Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

lord voldemort or tom riddle

do you think that this article should be called lord voldemort or tom riddle. I think it should be the latter. --- 20:57 august 3rd 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.244.186 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Do you have any reasons for this? The character is introduced as Lord Voldemort and that's how he's named in 90% of the references to him in the books. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And also in the vast majority of secondary sources (is there any reliable secondary reference that refers to him consistently as "Tom Riddle"?) Magidin (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why were additions removed

I added, very recently, a few lines (three sentences)to the article on Lord Voldemort. Why were those lines removed? It seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate to mention interpretations -- not merely descriptions -- of the Harry Potter books, or of Lord Voldemort as one of the characters in them. Smilesofasummernight (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The lines you added stated:

Indeed, the Harry Potter books may be read as an allegory of the struggle against racism, Fascism and Nazism. Such ideologies surfaced again in the late 20th century, and it is no accident that Dumbledore defeated an evil wizard with a German-sounding name in 1945. Voldemort's resurrection in the 4th Harry Potter book -- the middle one of the series -- corresponds to this renewal of the extreme right.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, in particular the policy on the inclusion of original research. There is no problem with adding interpretations, but the interpretations must be cited from reliable sources, and must not be those of the editor adding them (that amounts to original research). What you provided had no citations or sources, so it looks like it is your interpretation of the books/characters. As such, they constitute original research and should not be included. If you can cite a reliable source which makes those claims, then it is perfectly fine to add them. You'll note that the article in fact includes many statements of interpretations (from Rowling herself, from Alfonso Cuarón, and form others), but they are all suitable sourced.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The inclusions must be verifiable, which yours were not. The inclusions must not be original research, which yours were. That is why they were removed. Magidin (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

HP book templates

The template used to cite info from the books is part of the reason this article (and others, such as Hermione Granger) was delisted. A better template would be the one I inserted instead in Hermione Granger, which still needs a page number attached to it, as the GA delister pointed out. They should also be added to this article. I am wondering if the page numbers from the American (Scholastic) editions would be okay, as I am unable to look at the British editions. --Glimmer721 ^talk 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they'd be OK, anyone who has objections can be bold and update them with the first editions. I'm willing to put some time in later Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So long as they are identified as the US edition page numbers, it doesn't seem too bad; like Carl, I may be able to put in some time later, since I own several of the first british editions. Magidin (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll get out my books and start looking. I might put a hidden message about the page number being from the American edition. Do you think we should add this into the template? I'm not sure how to do that. --Glimmer721 ^talk 16:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think adding page numbers is a perfect idea. I would prefer British editions, but since no one who has the British editions has commented anything, I'm ok with using American. Unfortunately I don't know how to edit Template:HPref to add page numbers, and I have the books in the Spanish edition. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What am I, chopped liver? As I said, I own several of the first British editions (books 5, 6, and 7, in hardback), and British paperbacks of the first four. I think the page numbers don't vary between paperback and hardcover editions. Whether I have time to put in or not in the near future is unclear, but I'll be willing to help as I may. Magidin (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I'm really sorry Magidin :P I didn't read correctly and for a second thought you had the American version as well. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried adding the page numbers to the {{cite book}} template, but it didn't work when I attempted to update the documentation (I didn't save the attempt). --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

...if you do add an American page number, mark it with hidden text like this. --Glimmer721 ^talk 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Voldemort's name

According to [1], Voldemort's name is French for "thief" and "death". Should that be included somewhere? --haha169 (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is Ebert's interpretation; for those interested, here is the comment, which is an aside in the review:

...chosen to face down Voldemort (whose name should properly rhyme with the French word for "death," mort; also, since their word vol can have meanings such as "thief" and "steal," Lord Voldemort is most ominously named).

The fact that mort is related to "death" is already included. But I do not think that a review column in which the author is making an aside such as this qualifies as a reliable source for inclusion here. The issue of the possible "french meaning" of Voldemort has been extensively hashed out: we really need a reliable source in the sense of Wikipedia to warrant such inclusions, I think. Other opinions? Magidin (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is a reliable source stating the linguistic connection seems a far more appropriate way of addressing the name origin than us speculating it. I have been wanting to carve that little bit of editorial synthesis for some time. Now that we have a source for it, that sort of trimming seems less likely to happen - so long as things are properly connected. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a "reliable source" within the meaning of Wikipedia for this. It's Roger Ebert, making a parenthetical comment in the course of his movie review; it's his own speculation, as far as I can tell. That was my point: I do not think this source qualifies within the Wikipedia meaning of reliable source. Magidin (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I wouldn't object, so long as we are clear that this is what Ebert thinks, and is not necessarily accurate (only Rowling knows for sure). faithless (^speak) 20:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Faith hit it the nail on the head, Magidin; we are simply stating - via a reliable source - what one reviewer thinks (which is petty much what we do for their entire reviews). Is Roger Ebert a linguist? Not that I am aware of. Is he far more citable than any one of us? Absolutely.

Something else that has been bothering me: is this pronunciation of Voldemort's name of real, notable importance? I totally understand how fan forums will chew the tiniest morsel of the books and films to glean some sustenance from them, but they are to be largely ignored. Can someone point out why this is not an less than important argument? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are adding that Ebert thinks the name means that, I would be willing to go along with it. If we are adding that the name means that, and cite Ebert's review as a reliable source for that, then I would object; I was assuming it was the latter that was proposed, much like we've had similar "sources" being offered to justify adding that the name means "flight from death" and so on. Magidin (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a workable solution there. As far as the other explanations about flight from death an whatnot, consider the reliability of those sources by comparison. Either way, it still seems much ado about crufting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably; given how often it comes up, though, a pre-emptive minor mention might save headaches later. Magidin (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I get that, Magidin; its a smart move. I'm just making sure that we understand that we are creating a litmus for mention, and not that the mention is altogether notable. It is a mechanism, not a function. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Magdin's right. Writing what Ebert thinks about Voldy's name is a much better way of doing things than simply citing it and stating it as a fact. --haha169 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In French: "mort" = "death", "de" = "of", and "vol" = "flight" or "theft". Therefore, clearly, "Voldemort" means either "flight of death" or "theft of death". That couldn't be more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.160 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why must this be rehashed all the time? Rowling claims it's not, and if you say it is then you are making original research, which cannot be included. There is already mention of the connection via reliable sources and references. Remember: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verfiability, not truth. Whether or not "it couldn't be more clear" is completely irrelevant. Magidin (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to this subject again! I added a ”failed verification” to a passage claiming that Rowling has contradicted that ”voldemort” is built from the french words. In the reference given all Rowling says on the subject this: "Voldemort is an invented name". That statement does not contradict that she constructed the name from french words. My own opionion: Rowling claims that "Voldemort's fear is death" which makes it plausible that she chose his name to reflect that. I propose that the following passage is deleted from the current article: "and has no real life basis.[11] Nonetheless, some literary analysts have argued otherwise" gnirre (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion (and my opinion) is irrelevant. Plausibility is irrelevant. 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (and certainly not "plausibility"). Rowling has never claimed any linguistic basis for the name, and the quote seems to me to be dispositive (she is using "invented" precisely in the sense of "it was not meant to mean something.") The literary analysists constitute reliable sources, so they should remain and the attribution should remain. Boiled to its essence, your argument is "it's obvious [to me]!", and that's original research. In the meantime, I've moved the "failed verification" tag, because you did 'not place it in the claim that Rowling contradicted it, you placed it next to the statement that analysist have argued otherwise. They have, and that much is substantiated by the reference given (that they argue that the name has cognates from the french "mort"). I don't see either why you claim the citation does not verify that Rowling said the name is invented and has no real life basis, given that she explicitly says "Voldemort is an invented name", and contrasts it with names taken from other sources, e.g., "Dumbledore" (bumblebee from old English), "Hagrid" (from the old English for hangover). She makes the contrast, not us. Magidin (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've re-edited a bit the opening phrase for the literary analysts opinions. I still think the tag on Rowling's statement is quite simply misplaced and incorrect, and that Rowling has explicitly said the name is invented, and has never agreed to any hidden meaning such as "flight from death" or any such. Magidin (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The text as it stands now has removed the claim that there existed a contradiction between Rowling and analysts claims. This claim of a contradiction was what my tagging was supposed to be attached to. I think the text now is basically ok, so I will remove my tag. Regarding what Rowling meant, you yourself above writes "seems to me to be dispositive" which by your own standards, makes it original research. What Rowling says about Dumbledore and Hagrid is that they are existing words that she reuses. In that sense they are not invented. Stringing togehter words to form a new word, however, constitutes inventing. Rowling does not say that the name Voldemort "has no real life basis". This is your (?) interpretation. So I would like to strike that out. gnirre (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I found a solution, check it out: "According to the author, Voldemort's name is invented. [6] Rowling herself has never stated that there is a hidden meaning in the name. Some literary analysts have argued about possible meanings: ..." gnirre (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First, the last: the problem with "Rowling herself has never stated that there is a hidden meaning in the name" is that it gives undue weight to the theory that there is a hidden meaning to the name. Shall we add that Hagrid is made up from the English words "Hag" and "Rid", indicating perhaps that Hogwarts' groundskeeper has something against grown-up witches? Rowling has never stated that there is a hidden meaning, but surely that does not discount the possibility? Second: my opinion on the talk pages does not constitute original research; I am not advocating putting in the article that Rowlings words "are dispositive" of the issue. It would be original research if I were to argue on the page itself that Rowling's comments "put to rest the fan theory that the name 'Voldemort' is constructed from the French words meaning...' and so on. I'm not. Magidin (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall we add that Hagrid is made up from the English words "Hag" and "Rid"? Yes, if you can find a reliable source that claims this. I think the text would be better off by skipping "Rowling herself has never stated that there is a hidden meaning in the name". Because there can never be a source to that kind of statement. gnirre (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Color me confused. You are the one who added the line "Rowling herself..." Now you say the text is better off skipping it (i.e., omitting it). So, you are saying that taking it out was the right thing to do? Magidin (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I put it there for you to be happy. It is the strongest noncontroversial version of your position, as I understood it. When we started this discussion, there was text in the article that was not supported by the reference. There isn't now. But I still think that sentence is unnecessary. I added it as a compromise. What do you think? Would it be ok to remove it? gnirre (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you put it there for me "to be happy", I'm sorry to say your actions achieved the opposite of your intentions. I found the sentence to be a very bad addition, lending undue weight to the theory that there 'is' a "hidden meaning" in the name. That was the point I made with the nonsense about "Hagrid": Rowling has never denied that either. Nor has she denied any number of other fan theories. Explicitly saying she has never stated there is a meaning hidden in the name is undue weight. In fact, I took out the sentence. The sentence is not there now. So, why are you asking if it would be okay to remove it? Magidin (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is great! Let's move on. Currently the text reads:

"According to the author, Voldemort's name is an invented word.[11] Some literary analysts have found possible meanings in the name: Philip Nel states that Voldemort is derived from the French for "flight of death,"[12] and in a 2002 paper, Nilsen and Nilsen argue that readers may get a "creepy feeling" from the name Voldemort, because of the French word "mort" and its association with cognate English words derived from the Latin mors.[13]"

This would better read

"Voldemort's name was invented by the author, derived from the French for "flight of death"[11][12]. In a 2002 paper, Nilsen and Nilsen point out that readers may get a "creepy feeling” from the name Voldemort, even if they are not aware of its meaning, because of the rich usage in enlish of the morphem "mors" in words like mortuary, mortal and mortified.[13]"

What say you, Magidin? gnirre (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not true though, we don't know the name was derived from those words! Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't know, and we will never know. That's what the reference is for. We could make it explicit, and put it in text that this-and-that literary scholar claims to have decoded the meaning of the name. But that would make Wikipedia look stupid (yes, the current text makes Wikipedia look stupid) Because the meaning is obvious. None of the sources has any doubt whatsoever about the meaning of the name. The reason for this is that the meaning is obvious. Please ask any french or latin speaking person that you know, to guess what Voldermort means, given that it is pronounced with a silent t, is coined by a french speaking person, and is used as a name for a character whose main character feature is fear of death. And come back here to tell us the answer you received. Actually, I would be prepared to defend the position that "mort" in Voldemort means death, even if Rowling denied it. Because the only reason she could claim that it isn't is that she is lying or that she herself does not know that the "mort" in mortality, et al, means death. From your perspective, the biggest risk with using my suggested text, would be to make the same mistake that three literary sholars have made. gnirre (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviousness and your opinion have no place on Wikipedia. What you need is verifiability, and you don't have that. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion does not count. But the opinion of three literary schoolars does. The text I suggested represents the opinion of these scholars. There are links to their statements. So this is all ”verified” and fine in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Can I please put it in, and you won't erase it? gnirre (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If you put the clause that says "...derived from the French for "flight of death"", then you are asserting that this is the meaning the Rowling meant to put into the word when she created it. The citations do not verify this. The text you suggest does not represent the opinion of these scholars, it attributes intention to the author. It is one thing to say that the scholars point to this possible meaning, and an entirely different one to state (as your wording does) that this is the exactly what Rowling was thinking when she made up the word. The rest of your argument is irrelevant and useless: what people read into the name is not a reliable reference. What you are prepared to defend or not is not a reliable reference. What you think about whether she would or would not be lying is not a reliable reference. Your text attributes intention to Rowling, and the citations do not support that assertion. 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "Voldemort's name was invented by the author. The name is derived from the French flight of death. In a 2002 paper ...". This is literally what Philip Nel says. gnirre (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot state that the name is derived from anything because you do not know the name is derived from anything, you can comment on the fact that it has been asserted that the name is derived. this is different Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Carl. We've gone over this time and time again before (not with you, but look around the archive). Such a statement would be an assertion of fact, attributing the intention to the author. We can quote people's opinions, labeled as opinions, as to that fact, but absent a specific statement from Rowling saying that is where she derived the name from, you cannot assert that this is the case without it being original research. Magidin (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip Nel does not claim he has "found a possible meaning”. He states the meaning, period. No reservations. He also implies that this was Rowlings intended meaning. If there is a source that puts Philip Nel's report into doubt, this source should be included in the article. Of course, there is no such source. There is only the skepticism of some Wikipedia editor. This skepticism constitutes original research and should be removed from the article. This would mean striking out this sentence: "Some literary analysts have found possible meanings in the name". gnirre (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your assertion that the source making a claim for the origin of the name makes it fact. It does not. If Rowling states the meaning of the name, then you can say it is fact; as it is it is just one critics opinion. You are making the leap from critics opinion to fact, that is what constitutes original research. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Philip Nel right or wrong? We don't now. And we don't care. All we need to know is that he is a good source. Now, where is your source for being skeptical towards Philip Nel? gnirre (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a source. You are attributing the opinion of one person to the actions of another. That is wrong. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source questioning Nel, then that should be added. Whether Nel is right or wrong is irrelevant. Again, look at Wikipedia's verifiability policy. It states, and I quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." [emphasis in the original]. Whether Nel is right or wrong is irrelevant. Whether you think he is right or he is wrong is irrelevant. If a reliable source thinks he is wrong, then that must be reported. We are not stating Nel's opinion is fact, we are stating Nel's opinion and attributing it; that in itself signals that Nel's opinion should be taken as such: his opinion, not a statement of fact. This is not a question of "skepticism", but of following the Wikipedia policy on inclusion. Not allowing original research is not "skepticism", and removing unverified content does not constitute "original research". You are stretching the term well past the breaking point. Magidin (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to find a wording that satisfies you. This is a new suggestion: Voldemort in French literally means ”flight of death” and according to Philip Nel this explains how Rowling came up with the name. In a 2002 paper, Nilsen and Nilsen point out that english readers who do not reflect on this meaning consciously, may still get a "creepy feeling” from the name because of the rich usage in english of the morphem "mort" in words like mortuary, mortal and mortified. gnirre (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not trying to find wording that is satisfying: the current wording is satisfying to us. What you are trying to do is find a wording that makes the statement you want a statement of fact, but that other editors will not remove as Original Research; unfortunately, the statement you want to make, namely that "Voldemort" means "flight-from-death" and that this is the [obvious] intent of the author, is original research, no matter what verbal acrobatics you try to go through to disguise that fact. Absent a statement from Rowling, we cannot make that assertion, or insinuate it, or hide it by trying to put it into the mouths of critics a posteriori, especially if they did not make that claim: Nel does not state that this is "how Rowling came up with the name," (Nel does not say that Rowling first came up with the phrase "flight from death", and then went to the French in order to obtain the name, which is the assertion you are making with that phrasing); rather he says that her studies and her habit of collecting names "...influenced the names she would give her characters" and gives French derivations for 'Malfoy' and 'Voldemort'. He states an opinion on what the name means, not an opinion on how or why Rowling chose that name. Magidin (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to introduce a statement. I am trying to remove a statement. I hereby suggest the removal of Some literary analysts have considered possible meanings of the name. The statements of Philip Nel and the Nilsens are already properly attributed to them in the following sentences. Also: the sentence is false. These analysts are not "considering possible meanings". They are totally clear about the meaning, they are both stating the same meaning, and they are stating it as an undisputed fact. Of course they could be wrong – but we've been over that. The next sentence reads Philip Nel states that Voldemort is derived from the French for "flight of death". Since you don't seem to agree that he actually states that, how about this: Philip Nel derives Voldemort from the French for "flight of death" gnirre (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your assertion that the Nielsens state as indisputable fact that the name has a particular meaning: they point to the fact that the morpheme "mort" has congnates in English that are related to death (mentioning "mortuary", "mortal", "immortal", "mortality", "rigor mortis", "mortified", "mortal sin") and that therefore the name may create a certain feeling in readers. They are suggesting possible meanings associated with the name. Nel states the name is derived from "flight from death", he does not assert that the name means "flight from death", so you are also incorrect in stating that Nel is making a statement that the name has a meaning and that he states this as indisputable fact. Your final suggestion is also inaccurate: Nel did not derive the word (Rowling coined it, Nel is analysing it).

What is it that you find so objectionable anyway? The statement is accurate: it indicates that many literary analysts have discussed the name "Voldemort", and possible meanings in or associated with it. The statement is then exemplified by the particular verifiable sourced examples of Nel and the Nielsens. The statement about Nel contains exactly Nel's statement about the word ("derived from the French for 'flight from death'", nothing more and nothing less); the Nielsens spend two paragraphs in their discussion, so their argument is summarized.

Now, it seems to me that this is not a matter of simple copy-edits. Either there is some piece of information that you believe is not being conveyed by the text and that you believe should be conveyed, or there is some piece of information that you believe is being conveyed/implied by the text and that you believe should not be conveyed/implied (or some combination of the two). If you would identify what this is, then we can reach some consensus on it and on how to enact that consensus: we've done it often enough. But please be clear on what it is. Right now, from your arguments, it seems to me (possibly erroneously) that the information you believe should be conveyed or more strongly implied, and is not currently, is that "Voldemort" means "flight of death" in French and that this is likely to be what Rowling was thinking when she invented the name. If this is so, please state it clearly. If this is not so, then I apologize for thinking it was, and please state clearly what piece(s) of information you are attempting to add or remove. Magidin (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The message that I want to remove from the text is Literay analysts, ha! what do they know, throwing their theories around, but since they are verifieable sources, I will have to put them in anyway, grrr, but I will try my best to make them look stupid. Since you do not adress my suggestions I will introduce them into the text. Please do not remove them unless you really believe the old version contains something valuable that was lost, or the new version introduces something that should not be there. Because we are looking for consensus here, right?gnirre (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did address your suggestion, pointing out why it was factually inaccurate. The message you claim is in the page is not in the page. The page cites literary analysts in the standard neutral manner. Clearly, you want to be able to claim that the name "clearly" means something. That is original research, and inappropriate. Again: inclusion in Wikipedia requires verifiability, and that is what is being provided. Wikipedia content should reflect neutrality, that is what the language gives. There is no criticism, implied or explicit, on literary analysts. Your attempt is to state interpretations that are not from the author as factually accurate descriptions of author intent. That is original research. Magidin (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's even possible to find out the one and only meaning of Voldemort's name. There seems to me to be at work here the literary tool of interference... that is, several meanings and connotations being at work at the same time to produce an overall effect that's greater than the sum of the individual parts. So, quite happy to add to the confusion rather than spreading it, let me add that "vold" in Danish means "violence", and "volde" means "to cause" (usually something bad). So, to a Danish reader, the name Voldemort might conjure up the thought of "violent death" or "causing death". Just a thought. Bantaar (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the "lord"?

Just wondering: Why do we have the word "Lord" in the title of this article? It seems to me the simple name "Voldemort" is used at least as much in the books as with his self-styled title, and I don't know that we usually use titles in articles (I know, fictional characters aren't treated the same as real people). I'm just wondering about the rationale for the word "Lord" in the title. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds better for a villain than a simple "Voldemort".Emerson 07 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Exington, 28 June 2011

You have made a mistake about where the only book Voldemort is not featured in is "The Prisoner of Askaban". Voldemort is actually mentioned in two books. They are "The Prisoner of Askaban", and "The Half-Blood Prince". Please correct this, and thank you in advance.

Exington (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of simply being mentioned—the text says: "...does not appear, either in person or as a magical manifestation". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 12:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why ...

Is every article on this bloody useless encyclopedia semi-protected? --86.143.188.40 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Capntango58, 19 July 2011

Capntango58 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC) In the opening section it says "poor-blood" when it should say "pure-blood" Capntango58 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done Someone else has already fixed it Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

After re-watching the episode of Potter Puppet Pals with the pipe-bomb (mentioned at the very end, by the Pop Culture references)The pipe-bomb was not inside a turducken. Ron just picked up the pipe-bomb from the ground. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.177.171 (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I will.

W (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)alex03

Edit request from Sayantanpathak, 26 August 2011

In The Memory of Lord Voldemort

Sayantanpathak (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Non notable blog, see no reason to include it--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 28 March 2012

The French translation for Voldemort is all wrong in this page. In French, Vol de mort means "Flight of death" (flight as in the action of flying, not fleeing). Vol also means "Theft" in French, so Vol de mort could be understood as "Theft of Death".

The only reference to a "French translation" for the name is a reference to staements made by Philip Nei; you'll have to take it with him, not us. The possible French meanings of the name constitute original research, since Rowling has explicitly stated there was no such intent in the name. This edit should not be made. They can only be added if backed up by reliable sources, such as the current quote. Magidin (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

article: "the French phrase "Vol de mort", meaning "to flee from death".[2]"

In French, "vol" is a noun, not a verb. The reference (2) given in the article doesn't say that "vol de mort" means "to flee from death". It says that it means "Flight from death" ("Flight of death" is what it actually means in French). As said above by someone else, "vol" also means theft.

article: "Philip Nel states that Voldemort is derived from the French for "flight of death,"[10]".

This is correct.

77.205.199.93 (talk)

Partly done: Not sure why you refer to it as a "fake reference", or which reference you are deeming "fake". But that's a fair point. I'm modifying the third paragraph in the lede to refer to the pronounciation only of the word ``mort``, meaning "death". Magidin (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

In the section 'Outward Appearance', part of why Lord Voldemort is 'ugly' is because a piece of his soul is lost. He split his soul 8 times, that leaves the 9th piece as the piece which left residing in Tom Riddle's original body (and the other 8 each in a hawcrux). When Voldemort originally died he lost that 9th piece of his soul forever, with the pieces in the 8 hawcrux remaining. TeamRabidDog (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to express what you want to change in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and provide reliable sources for any factual change. If you just want to point something out for the other editors, just leave off the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit

In Popular Culture, the Florida Governor, Rick Scott, is often compared to Voldemort, notably by Stephen Colbert. Kvsands (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing text about eyes

The following passage seems confusing:

'Unlike in the book, his pupils are not snake-like and his eyes are blue, because producer David Heyman felt that his evil would not be able to be seen and would not fill the audience with fear (his eyes do briefly take on a snake-like appearance when he opens them after turning human, but quickly turn normal).'

Perhaps it is the double (or triple?) negatives ('not snake-like... not be able... not fill') but I find this sentence very hard to parse. Did Heyman think that blue eyes would fill his audience with less fear than snake eyes? Why would he want to show something that is less frightening?

Can this be explained, or phrased more clearly? Or simplified/deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.229.249 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request about actors who played Voldemort

In the following text it could be made more obvious that Dillane stars in this movie too, playing Voldemort at a later age in HBP. This is weakly implied in the second and third sentence, and is noted elsewhere in the article (in the main side-bar), but it may not be clear to a casual reader.

'Fiennes's nephew, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, portrayed Tom Riddle as a child in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. By the time filming arrived, Christian Coulson had aged and was therefore not eligible to return as the adolescent Riddle. Thomas James Longley was originally scheduled to take over the role, but last minute renegotiations saw Frank Dillane cast instead.[37][38]

--> So, could the second and third sentence be modified to say something like the following instead:

'Christian Coulson was not eligible to return as the adolescent Riddle in the same movie because of his age by the time filming was due to start. Although Thomas James Longley was originally scheduled to take over that role, last minute renegotiations saw Frank Dillane cast instead.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.229.249 (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Proper movie title

Just to vent and hopefully educate on the Harry Potter series the first movies proper title is not Harry Potter and the philosophers stone it is Harry Potter and the Sorcerers stone. Shymmer333 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of the article are you after clarifying? The character first appears in the Philosophers Stone (novel), the film is also called the Philosopher's Stone in most of the world - the titles were only changed in America because the uneducated audience there would get confused - the Philosopher's Stone is actually a mythical item dating back 100s of years (actually pre-dates colonisation of the US of A) GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is explained in the page for the novel; Scholastic was afraid to use the word "Philosopher". It is also noted in the page for the movie: the only countries were the movie was released as "Sorcerer's Stone" were the U.S., India, and Pakistan. Magidin (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While it is correct for us to use "Philosopher's Stone" as it is the British title and the HP series is primarily a British property (although the lines are blurred by WB's ownership of the franchise and the joint nature of the film series) it is inaccurate to say that "Sorcerer's Stone" is only known in three countries. If you take a look at Harry Potter in translation you will see a list of 68 languages to which the books have been translated. Of those, the titles of 16 major languages translate back to "Sorcerer's Stone", including Chinese, French, German, and Russian. So in reality, a major swath of the world knows the first book by the alternate title. Sorry if this is an irrelevant point, but I was bored, and I ran all the languages through Google Translate, and I thought I would share an interesting fact. Elizium23 (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said it was "only known in three countries". The statement was that the movie was released as "Sorcerer's Stone" (note the spelling!) in three countries. I'll note that you are incorrect as to the french title: "ecole des sorcier" means "School of sorcery", not "sorcerer's stone". Magidin (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd, I am incorrect about French, but I correctly spotted that, and then I plugged it into Google Translate, and it comes out "Sorcerer's Stone" -- perhaps someone has hard-coded this in? Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Family tree

The family tree on this page seems to indicate that Harry is descended from Salazar Slytherin - if I remember correctly, this is not the case. Harry and Voldemort are both descended from the Peverells, but only Voldemort, not Harry, is descended from Slytherin. (The Harry Potter Wiki confirms this.) I don't know how to edit the family tree, but if someone who does could modify it to reflect that Harry is not a descendent of Slytherin, it would be much appreciated. Mr. Granger (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are some categories that need to be added to this page:

• Fictional dictators: Is a dictator to the Death Eaters and later to the whole of England.
• Fictional characters with neurological and psychological disorders: J. K. Rowling has described Voldemort as a psychopath.
• Fictional terrorists
• Narcissism in fiction

--2.101.174.207 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources will not be necessary. Furthermore, this article is to be unlocked immediately. --2.103.74.223 (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This made me lol. He's not a dictator as he takes over one ministry, not the country. Being a phsycopath would require 3rd party sources, he isn't defined as a terrorist by anyone I've heard from and narcissism in fiction is a ridiculous category that any villain could fit into. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read the policy on original research. Also, the protection of the page is a separate issue and should be raised at WP:RFPP Elizium23 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable sources will not be necessary. Furthermore, this article is to be unlocked immediately." I don't think I've ever seen an editor shoot themselves in the foot quite so comprehensively as that. Top marks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research should be encouraged, not discouraged. Policies should be treated as nothing more than the antiquated joke that they are. --86.162.130.251 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Original research is neither encouraged nor discouraged by Wikipedia. It is the inclusion of unverifiable information (which includes particularly original research) into Wikipedia articles that is discouraged. Magidin (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who's read the books could tell that the above categories apply. A supposed doctor of mathematics should be able to reach logical conclusions that obvious. --81.159.186.35 (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very troubled that you call into questions my academic credentials... oh, wait, I'm not. On the other hand, I could point out, as an actual doctor of mathematics, that what the lay person thinks is an "obvious logical conclusion" rather seldom actually is one. Now, given that all of this is utterly irrelevant and that we are still dealing with misuse of categories and original research, I will leave it at that. Magidin (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fictional liches

Should also add/create category:Fictional liches, as a sub-cat of Fictional:immortals/undead/characters who use magic, since Voldemort figured-out how to created seven Horcruxes (instead of one) using objects (aka phylactery) to cheat death. --72.67.93.68 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 31 August 2013

The first book/movie in this series is called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" NOT "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." Will you please correct this on all of the entries dealing with Harry Potter? I am not a fanatic of the series, but this is pretty irritating.

93.205.18.246 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Both titles were used. See Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone RudolfRed (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The title "Sorcerer's Stone" was used almost exclusively in the United States, because Scholastic believed that "Philosopher" would turn kids off; the original title, and one used in most countries, is "Philosopher's Stone". Scenes in the movie that mentioned the stone were filmed twice, once with actors saying "Philosopher" and once with them saying "Sorcerer"; the latter were shown exclusively in the United States. Since the original title and the title which is used in most of the world is "Philosopher", that is the title that is used throughout the Harry Potter pages. Magidin (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That is actually not true. If you sift through the titles given in Harry Potter in translation you will find that many countries used their language equivalent of "Sorcerer" in the title. So it is not just limited to the US. Nevertheless, that does not in any way diminish the decision here on Wikipedia to uniformly refer to it as the original title, as it was published in the UK, as "Philosopher". Case closed. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In many instances, that (using "Sorcerer") is directly attributable to the decision by Scholastic. For example, the Spanish title used "Piedra Filosofal", but Latin America often used "Hechicero" (sorcerer), translating from the American version. But indeed, that's neither here nor there. Magidin (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Received Pronunciation (British standard) doesn't have the sound "oʊ". It's "əʊ". --2.245.112.140 (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014

You have written phase instead of phrase Lulu55555 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if Rowling intentionally didn't flesh out his character (I haven't read more than one of the books), but it seems like there is information about his birth and heritage, he was a student at Hogwarts and then he killed the Potters and somehow died. AFTER his resurrection, we get a lot of information but how did he die the first time? Was he kicked out of Hogwarts? Why did he kill the Potters? I know that Wikipedia can't be overly detailed but if any information could be given of the time of his life as Tom Riddle, it would enhance this character profile. Thanks. 24.188.186.123 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Lord Voldemort → Voldemort – Only his followers refer to him as Lord Voldemort. His common name is just Voldemort. JDDJS (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Do you also have a WP:Real world reason? Articles should not be renamed solely for WP:INUNIVERSE reasons, which your explanation seems to sound like. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME. He is well known as just Voldemort. JDDJS (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. "Voldemort" by itself fully identifies the character; no additional title is needed to do that. bd2412 T 17:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'll offer a timid, weak Support. I really don't care either way, but at this point it seems reasonable enough to support the nom and agree with BD2412's reasoning. Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The character is known as Lord Voldemort. The world "Lord" is really part of his name since he is not an actual Lord. There is also the fact the name is arrived at by an anagram, which includes the word lord. I really do not see the point of a change at all. Mezigue (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Widely known as "Lord Voldemort". This is the character's name. Do not shorten proper names just to reduce title length where there is no problem with the title length. The proposal is not supported by WP:CONCISE becuase the current title is not inconcise, the proposal is to remove part of the name, thus dropping information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Changing my !vote to this. Con arguments are stronger than pro arguments. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• WP:CONCISE remains policy; support Red Slash 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The spirit of WP:CONCISE is meant to avoid absurdly long or overly specific article titles. It has been adequately demonstrated here that "Lord" is part of his name in this case, and deserves recognition in the article title. It's four letters, for crying out loud, how pedantic are we going to be? Elizium23 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Admittedly, its five characters, counting the space, but its completely absurd to say that the title "Lord Voldemort" is inconcise and needs to be shortened to improve the quality of writing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's unnecessary for the title. The character is referred to either way, and as a fictional character doesn't get the benefit of titles of nobility. By comparison, we use Palpatine (not Emperor Palpatine), Darth Vader (not Lord Vader), and Rassilon (not Lord Rassilon or Lord President Rassilon). bd2412 T 15:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • "Unnecessary" is very weak. Many good things are unnecessary. Including "Lord" is a good idea because: (1) it is the name of the character; (2) it improves recognizability without wordiness, redundancy or other inconcise attributes; (3) it is how the character is most frequently explicitly introduced in secondary sources ([http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html eg) with the shortened form only being used subsequently, when the short version is used initially it is in the assumption that the character is already known; (4) it was the choice of the original author of this article and has been stable ever since. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Mildy Oppose. The original impetus comes entirely from in-universe; if we want to talk about in-universe, the name derives from an anagram, and that this is what the character calls himself. Off-universe, there is already a re-direct from Voldemort, and I don't really see the point of the change. Magidin (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There's no reason to move it for the sake of moving it. ONR (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The full "Lord Voldemort" is seldom mentioned, in the books, movies, and in the general media. When it isn't "Tom Riddle" or "You-know-who", it is almost always "Voldemort". This isn't an in-universe explanation, this is just plain old WP:COMMONNAME. I also agree with bd2412 that the current title is akin to titling the Palpatine article "Emperor Palpatine". —Will^(B) 07:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• For Palpatine, the title is squarely a monarchical title. In-universe, he is a real emperor, and Wikipedia's dropping the title, as a matter of style, fits well with WP:HONORIFIC. In-universe, Voldemort is not a real Lord, the "Lord" is an affection, a chosen name, whether by himself or his followers. From a literary perspective, these affections, like Captain America and Santa Claus, are attractive for their alliteration and cadence. Voldemort is a strange made up name with allusions to death (mort), and the "Lord" is required for the impression of power. This is important in the introduction. Once the impression is made, shorter versions, and alternative versions are employed to avoid repetition. Counting repeated usages in the same place is not relevant, it is the introductory use that matters, and good writing avoids repetition. These are qualities of a fictional proper name, unlike a formal title.
  Lord Voldemort is more akin to Lord Zedd. Similarly, "Zedd" alone is far less impressive, but in repeated use in the same place it is used without the "Lord". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It is clear that "Lord" is only secondarily a title or honorific, and primarily part of the character's proper name. As to wp:concise, I'd like to remind that conciseness (definition, definitions, synonyms) is emphatically not the same as "shortest possible two-dimensional character string vector"

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Obama to replace Bush

This article needs to be udpated to have Obama replace Bush. Obama has begun a new war with Iraq and has been bombing Syria. He has bombed more countries than Bush ever did. So either replace Bush with Obama or just add Obama to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.46.51 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have sources saying that Obama has been compared to Voldemort in popular culture, please share them. Mezigue (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Literal Meaning

In case anybody wants to add it, "Voldemort" is a compression of "Vol de Mort," which means "Flight of Death." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's speculation and Original research, which makes it hard to add. Magidin (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's in the article - see last sentence of the character development section. Kirin13 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, quite; I thought it was there, but when I searched for "vol de mort" I did not find it... Magidin (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Died by: Harry James Potter 2601:9:1100:403:3C88:F3CD:8B9E:B7B0 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 19:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"...forcing children to kill their elders"

This source contains the quote "They compel children to kill their elders", which is paraphrased in the article.

When does this actually happen? I can't think of an occasion when any children kill elders? Generally the context would mean that children are killing their parents, but in broader context maybe it means children killing adults - but neither of those happens that I can recall.

I can only think that it refers to Malfoy being ordered to kill Dumbledore, but he singularly fails to do this through subterfuge, and even at the end is unable to bring himself to use the killing curse, leaving it up to Snape.

Any thoughts before I remove it? Am I wrong, and is there a section I've forgotten? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also the torture and murder of a professor early in book 7, which is at least witnessed by Malfoy Jr. But you shouldn't remove a quote even if it's inaccurate as it's in a section about the books' reception, rather than used a source on the content of the story. Mezigue (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

   Sounds possible no one feels compelled to have the article checked to see whether its passage that mentions the parricide theme needs a caveat from us, to the effect that that press or moral-panic reception involves misleading or confusing statements, and deserves our label them as erroneous, either

• in the copy or an explanatory (not source-citation) footnote, or
• in wiki-comment markup <!-- like this (de-hidden) one --> warning editors against being confused themselves, when they make future changes. If you think some of those are bad approaches (or think all of them in some way harmful), say so, 'cuz i may come back and just do it if no one reveals an opinion.

--Jerzy•t 10:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015

74.67.47.184 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC) The first book/movie is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, not philosopher. This is wrong on every wiki page and should be fixed.

As I recall there were two versions of the book sold under each of those names.  DiscantX 00:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done – Looks like Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone already mentions both names. There's no need to include it in other pages as it is only tangential to the article.  DiscantX 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To be precise: the original publication was called Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone; Scholastic objected to the name for the US edition, and changed it to "Sorcerer" (though the philosopher's stone is a concept predating Harry Potter and on which the MacGuffin is clearly based). The movie was released with both titles, depending on which title was used in the books in the countries in question, with the scenes mentioning the stone filmed twice, once saying "philosopher" and once saying "sorcerer". Magidin (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, but you've misstated the criterion: because the philosopher's stone is part of a tradition of European longing for magic, a shocking fraction of Scholastic Books' institutional customers would have insisted the books be returned (or preferably burnt) lest such Satanism tempt there holy little X'tian fundamentalist brats. Rowling was smart enuf to keep the magic relatively free tropes that evoke wicca, but surely the philosopher's stone has some kind of history that taints it -- perhaps simply the suggestion that (secular) philosophy could convey powers off-limits to fundamentalists. Wizardry can be equated the fantasies of stage magic and the decontaminated fairy tales, but their intellectual ancestors tortured to death those they suspected of seriously seeking the philosopher's stone.
--Jerzy•t 11:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Lord Voldemort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080114013140/http://www.time.com:80/time/pacific/magazine/20001030/potter.html to http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20001030/potter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070724184214/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=18 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205110922/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214193435/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=119 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=119

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Gold locket

   We have

The only thing she had left was the heavy gold locket that had once belonged to Salazar Slytherin, one of her family's most treasured items, which she sold for a small amount.

but if what Rowling wrote, or has otherwise revealed, is worded no more clearly than that, we should quote the consensus of critics' expert commentaries to clarify that what she meant is, e.g.,

• "The last salable thing she had was one of her family's most treasured items, the heavy gold locket that had once belonged to Salazar Slytherin but brought her only a small amount."
  --Jerzy•t 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  

You speak about "consensus of critics' expert commentaries". But provide no such commentaries. Note that fan consensus or fan speculation does not count, as fan sites are not generally considered "reliable sources". If all you have is the general agreement and understanding that exists in fandom, and you have no reliable sources to support it, then it's not a go. If you do have reliable sources to support it, then cite those reliable sources and go ahead. Magidin (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Character/name development

I just came across a very interesting fact, and I dont know if it should be rejected as coincidence just yet. The name of influential ideologue of the Nazi Party, Alfred Rosenberg, is actually Alfred Voldyemarovich Rozenberg. I think the affinity to the name and character of Voldemort becomes even more suspicious when you look at Rosenberg's life and family. He was an influential if not the chief ideologue of the Nazi Party, thus in part responsible for their racial theory (pure stock of the Aryan Race etc.). Also, when he published some of his works in the early 1930s and became well known in Germany, his self-proclaimed german ancestry was questioned. (He might have been of jewish, french and latvian descent. But, and I'm only quoting wikipedia itself here, that remains subject of speculation.) Although of course the development of the name is not in question, I do believe its worth a remark, in regard of the interpretation for example. If, of course, this has already been discussed in length, I apologize and revoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.35.86 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much the definition of Original research. Absent reliable sources making a recognizable argument (or specific, verifiable quotes from notables such as Rowling herself), it cannot be included in the article. Magidin (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016

Someone should say something about the phoenix (Fawkes) that was in Voldemort's wand core. 47.18.141.221 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Genealogy meme

   We have

The Gaunts, including Voldemort, are distantly related to Harry Potter because they are descendants of the Peverell brothers.

which restates the ref'd Time article's content

7. Are Harry and Voldemort related?

Yes, distantly, through the Peverells; but nearly all wizarding families are related if you go back far enough.

   IMO that is the kind of information that belongs in a more general article and certainly not specific to the Gaunt-family and old Voldy; off-hand i'd look for it in Wizard (Harry Potter) or Wizard (Harry Potter series) or wherever those important-Rdr links should be pointing. It's one of the ten things clever fans should be able to guess, and that the slow ones should pick up while they're boning up on minutia of Wizard culture or Wizard sociology (or wherever it is that those titles should Rdr), via Category:Harry Potter. And

Rowling says that nearly all wizards have common ancestry no more remote than the Peverell brothers; in response to fan curiosity she has further pronounced that the Potters and Gaunts are not among the exceptions.

is the way it should be worded. The Time cite on the page should of course be used to verify that.
--Jerzy•t 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't read the quote as saying that all wizards have common ancestry "no more remote than the Peverell brothers". It states "if you go back far enough"; where do you get that the Peverell brothers are "far enough"? Magidin (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

   Well, you're right. I think she wants us set the bounds of what we expect in the HP universe in terms along the lines of "The magic you'll see entered the world with the brothers.", but doesn't assert there was no earlier magic.
--Jerzy•t 20:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't see that. The Peverell brothers tale already assumes the existence of magic: the older brother asks for a wand that cannot be beaten in a duel. That very request implies that magic duels were already happening. So in fact, it's quite the opposite: magic has "always" existed, just like humanity has "always" existed. The quote about common ancestry is pretty much like similar quotes about humans alive today: if you go back far enough, you are almost guaranteed to find common ancestry. Magidin (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Quite a fascinating subject, those. -- DevSolar2 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Voldemort is officially played by a total of seven actors: Ralph Fiennes, Ian Hart, Richard Bremmer, Christian Coulson, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, Frank Dillane and Michael Berendt. Not five as written in this page. Thebody1403 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have replaced "five" with "several". Mezigue (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

On FAMILY TREE section's Merope Gaunt paragraph wnds with: When she was due to give birth, she stumbled into a Muggle orphanage; within the hour, she gave birth to her only son, Tom Marvolo Riddle, and died within the next hour.

The best wording for this final sentence would be: When she was due to give birth, she stumbled into a Muggle orphanage, where she gave birth to her only son, Tom Marvolo Riddle, and died within the next hour. Escolhido (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Your suggestion improved the wording, but the sentence was still too long. Seperated it into two sentences. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Nose

What happened to his nose 82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Read Lord_Voldemort#Outward_appearance. Mezigue (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Voldemort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602092002/http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html to http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Voldemort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/films/36/Harry-Potter-and-the-Half-Blood-Prince
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715090012/http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF19 to http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Voldemort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029190049/http://www.mugglenet.com/castpages/credits.shtml to http://www.mugglenet.com/castpages/credits.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Voldemort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831203220/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/100/1002569p4.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/100/1002569p4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Immortality

I just added Category:Fictional characters with immortality, which is justified because He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has horcruxes, and as long as at least one horcrux is intact, he cannot die. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The Middle Paragraph is un needed

Question: Which middle paragraph? Can you be more specific? regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: If this means the middle paragraph of the lead section, that is mostly basic defining information for this character's role as the series' main antagonist. If this means the middle paragraph anywhere else, then this request is not formed correctly. Either way, not done. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lord Voldemort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724194634/http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html to http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724194634/http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html to http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Very large in-universe section added

A very large "Character History" was just added; it seems to have been taken largely from the Harry Potter Wiki page, including textual indications of footnotes that are absent. I've removed it, because (i) it is written completely in-Universe; and (ii) it is a wholesale copy from elsewhere. Character biographies are included for some fictional characters, though usually much briefer. As far as I can tell from a cursory examination, the major Harry Potter characters (Severus Snape, Harry Potter, Albus Dumbledore, and Hermione Granger are the four I checked) do not have such sections. Magidin (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

voldemort can live

because harry is the 7th horcrux can Voldemort still live but he only has an amount of time before harry potter dies of old age right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.181.113 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article. They are not a forum to discuss fan theories or ideas. Magidin (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

Please change "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" on each instance where the change is applicable 170.55.9.59 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: the official name is Philosopher's stone, DannyS712 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Whose head?

With regard to this edit, and the edit summary of " the phrasing it clarify who "his" refers to, since there are two potential subjects" - there is clearly only one possible subject - Quirrell. The only other possible character referred to in the sentence is Voldemort himself, and even in the realms of magic it cannot be that he latches onto the back of his own head - especially when it's been clarified in the preceding sentence that the reason he's doing this is because he doesn't have a body in the first place - "Voldemort unsuccessfully tries to regain his dissolved body". It's ungainly English to refer to Quirrell twice in such a short time.

Also, as a minor point, the reversion reinstated a messy wikilink, which I have changed again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Dictator" is not an occupation

User:Tvurta keeps adding an "Occupation" field to the infobox that lists "Dictator of the Wizarding World of Great Britain" and "Warlord of the Death Eaters" (formerly "Leader of the Death Eater insurrection"), as well as "Shopkeeper at Borgin & Burkes". I've removed it twice, but it keeps getting added, so we are now at the 3-revert-rule. Dictator is not a job, so it's not an occupation or a profession; neither is "warlord". Those are just not appropriate entries. As for "Shopkeeper", it is unclear to me what the source for the assertion is, and whether this should count as an "occupation" anyway. In any case, I would like some comments on the appropriateness of these additions, given the revert issues. Magidin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment - in fact I have removed similar "occupations" from the Jayda Fransen article under the same rationale - "I'm not sure that fascism is actually a career. If we don't list Benito Mussolini with fascism as a career choice, we probably shouldn't here either."[2] The same holds true for Dictator and the other listed occupations.

I'm in two minds about shopkeeper - Riddle did work for Borgin & Burkes, but he wasn't an actual shopkeeper - just an employee. I think technically the occupation should say "shop assistant at Borgin & Burkes". It was an important aspect of his back story as it's what allowed him to gain access to what would be one of his Horcuxes - Helga Hufflepuff's Cup. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

1.) Please change the title 'Lord Voldemort' to 'Tom Marvolo Riddle Jr.' as we all know he was just a conceited pompous half-blood who was afraid of death.

2.) Please change the first mention of 'Lord Voldemort' to 'Tom Marvolo Riddle Jr. aka Lord Voldemort'.

3.) Please change all the subsequent 'Lord Voldemort's to 'Riddle Jr.'s. E nygma52 (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making this edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

I would like to make an addition to the family section in the information section. I would like to add Delphini as Voldemort's daughter. Analopez1996 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources to back up any claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously clear what changes they wanted to make. It's okay if you disagree with it, but answering an edit request in this way is not at all helpful, and contributes to the perception of Wikipedia as a bureaucracy.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite why you’ve decided to comment 10 months later is beyond me. Especially as a registered user you could make the “clear changes” requested if they’re that obvious. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, but someone reverted me, so I will leave it alone. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If your issue is about reaching a consensus then say so, don’t attack the motivations of editors. Personally I don’t see why the article considers film information cannon but cursed child not, but that’s for debate. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have the right to call out behavior that I think is wrong. When someone makes an edit request of something like this, it should be clear to the responder what they want, so they should not say "It's not clear what changes you want to make". If the responder doesn't understand a request like this, they should leave it to someone else to respond who actually understands it. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m afraid the guidelines for edit requests don’t agree with you. The onus is on the requester to be specific about what they want changing, not just make a vague request. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to side with Naddruf on this one. The request is about as clear cut and specific as could be possibly imagined, and in no way could it be called "vague". Naddruf is also perfectly clear that he made the change here and it was reverted for not being canon.

While I agree it's a bit odd that Naddruf waited a week before commenting, there's nothing inherently incorrect about such behaviour.

Note that I only agree with Naddruf's comment that the initial "Not done" comment was unhelpful, and the request was clear - I am one of the camp who believe Cursed Child to be non-canon, and I would have reverted the addition, or declined the request - but I would have used the rationale of non-canon, rather than the unhelpful "It's not clear..." Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

Change Voldemort's father's name from "Thomas Riddle Jr" to "Tom Riddle Sr" since he's only ever called Tom Riddle senior, never Thomas. Deiadameian (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SK2242 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

The first book of "Harry Potter," it's not called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," it's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." This is from what I know of. I could be wrong, but I did some research. Eclipse-the-crack-head (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The book was first published in the UK under the title “Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone” but was then published in the US under the title “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone”. The UK version of the book came out before the US title, so would have been his first appearance. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

See the information in the book's page for the title change in the U.S. Magidin (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)