Talk:Lord Voldemort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lord Voldemort article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Lord Voldemort has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
  1. July 2003 – April 2006
  2. May 2006 – December 2006
Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Contents

[edit] In danger of losing GA status

As a member of the GA WikiProject, I am frankly stunned to see this article in the GA list. Here a comprehensive list of shortcomings I found according to WP:WIAGA:

  1. Well written: neutral. Very long-winded entry, could be better as of WP:LEAD
  2. Broad: FAIL. The article fails to give real-life out-of-universe info, as of WP:WAF. Just few words on how JKR sees Voldemort (this could be an entire section, WP:WAF!), his cultural impact, how other writers see him, how his actors (Fiennes) see him, or other real-life info. Much of the text is a violation of WP:WAF, WP:NOR and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a plot summary).
  3. Verifiable: STRONG FAIL. No references at all, see WP:CITET, not to speak a lack of real-life info. FYI, as of WP:WAF, Voldemort is NOT born 1926, he was created by JKR in 1997.
  4. NPOV: FAIL. Far too much WP:NOR for a pass.
  5. Stable: pass.
  6. Images: STRONG FAIL. Lack of fair use rationales!! Neutral - Okay for a random article, but I am still not convinced this templates alone are enough for a GA or FA.

Please improve. As of now, the article is (as of WP:WIAGA, WP:WAF and WP:NOT) an example how NOT to write about fictional characters. It is cruft. Please improve, and as a rule of thumb, following guidelines:

  1. Read WP:WAF - the phrases "JKR wrote that Voldemort is...", "JKR fleshed out Voldemorts history by adding" or "JKR established a new side of Voldemort, protraying him as..." should appear 100x in this article.
  2. Add REAL-LIFE info! This is the best way to improve this article.
  3. Reference, reference, reference! WP:CITET (book cite) is your best friend.
  4. If you want to know how all above is done properly, read e.g. Donut (Red vs. Blue). How this is done PERFECTLY, read e.g. Palpatine, Jabba the Hutt, which are both FAs. See the differences in tone and style?

I am quite hard on this article, because I think Voldemort is a very cool character who deserves a very cool article. In this sense, happy wiki-ing! —Onomatopoeia 15:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A Good Article review has now been opened on this article. Homestarmy 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
re your comments:
  • (2), the real difficulty is that Rowling is not talking and will not untill the series is finished, for the very obvious rerason that she cannot. Given that she has a £500,000,000 reason not to tell us the truth about her characters yet, even her own comments have to be treated with a great deal of caution. For that amount of money I would lie through my teeth when asked questions about the characters.
  • (3), to say Voldemort was created 1997 is an interesting fact which arguably ought to be included, but it is a completely different fact than that he was 'born' in 1926. The two are not substitutes. But in fact, anyone interested in general background real-world information ought to read Harry Potter, and the individual articles on each book (Harry Potter and...). It does not help the conceptual arrangement of the HP articles as a whole if all that information were reproduced here. Nor would it help that this article was tripled in length my reproducing that stuff here. This article has to be judged as one part of a whole.
  • (4) NOR is always very difficult in fiction. I havn't read the article in detail recently, but in general it does put forward anything other than summarising the way the character is portrayed within the books. Arguable references to section supporting the statements would be useful, but this is not OR.
second list of comments:
  • 1), No, that kind of abstraction just makes the text longer (it is quite long enough). It is perfectly plain that this article is describing fiction, which is the important point.
  • 2) see above, this is handled in different articles, though it is possible to find comments by Rowling about the character. Sandpiper 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am glad that you are so concerned, but I am sorry to say that your arguments are quite easy to dispose of.
  • First of all, for characters of fiction, WP:WAF is not debatable, it is an official guideline. Suggesting to circumvent the JKR references “to retain the flow of the article” is firstly forbidden, and secondly the proof of lazy writing. Colleagues from other fiction Wikiprojects like Star Wars, Comics or Star Trek adhere to WP:WAF and still write genuine GA (and FA) articles.
  • If you people cannot add info without violating WP:NOR (a pillar of Wikipedia, FYI) then DO NOT ADD IT, please! It does not get any simpler. OR is a very safe way to diminish your article, let alone for GA status.
  • Voldy was NOT born in 1926. Voldy is not in Category:Living people and does not fall under WP:LIVING, WP:BIO or Category:1926 births. The Harry Potter books are not an official biography of a person, who (born in the 1920s) must have co-existed with Gandhi, Einstein, Ford or Hitler. VOLDEMORT WAS CREATED IN 1997 BY J K ROWLING. This is the only correct way to do it.
  • Then, the article does NOT make clear that Voldy is a fictional character, created by JKR. It inserts a “fictional” in the first sentence, then goes on straight-facedly that he was born in 1926, started a great war, was disembodied etc. etc., establishing book summaries as a biography. This is a very old bad trick referred to in WP:WAF: inserting a fig-leaf “X is a fictional person” in sentence 1, and then going on 100% in-universe. This is forbidden. The magical words are “JKR wrote that… “, “JKR established that…” or “JKR portrayed him as…” and others. You must use this!
  • That WP:WAF makes the article cumbersome, is fortunately flat out wrong. In the contrary, it makes the article BETTER. Firmly keeping in mind that this is a work of fiction greatly enhances your scope. Just assume good faith – you will be surprised how much better this real-life POV is, much less nerdy, crufty and otaku. Look at e.g. the article of Padme Amidala of Star Wars: this is how to do it!
  • No, sorry, the article does not contain significant amounts of real-life data. Apart from two quotes and the film section (which is slightly better), nada. Read WP:WAF: as significant count interviews with the creators, newspaper articles, essays from reputable critics etc. etc. There are none mentioned or referenced in this article. If Harry Potter already contains it, then please re-use it!
  • In a GA, NOTHING can excuse lack of referencing. It is a 100% failsafe method of getting an article delisted.
Sorry for the long essay, but I wanted to make myself clear. —Onomatopoeia 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No problems about a long reply, attention is appreciated. However, I must point out that this is wiki. The very first rule is that there are no rules except that the decision of Jimbo Wales is final, everything else is decided by consensus. Everything is debateable. It is very annoying when people resort to quoting rules to justify their actions without any better explanation. In fact, that is more annoying than the rules themselves.(which may even be justified)
I did read some of the examples quoted, even made a few edits to red and Black. My objection stands. Some of the examples I have seen quoted use virtually the same text as in an in-univers version, except with frequent, 'the author writes', 'later in the story it is explained by's addded. Just makes the text longer and detracts from the natural way any reader expects to read a story. This is exactly the same argument as whether people watching cowboys shooting indians on TV can appreciate that what they are watching is fiction, and not how real people behave. Of course they understand the difference. Sandpiper 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Until now, this has been a good discussion. As for your objections, I understand your points, but I firmly disagree. Until now, speaking of my own XP, the rules have only improved the articles, and not following them has made them worse.
The main problem is not in prose (I am admittedly picky on "the writer says", I admit that; but however, I enforce that rule myself, see my own GA (Storm (comics)), but rather in structure. The main problem is the start in 1926, which is a bad thing. The by far best order of portrayal of all fictional chars is in real-life chronology, i.e. in this case Book 1, Book 2, Book 3 … Book 6. Book 1 establishes his backstory and his status as embodiment of evil, Book 2 is a retcon bringing in his past as Tom Marvolo Riddle, Book 3 fleshes out his past with the Death Eaters, etc. etc. Real life publishing dates >>> fictional canon dates. Hope I made my point clear.—Onomatopoeia 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I here is the skeleton what how I would write this:
Book 1 (1997): In the first book of the HP series, JKR introduced Lord Voldemort as a sinister, powerful dark wizard, referred to in the opening conversation between the characters Dumbledore and McGonagall. JKR establishes that Voldemort has been responsible for a great war in the wizarding world. In addition, he is responsible for the death of the parents of protagonist Harry Potter and was disembodied when he tried to kill Harry, leaving Harry with a lightning scar on his face.(ref HP1, chapter 1) In the course of the story, Rowling describes him as the ultimate archenemy of Hogwarts, letting her characters only refer to him fearfully as "You Know Who".(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever)(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever)(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever) In the end, Rowling reveals he has possessed Professor Quirrell to get the Philosophers Stone in order to win a new body.(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever)
Book 2 (1998): ... JKR introduces the diary of Tom Marvolo Riddle. In the climax of the story, she establishes that Riddle is the young Lord Voldemort ...
...
...
...
...
Book 6 (2005) ...
—Onomatopoeia 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Sandpiper, on your user page you write that you endorse original research, hate citations and favour opinion over fact. OK, your choice, but be aware that there are five pillars of Wikipedia, and original research is strongly discouraged. —Onomatopoeia 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As a point of interest, the reference to wiki's failings on my page (in that wiki does not express opinions) was actually lifted from a couple of reviews of wiki by external agencies (newspaper articles), which criticised wiki specifically that it failed to express a clear view on certain subjects. I read these reviews here on wiki, don't know where, but someone here has made it their business to record what outsiders think of wiki, so perhaps you could find it and have a read. However, I do endorse it. It is a failing in any article on any subject not to tell the reader what is believed to be the best guess or course, if that is the best that can be achieved. Of course, certainty is to be preferred, by the difficulty with the OR policy is that it is frequently used as a mechanism to exclude content, despite that content being the best available. Those reviewers had identified what they considered a failing of wiki, but which wiki officially considers a virtue. The phrase 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind.
As to this article, instinctively I would prefer the article not to retell the book volume by volume, chapter by chapter. I therefore prefer that information about Voldemort should be re-organised, so that first we discuss his early days, then his exile years, then his rise to power, then his fall, and so forth. I think this is more useful to a reader. It is a logical re-organisation of the mixed up information which has been presented piece by piece scattered through the books. Furthermore, there already exist separate whole articles about each book which tell the rreader the main points of what was in that particular book. If they want to know the plot of book 6, then read the book 6 article. If they want a sensibly re-organised account of the important points of Voldemort's life, then they ought to look here, and find it here. The objective is to do something more useful than simply listing events as they were originally presented. The original presentation was intended to confuse. Sandpiper 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Having been reading the ongoing war on WP:Not re plot summaries, where plainly one faction is continuing to try to ban them entirely, it also seems to me that my approach is rather more satisfactory for those who oppose plot summary altogether. The objective is not to simply re-tell the story as originally presented, which seems to be precisely what those people object to. Sandpiper 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted as GA

I am sorry to say that as per the good article review (see link above), it has been decided to take away the GA distinction from this article. In a nutshell, the main reasons were (see also WP:WIAGA):

  • Almost total lack of references, violating WP:NOR; plus existence of several "fact" tags
  • Firmly in-universe approach, thus violating WP:WAF and WP:NOT (trying to sell plot summaries as biographical data; in addition, wikipedia is not a plot summary)
  • Abundance of original research, violating WP:NOR (especially “abilities” and “name” section)
  • Absence of real-life information (e.g. interviews of the creator, newspaper articles, interviews of the actors, essays of reputable critics etc. etc., see WP:WAF)

As of now, the article carries these yokes, indicating a heavy editing is necessary: {{tl:Unreferenced}} {{tl:Cleanup fiction-as-fact}} {{tl:OR}}

Assume good faith from my side, but I utterly do not think this is a good article as of WP:WIAGA. Compared to other GAs about fictional people, this sticks out like a sore thumb. I would be happy to re-review it after cleaning up above issues. —Onomatopoeia 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the GA page, and as best as I could understand the page, there are very few fiction 'good articles' on all wiki, though to be fair very few 'good articles' all together. However, Harry Potter is listed as one. I would point out that this article needs to be judged as a companion piece to that article, which effectively contains the 'real world' information relevant to this. I see no point in reproducing that information here. I noticed that there are two 'good article's about characters, including Goldmoon. At least, in that case, writing 'Weiss and Hickman wrote' every other paragraph does make sense, because the character also appears in books by different authors. Otherwise it is unhelpfull repetition to keep reminding the reader who wrote the books. Sandpiper 09:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is the case that a lot of conscientious work has been put into this article, and many others like it, but the direction has been wrong. --SmokeyJoe 03:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ah, but which direction is that? Sandpiper 08:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the root of the problem is that the article is written with a perspective from inside the fictional Harry Potter universe.--SmokeyJoe 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in about 5-10 years, there'll be enough reputable published critical research and opinion to write externally without introducing the much-hated opinions and original research. Until then, all we can do is report the facts as they stand in the books (especially since, mistakenly in my view, critical opinions and theories from online sources are not accepted). Michaelsanders 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty in finding good thrid party references is a separate problem. Even if the article is entirely derived from the work of fiction itself, it need not need be written from a perspective within the fictional universe.
I think I agree with you on online sources. An online fan forum editorial, especially one that allows reader comments, is in principle an acceptable reference. Unfortunately, I was not able to easily find one that is relevent.--SmokeyJoe 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to Order of Phoenix film

The references should be updated to reflect information that has become available: It probably is now known for sure if Ralph Fiennes reprises his role as Lord Voldemort, right? Valters 21:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Name

someone suggested moving this page to Voldemort, rather than Lord Voldemort. To prevent future difficulties, I moved it back. Also because it is arguable his name is 'Lord', not simply his title. Or, indeed, his name arguably should be 'I am Lord Voldemort'. However, does anyone have any views on this? Sandpiper 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he would describe himself as 'Lord Voldemort' rather than 'Voldemort'. Certainly, he always seems to refer to himself as the former. I think the 'I am' bit has, significantly, been cast aside. Michaelsanders 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error

It says in the article that, to paraphrase, "Voldemort placed a jynx on the Defence Against the Dark Arts office so that no teacher could work for more than a consecutive year." However, Quirrel was there for more than a year, as his tenure predated Harry's entrance into Hogwarts. --AstoVidatu 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if his years teaching were consecutive. John Reaves 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary: we KNOW that he taught at the school for more than one year, and we KNOW that it is impossible for a teacher to not be out by the end of the year. Therefore, the only way these canon statements are both true is if he taught a year, went off for a year, came back for a year. Michaelsanders 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for a rederict

I noticed that "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" will rederict, but "You-Know-Who" doesn't (there isn't an article titled that either). Since a lot of characters call him that, wouldn't it make sense to do this? Momoroxmysoxoff 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it, be bold and all that jazz. John Reaves (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite

Hi, after this article got demoted from GA after taking much flak in the last GA review, I skimmed over the talk page and found certain remarks about the strong in-universe view of the article. I was bold and rewrote a good part of the article, intending to put Voldy back into GA range (WP:WIAGA, WP:WAF). Please assume good faith.

  • I tried to make the article look like Batman, a FA about another fictional character: split fictional character bio into publication history (real dates), and a concise fictional bio (in-universe, but based on pub history) as of WP:WAF. I tried to be easy on the original fictional bio, trying to save good chunks, but I am wary of fictional dates. Fiction is not fact.
  • I tried to emulate also the look-and-feel of the Horcrux article, a HP article definitely in range of a GA
  • sourced the fictional data; note I used chapter references instead of page refs, because the English and American versions have different page counts
  • corrected lead as of WP:LEAD and WP:WAF
  • fictional data now is written in present, as required, and only historical real-life data is written in the past tense
  • add sourced interpretation section on Voldy
  • made name section more concise; remove "Valdemar" blurb as of WP:NOR
  • Merged some parts of"Attributes and traits" section into the publication history and fictional bio
  • General copyedit

Hope you like the new version, I think it is less crufty, more relevant in real life now and more accessible for non-fans. If you feel something is missing, feel free to re-add it in an appropriate way; in my rewrite, I could impossibly bring in everything without disturbing the flow. Just avoid unsourced statements as of of WP:NOR. —Onomatopoeia 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks great! I don't have time to go through it all right now, but I thinnk we just need to standardize the looks of the references, and get some citations for the "Name" section and subsection. But thanks for your work -- the article suffered a lot since it was de-GA'ed. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Lord Voldemort with Tom Marvolo Riddle

I think Lord Voldemort should be merged with Tom Marvolo Riddle since they are both the same person at different times of his life. In the books, there is not made any difference between them, on the contrary the teenage is always referred to as Voldemort in HBT.130.236.60.35 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"In the books, there is not made any difference between them". O rly? Where did you get that idea from? Correct me if I'm mistaken, I am of the opinion that Lord Voldemort and Tom Marvolo Riddle are entirely different.

"Lord Voldemort" is only something that Tom regrettably became. PeaceNT 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Onomatopoeia. In addition - this issue was discussed and debated at great length a few months ago - discussions are preserved in the archives. At one time there were separate articles for Tom Marvolo Riddle and for Lord Voldemort. Then they were in fact merged into just Lord Voldemort, with a heavy spoiler message. The problem became the redirect stub for anyone who searched for "Tom Marvolo Riddle", which automatically redirected to Voldemort, and at first without any spoiler warning, and it became balky and ineffective to try to put up a "spoiler warning gate" to click through at the redirect link. Meanwhile the Voldemort article became long and difficult to manage with the spoilers and essentially the two different "personalities" of Riddle/Voldemort. The best compromised approach was reached by consensus of many editors and HP Project folks. A Riddle family article was created, featuring all the known Riddles, and especially featuring a Tom Marvolo Riddle section representing his pre-Voldemort days (infancy, at the orphanage, and up through his early years at Hogwarts). The cutoff of Riddle/Voldemort was somewhere about the time that Tom created his first Horcrux, and the rest of the Riddle and Gaunt family essentially ceased to exist. Just wanted you to know this arrangement was worked out as the best solution we could come up with. Re-merging will bring back the same old problems with redirecting spoilers etc. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grandparents

Where did we get the names of Thomas and Mary Riddle? I don't remember those from the books. Bigblawbenjr 19:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Excellently rewritten. Comprehensive and well-written, explains Lord Voldemort very well. My biggest suggestion is to add inlines in the parts where there are stretches without any. Otherwise, you might want to get a peer review for a FA assessment. DoomsDay349 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CHAMPAAAAAGGGNNEE!!!! :DDDDDD —Onomatopoeia 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
For anyone that's interested, I've suggested on the project page that we choose another page to rewrite in the same style. Anyone who wants to get involved (and that means you, Onomatopoeia, given that you opened up this Pandora's Box :)) or make suggestions should go there and get involved. Michaelsanders 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
D'uh :D Anyway, I will drop a line. —Onomatopoeia 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I've just heard the good news. Have our project ever got any article passed FA? Causesobad → (Talk) 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see people actually excited about a GA. I've passed a few that haven't even had a comment. Nice work. DoomsDay349 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! PeaceNT 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition To Name List

Seeing as how it bills itself as "comprehensive", I think it should include Japanese. His name is transliterated rather than translated (トム・マールヴォロ・リドル = Tom Marvolo Riddle, ヴォルデモート殿　is Voldemort plus the Japanese honorific commonly translated as Lord. I have the book in front of me and you can verify this, if you speak Japanese, on the Japanese version of the same article.

Plus one random comment: "plot dump", which is used twice, does not strike me as an NPOV phrasing. I think it implies a value judgment about the authorial skill with which the transfer of information was accomplished, in my experience. See Exposition_(plot_device) for confirmation. Accordingly, a more neutral phrasing would be "flashback" or "expository dialogue" as appropriate. 220.31.16.20 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Plot Spoiler

Is the entire article a spoiler? Because I don't see an end to the part of the article that is denoted a spoiler, and being that I've yet to read any HP books, I'm not sure where it would end. I'm afraid to read the rest of the article. 12.150.23.178 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't read any article about a character from a book I haven't read, just to be safe.--CyberGhostface 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that advice (I was sadly spoiled the ending of Narnia on Wikipedia), but I will say it encourages you to read the series so that you can pretend you're all caught up! Just the same, I've put in endspoiler tags, and a second set of spoiler tags near the bottom of the page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened?

What th' hell happened?!!! Lord Voldemort article has been erased! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghadden (talk • contribs).

Your browser must have loaded a version of the article when the page had been blanked, as it appeared for six minutes earlier this morning, UTC time. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat sorting

I guess I should defend why I think three categories I put on this page, that were taken off, should remain on. I probably should just add them on now and defend them on the talk page after, but this way I use up more of people's precious, precious time.

  • Firstly: Fictional immortals. He uses Horcruxes, and as we all know anyone who uses one or more Horcrux is immortal until all the Horcruxes utilised are destroyed. Insofar, all of his Horcruxes have yes that's right not been destroyed, thus rendering him currently immortal. If one seeks to argue that the books are not finished and he may in fact have all his Horcruxes destroyed in Book 7 and die sometime after, then that's fine, the category can stay off. If anyone else agrees with my argument that we should include the category anyway until the next book comes out and we can be sure if it holds true, then good on them. Keep in mind that we can't keep a category off this page because it could possibly technically be speculation; if that held true, then we couldn't have any categories on this page because it could turn out in HP7 that everything the reader knows about Voldemort is in fact an elaborate lie.
  • Thirdly: Fictional characters who have committed treason. Are we sure that throughout his entire life he has never done any act that may be considered treason? If not, then sure, that stays off as well.

Okay, that's it. VolatileChemical 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, well, we discussed (briefly, thought there was a much more drawn-out discussion, but I guess I was misremembering or can't find it) back here. I feel that if you classify Voldemort as immortal, it would mean he could never die, which would certainly make for a spoiled ending of DH, which we definitely don't have yet. My bad about London; for some reason I thought he was somewhere else (York? dunno why). As for treason, well, he switched to the Dark Side, but to me it seems like he basically created the Dark Side and thus was already on it when he went on his wild killing spree, not betraying some other side. If somebody has an argument for treason, though, I'd love to hear it, but I'm thinking that he hasn't really betrayed the Dark Side ever. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the treason part. I totally agree with VolatileChemical, on the grounds that, technically when he did his first deed, he was considered to be on the right side of the law. Therefore he did commit treason. Anyways, thats my reasoning. 'Nuff said. Zazzer 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely treason is 'crimes against the state'? Whatever 'side' he is on, if he has committed crimes against the state, then he has committed treason. Michael Sanders 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I can buy that too. Anybody else have something to say on it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Voldemort is immortal. Being immortal just means you live forever. It doesn't mean you cannot be destroyed. And Voldemort is for the time being indestructable anyway, thanks to the Horcruxes. And furthermore might I enquire as to why Voldemort has been installed into the category of Fictional cursed characters?

Anon

[edit] Fictional character biography

I fixed a small error where it says in the bio that Voldemort murdered his uncle Morfin along with his father and grandparents. Someone else may wish fix it up a little more, since I just did a quick fix to remove the glaring contradiction it creates with what is in the next section. S W Is For Life 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/Talk%7ELord_Voldemort_f030.html"