Talk:Lord Voldemort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Lord Voldemort was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Children's literature (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015[edit]

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)
'X mark.svg 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.
--Jerzyt 11:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Genealogy meme[edit]

   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.
--Jerzyt 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.
--Jerzyt 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)

Gold locket[edit]

   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."
    --Jerzyt 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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Character/name development[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)