Talk:Albus Dumbledore/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Paragraph needs rewording.

I've seen how rapidly this page can get into cruftism and rampant rediting, so I'm bringing this to talk first.:

He was joined by his brother, Aberforth, who proved to be quite different from Albus, not possessing the extraordinary magical talent - while Albus settled matters with reason, Aberforth settled with duels. When Ordinary Wizarding Levels came about in his fifth year, the elderly Griselda Marchbanks, Head of the Wizarding Examinations Authority, who personally examined the school-age Dumbledore for his Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests in Charms and Transfiguration, remarked to Dolores Umbridge that the young, talented Dumbledore had "...done things with a wand I'd never seen before."[HP5] When Dumbledore and Doge left Hogwarts, they planned to take their "then-traditional" tour of the world. On the eve of their trip, the 18-year-old Dumbledore suffered the death of his mother Kendra, killed by Ariana, who was on one of her outbursts.

needs a major edit. as written now, Griselda leaves Dumbledore's NEWT exam room and immediately comments to Dolores Umbridge. Obviously, this isn't at all how it happened, Griselda recalled this many years later. the paragraph should reflect the proper order of events and the intervening time. ThuranX 22:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I believe that an image of Richard Harris as Dumbledore shoulde be there.I would also like to know why the image of the Elder wand was removed--Donrub 1:00 PM ISTDonrub 07:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I added one from Chamber of Secrets into the section of the same name. Thanks for the input. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for accepting my thought but I want to make it come to your knowledge that that is an image of Michael Gambon.--DonrubDonrub 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That sound you hear is me slapping myself repeatedly on the forehead. LOL! I've fixed it now. Thanks for catching it. Man, that was dumb of me... :-/ - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please,How to put captions,I don't know...Sorry.--Donrub 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

can we put two images in the infobox: one of Sir Richard Harris and one of the other guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.65.200 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The "other guy" is Sir Michael Gambon. In the future, don't vandalize the article and then ask to have your POV implemented. faithless (speak) 12:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not vandelize the page what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.65.200 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor's note under Sir Michael Gambon that reads this is the most appropriate image, you changed to this is the least appropriate image. That was vandalism. faithless (speak) 13:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Development

This develepment section is a pointless section as nearly all of it repeats the appearance section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.65.200 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about this. The reason I reverted your edit was that the section contains two citations, which you deleted as well. Perhaps you could work the two sections together in a way which preserves the citations instead of just deleting it? faithless (speak) 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm don't know how to do that.... Can you please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.54.154 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I have got an idea I will add the refrences to the appearance section tell me if it is good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.54.154 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So now it looks like:

The books describe Dumbledore as a classic wizard; tall and thin, with long silver hair that looks long enough to tuck into his belt and a long beard. He has twinkling, blue eyes, a very long and crooked nose (looking as if it had been broken at least twice, and one of these was violently caused by his brother Aberforth) and long fingers. He wears half-moon spectacles. Also, in his younger years, he is described as having auburn hair. He once claimed to have a scar above his left knee, the cause of which is unknown, in the shape of a map of the London Underground.

He is usually seen in sweeping robes ranging in colours and patterns which often include stars and moons.

Some critics have noted strong similarities between Dumbledore and the classic wizard Merlin[1][2] as well as Gandulf from The Lord Of The Rings.

Is this good

Sorry, I didn't see this. But the article looks good to me now. faithless (speak) 04:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore image

Is there a reason why we shouldn't use the second Gambon as Dumbledore pic in place of the current one? Granted, the first one's an action pic, but the second is a better portrait. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand what you mean. Would you like to replace 75px in the infobox with 50px? =David(talk)(contribs) 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if it weren't a better image to use. I won't make the switch, as images tend to evoke a more ruthless set of responses from folk. I was throwing the idea out there to see what people hought, seeking some sort of consensus for the switch. I am not suggesting we do away with the Albie w/wand image, but instead just switching them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, that image does look better; but wouldn't the landscape image be better than the portrait one for the infobox? I think the image would push the text a bit too far down...either that, or be too small. The landscape image seems to fit better. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I show the difference here. I think that, if we shrink the image down to 200px, it looks all right. Any comments? =David(talk)(contribs) 21:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern vs reformist vs liberal

"...is portrayed as a wizard with modern/reformist ideas about blood purity..."
Does it not seem more descriptive and accurate to say liberal?
Zain Ebrahim 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to describe those ideas rather than label them. If a label is used, it should have a source. Pairadox 08:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case the sentence should be completely removed since the rest of the paragraph provides description. Zain Ebrahim 08:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about throwing a {{fact}} tag on it instead? That will give people a chance to look for a reference. Or a {{or}} if you feel really strongly about it. If the tag is still there in a month, remove the sentence then. Pairadox 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! Zain Ebrahim 09:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but one thing we don't do in WP is add information we know we cannot cite, hoping that someone else will do the work for us. If you think something is important enough to add to the article, take the time to find a solid, reliable citation before you add it to the article. If you cannot find one, but think that someone else might, add it to the discussion and ask for assistance in finding one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. You DO realize that phrase was already in the article, right? We simply tagged it for citation rather than immediately deleting it (or changing it to some other OR wording, as you did). Now it makes even less sense. More charitable compared to whom? Who's doing the comparing? Pairadox 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I removed the bit that needed citing as well, substituting the word 'charitable' in its place. More charitable than say, Draco Malfoy, or Voldie. Charitable is more generalized than the previous substitute requiring citation that likely doesn't exist. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so "more charitable" according to you. Sorry, Arcayne, your change is every bit POV and OR as the former text probably was, and just as much in need of citation. Pairadox 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. :) Perhaps you have an alternative in mind? I'm open to suggestions, Pair. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, at this point basically what Zain Ebrahim outlined above, removing the entire sentence. We can skip the tagging and waiting that I suggested since it's pretty much agreed that the basic phrasing is flawed. Oh, and I'd support removing the "because of his wisdom" phrase in the second paragraph also. Pairadox 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that. How about the rest of the editors monitoring the Discussion page. Your thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say ditch the first sentence, but I think the second one is okay. Dumbledore is frequently referred to as the cleverest and most intelligent wizard in the world, so I don't think it's inappropriate to mirror that here. Also, am I the only one who doesn't like the bit in the opening about JKR's old schoolmaster being the basis for Dumbledore? I've never heard that before, I'm pretty sure she has never said that that is the case, and the sources don't wow me. But of course if it's just me, never mind. faithless (speak) 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and remove the first sentence as well as the "because of his wisdom". Refer anyone who reverts to this section. Zain Ebrahim 07:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Who inspired Dumbledore?

Also, am I the only one who doesn't like the bit in the opening about JKR's old schoolmaster being the basis for Dumbledore? I've never heard that before, I'm pretty sure she has never said that that is the case, and the sources don't wow me. But of course if it's just me, never mind. faithless (speak) 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for the first source, but the second seems okay as far as sources go. To complicate matters, though, I found a reference to another .possible inspiration in the archived talk pages. (There may be more - I stopped at one.) So, what do we do with this? Pairadox 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I give much more credence to The Independent than the others, but am still far from convinced, as that piece seems like more of an op-ed than anything else. I don't mind so much if the info stays, just as long as it's made very, very clear that this is all supposition (even if it is a reliable source, Rowling is the only one who can say where the inspiration came from). Unless, of course, JKR has already said this somewhere and I somehow managed to miss it. :P faithless (speak) 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is my inclusionist tendencies showing through, but maybe we should include thelinks to the citations here, and look at them side by side, judging then? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed statements from article

I recently reverted the addition of the following statements:

The September 2007 Wizard of the Month sum it up thusly: "Albus Dumbledore, 1881 - 1996; Brilliant and often controversial headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Albus Dumbledore is most famous for his 1945 defeat of Grindelwald and his steadfast championing of Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived. Dumbledore's self-proclaimed proudest achievement, however, was featuring on a Famous Wizards Chocolate Frog Card."

The source is JKR's site, but there is no provenance for the information for the WotM. The site uses fan art, which isn't drawn by JKR. There are untitled articles and other crufty info which is almost certainly not written by JKR. Do we know with 100% verifiability that the WotM section is being written by (or approved by) JKR? Without that verifiability, the info is speculation from a fan source, and it cannot be added. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen other articles that support this information, in which Rowling has discussed the 1945 defeat and its comparisons with WWII. Also, I recall somewhere that Dumbledore wasn't so much upset about getting expelled from the Wizengamot as long as they didn't remove him from the chocolate frog cards (in the books?). Most fan sites treat www.jkrowling.com as canon, and most of the information on there is from her directly. Might even be her artwork.
I suggest rephrasing the begining of the entry to "JK Rowling's personal website describes Dumbledore on the September 2007 Wizard of the Month....." and referencing www.jkrowling.com Libertycookies 13:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that reads as more accurate. I am not doubting that the facts are true, but I surfed around the site this last weekend, and there seemed to be a surprising amount of fancruft there. From a site which we consider to be directly from JKR herself, there is simply too much there. As well, I heard in a SkyOne interview that she cannot draw as well as her son; I believe he was a very small boy at the time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, JKR drew that picture of Peeves that is floating around cyberspace, so perhaps she underestimated her artistic abilities. But Arcayne, I'm confused; could you provide examples from her site of what you consider cruft? But the way I see it, she says that she is behind the website, so everything there has to be considered canon. Obviously, I dooubt she does the programming and coding and what-not, but information wise I see no reason to doubt anything there. faithless (speak) 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The site is definitely operated by JKR. Arcayne, have you ever been there when the door has opened? The site has revealed the titles of the last two books, and for HBP, revealed an excerpt and three chapter titles. The site does not use "fan art" as we know it -- it is art drawn for her, though not drawn by her, and thus is not canon. The information that sounds crufty to you, I believe, is the stuff with Cuthbert Binns and the like -- yes, those were all scraps of paper written by her which are "easter eggs" if you can find them on the site. There should be no doubt that JKR is the sole (content) contributor (as opposed to technical contributor) behind the site. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I am not suggesting that she isn't behind the site, or that the majority of the material is not reliable. However, I am concerned that the inclusion of material not fromthe books and not expressly from the lips of JKR leaves us with a problem of provenance. And I have seen the hand-drawn image of Peeves; unfortunately that doesn't prove that she is the artist behind the images - no sig or autograph speaks volumes. However, the image thing is less of import, as only the Grand Pré images are considered to be genuine at this time, and all website images have proven to be fan-drawn and therefore cruft. I imagine that will change when JKR's publisher squeezes some moolah from us by having artists' renderings of HP-related media cound into publication.
The matter of greater import is that we are citing info from this site with no clear provenance of the source of that information; even news articles have reporter identifications. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of Deathly Hallows

There is also mention on this page that Dumbledore owned only one Deathly Hallow, the Elder Wand. *Bzzzzt!* WRONG! Albus actually had in his possesion all three Hallows at one time or the other. The Elder Wand obviously came from Gindelwald, but don't forget that he also had Marvolo Gaunt's ring which turned out to be the Ressurrection Stone and he held, for ten years at least, the Cloak of Invisibility which belonged to James Potter and Albus then passed it onto Harry. (75.69.171.158 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

But he only actually owned the Wand. He was holding the cloak (which technically belonged to Harry) and he had picked up the ring (which technically belonged to Voldy). He had only won the wand, and possession of it only had transferred to him. =David(talk)(contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-wand Magic

Dumbledore is obviously capable of performing some magic without a wand consciously, which not all wizards are good at. He can locate the Horcrux cave entrance and boat without a wand, he can see through Harry's cloak minus a wand, and in the films he slows Harry's descent with "Expecto Momentum" and dims the candles. I would like to add this as an addition.JJJ999 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, what he does in the movies is not important. And yes, he can perform magic without a wand...all wizards/witches can! Even Neville Longbottom (the witless wonder) bounced down the road when dropped out of a window, and I don't think he had a wand. Harry made his hair grow back, blew up his aunt, made that glass at the zoo disappear, etc. The bit at the cave is left unexplained to us, there simply isn't anything we can write about the magic he used because we don't know. faithless (speak) 07:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Part of what you said is just not true. Go look at HBP. He finds the cave entrance with Lumos, and his wand is specifically mentioned. The same is true with the boat, he has his wand in his hand when he finds the chain, and uses his wand to reveal it. As for the person revealing spell, 1. it does not allow him to see through the cloak, it just tells him someone else is in the room, Hermione used the spell in DH; 2. there is no evidence he did not use his wand. V-train 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
He sees through the enchantments in the cave with no wand, he finds the boat with no wand (though he then makes the boat visible to the naked eye with his wand), and the suggestion he uses the wand to see through Harry's cloak is flat out false, I suppose when he repeatedly does it with 3rd parties in the room everyone else just fails to notice he's cast a spell over an empty area. There is simply nothing to suggest he uses a wand to see through the cloak. Of all the Wizards in the series, only Voldemort and Dumbledore are ever depicted using non-wand magic at will (except Aparating or Occlumency for eg), rather than in moments of extreme desperation, or via an accident.JJJ999 07:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As I stated already, you clearly need to read The Cave chapter in HBP again. He uses his wand to find the cave, he uses his wand to reveal the entrance. He is holding his wand when he finds the boat. Please point out where it says he does magic without his wand in that chapter. I never said there is anything to suggest he used his wand to reveal Harry's presence (why do you keep saying he saw though the cloak? He did not). The point is there is no evidence that he did not use his wand, which is necessary in order to put it in the article. I don't need to prove he used his wand, you need to prove he didn't. Without that, it's just supposition on your part. V-train 17:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just wrong, and I fear we'll need quotes to prove it. You actually want me to prove a negative, not the other way around. You are also deliberately misinterpreting what I've said. Dumbledore "finds" the cave because he knows where it is already, he uses Lumos (a light shining spell) to see the cave more clearly, but he then walks up to the entrance and we get a whole half page of supposition from Harry at how incredible Dumbledore is because he can search for magic like this without a wand. He likewise is described as only getting the wand out after he finds the boat, and can sense the place "has known magic" with his wand neatly packed away. The final book suggestion (since you concede the movie ones, which btw Rowling has a say on) I can remember is also fairly clear, Dumbledore is described walking with a company of people (eg, minister Fudge, Lucius, etc and the others) and he simply looks in the direction of Harry, and meets his eyes, talking to him. Applying occams razor, we can easily dismiss the suggestion Dumbledore got his wand out and a) Rowling neglected to write about it, and b) the other didn't notice. This is the exact opposite of the argument you made in the Snape talk page! JJJ999 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Really, where is this half-page of supposition of wandless magic, exactly? You must have different text in your book. In mine, it says "Dumbledore was standing in the middle of the cave, his wand held high... examining the walls and ceiling. 'Yes, this is the place... It has known magic.'" I'd love to know where Harry thinks about how incredible Dumbledore is without his wand, since it's not in my book either. As for the boat, nowhere does he say he gets his wand out, it says "Dumbledore raised his wand with the other [hand] and tapped his fist with the point." The last mention of his wand before that is a couple pages earlier: "The greenish glow and the light from the two wands were the only things that broke the otherwise velvety blackness." So you want us to believe he put his wand away for no reason (which would make it darker for them and more vulnerable to a potential attack], and then took it out right before he revealed the chain, when the book says nothing of the sort? As for his looking at Harry, IIRC that was in the movie, not the book. If you have read differently, give us the quote. V-train 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll go get my text shortly... meantime, if Dumbledore was already using his wand to perform the Lumos spell for light, he couldn't have been using it to do other spells.JJJ999 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
So are you now suggesting that they were in total darkness when Harry cast "Accio Horcrux," since Dumbledore had his wand away, according to you? That makes a lot of sense. V-train 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't find my book, I must have left it at work. I'm afraid this will have to wait till later tonight, but in any case, whichever scenario is true means dumbledore didn't perform magic with the wand. If he was using it to create light still, which is possible since I don't have a photographic memory, then clearly he finds the boat without magic. In any case, I will go get the necessary quotes, because the gist is clear. And anyway, the pool was lit by magical light wasn't it? From the glowing green island...JJJ999 01:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please also supply a quote which shows a wand cannot be used while Lumos is cast. All over the books Lumos is used at the same time as other spells. V-train 01:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll post an extensive list of non-wand feats too.JJJ999 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Might I ask of what encyclopedic value this represents? Clearly, AD is a powerful wizard; just how powerful is not a known quantity. Trying to quantify is seems an UNDUE argument to me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
A fine point, Arcayne. I grow weary of this argument, so I hope to make this my last comment on it: we can't write about so-called "non-wand magic" because it is never discussed in the books! We know nothing about it! Yes it happens, but we've seen it performed by many characters of varying skill levels. Rowling never explains it in depth, so what is there to suggest that there is anything special about it? Some magic makes no use of wands at all: flying (with brooms), potion making (which does require magic, as revealed by JKR in an interview), speaking parseltongue, Trelawney's predictions, the list goes on. Dumbledore is a powerful wizard, and this is explained in the article with examples that we're qualified to discuss. Who says he did anything spectacular to get the locket? Regulus Black was able to do the same thing, and there's nothing to suggest that he was an exceptionally powerful wizard. faithless (speak) 06:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten around to getting the quotes, because it was a hassle to bring the books with me, and I was blocked before, however I have re-read all the relevant sections, and:
a)Dumbledore, among other times, can see Harry is there when he is standing on the other side of Hagrid's cabin in book 2, right next to Lucious Malfoy, Hagrid and the Minister for Magic. Now, there are other instances, but I think this is the clearest example of how implausible it is that he uses his wand without anyone noticing. It's also highly implausible that Dumbledore could always spot Harry at the right time with no mention of wands, which is hard to credit with Rowling neglecting it, and even more so without any warning Harry would be there. In book 1 for eg (and there are other eg's) Dumbledore can hardly have stood around the corridors waving his wand and thinking the spell until he found Harry on his way to the mirror, and then used a disillusionment charm, and then followed him. So this is a clear instance.
b)- in the carriage in book 6 before when his nose is broken, Harry is imobilised, and thinks how some wizards can perform non-verbal spells, then attempts to summon the wand to him minus a wand. He fails, but this is obviously possible to do.
c)- I have gone over the Cave instances in book 6, and while there is reference to dumbledore holding a wand after entering the cave, and certainly there is no reference to multiple spell casting, my reading of it continues to make me confident he does not use the wand, and I will provide the quotes for this later, because I am convinced that is the intention of the text, my blocking just prevented me from doing it before. He uses his hands to run along the walls and feel for magic, there is no apparent wand use, and I must confess it would be the first mention ever of wizards casting spells with their wands hanging loosely from their sides, or pointing at the ceiling. We've never seen any suggestion at this sort of sideways spell casting, with no effect either, and I think expressio unius applies. The mention of him using his hands to find the entrance and it's magical properties is taken to mean the exclusion of the other, ie his wand. The boat likewise is located without any means of wand work, although this couldbe deductive powers.
The move likewise has 2 clear instances at least.
Lastly, I find it odd that you ask me to prove several negatives, right after telling me the exact opposite. No, I can't prove Dumbledore doesn't sneak his wand into his pocket and somehow, against all previous logic, cast a spell through his coat, unnoticed by all. No more can you prove that Dumbledore can't transform into a Dragon. However we can use occam's razor and expressio unius to determine what the most objectively likely meaning or the words is, and to me it seems plain Dumbledore is being portrayed as having the ability to use some magic without his wand, in the same controlled way the boy riddle did.
So, does this matter? I submit it does, because it is a rare and important ability demonstrated by almost no other wizard. Yes, wizards of all levels can accidentally perform spells under stress without wands, but Dumbledore and Voldemort are the only 2 to demonstrate control of this ability (this applies to eg's you've given like Trewlaney, Neville, etc), with the exception of apparating, which appears to be different. We all know why Potions, Brooms, etc are different, and Regeleus knew the entrance and the tricks from Kreacher, so that hardly counts does it...

JJJ999 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As was politely requested, please indent your posts using the colon symbol (:) and not the asterisk. I have taken the liberty of fixing them for you in this section, but I think it is fair to expect you to know how to post properly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as this conversation goes, it's is looking more and more like a fansite forum. JJJ submits that this is a "rare and important ability", but it hasn't been overtly discussed by JKR, it hasn't been a plot-sundering device, and is rife with UNDUE and OR speculation. Maybe we can focus our attentions on those items which actually qualify for inclusion? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A clean-up for Dumbledore's article

I did some kind of clean up of this article, which can be reviewed in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albus_Dumbledore&diff=162603270&oldid=162589202

Some of the information I moved, shortened or removed was about this:

  • All this stuff about his favorite sweets, the names of the magazines in which his articles were published, and more useless information.
  • An overdetailed description of the scene in which Snape overhears Trelawney's profecy.
  • A list of all the members of the original Order that were killed during Voldemort's first rise to power.
  • A full description of everything that Dumbledore said in the speech in Harry's first year at Hogwarts (that the Zonko articles were forbidden, the Quidditch teams, and more).
  • Some scenes contained information not related to Dumbledore, for example that mention of Bellatrix killing Sirius in the Department of Mysteries.
  • Is it necessary to use two lines to tell everyone that Harry was sent back to Dumbledore's office via Portkey?
  • Overdetailed description of the dialogue between Dumbledore and Harry at the end of book 5.
  • Overdetailed description of the cave scene in book 6.
  • Overdetailed description of the dialogue between Dumbledore and Harry in King's Cross.
  • The information about the Elder Wand is contained in the article for Deathly Hallows. It was more of a history of the Wand rather than useful information concerning the character.

Any thoughts on this? Lord Opeth 04:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore's age

Please, someone tell me how Dumbldore's age is vital to the plot, or even vital to the character's development? I am tired of All The Crazy™ insisting that we add in ages and real-world dates and Albus' favorite lollipops. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Die Cruft Die! V-train 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm absolutely flabbergasted. Saying that Dumbledore is "115 or 116" isn't speculation? What!? If you look up speculative statement in a dictionary, it would have that as an example. We've never been told, for instance, the color of Neville's eyes. So let's go and say that they're either blue, green, brown, hazel, black or gray. Because hey, apparently they got together and changed the meaning of speculation without informing me. faithless (speak) 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not just you (this time :P ). That user seems to think that something is notable, relevant, and/or fact if he says it is. See Non-wand Magic section above. I'm also amazed how he threatens me with 3RR (on his 3rd revert, no less) when my previous edit was over 24 hours prior. V-train 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We are given his age in timelines by rowling, his DOB was 1881. Since book 7 was in 1997, that makes huim 115-116 at death (I originally had 116, which was logically almost certain, but v-train whined about it). I find it comical he now complains it is too vague. His age is relevant. It's fairly simple.JJJ999 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, I am not sure why you decided to go personal, but if you want to, I can certainly trash your insistence to be different from everyone else - by using an asterisk to assert your individuality. I mean, you've only been told this a few times. I guess we are going to have to monitor ALL your edits from now on, changing your asterisks, and asking at every single instance why you feel you are too good to follow the rules. You will eventually make a name for yourself, but it won't be as 'that fellow who adds all the cool edits' but instead 'as that clown who cannot seem to learn how to play well with others'. I mean, if you really want me to say all that, i can. I am fairly sure you really don't need me to editorially slam-dunk you, so how about you play nice, okey-doke?
ahem. Now, just because it is cited doesn't make it noteworthy. I am glad that you took the time to reference it - truly, I am - but it doesn't reach the level of out-of-universe notability that we are striving for. I hope you understand.
And please fix your indents with a colon (:) instead of asterisks. It's childish. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict)Is there a particular reason why you refuse to indent properly? Just curious. You're right, it is fairly simple: we don't know what his age was, because we don't know his birthday! You cannot include something that you don't know, doing so is speculation. Simple. faithless (speak) 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It would accomplish the same purpose but without the speculation to simply list the birth and death years, which are verified. That way you don't have the problem of dbeating his age. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you, if it were at all notable. No one has answered the question as to how Dumbldore's age is vital to the plot, or even vital to the character's development. That's because it isn't. If he had been born thousands of years ago, and had played basketball with Buddha or set off firecrackers with Teenaged Jesus in Jerusalem, then his age dates might have some significance. Alas, the firecrackers and b-ball were never mentioned, so I am afraid it isn't all that noteworthy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The age is relevant for several reasons. First, it contributes to his physical description. People generally find it useful to visualize a person when reading about him/her and interpreting how others react to that person. Second, age is directly related to experience. If you know he is roughly 116 years old then you know that he will have lived through 116 years of experience gathering knowledge and maturing. This presumed experience will effect a readers expectations and interpretations of his actions. Third the age is part of the characters overall backstory. The author presumably felt that the backstory was somehow relevant to the development of the story because she chose to include the information. Finally, the age places the character in historical context. If we know he is 116 years old and some event occurred 80 years ago we know the character was 36 years old and would have experienced the event as an adult, whereas a 96 year old would have been a 16 year old teenager and experienced the events differently. In summary, the age IS important to understanding the character and the story. Even if his age at death cannot be nailed down due to not knowing the month, stating that "he was approximately 116 years old when he died" is still providing useful and factual information.