mass murderer, he wiped out half the Jewish population of Europe. And there are all those people who died in battle against him. He might not have killed them in person but he gave the order for them to be killed. Tarkin is in the mass murder category but he didn't press the button that blew up Alderaan, he gave the order. And if you want to be fussy Voldemort has indeed killed about nine people in person. Besides, very few mass murderers in history have actually killed their victims in person. Look at Stalin, Mussolini, Al Capone and Nero. Rowling might never call Voldemort a mass murderer but it's obvious that he is. Think how ridiculous it would be to not include Darth Vader in the category of fictional amputees just because nobody in Star Wars calls him an amputee. I'm sorry if I sound aggressive but I'm just trying to get my point across. 86.133.200.236 13:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Being aggressive is fine, but since I agree with you, you might not want to waste your time being aggressive towards me. As terrible a person as he was, Adolf Hitler never killed anyone (as far as I know). I'm Polish, so I probably hate Hitler more than anyone, save for Jews, but we're not talking about the legal definition of murder, where you can be found guilty of a murder without actually committing it. That's why guys like Hitler, Stalin and Charles Manson aren't included in the mass murderers category; they're all Little Eichmanns, so to speak. Regardless, didn't Voldemort commit enough murders without you having to use those he didn't commit to illustrate your point? James, Lily, Bryce, Dorcas Meadowes, Jorkins, Gregorovitch, Hepzibah Smith, the muggle tramp, Charity Burbage... faithless (^speak) 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but there's the tough nut, Faith - it's you advancing the point that he's a mass murderer because he killed those people. That's the very definition of synthesis. I think that if you are married to the idea of including him in the fictional mass-murderer category, someone has to reliably cite JKR calling him that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa; to quote what I said before, "But to be honest, I don't give two figs whether or not he's placed in the cat. I wouldn't remove it as it's accurate, but I wouldn't add it either, as I don't find it terribly important." Voldemort's a mass murderer, but I'm not advocating his being categorized as such. I'm completely neutral on the matter. faithless (^speak) 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to be nice, but you people are missing the point. Arcayne, of course Voldemort is a mass murderer, we don't need JKR to call him one to know he is one. Like I said, nobody calls Darth Vader an amputee and yet he is in the category of Fictional amputees. Why? Because it's obvious! And yes Faithless, the people you mentioned were the "nine" I was talking about. Furthermore Hitler did indeed kill people. About half the Jewish population of Europe to be exact. Stalin meanwhile wiped out all the smart people in Russia. Do you see my point now? 86.133.200.236 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay people, take a deep breath and calm down. There's no need to get all worked up over a single appellation such as "mass murderer." It's honestly not that big of a deal.

While I'm at it however, I'll put in my two cents worth. It's true that JKR never comes out and says that Voldemort is a mass murderer, however, there is a lot of evidence that implies that he is. A mass murderer is "a person, especially a political or military leader, who is responsible for the deaths of many individuals." [6] We know that:

Grindelwald "killed many people," including Victor Krum's gradfather. We also know that Voldemort is the "most evil wizard for hundreds and hundreds of years, [7] which would imply that his reign of terror (and, by default, the number of people he killed) was much greater than Grindelwald's.

Voldemort killed, or was directly responsible for the death's of: his father, his grandfather, his grandmother, Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, Cedric Diggory, the entire Bones' family, the McKinnon family, the Prewett family, the Vance family, Lily Potter, James Potter, Gregorovitch, Grindelwald, Severus Snape, people in the dozen cars that plunged into the river when the Brockdale Bridge snapped, the "freak hurricane in the West Country that caused so much damage to both people and property," Hedwig, Dobby, Moody, Charity Burbage, and anyone else who stood up to him, which was a lot of people. His Death Eaters, who take their orders directly from Voldemort, also killed innumerable muggles and wizards and witches, too many to name. Voldemort is known to be "talking and killing" as of chapter 4 in HBP; the dementors were breeding and "attacking people right and left" which as good as kills the victims.

So, is Voldemort a mass murderer? I've given you what evidence I can find and you can continue to debate whether or not we have enough credible information that's not speculation to conclude that Voldemort is a mass murderer. But please, people, remember that it's not all that important, and there's no need to attack one another. Grey Maiden ^talk 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's that pesky word again: "there is a lot of evidence that implies that he is". I never said there wasn't evidence to support it, I am saying that taking that evidence and categorizing it is Synthesis, a part of the Original research policy. Our own investigations, deductions and whatnot into article subjects get zero play within Wikipedia. We cannot add Voldie to the category. Additionally, i am thinking perhaps the category needs a good looking-over, as there might be other instances of entries based on synthesis as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've calmed down now. But might I say Arcayne, it is not implied that Voldie is a mass murderer, he is KNOWN to be a mass murderer. He was directly responsible for the killing of his father, his father's wife and son, Lily and James Potter, Hepzibah Smith, Gregorovitch and all the other people Grey Maiden mentioned. We also KNOW that the Death Eaters killed hundreds of people on his behalf. Palpatine is never called a mass murderer in Star Wars but he is in the mass murderer category because we know firsthand that he ordered the death of nearly every Jedi in the galaxy. Likewise we know that Voldemort killed all those people thereby qualifying him for the mass murderer category. 86.133.200.236 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting off track, but I just have to say this: Hitler, Stalin, etc. were not mass murderers, and they are rightly not categorized as such. Being responsible for many deaths is not at all the same as actually doing the killing yourself. If it was, most U.S. presidents could be classified as mass murderers. 86.133, you can make your case just as well by sticking to the characters that Voldemort did kill without mentioning those he didn't, such as Snape, Diggory, etc. Okay, that's all. :) faithless (^speak) 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Faithless but I'm afraid I still have to disagree. If that were the case neither Cutler Beckett, Palpatine nor Grand Moff Tarkin would be in the Fictional mass murderers category. But I'm going off track again. 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.200.236 (talk)

Again, to categorize Voldemort as a fictional mass murderer, we have to have reliable citation to do so. Otherwise it is us drawing that conclusion. We don't get to do that. As for any other entrants in that particular category, we aren't talking about them, and if there isn't citation specifying their titling as such, we cannot include them either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I want it known that I am not disputing Arcayne's statement. Faithless, please look at the definition of a mass murderer again: "A person, especially a political or military leader, who is responsible for the deaths of many individuals." [8] It does not say that he has to commit the murders himself, he just has to be responsible for them. And, with regard to your statement about Hitler not being a mass murderer, try looking at the Wikipedia article on mass murder. It says in the third paragraph, "The largest mass killings in history...are sometimes described as genocide." Surely you will not try to explain away the murder of over 6 million Jews, would you? Grey Maiden ^talk 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Every word has multiple definitions, and every dictionary will give you a different one. On Wikipedia it's quite clear that military and political leaders are not defined as such. Just look at Mass murderer. The article doesn't support political leaders being categorized this way; there is even a list on the page of mass murderers, with nary a mention of Hitler and pals. as president FDR was responsible for millions of deaths during WWII, Andrew Jackson killed untold of numbers of Indians. What I'm getting at is that there is precedent on Wikipedia that terrorists and serial killers are classified as mass murderers, not government or military leaders who simply gave the orders which resulted in murders. But this is all terribly off topic, let's get back to Voldemort. faithless (^speak) 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort is a terrorist or at leas the wizarding equivolent of one. And the reason I mentioned those other characters Arcayne is because they like Voldemort have commited murders but not in person, they have ordered other people to do it for them. And besides the category for Fictional mass murderers is for characters who have killed more than four people. Voldemort has killed well over four people in person. Nobody ever looks at the inclusion criteria for these categories do they? People come up with hideously complicated excuses for characters to not be in the Fictional dictators category just because they don't like it. The reason JKR never calls Voldemort a mass murderer is because it's obvious, we can do the maths ourselves. The category isn't for characters who are called mass murderers it's for characters who have killed more than four people which Voldemort has. Duh! 86.133.200.236 17:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, even if we've decided not to include Voldemort in the mass murderer category, he could be placed in Category:Fictional serial killers (sorry, I can't create a link to that page for some reason). According to that category, a serial killer is "defined as a person who murders several individuals over a period of time." What do you think? Grey Maiden ^talk 22:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really no. After all the Death Eaters killed a lot of people on his orders whom we must take into account. Osama Bin Laden rarely kills people in person yet he is widely regarded to be a mass murderer. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he isn't, which is why he isn't listed in the relevant category. faithless (^speak) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

is this matter concluded, then? i was thinking of archiving a bunch o' stuff, and thought that if this were resolved by consensus, it could be archived as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well he bloody well should be. Yes Arcayne I think the matter's concluded. Archive away. 86.140.204.214 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I have that endorsement seconded? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you may. faithless (^speak) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne & V-train

Concerning the recent back-and-forth about Voldemort's body being placed apart from the other dead bodies after the battle, it is stated in DH that Voldemort's body was moved to a separate hall, away from those of Tonks, Lupin, Creevey, etc. Now, is it important enough to mention in the article? I'd lean towards no. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 06:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in DH? I guess it went right over my head. IMO though, it's cruft. V-train 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a page or two after V is killed. I'd agree that it's fairly crufty. faithless (^speak) 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I saw the section title, and I thought that V-train and I had larger issues than simple disagreement. Now, what do I do with my tac-nukes and boxing gloves? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Arcayne. I'll give you a duel if you like? Illustrious One

Latest revert

I reverted this edit, because 86.133.200.236 obliterated several footnote citations and replaced some of them with textual brackets-and-numbers, thus also losing the dynamic referencing. I tried to go through and fix it citation-by-citation, but since several had been removed it became unclear which citation he was trying to reference at each given point, not to mention the loss of others that might have been references elsewhere. I withhold judgement on the body of the changes, but reverted because of these technical problems. I have written to 86.133.200.236 in his talk page, pointing him to the page on footnote referencing on the proper way to code such references, and invite him to try again using the proper code. Magidin 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I employed a copy and pasting method which caused the whole thing to come out wrong. Thank you for reverting it. 86.133.200.236 20:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)